ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Melissa Jane Mullen
Applicant
– and –
Blair Alexander Wayne Campeau
Respondent
Self-represented
Annemarie Roodal, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: May 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28, 2019
AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The text of the original judgment was amended on August 27, 2019 and the description of the amendment is appended
Justice Engelking
1This is a case about Ryder Michael Wayne Campeau, born on the 14th day of October, 2015, and what order regarding custody and parenting time is in his best interests. Ryder’s parents are Melissa Mullen and Blair Campeau.
2Ms. Mullen brought an Application in April of 2016 seeking an order of sole custody of Ryder, as well as the ability to obtain a passport and travel with him outside of Canada without the consent of Mr. Campeau. In her Application, Ms. Mullen also seeks annual financial disclosure from Mr. Campeau, retroactive and ongoing child support for Ryder, including retroactive and ongoing s. 7 expenses, and for Mr. Campeau to maintain life insurance to secure his child support obligations.
3Mr. Campeau filed an Answer in June of 2016 in which he agreed to pay Federal Child Support Guidelines table support and s. 7 expenses proportionate to his income, and sought an order of joint custody and access to Ryder, though he did not specify the frequency/type.
4Ms. Mullen later amended her Application pursuant to an Order of Justice Ryan Bell dated February 21, 2019. She now seeks orders of sole custody to her, consultation on major decisions with final decision making resting with her, access to Mr. Campeau every second weekend, one week in the summer, alternating times at Christmas, as well as the financial and passport/travel relief claimed in her original application.
5Mr. Campeau amended his Answer in accordance to the Order of Justice Ryan Bell and is now seeking joint custody of Ryder with a requirement to consult on major decisions and final decision making authority resting with Ms. Mullen on health and with him on education, extra-curricular activities, and child care and after school services. He also seeks direct access to information and service providers, and for Ryder to be placed in a school mid-way between the parents’ respective residences. Mr. Campeau seeks to increase his parenting time with Ryder on a gradual basis to result in a week on/week off schedule, and to share holidays. He additionally seeks no order as to ongoing child support and an order rescinding all current child support arrears.
Background Facts
6The parties were involved in an on again/off again relationship between late 2011 and ending on December 5, 2015.
7Ryder was born on October 14, 2015.
8Ryder has been in the fulltime, primary care of Ms. Mullen since date of separation.
9From shortly after separation to the present, Mr. Campeau has lived in Gatineau, Quebec, though he indicates that he will shortly be moving to the home of his mother in Nepean, Ontario.
10From separation to the present, Ms. Mullen has lived in Woodlawn, Ontario in the home of her parents, Darlene and Michael Mullen, though, depending the outcome of this proceeding, she hopes to be able to move with Ryder to Arnprior, Ontario.
11Mr. Campeau had minimal supervised access (by Melissa, her parents or her friends) from separation until a May 18, 2018 temporary Order of Justice Phillips, which provided that he have unsupervised access to Ryder from every second Friday to Sunday, extended to Tuesday morning on a long weekend. Mr. Campeau also had one uninterrupted week of access with Ryder in August of 2018, and extended access at Christmas of 2018 from December 21 to the morning of December 25.
Issues
12There are essentially five issues in the case as follows:
Is an order of sole custody or joint custody in Ryder’s best interests?
What amount of parenting time for Mr. Campeau is in Ryder’s best interests?
What amount of retroactive and on-going child support, if any, should be payable by Mr. Campeau to Ms. Mullen?
What amount of retroactive and on-going s. 7 expenses, if any, should be payable by Mr. Campeau to Ms. Mullen?
Should Ms. Mullen be permitted to relocate with Ryder to Arnprior, Ontario?
13For the reasons that follow, I find that there should be an order of joint custody of Ryder with a requirement by the parties to consult and agree on major decisions. Ryder shall remain in the primary care of Ms. Mullen, but Mr. Campeau shall have specified increased parenting time with him. Mr. Campeau shall be required to pay retroactive child support as set out below, as well as proportionate s. 7 expenses for 2016 and 2017, however enforcement of that support shall be suspended pending the completion of his education. Mr. Campeau will also be required to secure his support obligation with life insurance at such time as he becomes employed. Finally, Mullen shall not be permitted to move to Arnprior, Ontario without the consent of Mr. Campeau or further order of the court.
Issue #1 – What kind of custody order is in Ryder’s Best Interests?
14Ms. Mullen and Mr. Campeau met on November 16, 2011 through the dating site “Plenty of Fish”. The relationship progressed quickly and they decided to move in to an apartment in Gatineau together in January of 2012 to be situated close to Mr. Campeau’s daughter from a previous relationship, Rebecca. Ms. Mullen described the relationship as controlling and abusive, with many breaks. Mr. Campeau denied that he was abusive to Ms. Mullen, but agreed that the relationship was volatile and fraught with arguments. He admitted to leaving many times for several days at a time, during which he would stay with his mother, Donna Blair, in Ottawa. Ms. Blair confirmed in her testimony that over the course of the relationship, Mr. Campeau would show up at her home and stay for several days before reconciling with Ms. Mullen.
15Ms. Mullen described several incidents, which usually involved alcohol, during which Mr. Campeau was violent or aggressive. The first was in March of 2012, when she said that they got into an argument over Mr. Campeau’s drinking and he ended up breaking a mirror which had belonged to her grandfather. She indicated that she did not call the police on this occasion as she was afraid to do so.
16The second incident which Ms. Mullen described as disturbing was in September of 2012 when the couple and Rebecca joined Ms. Mullen’s parents for a camping weekend. According to Ms. Mullen, Rebecca accidently knocked over a beer that Mr. Campeau had set on a dock, and he yelled at the child from approximately 10 metres away and called her “you little bitch”. Later that night, Ms. Mullen and Mr. Campeau got into a fight during which Mr. Campeau broke their new tent. According to her, and to Mr. and Mrs. Mullen, she and Rebecca went to the Mullens’ trailer because they were both afraid. Darlene Mullen testified that Ms. Mullen and Rebecca came to their trailer crying and saying that Mr. Campeau broke the tent. She also stated that, in regards to the beer incident, she heard Mr. Campeau loudly say to Rebecca: “are you fucking stupid?”. Michael Mullen described this incident as Mr. Campeau “blowing a gasket” and destroying the campsite, though he did not actually witness him do so. He also indicated that Mr. Campeau screamed at Rebecca and called her names when she spilled his beer. Ms. Mullen indicated that she and Rebecca slept in her car that night and Mr. Campeau slept in the broken tent. They left the next day, and broke up a few weeks later for approximately five weeks.
