Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-1122 DATE: 2018/12/24 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

EDSON JOACHIM Applicant – and – NASTASSJA JOACHIM Respondent

Counsel: Self-represented (for the Applicant) Erika Young, for the Respondent

HEARD: November 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, December 3, 4, 5 and 6, 2018

Reasons for Decision

AUDET J.

[1] The main issue in the context of this trial relates to the parenting of the parties’ two young children, Thira (6) and Enora (4). I was also asked to rule on the issues of child support (ongoing and arrears), and the father’s claim for spousal support.

[2] While at the outset of this trial the Applicant Father (“the father”) indicated that he was seeking an order granting him sole custody of the children, during his testimony and in his closing submissions he made it clear that he was seeking a joint custody order with equal parenting time with the children (pursuant to a 5-2-2-5 schedule).

[3] The Respondent Mother (“the mother”) is seeking a parallel parenting order by virtue of which she would have sole decision-making authority over the children’s education and health, and the father would have sole decision-making authority over the children’s religious matters. In terms of parenting time, she asks for primary residence of the children with access to the father remaining three weekends out of four, but only from Friday (after school/daycare) to Sunday night, as well as one evening per week not including an overnight (with the particular day to be agreed upon on a weekly basis).

[4] Both parents agree to share their time equally with the children during the summer time, on a week about basis. Both parents have also urged me to make a very detailed parenting order and have provided me with draft orders containing several of the parenting provisions one normally sees in parenting agreements. They have also consented to an order for the appointment of a Parenting Coordinator in the event that my order provided for the parents to retain some joint decision-making authority.

[5] As there was some degree of urgency in the parties receiving my decision on parenting matters, on December 10, 2018, I released a final order with written reasons to follow. These are my written reasons.

[6] Based on the evidence before me, I have concluded that it was in the children’s best interests for the parents to have joint custody, with each parent having sole decision making authority on certain areas of their children’s lives, and for some areas on a rotational (yearly) basis (to the extent that there is a need to identify this parenting regime, I would call it hybrid parallel parenting). I have also determined that it is in the children’s best interests to spend an equal amount of time with each parent pursuant to a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule during the school year, beginning on January 1, 2019, and on a week about basis during the summer. At the request of the parties, I have also made a multi-directional parenting order which includes the appointment of a Parenting Coordinator.

[7] With regard to support issues, I have concluded that the mother’s entitlement to child support arrears (including contributions to special expenses) was set-off by the father’s entitlement to time-limited spousal support, and I have ordered ongoing child support payable by the mother to the father based on a set-off of their respective child support Table amounts.

Background

[8] The parties began dating in 2006 and moved in together in May 2007 when the mother was 22 years old and the father 23 years old. At that time, the father worked in the retail industry and the mother was a full-time university student, completing her teacher’s degree. They married on May 21, 2011, after four years of cohabitation.

[9] In May 2012, Thira was born. By then, the mother had graduated from university and was working full-time as a teacher. On or about that time, the father went back to school to obtain his teaching degree as well, graduating in the spring of 2013 or 2014. When this trial was heard, both parties were employed on a full-time basis as teachers. The mother teaches 3rd, 4th and 5th grades at l’école élémentaire Le Phare, earning $88,472 in 2017. The father is a kindergarten teacher at Convent Glen Elementary School, earning $61,283 in 2017.

[10] While the parties enjoyed a very close and loving relationship during the early years of their union, at some point after Thira’s birth trust issues between them led to a quick deterioration of their relationship. Much time was spent by the parties during the trial discussing each other’s behaviour during the later years of their marriage. I find that the way each behaved toward one another during those years had very little relevance, if any, to the issue of what parenting arrangements would be best for these two young children.

[11] Suffice it to say that due to an affair the father had within the first month or so after the parties began dating, and which the mother only discovered later in the relationship, the parties experienced significant trust issues which they were never able to overcome. I find as a fact that the father became very jealous at some point after Thira’s birth, and began to act in a possessive and controlling manner towards the mother, resulting in the mother distancing herself from the relationship and seeking emotional support from friends and work colleagues. The mother’s reliance on others for emotional support resulted in the father becoming even more jealous and controlling, which led both parties to behave in an emotionally immature manner (hacking into and monitoring each other’s emails, resuming contact with ex-boyfriends\girlfriends, limiting the other’s ability to go out with certain people, insisting on the other terminating contact with certain friends, requiring that certain items belonging to ex-partners be kept outside of the home).

[12] By the time the mother became pregnant with Enora, the parties had significantly drifted apart. While they attempted to work on their relationship in light of the forthcoming birth of their second child, they were never able to salvage their marriage and in December 2015, when Enora was only a year old, they decided to separate. By that time, the parties had moved from Kanata to Orleans where they had just purchased and moved into a new home (their matrimonial home at the time of separation) to be closer to the father’s extended family. Thira was three years old at the time.

Post-Separation Events

[13] Despite their separation, the parties continued to live together in the matrimonial home while they tried to work out issues arising from their separation. They agreed to live by an informal agreement pursuant to which each would have the children in their primary care every other weekend as well as certain days during the week. At that time the mother’s brother, Sean Vanier (“Sean”), was living with the parties during weekdays to babysit the children while the parties were at work. The maternal grandmother, as well as the father’s extended family members, were also very present in their lives. As the conflict between the parties began to rise, family members became involved which resulted in several altercations between the parties involving their family members in and out of the home.

[14] Much has been said during the trial about the events that took place between Easter Weekend 2016 to April 19, 2016, and which required the police’s involvement on a number of occasions. I do not feel the need to repeat the details of those events in much length here, but it is important to at least summarize them since they provide the context as to why this matter turned into a very high conflict parenting litigation.

[15] I find that from January to March 2016, the tension in the home began to rise as the separation became a reality and the parties became aware of the financial and legal consequences that would result therefrom. On March 26, 2016, there was an altercation between the parties in the matrimonial home while Sean, the maternal grandmother and the paternal grandfather were present, as well as the children. The father wanted to leave with one of the children, which led to a heated argument in which extended family members got involved, and ultimately the father pulled the door abruptly which caused the mother to be hit by the door. She called the police and, after all parties were interviewed, the father agreed to spend the night at his parents’ home to allow for things to calm down.

[16] The next morning, the mother called the police to report that the father had physically assaulted her in an attempt to remove her from his car. The father was picking up the children at the parties’ home, as had been agreed to between them, to take them to church. The mother insisted on giving the children a final kiss (one too many to the father’s taste) and the father insisted that she leave. The mother then attempted to prevent him from leaving with the children (before she could give them one more kiss) which led to a shuffle and more pushing. The father eventually squeezed himself between the mother and the car and pushed her away and then left with the children. The mother had called the police while this was happening, and had recorded the scene (or part thereof) with her ipad. By the time the police arrived, the father had already left and was at his parents’ home with the children. Based on the mother’s testimony, the father was arrested at his parents’ home and charged with assault. After investigation, however, it was found that the mother had been asked to leave on several occasions before she was pushed out, and no charges were laid. It was strongly suggested to the parties that they live in different homes to avoid further altercations.

[17] In light of those incidents, and in order to avoid further altercations, the father agreed to stay with his parents for a while. The next weekend, and while the children were in his care at his parents’ home, the father went to the matrimonial home to retrieve more of his personal belongings. When the mother realized that he had come into the home, and in the master bedroom, she changed the locks. By the following Thursday (April 7th), and since no agreement satisfactory to the father had been reached with regard to their parenting arrangements, the father called and asked the police to keep the peace while he moved back into the home. Alerted by her brother Sean, who was present in the home at that time, the mother rushed home. However, she was told by the police that they could not force the father to leave the home, and she became frustrated and upset.

[18] A meeting was convened on an emergency basis between the parties and their lawyers on April 15th, and they were able to reach an interim without prejudice nesting agreement pursuant to which each parent would have care of the children every other weekend as well as specific days during the week. Unfortunately, this agreement was short-lived. On the weekend immediately following this agreement, which was the father’s weekend with the girls, he decided to stay at this parents’ home instead of in the parties’ home. Upon his return on Sunday evening (April 19, 2016), another heated argument took place between the parties over the girls not having been bathed (Sean was present in the home at the time and also got involved). When the father realized that the mother had not removed the lock she had installed on the master bedroom door, which precluded him from entering the room, he broke down the door in anger, and the mother called the police once more.

[19] Following the intervention by the police, the father again agreed to stay the night at his parents to allow both parties to cool off. After the father left, the mother packed up her and the children’s belongings and moved in with her father (Mr. Shane Vanier, the children’s paternal grandfather), without notice to the father. The father was denied any and all access to the children (except for some phone calls) for a period of six weeks thereafter.

[20] Those events set the tone for what was to happen next.

Allegations of abuse

[21] At this stage, I find it important to say that I do not accept the mother’s evidence to the effect that she was the victim of physical abuse at the hands of the father during the parties’ relationship or after their separation. While I accept her evidence that the father became jealous and very controlling during the two years preceding the parties’ separation, behaving in an immature manner from an emotional perspective, I do not accept that the father was ever physically abusive towards her.

[22] While I also accept that the father inappropriately reacted in anger on some occasions after the separation (while the parties continued to reside together in the matrimonial home), and that there were some altercations between the parties which led to some pushing and shoving, I find that both parties contributed in their respective ways to those heated arguments which were the result of mounting tensions between them arising from their unstable legal situation.

[23] There is not a shred of evidence before me to suggest that the father ever reacted in anger towards the children, or that he was physically abusive towards the mother during their relationship. There is no history of violence between these parties (or between the parties and former partners), and I do not accept that the mother was ever scared that the father would physically or otherwise hurt her or the children (although I accept that during the altercations described above, she felt unsafe).

