COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-1324

DATE: 2019/10/07

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Joseph Geldart Applicant

– and –

Lisa Cosman Respondent

Self-represented

David Page, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: October 3 and 4, 2019

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Justice Engelking

[1] This is the trial of the Applicant, Mr. Geldart’s, Amended Application dated April 18, 2017, in which he is seeking orders under the Children’s Law Reform Act[^1] or Family Law Act[^2] with respect to joint custody, shared parenting time and rescinding of child support arrears regarding the parties two children. Mr. Geldart was also originally seeking a declaration of paternity for the younger child and changes to the children’s surnames, but those issues were resolved on consent by Orders of Justice Kershman dated January 24, 2018 and Justice Summers dated August 22, 2018. Mr. Geldart was also seeking the return of certain property which belonged to him or to be compensated for same in his Amended Application, however, he did not advance that claim at trial, nor am I aware on what basis that claim would be granted. It does, thus, not form a part of this decision.

[2] In her Answer dated May 1, 2018, the Respondent, Ms. Cosman, is seeking orders under the CLRA or FLA for sole custody of the children, child support, spousal support and indexing thereof, and a return of her property held by Mr. Geldart. Like Mr. Geldart, Ms. Cosman did not advance any argument about the return of property at trial, and I did not deal with that issue. Ms. Cosman also sought in her Answer “permission to move to New Brunswick where all my family is and where I know I can get a job”, but she did not raise the issue of mobility at trial. It too, therefore, is not dealt with by me. At trial, Ms. Cosman also sought a police enforcement clause due to Mr. Geldart’s propensity to overhold the children.

[3] I wish to set out that this trial was scheduled to commence on October 3, 2019, however, Mr. Geldart did not appear on that date. Mr. Geldart confirmed with the court on October 4, 2019 that he was aware that the trial was scheduled to be heard during September trial sittings. He had, in fact, appeared at the Assignment Court on August 16, 2019, requesting an adjournment of the trial based on having recently lost counsel, which request was denied by Justice Shelston. Additionally, Mr. Geldart was emailed at least four times between September 27 and September 30, 2019 by the Trial Coordinators office regarding the start date of the trial. Despite this, Mr. Geldart did not show up for the trial on October 3, 2019. On that date, I requested that Ms. Cosman send Mr. Geldart a text message at the number they used to communicate about the children that the trial would be commencing on October 4, 2019 and if he wanted to participate, he would need to appear. Mr. Geldart did appear on October 4, 2019, stating that (notwithstanding the Trial Coordinators email communications) he had no knowledge of the trial date. Although Mr. Geldart appeared, he was completely unprepared for trial. Justice Summers had previously completed a Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form with the parties outlining several things that would need to be completed for trial. Mr. Geldart neither retained new counsel in advance of the trial nor completed any of the required tasks outlined in the TSEF. As it was Mr. Geldart’s responsibility to prepare for the trial of his own application, and to comply with the Family Law Rules[^3] in doing so, I proceeded to hear the trial on October 4, 2019.

[4] The issues for trial were:

1. What order with respect to custody of the children is in their best interests?

2. What amount of parenting time should Mr. Geldart have?

3. What is the appropriate amount of child support payable, and should there be a rescission of some arrears of child support?

4. Is Ms. Cosman entitled to spousal support, and if so, in what quantum and for what duration?

5. Should there be a police enforcement clause included in the order?

[5] For the reasons that follow, I find that there should be an order of joint custody of the children with Ms. Cosman to have final decision-making authority; Mr. Geldart shall have parenting time with the children for three weekends per month from Friday evening to Sunday evening, to be increased to Thursday evening to Monday morning, in the event that he can arrange his work schedule to have the children on Thursday night and return them to school on Monday morning; holidays shall be shared by the parties; commencing October 1, 2019, Mr. Geldart shall pay table child support for the two children of the relationship based on his current income as set out below; a portion of Mr. Geldart’s child support arrears shall be rescinded as set out below; and spousal support of $0.00 shall be payable by Mr. Geldart to Ms. Cosman. There will also be a police enforcement clause in the order.

Background Facts

[6] The parties were long time friends who began to cohabit in a romantic relationship on September 17, 2017. The parties separated a couple of times during the relationship, with the final separation occurring on November 25, 2016.