17The couple reconciled shortly before Christmas of 2012, at which time Ms. Mullen invited Mr. Campeau to spend Christmas at her parents’ home. Darlene Mullen testified that she got into a confrontation with Mr. Campeau on that occasion as Mr. Campeau was up all night drinking and would not go to bed. Mrs. Mullen indicated that she told Mr. Campeau that she would take all the booze away and he told her that he would just go to his car and get more, or go home and take Ms. Mullen with him. Mrs. Mullen indicated that she stood up to Mr. Campeau, essentially became more, or as, aggressive towards him as he had been with her, and he eventually backed down and went to bed. Ms. Mullen testified that her mother asked her never to bring Mr. Campeau back. She indicated that she and Mr. Campeau went home and got into an argument about what had transpired, and that the wall of their apartment at 35 Lafreniere in Gatineau, was damaged as a result.
18Ms. Mullen also recalled an incident on September 6, 2013, when Mr. Campeau called her from their apartment saying something was wrong and that he needed to leave immediately. She left her work to go and pick him up and upon her arrival, Mr. Campeau was screaming and had blood on his hands. Ms. Mullen was told by the concierge of the building that Mr. Campeau “got into a tussle” and the police were looking for him. Ms. Mullen testified that “at that point, Blair said they were done”, and she left the apartment in Gatineau (after paying for the damage to it) and moved to her parents’ home.
19Although he was not specific about the date, Ms. Mullen’s friend of 17 years, William Rossiter, also testified about a time when he was called late in the evening by Ms. Mullen to attend the Gatineau apartment, which he did. He recalled the apartment being dishevelled and the TV being broken. He testified that Ms. Mullen was scared and asked him to stay, which he also did. Mr. Campeau, who was not present upon his arrival, then returned to the building and scaled the balcony to enter the apartment. The police were called and Mr. Campeau was told to leave. Mr. Rossiter also testified about another time that he and Mr. Mullen went to Mr. Campeau’s to retrieve some of Ms. Mullen’s belongings. The police were also called on this occasion, but it was by Mr. Campeau. Mr. Rossiter did witness Mr. Campeau with Ryder on two occasions, once at the elder Mullen’s home at Christmas and once at a Santa Claus parade, and did not see any concerning behaviour from Mr. Campeau on those two occasions.
20Ms. Mullen then described an incident on September 2, 2014, where she picked up Mr. Campeau from Ferry Road after receiving a call from him and drove him to his mother’s home in Nepean. (Ms. Mullen was unclear as to what transpired with the couple between September of 2013 and September of 2014). Ms. Mullen described Mr. Campeau as intoxicated and indicated that he fell asleep in the car during the drive. Upon arrival, when she tried to wake Mr. Campeau, he hit her in the face. Later, when she got him out of the car and tried to give Mr. Campeau his duffle bag and keys, he again hit her in the face and she hit her head on the stucco wall of the house. Ms. Mullen left Mr. Campeau there and returned home. The next day, Ms. Mullen’s mother took her to the emergency room in Arnprior, where she was diagnosed with a concussion. Ms. Mullen indicated that she stopped seeing Mr. Campeau after that as she was afraid of him.
21Ms. Mullen then indicated that she and her friend Kelsey Boyd decided to rent an apartment together, which they did at 1335 Meadowlands Drive. Ms. Mullen indicated that she got intoxicated on one occasion and reconciled with Mr. Campeau, as a result of which she became pregnant. Ms. Mullen indicated that as she had had cervical cancer at 16, she did not know that she could conceive a child. She wanted to have the child as she thought it might be her only chance. In or around March of 2015, Mr. Campeau moved into the Meadowlands apartment. Ms. Mullen’s testimony was that he just showed up one day while Ms. Boyd’s partner was leaving and moved in. She indicated that she had no knowledge of him doing so until Ms. Boyd phoned her to say it was happening.
22The relationship did not go well, as Ms. Mullen and Mr. Campeau argued a lot. Ryder was born on October 14, 2015. Mr. Campeau was present at the hospital for the birth, as was Ms. Mullen’s mother and sister. Ms. Mullen and Mr. Campeau returned to the Meadowlands apartment after Ryder was released from the hospital, however they separated on December 5, 2015. Ms. Mullen said that when she left the apartment and moved to her parents’ home, Mr. Campeau was still there. Mr. Campeau testified that he left the apartment and went to his mother’s home. In any event, the relationship was over for good at this point.
23Although the police, in both Gatineau and Ottawa, were called from time to time regarding domestic disputes between Ms. Mullen and Mr. Campeau, Mr. Campeau was never charged with any criminal offences as a result of their attendances. Ms. Mullen filed a complaint with the Ottawa Polices Services in May of 2018, in which she outlined a number of historic incidents (as described above) as well as what she experienced as more recent or current threats.
24In or about January of 2016, Mr. Campeau moved back into an apartment in Gatineau. After separation, Ms. Mullen permitted Mr. Campeau to have only limited and supervised access to Ryder. At the beginning, Ms. Mullen would bring Ryder to Mr. Campeau’s apartment for short visits which would be supervised by her. These visits lasted about an hour to an hour and a half and were once or twice per week. Mr. Campeau indicated that this continued until he informed Ms. Mullen that he had a girlfriend, after which Ms. Mullen stopped bringing Ryder to visit. Mr. Campeau testified that he tried to communicate with Ms. Mullen, but she was not receptive, and as a consequence, he did not see Ryder for two or three months. Finally, Ms. Mullen agreed to a visit in the play area at Bayshore Mall for one or two visits, again supervised by her, which he thought were amazing, having not seen Ryder for some time.
25After these few visits, Ms. Mullen stated that Mr. Campeau could see Ryder at her parents’ home in Woodlawn, supervised by her and/or one or both of her parents. Mr. Campeau testified that he went to four or five of these visits, but he did not wish to continue as the atmosphere was uncomfortable and very tense. Mr. Campeau testified that Ms. Mullen would constantly try and bring up past events from their relationship, and he only wished to visit with Ryder.
26The parties attended a Case Conference before Master Champagne (as she then was) on June 22, 2016, at which time it was agreed that Mr. Campeau would have four supervised visits, followed by two unsupervised visits at Funhaven, a play facility in Ottawa, for two hours at a time. Ms. Mullen supervised the four visits, and remained very close by for the other two. Mr. Campeau felt that she continued to supervise the latter two, and indicated that he did not know why his visit had to be supervised at all. Mr. Campeau testified that after the six court ordered visits at Funhaven, Ms. Mullen again said to him that if he wanted to see Ryder, he would need to come to her parents’ home. Mr. Campeau was not agreeable to this and the parties participated in a mediation which resulted in an agreement that access would take place at the Richcraft Recreation Complex (hereinafter referred to as “Richcraft”) in Kanata.
27Pursuant to a temporary Order of Justice Phillips dated April 20, 2017, regularly scheduled access for four hours on one day during three weekends out of four then began at Richcraft, again under the supervision of Ms. Mullen. Mr. Campeau testified that he would take Ryder swimming in the morning, and then spend time playing and doing other activities with him in and outside of the centre for the remainder of the visits. Mr. Campeau indicated that Ms. Mullen was always watching them, and on one or two occasions even came into the pool when he and Ryder were swimming. Mr. Campeau felt this to be confusing to Ryder. These visits continued without issue to December of 2017.