[24] None of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the mother could provide the court with credible evidence with regard to the father’s alleged abusive behavior. It was obvious that they were simply reporting the information that the mother herself had conveyed to them about her own experiences with the father, and that they saw him through the mother’s own very negative lenses. While I accept their testimony that on certain occasions the father behaved in a hostile manner towards them, I find that in light of the circumstances of those events, the father cannot be blamed for having reacted in that manner.

[25] For example, on one occasion (and when the conflict between the parties was quite high), Thira became ill while in her father’s care. He took her to a clinic to be checked by a doctor and took the time to call the mother to let her know what was happening, inviting her to join them there if she wanted to. The mother showed up at the clinic accompanied by her mother (the maternal grandmother), her mother’s ex-boyfriend (Mr. Brown) whom the father had never met, and the mother’s new boyfriend (Mr. Ambroise) whom the father had also never met. As they all entered the waiting room to join Thira and the father, Mr. Brown was videotaping the entire encounter with his ipad. Understandably, the father reacted in a hostile manner, told Mr. Brown to stop videotaping and required that he and Mr. Ambroise wait outside.

The June 24, 2016 Interim Agreement

[26] The father filed his Application on May 25, 2016. A four-way settlement meeting between the parties and their counsel took place on June 24, 2016. By that time, the father had had no access to the children for six weeks. On that day, the parties were able to reach temporary without prejudice Minutes of Settlement which provided the father with access to the children every Tuesday and Thursday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and every second weekend from 5:00 p.m. on Friday to Monday morning at 8:00 a.m. (“Regular Parenting Time”). The summer of 2016 (up until August 12) was to be shared on a week about basis (“Summer Parenting Time”), with the balance of the summer schedule to be reviewed at the Case Conference scheduled for August 12.

[27] The father testified that he was not happy with this arrangement, which did not allow the children to spend an equal amount of time with each parent, but since he had not seen his children for six weeks, he felt compelled to sign the agreement to make sure he could see his children. He also testified that he was made to believe that the week about schedule agreed upon during the summer would continue come September. While a reading of the Minutes of Settlement appear to make it clear that the Regular Parenting Time schedule is to take place during school time, they are silent as to what was to occur past August 12. I find that the father did believe that the week about schedule would continue past August 12, rightly or wrongly, and that the mother reasonably relied on the language of the Minutes of Settlement in assuming that the Regular Parenting Schedule would resume come September.

[28] As a result of the parties’ opposed views on the matter, and as they were unable to come to an agreement at the August 12 Case Conference or during a mediation session that took place shortly thereafter, a motion was scheduled for November 10, 2016 to deal with parenting. In the meantime, each parent resorted to self-help remedies in an attempt to force the other to adhere to their chosen parenting schedule (unilateral registration and de-registration into daycare, mother picking Thira up from school early to ensure that the father would not be able to pick her up, father withholding Enora in his care for four extra days out of fear that she would not be returned, etc.).

[29] This led to intense negotiations between the parties’ counsel in an attempt to put some kind of standstill into place until the motion was heard. I find as a fact that the mother, on September 9th and through her counsel, agreed to continue with the week about schedule until the November 10th motion was heard. This was clearly communicated by the mother’s counsel to the father’s counsel by way of an email sent at 4:43 p.m. that day. To the extent that I am wrong on this, and that I accept the mother’s evidence to the effect that her written instructions to her counsel (sent by email) did not convey her acceptance of that regime, then I find that the mother’s instructions to her counsel were deceptive and only meant to entice the father into believing this to be the case, thus ensuring Enora’s return to her mother’s care without further delay.

[30] Either way, once both children were in her care, the mother refused to return to a week about schedule and denied access to the father until September 27th (almost three weeks). On that day, the father agreed to resume the “Regular Parenting Schedule” pursuant to the Interim Minutes of Settlement as this was the only way he could resume access with the girls until the motion, having been denied the right to bring an urgent motion.

[31] On November 10th, Justice Shelston adjourned the motion to allow the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) (who had been appointed at the August 12 Case Conference) to complete its investigation. In the meanwhile, Shelston J. imposed a temporary without prejudice order pursuant to which the father was to have access with the girls three weekends out of four, from Friday, November 11, 2016 at 4:30 p.m. to Monday morning at school (or mother’s residence). The motion was adjourned to January 9, 2017.

[32] For reasons which need not be mentioned here, the motion was adjourned twice, and was finally heard on the merits on May 17, 2017. At that time, Shelston J. made the following temporary order (I only repeat the provisions that are important for the purpose of this trial):

1. The father was to have access three weekends out of four, from Friday after school to Monday morning, at which time the children were to be brought to school or daycare;
2. The parties were to share summer access on a week about basis;
3. The father was to sign a consent or travel permission to allow the mother to travel to Mexico in October 2017 with the children, before October 1, 2017;
4. The father was to pay child support in the amount of $874 per month for the months of November and December 2016, as well as $161 as his contribution to the children’s net daycare costs;
5. The father was to pay child support in the amount of $896 per month beginning on January 1, 2017, as well as a contribution of $163 per month towards the children’s net daycare costs.

[33] At the time of Shelston J.’s temporary order, the trial was set to be heard in September 2017, a few months away. The OCL had completed its investigation and confirmed that its report would be ready by the end of June. Shelston J. recognized that based on the contradictory evidence before him, he was unable to assess the parties’ credibility. He was of the view that the children needed consistency and, since the trial was only a few months away and his temporary order would only be in place until the fall, he chose to maintain the status quo.

[34] Unfortunately, the trial was delayed by one year. That summer, the parties became self-represented. For that reason, on August 15, 2017 Shelston J. required a Trial Management Conference and removed the matter from the 2017 September trial list. He ordered the parties to do a certain number of things, including scheduling a Settlement Conference and a Trial Management Conference (on two different days), and ordered that the matter was not to be placed on the trial list until the parties had participated in both conferences and filed Trial Scheduling Endorsement Forms.

[35] Various court appearances took place in the Fall of 2017 to the Summer of 2018. The mother brought a motion for an order allowing her to travel to Mexico as a result of the father’s failure to abide by Shelston J.’s clear order requiring him to sign a travel consent; the father brought a motion to reduce his child support as a result of the Family Responsibility Office’s garnishment of 50% of his net income which, in his view, caused him undue hardship; a Settlement Conference scheduled to proceed on December 8, 2017 was adjourned because neither party had filed a brief; and Settlement Conferences were held before de Sousa J. on January 19, 2018 and January 25, 2018, with no resolution.

[36] A Trial Management Conference was finally held on November 13, 2018 and the trial proceeded before me, beginning on November 26, 2018. The mother was legally represented during the trial (having retained new counsel shortly before the trial) but the father was not.

Report of the Children’s Lawyer

[37] On September 9, 2016, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer accepted this case for service, and appointed Ms. Chantal Bourgeois to investigate and provide a report to the Court pursuant to s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. C.43 (“CJA”). Ms. Bourgeois has a Bachelor, Master and Doctorate Degree in Social Work. She has been a clinical social worker and accredited mediator for over 20 years. Most of her professional experience has been spent helping separated parents develop child-focussed parenting plans and conduct custody and access assessments both privately and on behalf of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

[38] Ms. Bourgeois has interviewed a significantly large number of collaterals for the purpose of her assessment of this family, in addition to meeting with the parties themselves on several occasions and to visiting each parent’s homes for the purpose of observing them interact with the children. She was called as a witness during this trial, and I found her to be a very credible witness. Her report dated June 26, 2017 is detailed and comprehensive, and outlines the information she has obtained through her involvement with this family, and the observations which led her to come to the following conclusions (I have only listed here the ones which I felt were the most important):

• Both parents are capable and intelligent individuals who were both involved in the care and upbringing of the children prior to and after separation. They both have very strong parenting skills;
• Both parents share a special relationship with their children highlighted by a high level of engagement, playfulness, structure and affection. There were no concerns identified during observation visits and neither parent spoke negatively of the other parent;
• The extended family on both sides have been involved and intertwined in the parental conflict more so than normal. The father’s parents did not appear to be actively hostile or vengeful, but the maternal grandmother and uncle, however, seemed to have a much deeper sense of disappointment, anger and resentment toward the father;
• Thira was aware of the tension and ill feelings of both family members toward the other parent and appeared to have been exposed to more of her parents’ conflict. She appeared to be quite protective and loyal of her mother and repeatedly described her father as “mean” to her mother during her interviews with Ms. Bourgeois. However, her stated reluctance to spend more time with her father was never reflected in the very positive interactions observed between her and her father. This raised a concern on Ms. Bourgeois’ part that the past incidents of conflict and the depiction of her father being “mean” might have been reinforced or magnified through discussions with her mother and extended family (which Ms. Bourgeois noted could have been occurring inadvertently and with no malicious intent);
• Enora appeared to have adapted well to her parent’s separation and was happy to see both of her parents.

[39] Ms. Bourgeois recommended a parallel parenting regime for this family, as well as an equal time-sharing parenting plan. She proposed solutions with regard to many parenting issues such as travel, transportation, exchanges of the children etc., many of which were agreed upon by the parents and sought by them to be included in a final order in the context of this trial. She strongly recommended the use of a parenting coordinator to deflate conflict, improve communications and assist the parties in the implementation of their parenting plan.

Analysis

Parenting

[40] In making a custody or access order with regard to a child, I am required by virtue of s. 16 of the Divorce Act, 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) to consider the following legal principles:

Order for custody 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.

Joint custody or access (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.

Access (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.

Terms and conditions (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.

Factors (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.