[7] Two children were born of the relationship, Hannah Jean-Marie Geldart, (now Hannah Jean-Marie Cosman-Geldart) on October 28, 2014, and Cody Theodore Cosman (now Cody Gordon Theodore Cosman-Geldart) on December 5, 2016.

[8] Mr. Geldart brought his original application on June 20, 2016, because Ms. Cosman had left him on June 17, 2016, and stated to him that she wanted to move to New Brunswick to be near her family. At that time, Mr. Geldart brought a procedural motion seeking the matter be deemed urgent and seeking an order preventing Ms. Cosman from moving with Hannah. The motion was heard on July 14, 2016, and Justice Sheard found on a without prejudice basis that it was not in Hannah’s best interests to move to New Brunswick. Justice Sheard granted primary residence of Hannah to be with Ms. Cosman and for Mr. Geldart to have access to her every weekend from Friday after his work to Sunday at 7:00 pm. Commencing August 1, 2014, Mr. Geldart was to pay to Ms. Cosman $574 per month in support of Hannah.

[9] The evidence of both parents was that they reconciled for a second time shortly after this order was granted and remained together until November 25, 2016. After the final separation and after Cody’s birth, both children remained in the primary care of Ms. Cosman. Mr. Geldart continued to have regular access to Hannah after separation, seemingly in keeping with the original order of Justice Sheard. He, however, indicated that he was denied access to Cody by Ms. Cosman. Mr. Geldart brought another procedural motion seeking a finding of urgency and an order of access to Cody. The motion was scheduled for January 10, 2017, at which time the parties entered into Interim Minutes of Settlement which provided that Mr. Geldart would have access to Cody every Wednesday from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm, every Friday from 5:15 pm to 7:15 pm, every Saturday from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm, and every Sunday from 11:00 am to 6:30 pm. Access to Hannah was varied to also end at 6:30 pm, and commencing March of 2017, Mr. Geldart’s access to both children on Fridays was to commence at 12:00 pm based on an anticipated change in his work schedule. Justice Robertson granted an interim order as per these minutes of settlement.

[10] This access remained in place for both children, until Cody was sleeping through the night, which Ms. Cosman testified was at about seven months old. Thereafter, Mr. Geldart had both children for every Friday afternoon/evening to Sunday evening, and every Wednesday evening.

[11] The parties attended a case conference on December 13, 2017. The parties once again entered into Interim Minutes of Settlement, which were endorsed into a court order by me, in which it was agreed that commencing December 1, 2017, Mr. Geldart was to pay table support for two children of $761 per month. The Minutes indicated that the issue of “any arrears or overpayment of support remains a live issue”. The parties also agreed that they would each have three uninterrupted consecutive weeks of holidays with the children in the summer. The access schedule of Mr. Geldart having the children every weekend and every Wednesday evening continued.

[12] Mr. Geldart testified that he had been a member of a union, working for 17 years and making usually between $25 and $30 per hour. However, Mr. Geldart testified that only a few weeks after the case conference, he lost his job. It was unclear to me as to whether Mr. Geldart was laid off for lack of work, fired for cause or left it of his own accord. Mr. Geldart then went on Employment Insurance for its entire duration, but he was unable to provide the court with details as to when exactly he commenced on EI and for what exact period it lasted. Mr. Geldart indicated that on EI, he was receiving about 50% of what he had made when working, and that 50% was being garnished by 50% by the Family Responsibility Office for his child support payments, so he was essentially left with an income of about 25% of what he had been accustomed to living on. It became a struggle for him to pay bills. Sometime during this period, Mr. Geldart filed for bankruptcy. He estimated it to be about one year ago; he had not been discharged from bankruptcy as of the trial.

[13] After Mr. Geldart’s EI ran out, he indicated that he was unemployed for an additional six months or so. While Mr. Geldart stated that he did have two short jobs for approximately $15 per hour each, for which he gave no timeframe, he knew that he would eventually have to go back to working for the union. He was recently successful in doing so and appears to have been working for approximately two weeks for “Tomlinson” (likely the Tomlinson Group), which has a contract with the City of Ottawa building a tunnel from Beechwood to Preston to control water/sewer overflow. Mr. Geldart testified that he makes approximately $30.20 per hour and works a 40-hour week.