28On January 7 and January 14, 2018, Mr. Campeau attended Richcraft to see Ryder, and it was his evidence that although he arrived early and waited for a significant period of time, Ms. Mullen did not show up with Ryder. On January 7, 2018, Mr. Campeau was accompanied by his girlfriend Allison Lamoureux, Rebecca and his mother. On January 14, 2018, he was accompanied by Ms. Lamoureux. Mr. Campeau testified that he tried to call Ms. Mullen on the phone, sent her texts and an email, none to which she responded. A Statement of Agreed Facts was additionally filed with the Trial Record which confirms that Mr. Campeau was seen on video surveillance at the main entrance of Richcraft on both dates, and that Ms. Mullen was not seen on the video of either date.
29Ms. Mullen testified that she attended Richcraft with Ryder on those dates and Mr. Campeau was nowhere to be found. She stated she looked for him and left the centre when she could not find him. On January 15, 2018, Ms. Mullen sent an email to Mr. Campeau in which she indicated the following:
Sunday January 7th and 14th I have been at the Richcraft center from 9:30am -12:30pm with Ryder. I had schedule (sic) Ryder swimming lessons that morning so we would be in town for the vists (sic) with you. For last two weekends you had texted me saying you were there, but you were no where to be found. My father was outside parked and never saw you. Ryder and I never saw you either.
I will not be sticking around next Sunday for your visit.
30It is, frankly, hard to find Ms. Mullen’s testimony credible in relation to these missed visits. First, the Statement of Agreed Facts dated May 18, 2018, documents Mr. Campeau arriving at the Richcraft centre on January 7, 2018 at 11:51 am and leaving at 2:39 pm. In between those times, Mr. Campeau is seen to wait at the front entrance and walk in and out of the front door several times, and to wait in the main area for much of the time. On January 7, 2018, Ms. Mullen does not appear on the exterior and interior video surveillance of the front entrance between 11:30 am and 3:00 pm. Second, on January 14, Mr. Campeau is documented to arrive at 11:51 am and leave at 12:48 pm with much the same pattern of going in and out of the front door, presumably looking for Ms. Mullen and Ryder. On January 14, 2018, Ms. Mullen does not appear on the exterior and interior video surveillance of the front entrance between 11:30 am and 3:00 pm. Finally, Ms. Mullen provided no explanation as to why she did not respond to any of Mr. Campeau’s communications sent on those dates while waiting for Ryder. It defies logic that she was, as she stated, at the premises and looking for Mr. Campeau. Under the circumstances, and based on the video surveillance, Mr. Campeau’s version, which was also supported Ms. Lamoureux and Ms. Blair, is much more believable.
31Mr. Campeau’s visits with Ryder did, nevertheless, continue at the Richcraft Centre until Mr. Campeau successfully brought a motion in May of 2018 to expand his access and lift any requirement for supervision. In between, Mr. Campeau had one visit where he was permitted by Ms. Mullen, after some difficulty, to take Ryder out of Richcraft. Mr. Campeau indicated, as did Ms. Lamoureux, that they took Ryder to the Bayshore shopping centre on the bus, and that they had a great time. Mr. Campeau said that he was finally “free”. He indicated, however, that Ms. Mullen did not like her loss of control over the visits, and thereafter, between February and May, the visits were cut back to end at 4:00 pm and had to remain at Richcraft. He, therefore, ultimately brought his motion to request more time with Ryder. On May 18, 2018, Justice Phillips granted a temporary Order which increased access on a graduated basis, which by July 6 was to be unsupervised every second weekend from Friday at 6:00 pm to Sunday at 6:30 pm. The temporary order also included one week of access in August and extended access over Christmas.
32Mr. Campeau’s first visit pursuant to this order was to be on Friday May 25, 2018 until Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 2:00 pm. Mr. Campeau testified that shortly after he got Ryder to his home in Gatineau following the access exchange at the Richcraft Centre, a City of Gatineau Police Officer showed up at his home to do a “child well check” on Ryder. Officer Janvier Gagnon Ouellet, who also testified, advised Mr. Campeau that the service had received a request from the Ottawa Police Service (“OPS”) to check on the well-being of a child following a change in custody. Officer Gagnon Ouellet testified that he and his partner had received a report that Ms. Mullen had called the OPS to report that Mr. Campeau had hit Ryder. Officer Gagnon Ouellet asked to see Ryder, whom he indicated had no mark on his face, and was playing and having fun. Officer Gagnon Ouellet confirmed in his testimony that he had no concerns at all about the care Ryder was receiving. After speaking to and observing Ryder, speaking to Mr. Campeau and Ms. Lamoureux, and checking to ensure that Mr. Campeau had no conditions imposed upon him or warrants out for him, the police left.
33Ms. Mullen, in her cross-examination of Officer Gagnon Ouellet, attempted to suggest to him that it could have been someone other than her that made the report to the OPS that Mr. Campeau had hit Ryder. While the Officer agreed that he did not receive the initial report, and therefore could not say that it was Ms. Mullen who lodged the complaint, he confirmed that the information that the Gatineau Police received from the Ottawa Police was that the complainant was Ms. Mullen. Again, based on the Officer’s testimony, Ms. Mullen’s assertion that it could have been someone other than her that laid the complaint, is completely lacking in credibility. It actually makes no sense, as it would not be in anyone else’s interests, and certainly not in Ryder’s, to have police intervene in Mr. Campeau’s access.
34Thereafter, visits did move to full weekends on alternating weeks, and Mr. Campeau did have one full week with Ryder in August. Access every second weekend has continued to date, and Mr. Campeau had his share of his first Christmas with Ryder in 2018.
35In his testimony, Mr. Campeau denied ever being violent with Ms. Mullen. He denied breaking her grandfather’s mirror. He denied ever hitting her in the face or knocking her into a stucco wall. Mr. Campeau denied yelling at Rebecca or calling her names during the camping trip. Mr. Campeau denied threatening Ms. Mullen during access exchanges. He also denied ever being intoxicated in a care giving role to either Rebecca or Ryder.
36Mr. Campeau testified that he did not recall ever being drunk around Ryder. He testified further that he has not had a drink in nearly two years, and his current partner, Ms. Lamoureux also testified that Mr. Campeau does not drink. She indicated that she had never seen him intoxicated, let alone while in a care giving role. Ms. Blair also indicated that she has never seen Mr. Campeau consume alcohol while in a care giving role, to either Rebecca or Ryder.
37The evidence with respect to Mr. Campeau’s care of Ryder currently, which is uncontroverted, is that he is a loving and attentive father who actively engages with him on his level. He plays with Ryder and spurs on Ryder’s very active imagination. He nurtures and comforts Ryder appropriately, and wants the very best for his son.