Past conduct (9) In making an order under this section, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that person to act as a parent of a child.

Maximum contact (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.

[41] Ontario courts determining custody and access matters under the Divorce Act also refer to the criteria set out in section 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 to define the concept of a child’s best interests:

Best interests of child (2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including, (a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and, (i) each person, including a parent or grandparent, 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) any familial relationship between the child and each person who is a party to the application.

[42] The mother argues that a joint custody arrangement in the circumstances of this case is inappropriate and against the children’s best interest in light of the highly conflictual relationship between the parents, and their inability to communicate and cooperate. She is of the view that she has been the primary caregiver to the children both before and after the parties’ separation, a responsibility which she says she has fulfilled very well, and that the children’s need for stability, consistency, and to be shielded from parental conflict requires that she be allowed to continue to do so without undue interference from the father.

[43] In assessing best interests, the court must look at all the factors listed in s. 24(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”). Our Court of Appeal has set out, in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, the circumstances which would support the making of a joint custody order. In general, the court will want to see a positive history of cooperative parenting as well as effective and appropriate communication between the parents. In Jackson v. Jackson, 2017 ONSC 1566, Justice Chappel stated that the decision as to whether an order for sole custody or joint custody is in a child's best interests was ultimately a matter of judicial discretion. She then summarized the general principles that have emerged from the caselaw including since the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kaplanis, to assist in the decision-making process (at paras. 65 and 66). While I will not reiterate them here, I have given all of these principles due consideration.

[44] In recent years, joint or parallel custody orders have often been made for the purpose of preserving a parent’s relationship with their child despite the high degree of conflict between the parents, when the primary caregiver objected to joint custody without just cause. Such an example can be found in N.H. v. J.H.H., 2017 ONSC 4867, in which Justice Mackinnon stated the following before making a parallel custody order in a very high conflict parenting matter:

[624] There has been an increasing willingness in recent years to order joint custody rather than sole custody where such an order is considered necessary to preserve the parenting role of both parents. This is a relevant factor here. […]

[625] Similar considerations apply to the type of parallel parenting regime proposed by the applicant in this case because it is a form of shared decision making. Justice Chappell refers to it as divided parallel parenting, describing a regime where major areas of decision making are divided between the parents, such that each of them has sole, final decision making authority in specified areas. This type of order may be appropriate in high conflict cases where full joint decision making is not a feasible option, but granting one party sole custody is not considered to be in the child’s best interests.

[627] A very significant question is whether a parallel parenting order is more likely to decrease the conflict between the parties or increase it. For this type of order to be effective the parents need to be able to comply and to navigate basic issues such as scheduling and interpretation of the order.

[45] There was significant evidence presented to the court during this nine day trial regarding all of the events that occurred while this litigation followed its course. While all of those facts and events will not be reiterated or addressed here, I wish to assure the parties that they have all been carefully considered by the court.

[46] This matter had all of the elements of a very high conflict custody and access litigation. The parents continued to live together after their separation in a state of heightened emotions and perceived every step taken by the other as a means to either gain or avoid losing a tactical advantage in their parenting negotiations. The police services were asked to intervene on multiple occasions to act as witnesses of the other’s alleged inappropriate behaviour, or to record altercations between the parents themselves and between the parties and their extended families and friends, which led to the Children’s Aid Society’s occasional intervention. The parents involved the children’s school staff, health professionals and daycare providers in their conflict trying to get the upper hand in the custody dispute. Access to the children was denied by both parents from time to time, each of them denying the other physical access as well as telephone access to the children, and restricting the other’s knowledge of and attendance at the children’s extracurricular activities and doctors’ appointments. Trivial issues such as the children’s hair care, the handling of their school agendas and the return of the children’s clothing became major issues giving rise to more conflict. Perceived false and/or distorted allegations with regards to each other’s behaviour resulted in the parents, friends and relatives videotaping access exchanges and recording telephone calls.

[47] Despite each party’s attempts to convince me that the other parent was the instigator and/or driving force behind the discord in most cases, thus supporting an award of sole custody to them as the more reasonable parent, I find that they were both equally responsible for the high degree of conflict that followed their physical separation in April 2016. I would have expected much better from two educators with otherwise excellent parenting skills.

[48] The mother perceives herself – the mother – as the primary caregiver of the children “as of right”. This appears to be consistent with her own experience as a child following her own parents’ high conflict separation and divorce. As a result, she felt entirely justified to leave the matrimonial home with the two children “to protect them” from their father, without notice to him, and to deny him access to the children for lengthy periods of time for no other reason than forcing him to agree to her desired parenting schedule (giving her a tactical advantage in the litigation). She also felt entitled to make all decisions relating to the children, without prior consultation with the father, being of the view that her obligation to consult and inform was being met by simply relaying her decisions to the father after the fact, thus precluding him from being an active participant in the children’s lives.

[49] This conduct on the part of the mother left the father feeling completely marginalized as a parent. He felt entirely denied an opportunity to be part of his children’s day-to-day lives, including in areas that he had been actively part of in the past such as their health care, education and extracurricular activities. As a result, he fought back. Unfortunately, he often fought back in ways that were not child-focussed and which only led to more conflict. He also took unreasonable stances with regard to what were otherwise reasonable requests by the mother, for example by refusing to provide his consent to the mother’s travel with the children to Mexico to attend her brother’s wedding (and despite having been ordered by the court to provide such consent). As a result of what he perceived to be patronizing messages and unjustified attacks on his parenting abilities (and I do find that in many of her messages to the father the mother was in fact patronizing and at times even condescending to him), the father eventually refused to communicate with her at all, and unreasonably ignored all of her emails from September 2018 onwards.

[50] Despite having behaved in a very immature and unreasonable manner towards each other, there is no doubt in my mind that both parents are highly competent, loving and caring parents whose entire lives revolve around their two little girls. I have absolutely no concern whatsoever about each parent’s ability to properly care for the children on a day-to-day basis and, while I do not trust either one of them to show good judgment towards each other, I have every reason to believe that any decision they would make about the children’s health, education and overall well-being will be in their best interests.

[51] I find that the mother has very strong parenting skills. She is a nurturing, loving and committed parent who is actively engaged in all areas of the children’s care including in their education, their health and their overall development outside of school. She is organized and responsive and provides the children with proper structure and routine while they are in her care. She is actively engaged in their extracurricular activities and motivated to help them achieve their full potential. While I have some concerns about the way the mother spoke about the father to the children in the past (as detailed in Ms. Bourgeois’ report), I am confident that such negative messages have now ceased and that the mother has gained insight into how damaging these can be on her children’s development and overall well-being. I note in passing that both parents have taken courses for parents engaged in high conflict separations.

[52] Despite the mother’s expressed concerns around the father’s ability to provide the children with stability and consistency during school days, based on the evidence before me I find that these concerns are not warranted. The father is a teacher and he clearly values education. His routine at home is similar to the mother’s own routine, and while he has not had the opportunity to care for the girls during school days since the parties’ separation, I have absolutely no concern about his ability to maintain a proper school days’ routine in his home.

[53] While the father may not have been the best of partners (a fact which he readily admitted during trial), there is absolutely no evidence before me that would support a finding that he is a less capable parent than the mother. Quite the contrary, the overwhelming evidence before me is that the father also has very strong parenting skills and that he is genuinely and highly motivated to be actively involved in his children’s lives. He loves the children dearly, something that the children reciprocate fully. He engages them in many activities that they love, and provides them with proper structure, supervision and routine while they are in his care. I find that he was a very involved parent while the parties were still together, attending to the girls’ day-to-day needs and being present at their doctors’ and other health related appointments, something that he was precluded to do post-separation through no fault of his own, and against his will.

[54] The father has a very large extended family whom have been and continue to be very present and involved in the children’s lives. The father’s family is of Haitian descent and they are very proud of their culture which has been passed on to the children. The overwhelming evidence before me makes it clear that the father’s family is a close-knit, loving and warm family who care deeply for these children. The importance of family to the father was obvious during his and his family members’ testimonies at trial. The father and the children have been able to rely extensively on his family for support both before and after the parties’ separation.

[55] The mother is from a mixed cultural background as well. Her mother (the maternal grandmother) is from India and her father (the maternal grandfather) is French Canadian. It is very important for the mother to expose the children to both cultures, and until very recently her brother Sean and her mother had been extensively involved in the children’s day-to-day care and provided her with significant support. Unfortunately, as a result of her historically strained relationship with her father she has had no contact with him or her paternal family in two years. When made aware of this, the father arranged for regular contact to occur between the children and their maternal grandfather, as well as his side of the family. The mother also recently had a fall-out with her mother and Sean, and has had no contact with them since August 2018. As a result, the children have not seen them either in three months. It is important for the children to have the father’s extended family to fall back on, particularly when things break down on the mother’s side of the family.

[56] Despite concerns expressed by both parties regarding racial discrimination on both sides, I find no evidence whatsoever that would support such a finding. The mother has always been very supportive and appreciative of the children’s mixed cultural heritage and French language. She speaks French at home with both children, despite the fact that her first language is English, and it is very important to her that the children be educated in the French school system. She is currently in a new relationship with another man of Haitian descent with whom she is expecting another child. I have no concern about her or the father’s ability and willingness to promote and cherish the children’s mixed heritage and culture.

[57] While the parties’ parenting is very similar in terms of routine, discipline and day-to-day care, their parenting approach is different. The mother appears to be a more structured parent who insists on rules being followed more strictly, and on the children achieving their highest potential both academically and otherwise. As a result, she focusses on and magnifies relatively minor parenting issues on the father’s part, such as his failure to initial each and every page of the children’s school agendas (even though the teacher has left no message to the attention of the parents on that day) or his failure to note every single book read by Thira over the weekend for the purpose of the school’s reading challenge.

