COURT FILE NO.: F641/16
DATE: September 10, 2019
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
Evelin Carolina Diaz Cruz
Eric Vallillee for the applicant
Applicant
- and -
Corey Carter Denstedt
David Winninger for the respondent
Respondent
HEARD: February 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, March 1, 2019
KORPAN J.
[1] This is the judgment from the trial of the applicant mother’s claim for custody and primary residence of the parties’ two children, specified access to the respondent father, imputation of income to the father, child support and life insurance, and the respondent father’s claim by respondent for joint custody and shared time.
Custody and Access
[2] Custody and access are to be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child pursuant to s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.
[3] In determining what custody and access order is in the child's best interests, the court must consider all of the circumstances and decide who should be making the important decisions about the child’s life, where the child should live and the time the child should spend with the parties. It is a child-focused inquiry.
[4] I have considered the non-exhaustive list of factors set out in s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act that must be considered by the court:
Best interests of child
24(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.
[5] Sections 24(3) and (4) of the Children's Law Reform Act provide:
Past conduct
24(3) A person’s past conduct shall be considered only,
(a) in accordance with subsection (4); or
(b) if the court is satisfied that the conduct is otherwise relevant to the person’s ability to act as a parent.
Violence and abuse
(4) In assessing a person’s ability to act as a parent, the court shall consider whether the person has at any time committed violence or abuse against,
(a) his or her spouse;
(b) a parent of the child to whom the application relates;
(c) a member of the person’s household; or
(d) any child.
[6] The sole test in deciding custody and access is the child’s best interests. My focus is on the child.
[7] The Court of Appeal decision in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), [2005] 10 R.F.L. (6th) 373 (Ont. C.A.), remains the law in Ontario with respect to joint custody. At para. 11, the Court of Appeal stated:
11 The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate with the other parent does not, in and of itself, mean that a joint custody order cannot be considered. On the other hand, hoping that communication between the parties will improve once the litigation is over does not provide a sufficient basis for the making of an order of joint custody. There must be some evidence before the court that, despite their differences, the parents are able to communicate effectively with one another. …
Background
[8] The parties began cohabiting in January 2009 when the father moved into the mother’s rented home where she lived with her three children from a previous relationship.
[9] The parties’ daughter, who is nine years old, was born in October 2009.
[10] The parties briefly separated in 2011 when the father was charged (and later convicted) with assaulting the mother.
[11] The parties’ son, who is five years old, was born in March 2014.
[12] The mother was a full-time homemaker until the last year of the parties’ cohabitation when she returned to school to become a PSW. She provided the majority of the childcare. The father worked outside the home during the cohabitation and assisted the mother in caring for the children when he was home from work.
[13] The father was very close with his sister who passed away unexpectedly in May 2015 at the age of 35. He was traumatized by her death.
[14] The parties separated in August 2015. They continued to reside separate and apart under the same roof until November 1, 2015 when the father moved out to the home of mutual friends.
Since November 1, 2015
[15] The children have continued to live with the mother and their three older siblings. The father initially had the children with him every weekend as arranged between the parties.
[16] The father ran into difficulty following the separation. He was grieving his sister’s death and distressed that the mother no longer loved him and had a new boyfriend. He was consuming alcohol to excess and at trial described himself as depressed at that time. He sent a barrage of harassing electronic messages to the mother. When he would not stop, she contacted the police. The father was charged with harassment in April 2016 and was prohibited from contact with the mother as a term of his release. The mother arranged for modification of the no contact term to permit contact for access exchanges and information sharing about the children.
[17] The mother commenced her application on May 26, 2016.
[18] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer was requested to intervene by order dated September 16, 2016. Elly Freund-Bell was engaged by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer on September 29, 2016 to conduct an assessment pursuant to s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.
[19] By interim without prejudice consent order dated October 5, 2016, the father was granted access on alternate weekends from Friday at 5:30 p.m. until Sunday at 5:30 p.m., each Wednesday evening, and at Christmas, New Years and Halloween and such further and other times as agreed upon by the parties, with exchanges to occur in front of the police station.