38Additionally, Mr. Campeau has attended all of Ryder’s medical appointments but for one or two, and has shown an interest is receiving Ryder’s medical information. Indeed, he attempted to do so from Ryder’s family physician, Dr. Michelle Lawler, however, his efforts were complicated by Ms. Mullen’s previous counsel having sent a letter to the doctor on November 25, 2016 which indicated that Ms. Mullen was Ryder’s “sole caregiver and decision-maker”. While Ryder did live primarily with Ms. Mullen at that time, this was, of course, not true as no decision, temporary or otherwise, had yet been made with respect to custody or decision-making about Ryder. Ms. Mullen did concede that she had instructed her counsel to send a letter to Dr. Lawler, but she took the position at trial that she had not seen the letter prior to her counsel sending it and that she could not be held responsible for what was in it, if it was in fact erroneous. Ms. Mullen indicated that she needed the letter to ensure that Ryder would get his immunizations, but she did not explain why she did not or could not get Mr. Campeau’s consent for any necessary treatments for Ryder.
39With respect to the issue of daycare, Ms. Mullen indicated that she advised Mr. Campeau that she was looking at putting Ryder in the Children’s Universe Child Care Centre, and then did so as she did not hear back from him. However, Ms. Mullen then changed Ryder’s daycare two more times and placed him temporarily with a friend for a few weeks in the summer of 2018 without either consulting with or informing Mr. Campeau. Mr. Campeau’s position in that Ms. Mullen ought to have consulted with him, and moreover, she ought to have sought to have Ryder placed in subsidized daycare, particularly after he was laid off from his job and when she returned to school. That Ms. Mullen seeks reimbursement from Mr Campeau for the cost of decisions he was neither involved in nor agreed with is troubling to him.
Position of the Parties
40Ms. Mullen seeks an order of sole custody of Ryder, and primary residence of him with her. Ms. Mullen’s plan is to obtain employment in Arnprior as a personal support worker when she finishes school and to move to Arnprior with Ryder, where she hopes to place him in school. She is prepared for Mr. Campeau to have access to Ryder alternating weekends and to share specific holidays.
41Mr. Campeau seeks an order of joint custody with shared parenting time of week on/week off, to be achieved gradually, and a parallel parenting regime wherein they each have decision making authority over certain aspects of Ryder’s life. Mr. Campeau’s plan is to move to his mother’s home in Nepean and for Ryder to be registered in a school that is equidistant to each parent’s home. His alternate plan is for Ryder to attend school in Ms. Mullen’s current catchment area. He opposes Ms. Mullen moving to Arnprior with Ryder.
Anaylsis
42With respect to any request for an order for custody of children, the Court is governed in this case the Children’s Law Reform Act.1 Section 24(1) of the Act provides that any such decision shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, and s. 24(2) sets out the factors which must be considered in such a determination. They include: the child’s needs and circumstances; the length of time the child has lived in a stable environment; the willingness and ability of each parent to provide for the care and upbringing of the child; the plan proposed by each parent; the permanence and stability of the family unit in which it is proposed that the child will live; the ability of each parent to act as a parent; and his or her familial relationship with the child.
43Section 24(4) of the Act directs the Court to consider whether a person has committed any violence or abuse towards a spouse, child or member of the person’s household when assessing that person’s ability to act as a parent.
44With respect to that latter section, the evidence was inconsistent as to whether Mr. Campeau had “at any time committed violence or abuse.”2 against Ms. Mullen or Rebecca. Certainly by the accounts of both Ms. Mullen and Mr. Campeau, as well as Ms. Mullen’s former roommate, Ms. Boyd, the relationship was a volatile one, and was fraught with arguments, yelling and disagreement. According to Ms. Mullen’s parents, it had the markers of an abusive relationship, and according to Mr. Campeau’s mother, it was very unstable. According to Ms. Boyd, the parties were “constantly” fighting and yelling at each other. At times, Ms. Mullen was lashing out at Mr. Campeau.
45While Mr. Campeau denied ever being physically abusive to Ms. Mullen or emotionally abusive to Rebecca, Ms. Mullen did on one occasion end up being diagnosed with concussion after banging her head into a stucco wall, and Mr. and Mrs. Mullen each testified to hearing Mr. Campeau yell inappropriate things to Rebecca. Although police were called from time to time to intervene in the parties’ dynamics, Mr Campeau was never arrested and never charged with any assault. The Children’s Aid Society in Ottawa (“CASO”) or Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse (“DPJ”) in Quebec were never called to investigate his care of either Rebecca or Ryder, but for one occasion in May of 2018 after Ms. Mullen filed a complaint with the OPS regarding historical incidents. The investigation of the CASO did not result in any action being taken by it to intervene in Mr. Campeau’s parenting time with either child. I, additionally, heard no credible evidence that would permit me to come to the conclusion that Mr. Campeau uttered any threats against Ms. Mullen.
46Notwithstanding this to be the case, I suspect that Mr. Campeau’s earlier use of alcohol had more of an impact on his reaction to people and events than he may have either known or cared to admit. He does not, however, currently drink alcohol, nor has he done so for nearly two years. While it, and the impacts it may have had on his ability to manage trying situations, may have been a factor for the Court to seriously consider in previous years, it is not one now. It likely, however, has played a significant role in Ms. Mullen’s ability to trust Mr. Campeau, and it must be taken into account when determining Ryder’s best interests.
47Turning to the other considerations under s. 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (“CLRA”), to date Ryder has lived with Ms. Mullen at the home of her parents in Woodlawn, Ontario, while Mr. Campeau has continued to live in Gatineau, Quebec. Mr. Campeau indicated in his testimony, however, that he has come to the difficult decision to move back into the home of his mother, Ms. Blair, in Nepean, Ontario. Mr. Campeau regrets having to move further away from Rebecca, with whom he spends considerable time, but will do so to be nearer to Ryder and with a view to make increased parenting time work out. Having said that, Mr. Campeau has not yet done so, and Ryder has spent little time with him at the home of Ms. Blair in the past year.
48Ryder is described by all to be a “great kid”, polite, engaging, and well brought up. He is secure, happy, and full of imagination. Ryder is young, only turning four in October. He has fared very well in the building of a warm and positive relationship with his father, but the evidence does not, in my view, support that a change in his primary residence to a shared one will be in his best interests. Certainly, it will meet Mr. Campeau’s needs, but I do not see how it will meet Ryder’s.
49Having said that, Ms. Mullen has consistently placed obstacles in the way of Mr. Campeau and Ryder developing that warm and positive relationship, and she has at times not acted in Ryder’s best interests in so doing. Neither Mr. Campeau nor Ryder ought to have been subjected to two and a half years of limited and supervised access. Although no order has previously been made, Ms. Mullen has, moreover, acted as if she has sole decision-making authority over Ryder. While she has at times made an effort to keep Mr. Campeau informed of certain things (such as doctor’s appointments, for example), she has not involved Mr. Campeau in any decisions that need to be made.