[58] The father is more laid back in his approach. He is of the view that school already imposes a lot of structure on children and as a result, they should be allowed to play freely outside of school and during the weekends, allowing them “to be kids”. He prefers to encourage the children’s natural love and abilities for a particular activity (such as reading) rather than to push them to do things (like reading as many books as possible) because it is required or because he feels that this is a course of action they should pursue.

[59] This different parenting approach was made obvious by the parties’ different perspectives on whether or not Thira, who is an extremely intelligent child by everyone’s account, should be the subject of a psycho-educational assessment to determine whether or not she is gifted. The mother would like to have her assessed immediately to gain insight as to how she and the school might help her achieve her full potential academically and to guide her into extracurricular activities that would be geared towards the specific abilities demonstrated by the testing. She indicates that the cost of this assessment is covered in most part by the parties’ employment benefits and she fails to see why Thira should be deprived of this opportunity.

[60] The father disagrees. Despite her stated intentions, he believes that the mother will use Thira’s status as a gifted child to reorient her academic path (including changing her school) and to push Thira into extracurricular activities that the mother will choose without regard to Thira’s preference for one activity rather than another. The father is of the view that Thira is only in grade one (the evidence confirms that such testing is usually not done before the third grade), and since she has no special needs and is thriving in a school that she loves, there is no need for her to undergo a psycho-educational assessment. He also does not believe that Thira should be forced into activities just because she is shown to have a particular ability for that activity, and that she should be free to explore whatever activity she wants, based on her natural interest.

[61] I am of the view that each perspective is valid.

[62] While the parents’ inability to agree on these more minor issues may be challenging at times from a decision-making point of view, the parties appear to agree on most major areas of their children’s upbringing. They both value education, a healthy lifestyle and the children’s need to engage in extracurricular activities. They agree that the children should be educated in the French education system; they agreed on the school they would attend; they agree that the children should be engaged in extracurricular activities (more importantly swimming); they agree that the children will be raised in the Catholic faith; they agreed on how the Christmas Holidays should be shared between them according to their respective families’ traditions.

[63] While they have been unable to communicate and cooperate effectively since they separated, I am of the view that elevated emotions heightened by the fact that the parties were in a state of transition, struggling financially and engaged in a highly conflictual custody battle fueled by their historical lack of trust in each other as partners, contributed significantly to their inability to engage with one another in a reasonable and cooperative manner. The parties both consented to a Parenting Coordinator being appointed in this case should a joint or parallel order be made. I agree that this is an appropriate order to make in this case. The Parenting Coordination process will help the parties improve their communication and cooperation skills and, with the assistance of a multi-directional parenting order, minor conflictual issues will be better managed and resolved by these two highly intelligent parents.

[64] More importantly, I find that some decision making authority being granted to each parent is necessary in this case to preserve and promote the father’s involvement in the children’s lives. I find that the mother has not used her de facto sole custody rights in a way that has promoted the father’s role in the children’s lives. I find that she has marginalized him as a parent, and that she has taken active steps to exclude him from most aspects of the children’s upbringing since the separation. She took steps to insure that he was not present at doctors and dentists’ appointments, at the children’s extracurricular activities, and that he had no role to play in their education. She has put her own emotional needs ahead of the children’s by denying him access for lengthy periods of time.

[65] I find that it is necessary and in the best interest of the children to ensure that both their parents are allowed to play an important role in all aspects of their lives. I also find that there is significant value in these children maintaining a meaningful relationship with both of their parents, which will be best achieved by allowing maximum contact between each parent and the children.

[66] Despite their parent’s discord, the children are doing surprisingly well and are thriving, well-adjusted children. This is due in large part to the fact that each parent, individually, has excellent parenting skills and is loving, attentive and dedicated. As stated before, Thira is an extremely bright child. By all accounts she is an easy, inquisitive and perseverant child who loves school and who shares a very strong bond with both of her parents. Enora was described by all as a very strong-willed child, who knows what she wants and makes it clear to all. She can be feisty and independent, but she is a little firecracker who makes everyone laugh around her.

[67] Each parent laughed openly during each other’s testimony as they described their children and shared comical events related to them. They were both beaming as other witnesses described their children and spoke very fondly of them. The parties’ love for these children was obvious and permeated the courtroom. The children’s love for and attachment to both their parents was made very clear by Ms. Bourgeois in her report, and by each of the witnesses who appeared before me.

[68] For all the reasons above, I have decided that it is in the children’s best interest for a joint custody order to be made, granting each parent sole decision-making authority over certain matters, each having a positive obligation to consult with the other parent and to consider the other parent’s views prior to making any final decision with respect to the children. The mother will have final sole decision-making authority with regards to the children’s health, whereas the father will have final sole decision-making authority over the children’s religion and dental health. The parents will share final decision-making authority with regards to the children’s extracurricular activities, which each of them having final sole decision-making authority to choose those activities every second year. Thira will undergo a psycho-educational assessment, but only once she has completed her third grade. The children will remain in their current school until completion of the elementary education, unless the parents agree otherwise.

[69] I have also determined that it is in the children’s best interest for them to spend an equal amount of time with each parent in accordance with a 2-2-5-5 parenting regime. Each parent will have exclusive authority to schedule and attend the children’s medical and dental appointments every second year.

[70] Both the OCL and the parents themselves have pleaded for the court to make a very detailed multi-directional parenting order in order to minimize the need for ongoing contact between the parents, and to reduce the possibilities of conflict. Both parents have provided me with lengthy multi-directional draft parenting orders which I have used extensively in crafting my own detailed parenting order, which is attached to these Reasons as Schedule “A”.

Child Support

Arrears

[71] The parties physically separated in April 2016, and the court application was commenced in June 2016. Child support was first ordered by Justice Shelston on May 17, 2017 retroactive to November 1, 2016 (this was the date at which the motion for interim support was first scheduled to be heard). The father was ordered to pay $874 per month for the two children, based on his 2016 income of $58,795. In addition to the basic child support, the father was required to make a $161 contribution towards the children’s daycare expenses. As of January 1, 2017, the child support was to increase to $896 per month, and the father’s contribution towards the daycare expenses to $163 per month.

[72] By the time that order was made, the father had not paid any child support. This resulted in significant arrears being owed by him, and 50% of his net income being garnished for quite some time to make up for those arrears. This, coupled with many other factors, resulted in important financial struggles for the father and, in 2017, he went bankrupt. This is not to say that the mother did not experience significant financial struggles herself; I am certain that she did.

[73] The reason why I am mentioning this is to explain why other financial issues initially in dispute between the parties (equalization, contributions to household expenses) became moot and were not the subject of this trial. I am also mentioning this because much evidence was led at trial about the father’s refusal to pay for some of the children’s daycare and other expenses in 2017 and 2018. Based on the evidence before me, I accept that the father was unable to pay for those expenses at the time. Since he left the matrimonial home in May 2016, the father has resided with his parents because he could not afford to live on his own. When half of his net income was being garnished to pay for arrears and ongoing child support, he was left with little net income to pay for his own expenses (food, car payments, gas, etc.) and was unable to pay agreed-upon rent to his parents for several months. As a result of his bankruptcy (he is still not discharged having failed to meet all of his obligations as a bankrupt), he was unable to access credit for extra cash.

[74] The mother, on the other hand, had a much higher income than the father (she earned $30,000 more than him), was receiving child support as well as child tax benefits, and was fortunate enough to obtain financial assistance from her mother in the form of a loan. She was sufficiently stable financially to purchase a new home while maintaining the payments on the matrimonial home following the father’s bankruptcy (she has since sold her home and moved back into the matrimonial home, which the father’s Trustee in Bankruptcy has consented to transfer to her in her sole name without financial consideration).

[75] Once again, I am not trying to justify the father’s failure to contribute to the children’s legitimate expenses (after all, he ignored his child support obligations for a period of one year which is why he owed arrears in the first place), but I accept that given his circumstances in 2017 and 2018, he was unable to contribute to those expenses with only 50% of his net disposable income being available to him. In addition, his family members were available to care for the children at no cost and he sought the mother’s consent to allow his family members to provide child care instead of putting them in private daycare, but the mother did not agree.

[76] In any event, and even though I accept that the father was unable to pay for some of the children’s expenses at the time, this is not a reason to deny the mother’s claim for a contribution to those expenses. I come to that conclusion because, even though his consent was not properly obtained by the mother prior to incurring them, those expenses were reasonable in light of the parties’ income and in line with the activities that the parties had engaged the children into prior to their separation. As a result, he shall pay his proportionate share (40%) of the following expenses incurred by the mother:

• Sports courses (January to March 2018): $220.00;
• Registration costs for the children’s swimming lessons (April-June 2018): $286.00;
• Starr Gymnastics (Winter 2016-2017): $339.82;
• YMCA (fall 2017): $200.20; and
• YMCA (fall 2018): $308.00

for a total of $1,354.02, of which the father’s contribution is set at $541.61.

[77] I also find the father liable to pay his 40% share of childcare costs paid by the mother to her brother Sean, from November 2016 to June 2017. The parties had agreed that Sean would be providing child care services to this family, at a very low cost, which benefitted not only the children but also the parties. The total cost paid to him by the mother during this period was $2,500, and the father’s 40% share is therefore set at $1,000.