[14] Ms. Cosman testified that at the time that she took up a relationship with Mr. Geldart, she was working as a Personal Support Worker. Ms. Cosman testified that the relationship was initially very good, but it wasn’t long into it that Mr. Geldart became very controlling of her. One of the manifestations of his control was that he did not want her to be working as a PSW with any male clients. The company she was working for, “Carefor” accommodated her at first, but they were not willing to take her back after her leave with Hannah was done unless she could work with all clients. Ms. Cosman testified that she did not want to put herself through the stress of having to deal with Mr. Geldart’s abusive response to her working with male clients, so she declined to return. Ms. Cosman remained unemployed until December 10, 2018, when she got a job at the Tim Horton’s at 100 Constellation Drive. Ms. Cosman continues to work there and according to her 2018 Notice of Assessment, her line 150 income for that year was $9,444. Ms. Cosman’s August 2, 2019 Financial Statement reveals that she makes approximately $1,680 per month in income and receives $1066.67 per month in Child Tax Benefits. Her total current annual income, therefore, is approximately $32,000.

Issue #1 – What custody order is in the children’s best interests?

[15] Mr. Geldart’s evidence was that he has wished to be an equally involved parent with Hannah and Cody from the time he and Ms. Cosman separated. Mr. Geldart has another child from a previous relationship, and he has had that child, Rosalee, in his care every Thursday evening to Monday morning from the first date he and his former spouse went to court. He wants to have Hannah and Cody on the same schedule (or “50/50”) as he has Rosalee so that they can all spend time together. He does not understand why he has had to go to court and spend money on a lawyer to secure that. His view is that it is only fair that the parents share equally their time with the children.

[16] Ms. Cosman is of the view that she should remain the primary caregiver to the children, as she has always been. She supports that the children have time with Mr. Geldart, but she believes that she provides better care to them. She testified that the children would sometimes return from Mr. Geldart’s care dirty, with unkempt hair and hungry. She would also have to often pick up the children from access because Mr. Geldart would state that he had no money for gas or food. Ms. Cosman sought to tender evidence on a voir dire from Hannah that she did not like going to Mr. Geldart’s and that Mr. Geldart and Rosalee “were mean to her”. While, Ms. Cosman providing out of court statements from Hannah may meet the test of necessity, I find that Ms. Cosman’s evidence was not specific enough as to time, place and way those statements may have been made to meet the test of reliability. They are not, therefore, admissible for the truth of their contents. The statement that Hannah did not want to go to her father’s is, nevertheless, admissible pursuant to the traditional state of mind exception to hearsay. However, Ms. Cosman testified that Hannah is no longer making such statements, and that lately there has been no issue with the children going to access.

[17] Ms. Cosman testified that she has been the one to make all arrangements for the children, including daycare for them, school for Hannah and medical and dental appointments for both. She has always taken on primary responsibility for the children and seeks to continue to do so with a sole custody order.

[18] Ms. Cosman testified, additionally, that Mr. Geldart was emotionally, verbally and financially abusive to her. She stated that he would get after her about a particular thing, for example having a male PSW client or doctor, and not let up until she gave in. She indicated that he would belittle her and call her names, such as “stupid”, “retard”, “bitch” and “cunt”. Mr. Geldart testified that they both did and said hurtful things to each other, and it is for this reason that they are not together.

[19] Ms. Cosman described an incident which resulted in a change to Mr. Geldart’s access schedule by removing his Wednesday access and extending his weekend access to Monday. She indicated that on April 16, 2018, Mr. Geldart came to stay at her home so she could drive him to work the next day and still have the car. Ms. Cosman indicated that Mr. Geldart wrote a letter to her in which he stated he was going to kill her, rape her and cut her body parts unless she changed Cody’s surname. Ms. Cosman said that Mr. Geldart later burned the letter on the balcony. She also alleged that he made her open her mouth and put his fingers in and rubbed something in her mouth. The incident was reported to the police and the CAS. An investigation ensued, and the Society was unable to verify the report, but did verify concerns around on-going adult conflict. At trial, Mr. Geldart denied that the incident ever happened. He stated that he lost about five weeks of access with the children while the investigation was being conducted. He was never charged with anything by the police. The result of the affair was that Ms. Cosman no longer wanted to interact with Mr. Geldart, so the Wednesday visit was removed, and Mr. Geldart was permitted to pick up the children from daycare/school on Friday and return them to daycare/school on Monday morning.