50Given the above, this is a situation which calls for an order of joint custody and decision making for Ryder. Ms. Mullen cannot be left to make decisions on her own, as she has shown in the past that her inclination is to shut Mr. Campeau out of them. It is also not a situation where Mr. Campeau can have sole decision making authority over specific decisions, as they will, in my view, also require Ms. Mullen’s input and agreement. I find that under all of the circumstances, an order of joint custody of Ryder by both his parents would be in his best interests. Both parents amply demonstrated that they have nothing but care and concern for Ryder’s well-being. Although they had difficulty communicating in the past, they should have matured by now to the degree that they are capable of consulting with each other about major decisions that need to be made for Ryder and of making them jointly. The expectation of the Court is that, for Ryder’s sake, they will be able to do so. Given, additionally, that Ryder will remain in Ms. Mullen’s primary care, he may be registered in a school within the catchment area of Ms. Mullen’s home. If Ms. Mullen and Mr. Campeau are unable to reach an agreement otherwise about which school Ryder is to attend, he shall be enrolled Stonecrest Elementary School.
Issue # 2 – What amount of parenting time for Mr. Campeau will be in Ryder’s best interests?
51As I have set out above, it has been a long road for Mr. Campeau and Ryder to have the relationship and time together that they now have. All of the evidence led in this matter is that Mr. Campeau’s interactions with Ryder are positive and engaging. Mr. Campeau testified as to what his time with Ryder is like and that he just wants more of it. Ms. Lamoureux testified as to her observations of Mr. Campeau with Ryder, as did Ms. Blair, all of which was positive and responsible. Constable Gagnon Ouellet observed Ryder to be happy and having fun in the care of Mr. Campeau. Mr. Steve Tremblay, formerly from the CAS of Ottawa, had no concerns about the care Ryder was receiving from Mr. Campeau.
Analysis
52The Court is required to ensure that a child spends as much time with each of his parents as is consistent with his best interests, and based on the evidence before me I can find no reason to limit Mr. Campeau’s time with Ryder to what it been for the past year, and certainly as it was previous to the temporary order of Justice Phillips in May of 2018.
53In the result, Mr. Campeau shall have parenting time with Ryder every second weekend from Friday after daycare or school to Monday morning at daycare or school. Such parenting time shall be extended to include from Thursday after daycare or school where Friday is a holiday or PD day and to Tuesday at daycare or school where Monday is a holiday or PD day. Mr. Campeau shall also have parenting time with Ryder every Wednesday from after daycare or school until Thursday morning at daycare or school.
54Commencing in 2020, during the months of July and August, Ryder shall spend alternating weeks with each parent with the exchange to take place on Fridays at 5:00 pm. Mr. Campeau’s time will commence on his first regularly scheduled weekend after school is finished. The parent commencing his or her week with Ryder shall be responsible to pick him up from the other parent, or home or at a mutually agreed upon exchange location.
55In the event that Mr. Campeau has not had an uninterrupted week with Ryder to date in the summer of 2019, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, he shall have one commencing Friday, August 16, 2019, at 5:00 pm.
56Mr. Campeau and Ms. Mullen shall share parenting time at Christmas with Ryder. Unless the parties agree to a different schedule in writing, in 2019, Ms. Mullen shall have Ryder for his first week of vacation from school until 9:00 am on December 26, and Mr. Campeau shall have him from 9:00 am on December 26 and for the remainder of his second week of holiday from school. The schedule shall alternate in 2020 and every year thereafter.
57All other holidays shall be shared equally by the parties, with the particulars of whether they share the time equally every year or alternate the holidays each year to be agreed upon by them.
58Unless it is agreed upon otherwise by the parties, parenting time exchanges should take place at Ryder’s school or daycare, or at the Richcraft Centre.
Issue #3 - What amount of retroactive and on-going child support, if any, should be payable by Mr. Campeau to Ms. Mullen?
59Mr. Campeau testified that he originally did not finish high school, but had a Grade 8/9 education. He has had several part-time or casual labour type jobs over the years, including as a mover for ANJ Campbell and a custodian for Dow Cleaning. However, he was able to secure fulltime employment through his brother at a company called Mirror Works from August of 2015 to October of 2017, when he was laid off for lack of work. Mr. Campeau was in receipt of Employment Insurance for a period of time after he was laid off, and then made the decision that he needed to return to school to obtain his high school diploma and hopefully obtain a trade. Mr. Campeau was accepted for academic upgrading at Algonquin College, which he commenced as of November 5, 2018.
60Mr. Campeau filed with his Financial Statement sworn on March 28, 2019, his Notices of Assessment for 2015, 2016 and 2017. In 2015, his Line 150 income was noted to be $19,863. In 2016, it was $35,481, and in 2017, his Line 150 income was $33,364.
61Mr. Campeau indicated in his testimony that he was unemployed as of October 13, 2017, when he was laid off from Mirror Works, and he remained unemployed until he commenced school in November of 2018. Mr. Campeau testified that it was, essentially, not worth it for him to work, as he is required to pay $300 per month in support for Rebecca, as well as $500 per month for Ryder pursuant to the temporary order of Justice Phillips dated April 20, 2017. From June 1, 2016 to the April 20, 2017 order, Mr. Campeau was required to pay $287 per month in support of Ryder pursuant to the temporary order of then Master Champagne. Mr. Campeau testified that when the various support orders were deducted from his EI at 50%, he had very little left to live on. He was of the view that with his level of education and experience, he would not be in a position to make enough at any job he could get that would allow him to support Rebecca, Ryder and himself. It was essentially for this reason that he made the decision to go back to school. As a result of the support orders, and the garnishment of his income at 50%, Mr. Campeau has accumulated significant arrears, particularly for the support of Rebecca. In this proceeding, Mr. Campeau seeks to have the arrears he has accumulated for Ryder’s support to be rescinded, and to have child support suspended pending his completion of school.
62Mr. Campeau remained a fulltime student at the time of the trial, and his only source of income was $1,030 per month that he was receiving from his mother to pay his living expenses. Mr. Campeau indicated that it is his intention to take an HVAC course (working with heating and cooling systems) as soon as he is eligible to register for one and to enter that vocation. To his knowledge, there is a course commencing in September of 2019, for which he hoped to be able to register. Additionally, so far as Mr. Campeau was aware, the course includes an apprenticeship portion for which one is paid prior to obtaining actual employment in the field. Ms. Lamoureux testified that nearly all of males in her family work in the field, and that she thought that would be helpful once Mr. Campeau is in a position to seek fulltime employment as a technician.
63Ms. Mullen is of the view that Mr. Campeau should be required to pay child support from separation to the present. She is seeking a retroactive award, as well as on-going support. She seeks, moreover, that income be imputed to Mr. Campeau, both retroactively but also currently. She is of the view that minimally Mr. Campeau should be working part-time, as she has done as a student.