[78] The mother also seeks a 50% contribution from the father towards her 50% share of daycare costs paid to ALPHA-3 daycare from September 2017 to June 2018. The parties had agreed to put the children in ALPHA-3 daycare during the school year 2017-2018. The parties had also agreed that they would be covering those costs equally. While the mother has paid her 50% share of those costs, the father has not paid his share in full. The exact amount he owes to the daycare provider was not specified during the trial, although it was the mother’s belief that he had never paid. However, the evidence makes it clear that the mother was never liable to pay the father’s 50% share. Whatever amount remains unpaid by the father is a debt owing by him to the daycare provider and which he will be called upon to deal with at one point or another. I see no reason to order the father to pay the mother 50% of what she has actually paid on the basis that he did not pay his own 50% share to the daycare provider. The mother’s claim in that regard is therefore denied.

[79] While the temporary child support order of Justice Shelston made the support payable as of November 2016, the parties started to live in separate homes in April 2016. I see no reason why the father should not be required to pay child support for the children for the months of May 2016 to October 2016. The children were in the mother’s primary care during those months and the application was commenced in June 2016. The amount of $874 per month was payable by the father, for a total of $5,244 owing for that period.

[80] Finally, based on the income actually earned by the Respondent father in 2017, being $61,238, he should have paid $896 per month in child support from January 2017 to and including December 2018, resulting in an underpayment of $38 per month during those 24 months, for a total adjustment of $912 owing by the father to the mother for those two years. I acknowledge that the father might have earned more in 2018 than $61,238 (something that will be confirmed only when he files his 2018 tax return), potentially resulting in an additional adjustment for 2018, however, given my decision on the father’s entitlement to time-limited spousal support, I find that no further adjustment is necessary for the year 2018.

[81] Therefore, the total amount owing by the father to the mother on account of child support arrears and past contributions to section 7 expenses is $7,697.61 (plus a probable adjustment owing for 2018).

Ongoing

[82] Based on the father’s 2017 income of $61,283 and the mother’s 2017 income of $88,472, and in light of the equal time-sharing parenting schedule set out in this order, beginning on January 1, 2019 and every month thereafter until further varied:

1. The mother shall pay to the father child support in the amount of $1,332 per month for the two children;
2. The father shall pay to the mother child support in the amount of $934 per month for the two children;
3. Resulting in a set-off amount of $398 per month payable by the mother to the father (only the set-off amount of $398 payable by the mother to the father shall be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office).

[83] Beginning on January 1, 2019, the parties shall share all benefits and credits available to them for the children in accordance with with Canada Revenue Agency’s policies for parents sharing custody of their children.

[84] On a go forward basis, the parties shall also share the children’s special and extraordinary expenses in proportion to their income, which at this time is 40% for the father and 60% for the mother. With regard to daycare expenses, the mother has been able to secure before and after school care for the children at a very reasonable cost ($10 per day per child) for the days that the children are in her care. Given that the children will only be in her care before and after school 2-3 days per week, and given the tax deduction available to her for that purpose, her daycare costs will be very low. The father’s extended family members are willing and able to provide child care to both parties for free, although I understand that given the family tension at this time the mother does not wish to use them as her daycare providers.

[85] As a result of all of the above, the mother suggested that each party should be responsible to pay for their own before and after school child care, unless the cost to one parent exceeds $250 per month, per child. The father was agreeable to this and I so order.

[86] In light of the equal time sharing schedule in place, the parties’ respective child support obligations and, in addition to the expenses listed in section 7 of the Guidelines, it is also appropriate for the following expenses to be considered special and extraordinary expenses which shall be shared in proportion to the parties’ income: a. Back-to-school supplies (backpacks, school shoes, pens, paper, etc.); b. School activities and events including mandatory fund raising events; c. Extracurricular activities (regardless of whether they are considered “extraordinary”, and except if incurred in accordance with para. 34); d. Any clothing or equipment needed for extracurricular activities (which shall travel with the children at exchanges when needed); e. Passport renewals; f. Winter clothing and footwear; g. Regular footwear; and h. Items which will travel from one home to the other (such as skates, bicycles) and which the parties have agreed to purchase together.

[87] The parties are both employed on a full-time basis as teachers and their annual income gets adjusted each year in September. A yearly review of child support should occur in May of each year, based on the income earned by the parties the previous year (to be used as a guideline for the next 12 months), with a yearly retroactive adjustment of the support paid the previous year (from January to December) based on the income actually earned that year. The first retroactive adjustment shall take place in May 2020 for the year 2019, and based on the income actually earned by the parties in 2019.

[88] To be clear, and as an example, in May 2020 and after having exchanged their 2019 income tax returns the parties will review the child support paid by them in 2019 and determine whether either party underpaid/overpaid and any necessary adjustment will be paid. Then, they will set child support payable from June 1st, 2020 to May 31, 2021 based on the income they earned in 2019.

[89] While either party may seek a change in child support prior to the yearly review based on a material change in circumstances, to avoid costly motions to change child support such motions shall not be brought unless the change in circumstances would affect the amount of child support payable by at least $300 per month.

[90] Finally, the parties both have access to life insurance coverage through their employment, and they shall both maintain each other as the beneficiary of the proceeds in trust for the children, and as security for child support. In light of the parties’ respective income, the proper coverage for the mother is $300,000 and for the father $200,000. If this amount exceeds what is available to the parties through their employment benefits, there shall be a lien and first charge against their estate for the difference.

[91] I have also incorporated in my final order other provisions which were sought by the mother and which I felt appropriate to order in the circumstances of this case.

Spousal Support

[92] The father seeks spousal support. The mother takes the position that the father is not entitled to spousal support. Section 15.2 of the Divorce Act requires that the court take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse in making a spousal support order, including the length of time the spouses cohabited, the functions performed by each of them during cohabitation and any order, agreement or arrangement relating to their support.

[93] In making a spousal support order, the court cannot take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage. A spousal support order should: (a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown; (b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage; (c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and (d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

[94] I find that the father is entitled to time-limited spousal support based on needs, but not on any compensatory basis. At the time these parties began living together, the mother was finishing her teaching degree and the father was working full-time. By the time their first child was born, the father was undertaking his teaching degree and the mother was on maternity leave. Thereafter, both worked full-time and contributed to the best of their ability to the household expenses, both devoting all of their available time to the care of their two young children. Both were provided with an equal opportunity to complete their teaching degree and to devote time and efforts to their teaching career. I find that neither party was disadvantaged financially as a result of the role they played during the marriage. None of the common markers for compensatory claims are present in the circumstances of this case.

[95] I do find, however, that the father was financially disadvantaged by the breakdown of the marriage. The parties were together for almost ten years and they had two children together. They were clearly financially dependent of one another during their relationship, and they relied on each other’s financial support. At the time of the parties’ physical separation in 2016, the mother had a substantially higher income than the father (a $30,000 difference). While the children were in the mother’s primary care from the date of separation to the date of this trial, they still spent a considerable amount of time with their father, which included three weekends out of four (Friday to Monday) during the school year and 50% of the time during the summer months.

[96] It is clear that the net disposable income in the father’s home was significantly less than in the mother’s home. While it was reasonable for the mother to retain a larger portion of the parties’ combined net disposable income, given that she had the children in her care more than 60% of the time, the significant disparity between the standards of living in both homes (70% vs. 30%) resulted in financial hardship to the father which should have been alleviated with some spousal support from the mother. For this reason, I find that the father was entitled to spousal support based on his needs from the date of the parties’ separation until now.

[97] Based on the parties’ respective incomes during 2016, 2017 and 2018, the ranges of spousal support generated by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAG”) varied from $180 (low) to $240 (high) in 2016, from $158 (low) to $210 (high) in 2017 and from $160 (low) to $214 (high) in 2018. Regardless of the range chosen, the net disposable income available to the mother would still remain approximately $4,000 higher (70% vs. 30%) than what was available to the father during those years (after the payment of child support). On the other hand, the father was residing with his parents and his housing costs were significantly lower than the mother’s beginning in June of 2016 (when the mother relocated to a new home with the children). In addition, for some months the mother was forced to assume the costs of two homes as a result of the father’s bankruptcy.

[98] In light of all this, and given the significant amount of time spent by the children with their father during that time, I find that spousal support in the amount of $350 per month was payable by the mother to the father from June 2016 to and including December 2018. This represents a net lump sum of $8,578.

[99] On a go forward basis, the children will be spending half of their time with each parent and the mother will be paying child support based on the set-off approach. Based on the parties’ incomes for 2017 and in light of the parenting arrangements in place come January 2019, the ranges suggested by the SSAG would be $0 for the low and mid ranges, and $392 at the high end (resulting in a 50-50 net disposable income in each home). If no spousal support is paid, the father will retain 47.5% of the combined net disposable income while the mother will retain 52.5%. I do not find this result objectionable or inappropriate.

[100] While the SSAG would default to an indefinite (unspecified) duration for spousal support given the equal parenting arrangement, I am of the view that the father is no longer in need of spousal support given his relatively young age, the length of the parties’ cohabitation (8 years), their respective child support obligations and the fact that they both have secure, permanent and well-paying jobs. This is further supported by the fact that the mother is due to give birth to another child in June 2019, which will lead to a temporary reduction of her income as well as an increase in her and her household’s financial needs.

[101] I therefore dismiss the father’s claim for ongoing spousal support. I find that it is reasonable to simply set-off arrears of child support owing by the father ($7,697.61 plus a potential adjustment for 2018) against arrears of spousal support owing by the mother ($8,578), such that neither owes the other any money on account of past support obligations.

[102] If the parties cannot agree on costs, I will accept written submissions from the parties which shall include a Bill of Costs as well as any Offers to Settle made during the course of this litigation. The Applicant father will have 20 days from the date of these reasons to provide his submissions and the Respondent mother will have 20 days thereafter to do the same. The father will be allowed a brief reply if deemed necessary, which shall be provided within 10 days from receipt of the mother’s submissions.