[20] Ms. Freund-Bell’s report is dated January 5, 2017. She observed two visits between the mother and the children and two visits between the father and the children. She concluded that both parents greatly love the children, that they have tried to provide the best possible opportunities for them and that the children appeared comfortable and friendly with both parents.
[21] In her report, Ms. Freund-Bell states that the mother has no concerns for the children’s safety in the father’s care and that, in general, the mother believes that he is a good father.
[22] Ms. Freund-Bell concluded that there was a history of domestic violence and conflict between the parents and recommended that the mother have custody of the children. Her recommendations included that the father have access on alternate weekends, on each Wednesday evening and during school vacation and holidays, with the exchanges to occur at a neutral third-party location or with the attendance of a third party. She recommended that the father attend counselling to help him manage his disappointment and anger at the dissolution of his relationship with the mother.
[23] The father attended at Daya for grief counselling from June until December 2017 to help him cope with the grief he was experiencing from his sister’s untimely death.
[24] On July 29, 2017, the mother received a call from the paternal grandfather during the father’s access asking her to pick up the children because the father was intoxicated. The father admits that he was intoxicated that afternoon. Thereafter, he did not have any access for the next four and a half months until December 2017.
[25] On the father’s access weekend on January 13, 2018, the mother received a telephone call at approximately 8:45 p.m. advising that the children had been left alone by their father. She called the police. By the time she arrived at the father’s apartment the police were already there. After the father was eventually located in another unit in the building, London Police Services Constable Cassandra Lee concluded that he was intoxicated by alcohol. Constable Lee permitted the mother to leave with the children and contacted the Children’s Aid Society. The father denies that he was intoxicated while he was caring for the children but admits that he was intoxicated by the time Constable Lee located him in another unit.
[26] Child protection worker, Greg Triebner, assigned to investigate by the Society, met with the mother, the children and the father. The elder child described the father as drunk on the evening of January 12, 2018 and as fighting with his roommate on January 13, 2018 and as drunk on the evening of January 13, 2018. The younger child was too young to be interviewed. The father advised Mr. Triebner that he did not become intoxicated until after he learned that the police had been called and that he then chugged alcohol because he is afraid of the police and was nervous. The father told Mr. Triebner that his drinking had been a problem since 2015 after his sister died. The Society verified protection concerns with the father relating to inadequate supervision and risk of harm to the children. Because the mother was ensuring that the father’s access was being supervised, the Society closed its file.
[27] The father’s access has been supervised since January 14, 2018. Mr. Triebner testified that if the father were to be granted unsupervised access that he expects the mother to advise the Society so that further assessment can be made regarding the father’s alcohol abuse.
[28] By interim order dated February 14, 2018, the father’s interim access was reduced to supervised access at Merrymount Family Support and Crisis Centre until March 7, 2018.
[29] By interim order dated March 7, 2018, the father was granted interim access in the community each Saturday from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m. subject to his not consuming alcohol/drugs for 16 hours prior to or during access, to his not leaving the children unattended, and to his continuing to attend appointments at Addiction Services of Thames Valley as recommended by the counsellor, with the exchanges to occur in the lobby of the London Central Library unless the parties agreed to exchanges at Merrymount Family Support and Crisis Centre.
[30] The father attended Alcoholics Anonymous for approximately eight weeks from March to April 2018 but decided that AA was not for him.
[31] By interim consent order dated April 18, 2018, the time of the father’s interim access each Saturday was changed to 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. with the access exchanges to be facilitated by the paternal grandfather.
[32] In June 2018 the father was convicted of harassing the mother. The father received a suspended sentence. He was placed on probation for twelve months, was prohibited from contact with the mother and was obliged to attend Changing Ways.
[33] The father attended eight individual sessions at Addiction Services of Thames Valley from June 18 to September 24, 2018 on a voluntary referral from Ontario Works. His goals were to not communicate with people who triggered him, to never consume alcohol while with the children and to reduce his alcohol consumption. The addictions counsellor never witnessed the father drinking or intoxicated. She recommended him to Daya for counselling because he advised that he was feeling depressed about his sister’s death. The father did not complete the program at Addiction Services of Thames Valley because he did not attend the session for discharge planning. The counsellor and the father last spoke on January 24, 2019 by telephone when the father advised that he was doing well and that he had only consumed four beers over the previous four months. The father testified that the addictions counselling went very well.