Analysis
64I can find no reason that Mr. Campeau would not be required to pay support for Ryder from January 1, 2016 (immediately following separation) to October 31, 2018 (immediately prior to Mr. Campeau commencing school). Mr. Campeau’s 2016 income was $35,481, which would result in a Quebec table amount of $328.94 per month for one child. His 2017 income of $33,364, would result in a Quebec table amount of $311.98 per month for one child. Mr. Campeau has claimed that such an award, however, would cause him undue hardship, based primarily s. 10(2)(d) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines3 and his obligation to support Rebecca. He also relies on the fact that he currently has no income and is entirely reliant on his mother to meet his own expenses. I agree that, given a) Mr. Campeau’s precarious employment situation; b) his level of education and experience, and therefore employment opportunities; and, c) his obligation to support Rebecca, full table support for Ryder over the periods in question would cause him undue hardship.
65With respect to Ms. Mullen’s claim for income to be imputed to Mr. Campeau, s. 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines provides that the Court may impute income to a spouse if is “intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse.”
66The leading case on under or unemployment in Ontario is Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 41868 (ON CA), 2002 CarswellOnt 3228 (C.A.) Pursant to Drygala, a spouse is intentionally underemployed if he or she chooses to earn less than he or she is capable of earning having regard to all of the circumstances (paragraph 28). There is no requirement that the under-employment or unemployment be undertaken in bad faith or with the intention of avoiding support payments (paragraphs 29 to 36).
67The onus of establishing an evidentiary basis that the other party is under or unemployed is on the party seeking to impute the income.
68If my view, Ms. Mullen has not met her onus with respect to her allegations that Mr. Campeau was in receipt of additional, or “under the table” income that should be imputed to him, in addition to that which he made a Mirror Works. It seemed that Ms. Mullen was attempting to establish that Mr. Campeau may have historically received income which he did not always claim to Canada Revenue Agency. She took the Court and Mr. Campeau through a series of cheques made out to him during his cross-examination, some off which Mr. Campeau acknowledged receiving and some which he did not, but the exercise, in the end, did not concretely establish anything upon which the court could base a finding for imputation of income. Many, if not all of the cheques referred to, moreover, predated separation and/or the period at which Mr. Campeau worked for Mirror Works. I am not, on the bases of that evidence, prepared to impute income to Mr. Campeau.
69I do find, however, that there was a period during which Mr. Campeau was voluntarily unemployed, and that period was between October 13, 2017 and November 1, 2018. Although he was laid off from Mirror Works, and became unemployed involuntarily, Mr. Campeau testified that while he did look for some jobs (about which he provided little information and no evidence), he was not prepared to accept any employment that paid less than $26.00 per hour. His reason was that due to his obligations to Rebecca and Ryder, he would need at least that much to be able to afford to live himself. He, therefore, remained unemployed until he went back to school in November.
70In Verhey v. Verhey, 2017 ONSC 2216, Justice Shelston found at paragraph 35:
35When considering the spouse’s capacity to earn income, the court should consider, among others, the following principles:
(a) There is a duty on the spouse to “actively seek out reasonable employment opportunities that will maximize their income potential so as to meet the needs of their children” (Thompson v. Thompson, 2014 ONSC 5500, at para. 99);
(b) A spouse’s capacity to earn income can be influenced by his or her age, education, health, work history, and the availability of work that is within the scope of his or her capabilities (Marquez v. Zaipola, 2013 BCCA 433, 344 B.C.A.C. 133, at para. 37);
(c) A spouse can be found intentionally under-employed or unemployed if he or she quits employment for selfish or bad faith reasons, or engages in reckless behaviour that results in a reduction of his or her income earning capacity (Scott v. Chenier, 2015 ONSC 7866, at para. 48);
(d) A spouse cannot avoid support obligations by a self-imposed reduction in income (Le Page v. Porter (2002), 2000 22516 (ON SC), 7 R.F.L. (5th) 335 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 27);
(e) Where a spouse experiences an involuntary loss of employment, courts will grant a “grace period” to allow the spouse to seek out replacement work. However, the absence of a reasonable job search will leave the court with no choice but to find that the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed (Filippetto v. Timpano, 2008 3962 (ON SC), 2008 3962 (Ont. S.C.)).
71Mr. Campeau had a duty to actively seek out reasonable employment to meet the needs of Ryder, and to provide evidence of his efforts to do to the court, neither of which he has done. While I am prepared to grant Mr. Campeau a “grace period” of three months to find replacement employment, I find that I have no choice but to find him intentionally unemployed from February 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018. If I attribute to him minimum wage of $15.00 per hour for 40 hours per week over 36 weeks, it results in an income of $21,600, which in turn results in Quebec table support for one child of $241.12 per month. However, the issue of hardship remains a factor to consider, given Mr. Campeau’s ongoing obligation to support Rebecca.
72From November 1, 2018, I find that Mr. Campeau’s unemployment is required by his “reasonable education needs” as per s. 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines. Although Ms. Mullen submitted that Mr. Campeau could and should be employed part-time while going to school, Mr. Campeau testified that in order to succeed, his personal resources and attention need to be focused on his schooling. Mr. Campeau is, in fact, making great progress and he had achieved an A- and an A+ in the courses completed to the time of trial. I am not prepared to impute income to Mr. Campeau so long as he going to school in an effort to improve his situation and his future prospects.
73I do not find the basis for rescinding Mr. Campeau’s arrears of child support at they relate to Ryder, but I am prepared to make an adjustment to his child support payable pursuant to s. 10 of the Guidelines. Commencing January 1, 2016, Mr. Campeau shall pay $200 per month to Ms. Mullen in support of Ryder up to and including the month of October, 2017. Commencing November 1, 2017, and up to and including January of 2018, Mr. Campeau shall pay $0 per month to Ms. Mullen in support of Ryder. Commencing February 1, 2018 up to and including the month of October 2018, Mr. Campeau shall pay $140 per month to Ms. Mullen in support of Ryder. Commencing November 1, 2018, Mr. Campeau shall pay $0 per month to Ms. Mullen in support of Ryder, until such time as he ceases to be a fulltime student or he commences paid employment as an apprentice as part of his program.
74The Family Responsibility office shall make all necessary adjustments, taking into account my above findings and any support paid and/or enforced as a result of the temporary orders of then Master Champagne dated June 22, 2016 and Justice Phillips dated April 20, 2017. Although Mr. Campeau will likely continue to have some arrears for child support for Ryder once the adjustments have been done, enforcement of the arrears will be stayed until such time as Mr. Campeau ceases to be a fulltime student or he commences paid employment as an apprentice as part of his program.
Issue #4 - What amount of retroactive and on-going s. 7 expenses, if any, should be payable by Mr. Campeau to Ms. Mullen?