Madam Justice Julie Audet Released: December 24, 2018

Schedule “A” – Final Order

Parenting

Decision-making

General

[1] Except as specifically set out below, the parties shall have joint custody of their children, Thira Phanie Kaur Joachim (DOB May 14, 2012) and Enora Therese Amrit Joachim (DOB August 1, 2014).

[2] Despite the sole decision making authority given to each parent as set out below, both parties shall have a duty to consult with the non-decision making parent at all times prior to making a final decision with regards to the children’s health, education, religion, extracurricular activities and overall well-being.

[3] The party with sole decision making authority will communicate the need for a decision to be made in accordance with the communication protocol set out at paras. 4, 5, 6 and 73 below, and include all of the relevant information regarding the decision that has to be made.

[4] Except in the case of an emergency, the non-decision-making parent shall have seven (7) days to respond and provide their input, unless the decision is time sensitive. In the event that the decision is time sensitive, the decision-making parent will provide a clear deadline (including day and time) by which they need a response and the non-decision making parent will provide a response before that time, failing which the decision-making parent will make the final decision without further consultation.

[5] Except in the case of an emergency, after consulting with the non-decision-making parent, and after the seven (7) period has passed, the decision-making parent shall make the final decision.

[6] The decision-making parent will advise the other of the final decision.

[7] Where a parent has physical charge of the children (“the resident parent”), he or she will be responsible to make the day-to-day decisions about the children and the other parent will respect the resident parent’s ability to properly care for the children during their parenting time, without interference.

Religion

[8] In case of disagreement between the parties, the Applicant Father shall make final decisions with respect to issues relating to religion.

Health (Medical and Dental)

[9] In case of disagreement between the parties, the Respondent Mother shall make final decisions with respect to major (non-routine) issues relating to the children’s health (medical).

[10] In case of disagreement between the parties, the Applicant Father shall make final decisions with respect to major (non-routine) issues relating to the children’s dental health.

[11] The children shall continue to be seen by Dr. Marie-Claire Bujold as their family physician and they shall continue to receive her care, unless they agree otherwise or Dr. Bujold is no longer able or willing to provide services to the children.

[12] The children shall continue to be seen by Dr. Marcel Chbat as the children’s dentist and they shall continue to receive his and his dental hygienist’s services and care, unless they agree otherwise or Dr. Chbat is no longer able or willing to provide services to the children.

[13] With regards to routine medical exams, the Applicant Father shall schedule and attend the children’s annual medical exams with Dr. Bujold in odd-numbered years, beginning in 2019, and the Respondent Mother shall do so in even-numbered years, beginning in 2020. The other parent shall not be present at the medical exam, unless specifically authorized in writing by the scheduling parent. The scheduling parent shall provide the other parent with 15 days’ notice of a scheduled appointment, and provide feedback of the appointment within 24 hours. Should the scheduling parent be unable to attend the appointment, priority shall be given to the other parent to attend with the child(ren) before another responsible adult is designated by the scheduling parent to attend with the child(ren).

[14] With regards to routine dental exams, the Applicant Father shall schedule and attend the children’s annual dental exams with Dr. Chbat in even-numbered years, beginning in 2020, and the Respondent Mother shall do so in odd-numbered years, beginning in 2019. The other parent shall not be present at the dental exam, unless specifically authorized in writing by the scheduling parent. The scheduling parent shall provide the other parent with 15 days’ notice of a scheduled appointment, and provide feedback of the appointment within 24 hours. Should the scheduling parent be unable to attend the appointment, priority shall be given to the other parent to attend with the child(ren) before another responsible adult is designated by the scheduling parent to attend with the child(ren).

[15] In case of an unplanned sick appointment with the doctor, the resident parent shall take the child to seek appropriate medical attention. Notice of the result of the medical consultation shall be provided to the other parent within 2 hours of the end of the consultation.

[16] In case of a health (medical or dental) emergency, the resident parent at the time of the emergency shall contact the other parent as soon as possible by telephone to advise them of the emergency and at which medical facility to meet. Both parents may stay with the children as long as communication remains respectful. If the communication becomes tense or uncomfortable for either or both children, they shall alternate their time with the sick child hourly, with each parent taking care of the child for one hour at a time. If the other child is present, the parents shall alternate the care of the sick and non-sick child on an hourly basis (each having care of one child at a time). No more than one adult may accompany each parent at the medical facility and while in the presence of the other parent.

[17] Important medical prescriptions shall remain with the children at all times, regardless of whose parent paid for the medication. Medication may travel with the children in their school backpacks.

[18] The Respondent Mother shall keep the children’s OHIP cards and provide the Applicant Father within 15 days of this order with notarized copies of same, if he does not already have a copy. In case the originals are required by any health professionals, same shall be provided to the Applicant Father within 24 hours of the request, and the cards shall be returned to the Respondent Mother within 24 hours thereafter.

[19] The children shall not be engaged in counselling or therapy without both parents’ written consent. To the extent that the parents consent to therapy for either child, both should be consulted in any intake or initial intake appointments and the parents shall alternate scheduling and accompanying the child to these appointments, starting with the Applicant Father. Should the scheduling parent become unable to attend, priority shall be given to the other parent to accompany the child and, if the other parent is unable to attend, the appointment shall be re-scheduled by the scheduling parent.

Education

[20] The children will continue to attend École Élémentaire Jeanne Sauvé until completion of grade 6, subject to both parents consenting to a change of school.

[21] The children will remain enrolled in French Public School until completion of grade 12. The children’s secondary school shall be chosen in consultation with the children, and keeping in mind the children’s needs, wishes and preferences. A school no further than 15 km from each of the party’s current residence shall be selected.

[22] Each party shall obtain his or her own school calendar and school notices, and arrange for the school to communicate with them directly.

[23] The parties shall attend parent-teacher separately, unless they agree to otherwise and in writing.

[24] The parties shall request two (2) copies of report cards for the children.

[25] Once Thira completes grade 3, the parties will obtain a psycho-educational assessment (gift testing), unless her then teacher(s) recommends against it or the parents agree not to do so. This is subject to the cost of this testing being covered through the parties’ insurance, and the amount which is not covered shall be considered a section 7 expense to be shared by the parties in proportion to their incomes. The opportunity shall be provided to Enora once she completes grade 3, to the extent that the parties’ insurance covers some of the cost and unless both parents agree that she does not need such an assessment.

[26] Should parents be invited to accompany their children in a school field trip or activity, the Applicant Father shall have first right of refusal for Enora in odd-numbered years and for Thira in even-numbered years, and the Respondent Mother shall have first right of refusal for Enora in even-numbered years and for Thira in odd-numbered years.

[27] The parties may attend all school functions (such as pageants, concerts, Remembrance Day Assembly, etc.) regardless of the schedule.

Extracurricular Activities

[28] The parents shall be allowed to register the children in extracurricular activities which shall not exceed 2 hours per week, per child, unless agreed otherwise by the parties.

[29] In odd-numbered years, the Applicant Father shall be responsible for choosing Thira’s extracurricular activities and the Respondent Mother shall be responsible for choosing Enora’s extracurricular activities.

[30] In even-numbered years, the Respondent Mother shall be responsible for choosing Thira’s extracurricular activities and the Applicant Father shall be responsible for choosing Enora’s extracurricular activities.

[31] For the purpose of paras. 29 and 30 above; a. “odd-numbered years” means that the activity is taking place between September 1st to August 31st of any given year beginning in September of the odd-numbered year and ending by August 31 of an even-numbered year (for example, from September 1, 2019 to August 31, 2020); b. “even-numbered years” means that the activity is taking place between September 1st to August 31st of any given year beginning in September of the even-numbered year and ending by August 31 of an odd-numbered year (for example, from September 1, 2020 to August 31, 2021).

[32] The residential parent shall ensure that the children attend their extracurricular activities weekly, unless a child is too sick or unable to attend as a result of a special event (such as a wedding, a family gathering, a friend’s birthday party, an out of town trip or a vacation). The parent with whom the children do not reside at the time shall not attend the extracurricular activity, unless permitted to attend in writing. When a culminating event occurs (such as a competition, concert or performance intended for parents and family), both parents shall be permitted to attend without the need to obtain the residential parent’s permission.

[33] For any extracurricular activity that falls on both parents’ parenting time from week to week, the activity shall take place within the City of Ottawa, unless the other parent consents in writing, in advance.

[34] In addition to the above, the parties shall be free to register the children in the extracurricular activities of their choice, so long as such activities do not fall on the other parent’s time with the children and so long as a contribution to the cost of the activity is not sought from the other parent.

[35] The parents’ duty to consult with one another prior to making a decision and to inform each other of decisions (as set out in paras. 3, 4, 5 and 6 above) applies in the context of making decisions with regards to extracurricular activities regardless of whether the decision is made pursuant to para. 29-30 or para. 34 above.

Residential and Parenting Schedule

Primary Residence

[36] The children shall reside equally with both of their parents.

School Year

[37] During the school year, and beginning on Monday, January 7th, 2019, the parties will have physical care of the children in accordance with a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule, as follows: a. The children will always be with the Respondent Mother on Mondays and Tuesdays overnight, from end of school on Mondays until end of school on Wednesdays; b. The children will always be with the Applicant Father on Wednesdays and Thursdays overnight from end of school on Wednesdays until end of school on Fridays; c. The children will alternate weekends with each parent, from end of school on Fridays until end of school on Mondays.

[38] If the Monday is a statutory holiday (such that the school is closed), the residential parent’s weekend access with the children shall end at 5 p.m. on Monday.