[34] The father began the 12 session Partner Assault Response Program in September 2018 and completed it in November 2018. The counsellor at Changing Ways recommended that the father attend the 16-week Caring Dads program because the father disclosed that he had exposed the children to domestic violence. The father is undecided about attending Caring Dads.
[35] By interim consent order dated October 24, 2018, the time for the father’s interim access each Saturday was expanded to 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. subject to, on a without prejudice basis, his not being under the influence of alcohol or drugs for 12 hours prior to and during access with the exchanges to occur at the paternal grandfather’s home.
[36] By interim consent order dated January 23, 2019, the father’s interim access each Saturday was further expanded to 10 a.m. until 6 p.m.
[37] On February 19, 2019, the father was arrested during a court recess and charged with breach of probation. He was released on the same terms as his probation order. I am not aware of the outcome of that charge.
Analysis
[38] The mother is 37 years old. She was a full-time homemaker during the parties’ cohabitation. She obtained her PSW credentials during the last year of the cohabitation and plans to return to school to obtain a diploma in administration.
[39] The father is 41 years old. He is unemployed and in receipt of Ontario Works. He remains somewhat fragile and was at times teary during the trial.
[40] Both parents love the children and the children love them in return. Both parents have an important role to play in the children’s lives.
[41] The mother has been the children’s primary caregiver since they were born. The children have lived with the mother and their three siblings, now aged 13, 16 and 17, since the separation.
[42] The children are Catholic and attend a French language school. They are healthy and happy and are doing well at school.
[43] When the children visit with the father, they also spend time with their paternal grandfather.
[44] The mother has hit the children. The Society has advised her that it disagrees with her having hit the children but the mother testified that it is not illegal. I urge the mother not to hit the children again and to learn non-violent ways to assist them. Otherwise, I have no concerns about the mother’s ability to care for the children and to meet their needs.
[45] I find that it is in the children’s best interests that the mother be granted custody of the children. Joint custody is not in the children’s best interests. The parties’ relationship has been difficult and it remains conflicted. The parties have been, and remain, unable to communicate effectively with each other about the children.
[46] The mother was born in El Salvador and moved to Canada when she was three years old. She has never been back to El Salvador but hopes one day to take the children to visit El Salvador to spend time with their maternal family once she obtains employment and saves enough money to afford the passports and travel.
[47] As an incident of custody, the mother shall be permitted to apply for and to renew passports for the children without the consent or signature of the father and to travel outside of Canada with the children for vacation without the father’s consent provided that she provides him with at least one month’s notice of such travel and with a detailed itinerary including contact information and return tickets.
[48] With respect to access, the children are entitled to the participation of both parents in their lives and to spend as much time with each parent as is consistent with their best interests.
[49] The children are legitimately pleased to see their father and are happy in his care.
[50] The father has taken steps to mitigate the difficulties he encountered following his sister’s death and the separation. He has attended for personal counselling at Daya, for addiction counselling at Addiction Services of Thames Valley and for domestic violence counselling at Changing Ways. I recommend that the father attend Caring Dads to gain further insight.
[51] The father’s evidence is that he no longer drinks during a regular week and that he wants to keep it that way. He testified that he has consumed five drinks since August 2018: at New Year’s, one beer with his grandfather in Bowmanville and two beers with his father during Super Bowl. He testified that he has learned through counselling that drinking around the children is unacceptable. He must remain open to seeking further addiction counselling if necessary.
[52] The paternal grandfather is not always available to supervise the father’s access and has not been able to accommodate the expanded hours for access from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. ordered on January 23, 2019 for various reasons, including being out of town and family commitments. The father is always available for his access and has never cancelled. The paternal grandfather testified that since January 2018 the father has never arrived for access intoxicated and that he appears to be on the right track.