75Ms. Mullen seeks a contribution from Mr. Campeau for Ryder’s s. 7 or extraordinary expenses, particularly with respect to child care. She provided proof of the following daycare expenses for Ryder:
2016 – October to December - $3,640 with Children’s Universe Child Care Centres Inc.;
2017 – January to May - $5,184 with Children’s Universe Child Care Centres Inc.;
2017 – September to December - $9,680 with Elizabeth McPhee;
2018 – January to December - $9,680 with Elizabeth McPhee;
2018 – July 23 to August 3 - $350 with Tamara Kramer; and,
2019 – January to March - $2,280 with Elizabeth McPhee.
76Ms. Mullen indicated that she was approved for subsidized daycare from October of 2016 until March of 2017, when her subsidy was suspended. Ms. Mullen testified that Ryder was cared for from June to August of 2017 by a Robin Graham, but she did not provide any receipts for that period. According to Ms. Mullen, Ms. Graham closed her daycare with two weeks’ notice, and Ms. Mullen had to switch Ryder to Ms. McPhee for September. She also indicated she had to find care for Ryder for the July 23 to August 3, 2018 period as Ms. Graham went on holidays. Ms. Mullen indicated that she has been unable to find any subsidized daycare spots close to her home or work since October of 2017.
77Ms. Mullen also went back to school post-separation to complete her high school diploma, which she did in November of 2017. She indicated that she was also working part-time while she upgraded. Ryder was going to daycare while she was in school and/or working. Ms. Mullen’s 2016 Notice of Assessment evinces that her Line 150 income for that year was $18,724. In her Financial Statement sworn on March 23, 2017, Ms. Mullen estimated her 2017 income to be $33,400. The Court was not provided with a copy of her 2017 Notice of Assessment. Ms. Mullen was laid off from her job in September of 2018, when she suffered an injury to her foot. In her Financial Statement sworn on April 1, 2019, Ms. Mullen indicated that her income for 2018 was $23,225. Currently, her income consists of a combination of EI, grants and an OSAP loan for an approximate income of $32,000.
78Ms. Mullen remained unemployed from September of 2018 until she went back to school in 2019. Ryder, nevertheless, continued to go to daycare during the months Ms. Mullen was not working. She commenced a Personal Support Worker program with Willis College as of January 14, 2019 through to August 16, 2019, after which it is her hope to obtain employment as a personal support worker, likely in Arnprior, Ontario.
79Mr. Campeau takes issue with being asked to contribute to daycare expenses for Ryder when he had no part in any of the decisions to place Ryder in daycare in the first place. Mr. Campeau concedes that Ms. Mullen told him about the Children’s Universe Child Care Centres Inc., but only to state that she was doing it, not to seek his input or agreement. Mr. Campeau was not advised at all about the other three daycare providers that Ryder has had. Mr. Campeau was also of the view that Ms. Mullen ought to have sought out subsidized daycare for Ryder, so long as she remained qualified to do so. Placing Ryder in daycare that was not subsidized was a choice that she made, with which he would not have been in agreement. Mr. Campeau feels strongly that he should not be required to pay for that choice. Mr. Campeau also would have been happy to care for Ryder when he was available between October of 2017 and November of 2018, or during Ms. Graham’s holidays as well, but his time with Ryder was being severely restricted by Ms. Mullen.
80Nevertheless, Ryder did, of necessity for most of the time, attend daycare. Section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines provides that a court may make an order to cover all or any portion of such expenses, taking into account their reasonableness and the means of the spouses. In 2016, Mr. Campeau’s income was $35,481. Reducing that by the amount he was to pay for the support of Rebecca would leave him with $31,881 ($35,481-$3,600). Mr. Campeau shall be required to pay a proportionate share of Ryder’s daycare expenses for 2016 based on an annual income for him of $31,881 and for Ms. Mullen of $18,724. In 2017, Mr. Campeau’s income was $33,364, reduced by $3,600 leaves him with an income of $29,764. Mr. Campeau shall be required to pay a proportionate share of Ryder’s daycare expenses for 2017 based on an annual income for him of $29,764, and for Ms. Mullen of $33,400. Mr. Campeau shall not be required to pay s. 7 expenses for 2018 or 2019, so long as he remains a fulltime student or until he commences paid employment as an apprentice as part of his program.
Issue #5 - Should Ms. Mullen be permitted to relocate with Ryder to Arnprior, Ontario?
81At the time of trial, Ms. Mullen was attending Willis College in Arnprior, Ontario, and was commuting from the home of her parents in Woodlawn to do so. She completes her course on August 16, 2019. It was Ms. Mullen’s testimony that a work placement constituted part of her course, and it was her hope that she would be able to find work in Arnprior upon its’ completion. She indicated that she had, in fact, been offered a position contingent on completion of her course, but there was no guarantee that she would be successful in obtaining it as the employer could fill it sooner than when she would be done. Nevertheless, Ms. Mullen was of the view that there is available work in the Arnprior/Renfrew Country area as a personal support worker. She was not as familiar with what might be available in Ottawa. As a result, it is her hope that she will obtain employment in Arnprior and be able to relocate from Woodlawn to Arnprior. Her evidence was that, in addition to there being available employment in Arnprior, the housing is cheaper there. Ms. Mullen testified that she has lived in the home of her parents in Woodlawn since separation, and as much as she appreciated the support of her parents, she wished to live on her own with Ryder. She is seeking the court’s permission to relocate to Arnprior.
82Mr. Campeau opposes a move by Ms. Mullen with Ryder to Arnprior. He testified that it was his intention to move to the home of his mother in Nepean at the beginning of June 2019 precisely to be closer to Ryder. It was, of course, also his hope that the court would order a shared parenting regime with Ryder, and that he would attend school an equidistant between the two homes. Mr. Campeau expressed that it is difficult as it is to pick up Ryder at the Richcraft Centre as he does not have a vehicle, and relies on rides from family or Ms. Lamoureux or on the bus. If Ryder is permitted to move to Arnprior, it will be that much harder for him to be able to exercise his parenting time with him.
83The leading case on mobility remains Gordon v. Goertz.4 In paragraph 49 of the Gordon, McLachlin J., as she then was, writing for the majority, stated:
The law is summarized as follows:
The parent applying for a change in the custody or access order must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change of circumstances affecting the child.
If the threshold is met, the judge on the application must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child’s needs and ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.
This inquiry is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and evidence of the new circumstances.
The inquiry does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent, although the custodial parent’s views are entitled to great respect.
Each case turns on its own unique circumstances. The only issue is the best interest of the child in the particular circumstances of the case.
The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests and rights of the parents.
More particularly the judge should consider, inter alia:
a. The existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent;
b. The existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent;
c. The desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents;
d. The views of the child;
e. The custodial parent’s reason for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child;
f. Disruption to the child of a change in custody;
g. Disruption to the child consequent on the removal from family, schools, and the community he or she had come to know.