[20] Although Mr. Geldart was again unclear about the timeframes involved, he did indicate that while he was unemployed, he had more time to spend with the children. Rather than return them to daycare or school on Monday morning, he would, therefore, sometimes keep the children with him on Mondays or Mondays and Tuesdays, and sometimes even longer. According to Mr. Geldart, he would inform Ms. Cosman that he was doing so every time. Mr. Geldart felt that as Hannah was in kindergarten and Cody was in daycare, there was no problem with them staying with him more time. He indicated that he had discussed this with the principal and two of Hannah’s teachers at school. However, Ms. Cosman testified that she was neither ever informed by Mr. Geldart that he was keeping the children with him nor did she ever agree to him doing so beyond his scheduled access. Several email exchanges between Ms. Cosman’s lawyer and Mr. Geldart’s lawyer regarding the whereabouts of the children were tendered as evidence and made exhibits to the trial. Those emails serve to confirm Ms. Cosman’s version of events, and I find her testimony more credible in this regard. Mr. Geldart appears to have simply done what he pleased, for his own purposes, regardless of the existing court order or of the primary parent’s views and wishes.

[21] While the parties certainly had an unstable relationship, and some difficult periods since separation, they have also been able for the most part to plan for the children between them, including varying access times to accommodate Mr. Geldart’s work schedule when necessary. I do find that Ms. Cosman has been the primary caregiver to the children since separation, but that should not preclude from Mr. Geldart having a role in their upbringing. I find that there should be an order for joint custody of the children. However, Mr. Geldart has shown to have a pattern of making unilateral decisions for the children to suit his own needs, and for that reason I find that, while the parties are to consult on decisions that need to be made for the children, Ms. Cosman will have final decision-making authority if they are unable to come to an agreement on any decision.

Issue #2 – What kind of parenting time should Mr. Geldart have with the children?

[22] Mr. Geldart wants to have the children weekly from Thursday evening to Monday morning, for the parenting time to “be fair” and for it to be consistent with that for which he has Rosalee. Ms. Cosman would like Mr. Geldart’s parenting time to be every second weekend and shared holidays. She does not believe the current regime, or that suggested by Mr. Geldart, would be in the children’s best interests because they have no recreational time with her. Since Ms. Cosman began working in December of 2018, and as Mr. Geldart has the children every weekend, her only time with them is in the mornings before school and at the end of the day after work. These times are filled with eating, homework, bath time and bedtime and the children have essentially no leisure time in her care. I agree that the children would benefit from some time with Ms. Cosman that is not filled with the required activities of life and school, but as the children are accustomed to spending their weekends with Mr. Geldart, I am not of the view that reducing that time to every second weekend would be in their best interests. I, therefore, reduce it to three weekends per month, so that the children can be in the care of Ms. Cosman for one weekend per month.

[23] Mr. Geldart testified about speaking to his employer about changing his schedule so that he could either have the children earlier on Fridays or get them on Thursdays after work and/or return them to school/daycare on Monday mornings. Mr. Geldart’s access may, therefore, extend to be from Thursday evening if the children have a holiday or PD day on Friday, if his work schedule will permit for him to care for the children on Friday. Similarly, if Monday is a school holiday or PD day on his regular weekends, he may return the children on Monday evening rather than Sunday evening, if his work schedule will permit him to care for the children on Monday.

Issue #3 - What is the child support payable by Mr. Geldart and should any child support arrears be rescinded?

[24] As I have indicated above, Mr. Geldart filed his first application on June 20, 2016, and Justice Sheard made an order dated July 14, 2016 requiring Mr. Geldart to pay Ms. Cosman $574 per month in support of Hannah commencing August 1, 2016. However, the parties almost immediately reconciled after that hearing and remained together until late November of 2016. Clearly, no child support should be payable over this period. I, therefore, rescind arrears of $2,296 in child support for the four months of August through November of 2016.

[25] Cody was born on December 5, 2016, and Mr. Geldart ought then to have been paying table support for two children commencing December 1, 2016. Mr. Geldart was working fulltime when the parties separated at his union job (according to Mr. Geldart, he had been doing so for 17 years), and he continued to do so until sometime shortly after the parties’ case conference on December 13, 2017. At that case conference, Mr. Geldart was found to have an obligation of $761 per month, which meant that his annual income was approximately $50,500 per year. Table support for two children on an annual income of $50,500 under the 2011 Federal Child Support Guidelines is $750.60 per month. Mr. Geldart, therefore, ought to have been paying Ms. Cosman $750.60 per month from December 1, 2016 to December 30, 2017.