[53] The father must be sober when the children are with him. Subject to a term that the father shall not consume alcohol in the 12-hour period immediately preceding access, during access and until the children have been returned to the mother, and his compliance with it, I find that it is in the children’s best interests that their time with the father be gradually increased, moved into the community and into the father’s home. For the next year, access shall occur at the paternal grandfather’s residence, but not at any other private residence unless the paternal grandfather is present, or in the community (not a private residence).
[54] During submissions the parties agreed that the mother will set up a Google platform for the children to permit audio and video contact between them and the father.
[55] Subject to a term that the father shall not consume alcohol in the 12-hour period immediately preceding access, during access and until the children have been returned to the mother, and his compliance with it, I find that it is in the children’s best interests to have access with the father as follows:
(a) until September 1, 2020, every other Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., every Wednesday from after school until 7:30 p.m., and such other reasonable times as the parties may agree for holidays and special occasions: 1) at the paternal grandfather, Carter Denstedt’s, residence, if he consents and is present in the home, but not at any other private residence unless the paternal grandfather is present; or 2) in the community (not a private residence);
(b) from September 1, 2020 until March 1, 2021, every other Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., every Wednesday from after school until 7:30 p.m., and such other reasonable times as the parties may agree for holidays and special occasions;
(c) from March 1, 2021 until September 1, 2021, on alternate weekends from Saturday at 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Sunday, every Wednesday from after school until 7:30 p.m., and such other reasonable times as the parties may agree for holidays and special occasions;
(d) from September 1, 2021 until March 1, 2022, on alternate weekends from Friday at 5:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. on Sunday, every Wednesday from after school until 7:30 p.m., and such other reasonable times as the parties may agree for holidays and special occasions;
(e) commencing March 1, 2022, on alternate weekends from Friday pick up from school until 7:30 p.m. on Sunday, every Wednesday from after school until 7:30 p.m., and;
i. in odd-numbered years, from 5:30 p.m. on the Friday preceding March Break until 7:30 p.m. on the Sunday at the end of March Break (with the applicant having March break in even-numbered years);
ii. in odd-numbered years, on Easter weekend from Thursday after school until 7:30 p.m. on Saturday, with the schedule reversing in even-numbered years;
iii. on Father’s Day from 10 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. (with the applicant having the children from 10 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. on Mother’s Day even if it is the respondent’s weekend with the children);
iv. during the summer holidays for two consecutive weeks, which he shall have first choice of in even-numbered years, so long as he provides his choice of dates to the applicant in writing by May 30 of that year;
v. in odd-numbered years, on Thanksgiving weekend from Friday after school until Sunday at 7:30 p.m., with the schedule reversing in even-numbered years;
vi. in even-numbered years, from after school on Halloween (or from 3 p.m. if not a weekday) until 8:30 p.m. and he shall be responsible for the children’s costumes in those years;
vii. in odd-numbered years, from December 24 at 5 p.m. to December 25 at 2 p.m. and, in even-numbered years, from December 25 at 2 p.m. to December 26 at 7:30 p.m., with an equal sharing of the balance of the Christmas holidays between the parties; and
viii. such further reasonable access as may be agreed upon by the parties.
Child Support
[56] Child support is to be determined under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 and the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97.
[57] The father was served with the mother’s application on May 30, 2016. She seeks child support for the two children in the amount of $95 per month commencing on June 1, 2016 based on imputed annual income of $13,000.
[58] The father is 41 years old. He has a high school education and a class 3 forklift licence. He began working when he was 19 years old at the feeder plant for General Motors. He lost this job when the company went bankrupt and closed its doors. His next job was at Abzac Canada Inc. in Bowmanville where he made cardboard. Business slowed after about two years. He moved to London in 2006. The father was then employed at Tonda Construction for 1 ½ years doing hospital and school renovations. He was laid off from that job. The father then found employment at EDPRO Energy Group Inc. where he worked for approximately two years. In 2010 he was hired as a forklift driver for Voyageur Transportation Services which was subsequently purchased by Doug Coleman Trucking Ltd. The father worked 12 hours per night on the midnight shift for approximately 1 ½ years. For his last three years at Coleman Trucking, he worked the 5 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift. When Coleman Trucking insisted that the father return to the midnight shift, he unsuccessfully tried to negotiate different hours. He quit his job in February 2017 and has not worked since.