84This is not a case pertaining to a change in a previous custody or access order; it is, rather, deciding the original application for same. I must, therefore, embark on an inquiry on what is, and only what is, in the best interests of Ryder. I find that a move to Arnprior in this case risks too great a disruption to Ryder on his removal from family and the community he had come to know. It also risks too great of a disruption to him on the relationship he has finally been able to enjoy with Mr. Campeau. I find that putting further barriers in the way of the relationship, such as increasing the distance that Mr. Campeau and Ryder would have to travel to ensure that access occurs is not in Ryder’s best interests. As a result, Ms. Mullen will not be permitted to relocate with Ryder outside of the jurisdiction of Ottawa, Ontario without the express written consent of Mr. Campeau, or a further Order of the Court.
Order
85My order shall be as follows:
The Applicant and the Respondent shall have joint custody of Ryder Michael Wayne Campeau, born on the 14th day of October, 2015;
The Applicant and the Respondent shall consult on any major decisions regarding the children prior to the decision being made. Consultation shall be comprised of the parent wanting to take a decision communicating by email to the other parent, who shall have seven days to respond by email. The parent seeking to make the decision shall take into consideration the views of the other parent. If the parent being consulted fails to respond to the request within seven days, no further request for input is required. The parents shall then make the decision jointly;
In the event that the Applicant and the Respondent are not able to agree on a major decision affecting the child, after appropriate consultation, and taking into consideration the input of one another, the parent seeking the decision may make further application to the Court;
The primary residence of Ryder shall be with the Applicant Mother;
Ryder shall attend a school within the catchment area of the Applicant’s residence. If the parties are unable to agree on which school, Ryder shall attend Stonecrest Elementary school;
The Respondent Father shall have parenting time with the children as follows;
a. Every second weekend from Friday after daycare or school to Monday morning at daycare or school. Such parenting time shall be extended to include from Thursday after daycare or school where Friday is a holiday or PD day and to Tuesday at daycare or school where Monday is a holiday or PD day;
b. Every Wednesday from after daycare or school until Thursday morning at daycare or school;
c. Commencing in 2020, during the months of July and August, Ryder shall spend alternating weeks with each parent with the exchange to take place on Fridays at 5:00 pm. The Respondent’s time will commence on his first regularly scheduled weekend after school is finished. The parent commencing his or her week with Ryder shall be responsible to pick him up from the other parent, at home or at a mutually agreed upon exchange location;
d. In the event that the Respondent has not had an uninterrupted week with Ryder to date in the summer of 2019, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, he shall have Ryder for one week commencing Friday, August 16, 2019 at 5:00 pm;
e. The Applicant and the Respondent shall share parenting time at Christmas with Ryder. Unless the parties agree to a different schedule in writing, in 2019, the Applicant shall have Ryder for his first week of vacation from school until 9:00 am on December 26, and the Respondent shall have him from 9:00 am on December 26 and for the remainder of his second week of holiday from school. The schedule shall alternate in 2020 and every year thereafter;
f. All other holidays shall be shared equally by the parties, with the particulars of whether they share the time equally every year or alternate the holidays each year to be agreed upon by them;
g. Unless it is agreed upon otherwise by the parties, but for summer parenting time as set out in subparagraph c. above, parenting time exchanges should take place at Ryder’s school or daycare, or at the Richcraft Centre;
Commencing January 1, 2016, the Respondent shall pay $200 per month to the Applicant in support of Ryder up to and including the month of October, 2017;
Commencing November 1, 2017, and up to and including January of 2018, the Respondent shall pay $0 per month to the Applicant in support of Ryder;
Commencing February 1, 2018, up to and including the month of October 2018, the Respondent shall pay $140 per month to the Applicant in support of Ryder;
Commencing November 1, 2018, the Respondent shall pay $0 per month to the Applicant in support of Ryder, until such time as he ceases to be a fulltime student or he commences paid employment as an apprentice as part of his program;
The Family Responsibility office shall make all necessary adjustments, taking into account any support paid and/or enforced as a result of the temporary Orders of then Master Champagne dated June 22, 2016 and Justice Phillips dated April 20, 2017;
Enforcement of the arrears are hereby stayed until such time as Mr. Campeau ceases to be a fulltime student or he commences paid employment as an apprentice as part of his program;
The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant his proportionate share of Ryder’s daycare expenses for 2016, which are fixed at $3,640, based on an annual income for him of $31,881 and for the Applicant of $18,724;
The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant his proportionate share of Ryder’s daycare expenses for 2017, which are fixed at $8,264, based on an annual income for him of $29,764, and for Ms. Mullen of $33,400;
The Respondent is not required to pay to the Applicant a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses for 2018;
The Respondent is not required to pay to the Applicant a proportionate share of Section 7 expenses for 2019, so long as he remains a fulltime student or until he commences paid employment as an apprentice as part of his program;
Enforcement of this order with respect to s. 7 expenses is stayed until such time as Mr. Campeau ceases to be a fulltime student or he commences paid employment as an apprentice as part of his program;
Commencing in 2020, and continuing every year thereafter, the Respondent and the Applicant shall exchange copies of their Notices of Assessment or Reassessment by June 1 until such time as Ryder ceases to be entitled to support;
Once the Respondent is employed on a fulltime basis, he is required to obtain life insurance in an amount that will secure his support obligations for Ryder, in which he will irrevocably name the Applicant as the beneficiary in trust, and to provide proof of same to the Applicant; and,
The Applicant will not be permitted to relocate with Ryder outside of the jurisdiction of Ottawa, Ontario without the express written consent the Respondent, or a further Order of the Court.
Costs
86Failing agreement as to the liability for costs of the trial by September 30, 2019, the parties will provide written submissions of no more than three pages, along with copies of their bills of costs and offers to settle, to me at intervals of 10 days from that date and I will make an order.
Justice Engelking
Released: August 27, 2019
APPENDIX
On August 27, 2019, the following sub-paragraph was deleted:
85(6)(h) The Respondent shall be responsible for the cost of any additional return transportation to Canada for the children.
COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-532
DATE: 2019/08/27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Melissa Jane Mullen
Applicant
– and –
Blair Alexander Wayne Campeau
Respondent
AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Engelking J.
Released: August 27, 2019
Footnotes
- R.S.O. 1990. C.C.12, as am.
- Ibid., Section 24(4)
- SOR/97-175 as am. Section 10(2)(d) provides that one of the circumstances that may cause a spouse undue hardship
- 1996 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R 27, 196 n.R. 321, 141 Sask. R. 241, [1996] 5 W.W.R. 457, 114 W.A.C. 241, 134 D.L.R. (4th) 321, 19 R.F.L. (4th) 177, [1996] R.D.F. 209, 1996 191, [1996] S.C.J. No. 52, 1996 CarswellSask 199