[26] Commencing in or about January of 2018, Mr. Geldart was on EI, and his child support payments were being garnished by FRO. Mr. Geldart did not give a date at which his EI ran out, but he did indicate that his income would have been about one half of what it was while employed. He indicated that for six months following his receipt of EI, he was unemployed completely. He then stated that he commenced working back with the union “last Thursday”, so on or about September 26, 2019. Mr. Geldart did state that he worked at “a couple of small jobs” in between at about $15 or $16 per hour.

[27] Mr. Geldart did not provide the court or Ms. Cosman with an updated sworn Financial Statement, as he was required to do by the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form of Justice Summers or the Family Law Rules. He did not disclose any tax returns or Notices of Assessment or Reassessment for the years 2016, 2017 or 2018. Although Mr. Geldart stated that his documentation was in the hands of his Trustee in Bankruptcy, he did not disclose any documents relating to his bankruptcy either. He did not provide the court with any information about his efforts to find employment, or indeed the reason he was without employment. Additionally, Mr. Geldart did not respond over the period in question to requests for information from Ms. Cosman’s lawyer about his place of employment so that FRO could be informed of any changes and enforce the existing order. Consequently, Mr. Geldart has paid no child support for the children since his EI ran out. According to his testimony, Mr. Geldart would have been unemployed and without EI for approximately six months before returning to work, which means since about February of 2019. While Mr. Geldart may have been involuntarily unemployed (which is not at all clear), he was unemployed for some period of time. Mr. Geldart, however, had plenty of time to find employment both while he was on EI and subsequently. Having no information as to his efforts during this period, I am unable to find that he was not capable of making approximately $50,500 per year, as he had been doing previously. I find there is no basis to reduce Mr. Geldart’s child support obligation, or to rescind any arrears that have accumulated to date, but for those identified in paragraph 24 above.

[28] Additionally, Mr. Geldart’s testimony is that he has commenced working with the union again and is making approximately $30 per hour and working 40 hours per week. This results in an annual income of $60,000, so commencing October 1, 2019, Mr. Geldart will be required to pay table support for the children based on that income.

Issue #4 - Is Ms. Cosman entitled to spousal support, and if so, in what quantum and for what duration?

[29] The parties’ relationship was short-lived and somewhat sporadic, spanning from September of 2012 to November of 2016. As I have indicated above, the parties separated for a period in June and July of 2016. According to Ms. Cosman, this was their second separation. She also left Mr. Geldart on another occasion for some time, but she was not specific about when or for how long that was.

[30] As I have indicated, Ms. Cosman worked as a PSW at the time that the parties commenced cohabitation. She seems to have continued in that profession until Hannah was born. She did not return to work by her own choice (recognizing that she made that choice to have peace from Mr. Geldart) because her employer could no longer accommodate her request to not work with male clients. Ms. Cosman then remained unemployed outside of the home until December of 2018.

[31] Ms. Cosman’s evidence was that she was responsible for everything having to do with the home and the children during her relationship with Mr. Geldart. She did all the cooking, cleaning and caring for the children. Ms. Cosman conceded that Mr. Geldart did the family laundry, though she was responsible for folding and putting the clothes away. He also did all the yard and outdoor work. Ms. Cosman also testified that when she was working, Mr. Geldart required that her paycheck be deposited into his account, to which she had no access. Mr. Geldart denied this, stating that the parties had a joint account. Ms. Cosman stated that she was entirely dependent on Mr. Geldart for money, and she was often left without.

[32] Although it was unclear, based on her above evidence, it seems that the basis for Ms. Cosman’s claim is both compensatory and non-compensatory. The first step in any claim for spousal support is to determine eligibility. I find, based on Ms. Cosman’s dependence on Mr. Geldart and her role in caring for the household and the children, that she is entitled to spousal support on both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. Although she is making a request for spousal support, Ms. Cosman provided no testimony with respect to her income over the years in question, nor did she provide the court with any DivorceMate calculations setting out the possible ranges or duration of support pursuant to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. Ms. Cosman, however, filed an updated Financial Statement in the Trial Record in which she includes her Notices of Assessment for 2016, 2017 and 2018. In 2016, her line 150 income was $4,779; in 2017, it was $7,276 and in 2018 it was $9,444. In her Financial Statement, which was sworn on August 2, 2019, Ms. Cosman indicates that her monthly employment income is $1680.47, which would result in an annual income of $20,165.64 for 2019, not including Child Tax Benefits.