[59] The father’s 2016 tax return summary discloses line 150 income of $35,535.86. His 2017 tax return summary discloses income of $14,139.33, comprised of $6,387.73 of employment income and $7,751.60 of social assistance payments.
[60] The father is in receipt of Ontario Works. His 2018 T5 slip discloses social assistance payments of $8,700.
[61] The father testified that he could obtain part time employment in an instant. There is no evidence that he has applied for employment.
[62] Section 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines permits the court to impute additional income where a parent is intentionally under-employed:
- (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include,
(a) the parent or spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of any child or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the parent or spouse; ...
[63] The Court of Appeal recently considered s. 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 in Lavie v. Lavie, 2018 ONCA 10:
[24] This section was discussed by the Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli (2002), 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (Ont. C.A.). The trial judge referred to Drygala v. Pauli and correctly observed that in order to find intentional underemployment and impute income to a parent, there is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations. He also noted that in order for parents to meet the legal obligation to support their children, they must earn what they are capable of earning.
[26] There is no requirement of bad faith or intention to evade support obligations inherent in intentional underemployment: Drygala v. Pauli, at paras. 24-37. The reasons for underemployment are irrelevant. If a parent is earning less than she or he could be, he or she is intentionally underemployed. …
[31] Where s. 19(1)(a) is engaged, the court retains discretion to decide whether, and if so, how much, income to impute to the under-employed spouse.
[32] Here too, Drygala v. Pauli provides guidance. When imputing income based on intentional under-employment or unemployment, a court must consider what is reasonable in the circumstances. The factors to be considered have been stated in a number of cases as age, education, experience, skills and health of the parent: para. 45.
[64] I have considered the father’s age, education, experience, skills and health and find that he is under-employed or unemployed. There is no reason why he cannot work. I find that it is reasonable to impute annual income of $13,000 to him for child support purposes.
[65] The father shall pay child support to the mother for the two children in the amount of $95 per month commencing on June 1, 2016 based on imputed or actual annual income of $13,000.
Life Insurance
[66] The mother requests that the father obtain a life insurance policy with a minimum value of $15,000 and name the children as beneficiaries and her as trustee of the policy.
[67] In Katz v. Katz, 2014 ONCA 606 (Ont. C.A.), the Court of Appeal held, at para. 69, that s. 34(1)(k) of the Family Law Act "is broad enough to permit a court to order a spouse to obtain an insurance policy to secure payment of the order following the payor spouse's death. The concluding words 'or otherwise' in s. 34(1)(k) afford the court broad scope for securing the payment of a support order." At para. 74, the court cautioned that where there is no existing policy in place, a court should proceed carefully in requiring a payor to obtain insurance.
[68] There is no evidence of the father’s insurability or of the amount and cost of any available insurance and on annual imputed income of $13,000 as ordered above, the father does not have the ability to pay for an insurance policy.
[69] In the circumstances, I decline to make the requested order.
Order
[70] For these reasons, the following final order shall issue pursuant to the Children's Law Reform Act and the Family Law Act:
On consent, the applicant’s name in the title of proceedings is changed to delete the hyphen between Diaz and Cruz.
The applicant, Evelin Carolina Diaz Cruz, shall have custody of the children.
The respondent, Corey Carter Denstedt, shall have access to the children as set out in paragraph 55 above.
Access exchanges shall be facilitated by the paternal grandfather, Carter Denstedt, or by another third party the parties mutually agree to in advance and in writing. The respondent shall provide at least three days written notice to the applicant of his proposal to use an alternate facilitator. In the event that Carter Denstedt is not available and the parties cannot agree to another third party to facilitate an exchange, the exchange shall occur at the Tim Hortons located at 1200 Commissioners Road East, London, Ontario provided the exchanges can occur without exposing the children to adult conflict or hostility.