[39] If the Friday or Monday is a PD Day, the children shall remain in the care of the parent scheduled to have care of them on that day until 5 p.m. If that parent is unable to care for the children during the day, he or she shall give the non-residential parent first option to care for the children before another responsible adult is asked to care for the children during that time.

[40] If any other exchange day occurs on a day when the children are not in school, the exchange time shall be 5:00 p.m. on that day as well.

[41] The parties shall not withdraw the children from the school early unless it is for a scheduled appointment or medical reasons.

[42] If a party intends on removing the children from school for a non-medical reason (such as an extended trip, travel, family event) they shall provide the other party with at least seven (7) days’ notice of their intention to do so as well as an explanation of the reason why the child will be taken out of school.

[43] If a party is unable to care for the children on his or her parenting time for more than one overnight, right of first refusal shall be given to the other parent to care for the children before any other responsible adult is asked to care for them. No make-up access needs to be provided when the residential parent is unable to care for the children and offers the other parent to care for them in his\her place.

Summer Time

[44] Commencing the Friday (at 5 p.m.) following the children’s last day of school in June (or on the Friday of the last day of school falls on a Friday), the children shall split their time evenly between the parties according to a week about schedule. The first week of parenting time shall beginning with the parent who is scheduled to have the children on the weekend immediately following the children’s last day of school, from Friday at 5 p.m. to Friday next at 5 p.m., and alternatively on a week about schedule until the Friday (5 p.m.) immediately preceding the children’s first day of school in August/September.

[45] The exchanges shall occur Friday at 5:00 p.m. during the summer time.

Holiday Schedule

[46] In addition to the regular parenting schedule above, the parties shall share the following holidays. In the event of a conflict, the holiday schedule overrides the regular parenting schedule.

Children’s Birthday

[47] The non-resident parent shall be permitted to speak to the child by telephone on the child’s birthday for a minimum of 15 minutes to allow the non-resident parent to wish happy birthday to the child.

Mother’s Day

[48] If the children are not otherwise in their mother’s care on Mother’s Day Weekend, they shall be brought to their mother’s care on Mother’s Day at 10 a.m. and they shall remain in her care until the next day at the beginning of school.

Father’s Day

[49] If the children are not otherwise in their father’s care on Father’s Day Weekend, they shall be brought to their father’s care on Father’s Day at 10 a.m. and they shall remain in his care until the next day at the beginning of school.

Easter Weekend

[50] The Easter Weekend will commence on Thursday after school and end on Monday at 5:00 p.m.

[51] The children shall split their time evenly between the parties, with the exchange occurring on Saturday at 5:00 p.m.

[52] In odd-numbered years, the Applicant Father shall have the children from Thursday after school until Saturday at 5 p.m. and the Respondent Mother shall have them from Saturday at 5 p.m. until Monday at 5 p.m. In even-numbered years, the Applicant Father shall have the children for the second half of the weekend and the Respondent Mother shall have them for the first half of the weekend.

March Break

[53] The children shall split the March break (from Friday after school to the Monday next at school) evenly between the parties, with the exchange occurring on the Wednesday at 5 p.m. The parent with whom the children are scheduled to be on the weekend following the end of school will keep the children in his/her care until Wednesday at 5 p.m. and the parent who is scheduled to have the children on the weekend immediately preceding the return to school will have the children for the second half of March Break, beginning on the Wednesday at 5 p.m.

[54] If one party intends on travelling outside of Canada during the March Break for more than their half week, they will discuss the details of the proposed trip with the other parent and obtain their consent to travel with the children. Consent will not be unreasonably withheld. The non-travelling parent shall have first right of refusal to spend the whole week with the children during the next year’s March Break, regardless of whether or not the parent intends to travel.

[55] There will be no make-up time for a parent who chooses to travel without the children during March Break.

Christmas Break

[56] The parties shall split the Christmas Break evenly with the children, subject to the following specifications. The Christmas Break begins at 5 p.m. on the last day of school in December (usually a Friday) and ends at 8 a.m. on the first day of school in January (usually a Monday).

[57] In the event that the parties are unable to agree on a Christmas Break schedule by November 30th of each year, which agreement is to be confirmed in writing, the following schedule shall apply.

[58] In odd-numbered years, beginning in December 2018, the children will spend the first half of the Christmas Break with the Respondent Mother and the second half with the Applicant Father. The first half ends at 5 p.m. on the day which is half way through the Christmas Break, at which time the second half begins.

Christmas Eve and Day

[59] Despite para. 58 above, the Applicant Father shall have the children on Christmas Eve from noon until 1:00 a.m. on December 25th, and the Respondent Mother shall have the children on Christmas Day commencing at 1:00 a.m. until 5 p.m.

[60] For the Christmas Day exchange, the Respondent Mother shall pick up the children from the Applicant Father’s home.

New Year’s Eve and Day

[61] Despite para. 58 above, in even-numbered years, beginning on December 31, 2018, the Applicant Father shall have the children for New Year’s Eve from 10:00 a.m. on New Year’s Eve until 10:00 a.m. on New Year’s Day. The Respondent Mother shall have the children commencing at 10:00 a.m. on New Year’s Day until 10 a.m. on January 2.

[62] In odd-numbered years, the Respondent Mother shall have the children for New Year’s Eve and the Applicant Father shall have the children on New Year’s Day (as per schedule above).

[63] The parent who begins his or her parenting time with the children is responsible to pick the children up at the other parent’s residence.

Pre-Planned Events

[64] The Respondent Mother is pregnant and her estimated due date is June 7, 2019. The Respondent Mother will call the Applicant Father when she is going into labour. The Applicant Father shall immediately return the children to the Respondent Mother’s home to be home for the home birth. If the children are scheduled to return to the Applicant Father’s care according to the regular parenting schedule, they shall return to his care the following day.

[65] The Respondent Mother has purchased tickets to attend Disney on Ice with the children in 2019. If the children are scheduled to be in their father’s care that day, he shall allow the children to be picked up by the Respondent Mother two hours before the beginning of the show. The Respondent Mother shall return the children to the Applicant’s care immediately after the show.

[66] The Applicant Father has planned a family trip with the children to Haiti this year during the Christmas Holidays (2018). Given the ongoing safety concerns for foreign residents travelling to Haiti, as set out on the Canadian Government’s website (Avoid Non-Essential Travel), the Applicant Father is not permitted to travel to Haiti with the children at this time.

All Other Holidays

[67] The children shall reside with the parties in accordance with the regular or summer schedule for all other holidays.

Exchanges of the Children

[68] When the children cannot be exchanged at school, the parent starting his or her access time with the children shall be responsible for picking up the children at the other parent’s residence. That parent shall remain by his or her car, in the driveway.

[69] Neither parent shall ever record (by video or audio) any of their interactions with each other while in the presence of the children. Neither parent shall permit any other adult accompanying them to do so. Communication during exchanges shall be minimal and quick.

Communication

[70] Neither parent shall involve the children in discussions or an adult nature, including court proceedings.

[71] Neither parent shall make any disparaging remarks to the children about the other parent or their families.

[72] The parties shall use My Family Wizard to communicate and manage any issues relating to the children, except in the case of an emergency. The parties shall both register for this online tool within 7 days of this order. This tool shall be used to communicate, discuss parenting matters, plan activities for the children, notify the other parent of non-emergency matters relating to the children, exchange receipts for section 7 expenses, perform an accounting of monies paid or owed on account of section 7 expenses, and for all other non-emergency matters relating to the children. These communications shall not contain personal commentary, judgment, patronizing, lecturing or criticisms of the other parent, and shall be brief, informative and respectful.

[73] The parties shall provide each other with their address and contact information (including an active email address that the parents shall verify at least once per day), and the telephone number(s) at which each party can be reached during work hours and after work hours) within 7 days from this order. Thereafter, they will keep each other updated as to any change in their contact information within 2 days of the change occurring.

[74] The children shall be free to telephone, text or email the non-residential parent whenever they wish, without undue interference from the residential parent. The non-residential parent shall be free to call the children between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays and the residential parent shall facilitate such call unless he\she and the children are not at home at that time.

Children’s Documents

[75] The children’s identification, birth certificates and other original official documents (with the exception of the passports) shall remain in the care of the Respondent Mother and be provided to the Applicant Father when needed, and within 24 hours of a request being made. The Applicant Father shall not be required to provide a reason for requesting the documents. The Applicant Father shall return the official documents to the Respondent Mother within 24 hours of receipt.

[76] In odd-numbered years, beginning in 2019, the children’s passports shall be held by the Applicant Father and in even-numbered years, they shall be held by the Respondent Mother. The children’s passports shall be provided to the other parent 15 days prior to a scheduled date of travel, and be returned to the holding parent within 4 days of the parent’s return.

Mobility

[77] The children’s primary residence shall remain in the City of Ottawa.

[78] Neither party will not move the children’s residence from the City of Ottawa without first providing 90 days’ written notice and obtaining the other parent’s written consent or a court order.

Travel

[79] Either party may travel with the children, subject to the following conditions/restrictions.

[80] If the party is travelling with the children within Canada, no consent shall be required from the other party, unless the travel will interfere with the other party’s scheduled parenting time. Where the travel will interfere with the other party’s scheduled parenting time, and consent is therefore required, such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

[81] If a trip interferes with a parent’s parenting time, make up time will be provided.

[82] Any time either party is travelling outside of the Ottawa Valley with the children (within Canada), they shall provide to the other party, prior to travel, with confirmation of where the children will be travelling and a telephone number where the traveling parent may be reached in case of emergency.