The applicant shall create an account for the children using the Google platform to facilitate audio and video contact between them and the respondent. The respondent shall have audio and video access with the children each Tuesday and Thursday between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m.
Both parties shall ensure that the children are not exposed to tobacco or vape products while in their care.
The respondent shall have direct access to the children’s medical, educational and other information while they are under the age of 18. The respondent shall have access to all the children’s medical, educational and extracurricular information. The applicant shall provide the respondent with updated contact information for any third party involved in providing services for the children. The respondent shall be responsible to independently request and secure any such information from the children’s service providers. The applicant shall provide her written consent for such access, if required.
The applicant shall provide the respondent with copies of the children’s birth certificates and health cards.
The parties shall restrict their communication, save and except for urgent matters, to written exchange through Talking Parents with such communication strictly limited to and focussed on arrangements regarding the children and their wellbeing.
The respondent shall provide the applicant with updated contact information, his address, email and telephone number, within two days of any change in this information. The applicant shall provide the respondent with updated contact information, her email and telephone number, within two days of any change in this information.
In the event of an urgent or emergent situation related to the children’s care which makes email communication impractical, the parties shall be at liberty to communicate with each other by text message or telephone subject to any criminal conditions or orders that may exist. All communications shall be civil in tone and child-focussed, and both parties shall refrain from criticizing or demeaning the other parent in any fashion whatsoever. For the sake of clarity, Talking Parents shall be the primary and ordinarily exclusive means of communication between the parties.
Emergency medical treatment for the children shall be the responsibility of the party having care of the children. Each party shall immediately notify the other when emergency care for the children is required, after ensuring that the children’s urgent medical needs are met.
Each party shall be responsible for the day-to-day care of and decisions for the children while the children are in their care.
Both parties shall be at liberty to attend activities/special events that the children are involved in provided they are able to do so without exposing the children to adult conflict or hostility.
Both parties shall be at liberty to attend school, medical, religious, recreational and other significant events and occasions of importance to the children provided they are able to do so without exposing the children to adult conflict or hostility.
Neither party shall discuss adult issues, including but not limited to financial, legal or personal relationships, nor speak negatively about the other party within the hearing of the children, nor shall they permit their family members or third parties/friends to do so. The children shall not be questioned about their relationship or time with the other party.
Neither party shall apply to change the children’s names under the Change of Name Act or any other similar legislation without the written consent of the other party.
The applicant shall be permitted to apply for a passport and to renew same as necessary for the children without the consent or signature of the respondent.
The applicant shall be permitted to travel outside of Canada with the children for vacation without requiring the consent of the respondent. The applicant shall provide the respondent with at least one month’s notice of such travel and a detailed itinerary including contact information and return tickets. The applicant shall provide the passports to the respondent if he intends to take the children for vacation or other trip involving travel outside of Canada.
The applicant shall provide 60 days written notice to the respondent if she intends to move the children’s residence more than 25 kilometres from London, Ontario.
The respondent shall pay child support to the applicant for the two children in the amount of $95 per month commencing on June 1, 2016 based on imputed annual income of $13,000.
The parties shall maintain the children on any medical and dental benefits available through their employment from time to time.
For as long as child support is payable by the respondent, he shall provide his income tax return and notice of assessment to the applicant no later than June 15 each year for the purpose of recalculating his child support obligation.
The respondent shall provide to the applicant and the Director of the Family Responsibility Office notification of any change in address or employment, including full particulars about the change within ten days of the change taking place.
All remaining claims are dismissed.
Costs
[71] If either party is of the view that he/she is entitled to costs, the parties shall confer and attempt to agree on costs. If they are unable to agree, I will receive written submissions of no more than three pages, plus a bill of costs and offers to settle, from the party claiming costs within 20 days and from the other party within 20 days thereafter. If no submissions are received within the prescribed timelines, there shall be no order for costs.
“Justice D.M. Korpan”
Justice D.M. Korpan
Released: September 10, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: F641/16
DATE: September 10, 2019
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
EVELIN CAROLINA DIAZ CRUZ
Applicant
- and -
COREY CARTER DENSTEDT
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
KORPAN J.
Released: September 10, 2019