[83] The parties are authorized to travel internationally with the children without the other parent’s consent, so long as all the following conditions are met: a. The country in which the parent intends to travel is signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; b. The risk level pursuant to the Travel Advice and Advisories of the Government of Canada (www.travel.gc.ca) in the country that the parent intends to travel is at the time of booking and continues to be until the date of departure “Exercise normal security precautions”; c. 30 days’ written notice of the scheduled trip with the children, including the following information has been provided to the other parent: i. Detailed itinerary; ii. Flight number(s) and hours of departure\arrival, if any; iii. Address(es) where the children will be staying while abroad; iv. Telephone number where the traveling parent and children may be reached on a daily basis; d. The proposed travel does not affect the non-travelling parents’ scheduled time with the children.

[84] In the event that a parent’s proposed international travel does not meet any one of the above conditions, written consent shall be obtained from the non-travelling parent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and consent shall be provided promptly, no later than 7 days after having been requested. Subject to the parenting coordinator’s or the motion judge’s discretion, costs on a full recovery basis shall be awarded to a parent who unreasonably fails to comply with this provision or with his\her obligation to provide the children’s passports for the purpose of travel.

Child Support

Arrears

[85] The Respondent Mother’s entitlement to child support arrears (including contribution to past s. 7 expenses and daycare expenses) is set-off against the Applicant Father’s entitlement to time-limited spousal support, resulting in there being no child support arrears owing by the Applicant Father to the Respondent Mother for the period of May 1, 2016 to and including December 31, 2018 (subject to ongoing child support in the amount of $874 having been paid by the Applicant Father for the month of December 2018 as per existing temporary order).

Ongoing Child Support

[86] Based on the Applicant Father’s 2017 income of $61,283 and the Respondent Mother’s 2017 income of $88,472, and in light of the equal time sharing parenting schedule set out in this order, beginning on January 1, 2019 and every month thereafter until further varied: a. The Respondent Mother shall pay to the Applicant Father child support in the amount of $1,332 per month for the two children; b. The Applicant Father shall pay to the Respondent Mother child support in the amount of $934 per month for the two children; c. Resulting in a set-off amount of $398 per month payable by the Respondent Mother to the Applicant Father (only the set-off amount of $398 payable by the Respondent Mother to the Applicant Father shall be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office).

[87] Beginning on January 1, 2019, the parties shall share all benefits and credits available to them for the children in accordance with Canada Revenue Agency’s policies for parents sharing custody of their children.

Children’s Activities and Contributions to Expenses

[88] The parties shall share in proportion to their income all of the children’s special and extraordinary expenses. At the time of this order, the Applicant Father’s share is set at 40% and the Respondent Mother’s share is set at 60%.

[89] In light of the equal time sharing schedule in place, the parties’ respective child support obligations and in addition to the expenses listed in section 7 of the Guidelines, the following expenses shall be considered special and extraordinary expenses which shall be shared in proportion to the parties’ income: a. Back-to-school supplies (backpacks, school shoes, pens, paper, etc.); b. School activities and events including mandatory fund raising events; c. Extracurricular activities (regardless of whether they are considered “extraordinary”, and except if incurred in accordance with para. 34); d. Any clothing or equipment needed for extracurricular activities (which shall travel with the children at exchanges when needed); e. Passport renewals; f. Winter clothing and footwear; g. Regular footwear; h. Items which will travel from one home to the other (such as skates, bicycles) and which the parties have agreed to purchase together.

[90] The parties shall consult one another prior to purchasing any of the above items, and discuss whether the item is necessary and what the budgeted cost should be. The parties shall use My Family Wizard to record expenses incurred by each of them and a reconciliation of expenses shall occur monthly, and any payment owing by one parent to the other shall be paid on or before the 5th of each month.

[91] Each party shall ensure that the children are provided with day-to-day clothing in their respective homes. The clothing in which the children arrive at a parent’s home on an exchange day shall be washed and returned to the other parent at the next exchange.

Child Care Expenses

[92] Commencing January 1, 2019 if the children’s daycare expenses exceed $250.00 per child per month, the parties shall share this expense in proportion to their incomes.

[93] The parties shall agree on the daycare provider in the event that both of them are contributing to the expense.

[94] In the event that the children’s daycare expenses are less than $250.00 per child per month, the parties shall solely bear their own child care expenses.

Medical and Dental expenses

[95] Both parties shall maintain their medical, extended dental and health care plan offered through their employment and name the children as beneficiaries of this coverage.

[96] Within 30 days of this order, the parties will provide the details of his insurance policy to the other parent.

[97] If permitted, the parties will ensure that the other parent is included as a “direct payee” with his\her insurance for the children.

[98] The parties will manage the reconciliation of medical and dental expenses through My Family Wizard and in the same manner as the children’s special and extraordinary expenses.

Review of Child Support

[99] The parties shall review the amount of child support payable by them by May 31st of each year, beginning on May 31, 2019. Child support payable as of June 1st of each year shall be based on the income earned by the parties the previous year (as a guideline), and shall be adjusted yearly (and retroactively) to ensure that the level of support paid by the parties in any given year was commensurate with the level of support that each parent should have paid based on the actual income earned by them during that year.

[100] On or before May 15th of each year, commencing in 2019, the parties shall exchange copies of their previous years’ T4, income tax return, together with all schedules, attachments and splits, and any Notice of Assessment or Reassessment provided by the Canada Revenue Agency. The retroactive review of child support paid/received for the previous year shall occur before June 1st of each year.

[101] In addition to the annual review, either party may seek a change in the child support amount if there is a material change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either party or the children that would affect the amount of child support payable by at least $300 per month.

[102] A material change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of the parents or children may be foreseen or unforeseen, foreseeable or unforeseeable, and may include: a. A material change in either party’s financial position; b. A change causing undue hardship for either party or the children; c. A change in the child’s special or extraordinary expenses; d. A change in the children’s residence that affects the amount of child support under the Guidelines; or e. A change in the child’s need for support.

Life Insurance & Security for Support

[103] Each party shall maintain a life insurance on his/her respective life in order to secure their obligation to support both children. Both parties are employed as teachers on a full-time, permanent basis and have access to life insurance through their group benefits.

[104] The Applicant Father shall irrevocably name the Respondent Mother as the beneficiary of any life insurance policy available through his employment (or an equivalent life insurance policy if the father so chooses) up to a maximum of $200,000, in trust for the children and as security for the payment of child support in the event of his death.

[105] The Respondent Mother shall irrevocably name the Applicant Father as the beneficiary of any life insurance policy available through her employment (or an equivalent life insurance policy if she so chooses) up to a maximum of $300,000, in trust for the children and as security for the payment of child support in the case of her death.

[106] Within thirty (30) days of this Court Order, each parent shall provide the other with a copy of their respective policy and the irrevocable beneficiary designation.

[107] Once per calendar year, a parent can request from the other parent proof of the policy and the irrevocable designation.

[108] When either party is no longer required to financially support the children, each party’s obligation to maintain the policy and to maintain the other as irrevocable beneficiary of the police ends and they shall sign consents to be removed as irrevocable beneficiaries as soon as possible thereafter.

[109] If the policy or the full amount of the policy is not in force on each party’s death, there shall be a lien and first charge against his/her estate for the full amount of the policy proceeds and all of beneficiary's rights and remedies against the other party’s estate are preserved.

Parenting Coordination

[110] On consent of the parties, they shall retain a Parenting Coordinator on the following terms: a. The Parenting Coordinator will be chosen jointly by the parties. The Applicant Father shall provide the Respondent Mother with the names and contact information of three potential Parenting Coordinators on or before January 31st, 2019, after having confirmed with them their availability and willingness to provide services to this family; b. The Respondent Mother shall confirm to the Applicant Father on or before February 15th, 2019 of her choice of Parenting Coordinator; c. The Parenting Coordination Agreement shall be signed by the parties on or before March 1, 2019; d. The parties shall share equally the costs of the Parenting Coordinator, and the Parenting Coordinator Agreement shall include a provision empowering the Parenting Coordinator to award costs against a party if appropriate; e. The Parenting Coordination Agreement shall be for a duration of not less than 18 months.

Spousal Support

[111] The Applicant Father’s entitlement to time-limited spousal support is set-off against the Respondent Mother’s entitlement to child support arrears (including contribution to past s. 7 expenses and daycare expenses), resulting in there being no spousal support arrears owing by the Respondent Mother to the Applicant Father for the period of May 1, 2016 to and including December 31, 2018.

[112] There shall be no spousal support payable by either party to the other from this date forward.

Matrimonial Home

[113] On consent of the Applicant Father’s Trustee in Bankruptcy, I hereby order and direct the Land Titles Office for Ottawa Carleton No. 4 to amend the ownership of the property municipally known as 2020 Sunland Avenue, Orleans, Ottawa and legally described as PCL 9-1, SEC 50M-201; LT 9, PL 50M-201; Cumberland; being PIN 14523-0223 (LT) to delete EDSON JOACHIM as a registered owner and to show NASTASSJA PARVEEN KAUR JOACHIM as the sole registered owner.

[114] Within 60 days of the Court Order, the Respondent Mother shall obtain a release of the Applicant Father’s mortgage obligations on the existing mortgage. If the Respondent Mother cannot obtain the Applicant Father’s release, she shall refinance the home and discharge the existing mortgage. The Respondent Mother will provide proof to the Applicant Father of having done so within six (6) months.

[115] There shall be no money owing by either party to the other for post-separation contributions to the matrimonial home.

Equalization

[116] There shall be no equalization of the parties’ net family property.

[117] Any dispute arising from the implementation of this order may be brought to my attention.

[118] Upon receipt of all necessary documents (marriage certificate, affidavit of divorce and draft order) which may be brought directly to my attention, a divorce shall issue.

Released: December 24, 2018 Madam Justice Julie Audet