[33] Based on the evidence that was available, I have found that Mr. Geldart’s income for the years in question was approximately $50,500, and that there is no evidentiary basis for reducing it. Based on the parties’ above-noted incomes, spousal support payable at the mid-range for 2017 would be $0.00 in a “with child support” formula. This remains the case for 2018 and 2019. The range of duration for spousal support appears to be between 6 and 17 years based on the length of the relationship and the ages of the children. I find that Ms. Cosman is entitled to spousal support, but that it will be set at $0.00. Ms. Cosman may wish to have that issue reviewed once Mr. Geldart’s child support obligations have terminated.

Issue #5 – Should the order include a police enforcement clause?

[34] Mr. Geldart does not dispute overholding the children when he was unemployed. He indicated that at times he did so when one or both of the children were sick and he kept them home from school. At other times, he did so simply because he wished to; he considered it his “bonding time” with the children. As I have indicated above, I accept Ms. Cosman’s evidence that Mr. Geldart neither sought her consent to keep the children longer that he was entitled by court order to do, nor did he inform her either that he was doing so or of when the children would return.

[35] Mr. Geldart stated that this would no longer occur for two reasons, the first being that Hannah is starting school now and it is important that she not miss. It was his evidence that it did not matter in the past as she was not really in school, only kindergarten. The second reason is that he is now employed fulltime during the week and can only have the children from the end of work on Friday to Sunday evening. In other words, there is no chance that he will overhold. Mr. Geldart’s position is that a police enforcement clause is not necessary.

[36] Ms. Cosman requests the enforcement clause precisely because of Mr. Geldart’s actions in the past, and that he takes no heed of either what is in a court order or what her wishes are when it suits his own purposes. She hopes very much that it will not ever be necessary to involve the police, but her experience is that she could not even obtain information about the return of the children when Mr. Geldart overheld them, let alone get them returned.

[37] I agree with Ms. Cosman. Mr. Geldart has demonstrated in the past that he will do whatever he wants when he has the opportunity. Mr. Geldart is working now, but as in the past, that may not always be the case. I too would hope that a police enforcement clause is never required to be used, but the evidence supports that it may very well be necessary. I will, therefore, include one in the order.

Order

[38] My order is as follows:

1. The Applicant and the Respondent shall have joint custody of the children of the marriage, Hannah Jean-Marie Cosman-Geldart, born on October 28, 2014, and Cody Gordon Theodore Cosman-Geldart, born on December 5, 2016.

2. 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 or text message to the other parent, who shall have seven days to respond by email or text message. 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;

3. If the Applicant and the Respondent are not able to agree on a major decision affecting the children, after appropriate consultation, and taking into consideration the input of the Applicant, the Respondent shall have sole final decision-making authority;

4. The primary residence of the children shall be with the Respondent;

5. The Applicant shall have parenting time with the children as follows:

a. Three weekends of every month from Friday at 7:30 pm to Sunday at 7:30 pm; to be extended to be from Thursday evening if the children have a holiday or PD day on Friday and his work schedule will permit him to care for the children on Friday, or to Monday evening if Monday is a school holiday or PD day and his work schedule will permit him to care for the children on Monday;

b. One half of all statutory holidays, to be divided as agreed upon by the parties;

c. Three consecutive weeks in August, with one month notice to the Respondent as to which weeks he desires.

6. The Respondent shall have three consecutive weeks of parenting time with the children in July, with one month notice to the Applicant of which weeks she desires;

7. The regular schedule shall be suspended during the Respondent’s three weeks in July and the Applicant’s three weeks in August;

8. The parent who is celebrating a birthday shall be entitled to have the children for three hours on his or her birthday, regardless of whose parenting time it is according to the regular schedule;

9. The children shall spend their birthdays in the care of whichever parent they are regularly scheduled to be, unless the parties agree otherwise;

10. The children shall spend Mother’s Day with the Respondent and Father’s Day with the Applicant, regardless of whose parenting time it is according to the regular schedule;

11. Arrears of child support fixed at $2,296 are rescinded for the period of August 1, 2016 to November 30, 2016;

12. Commencing December 1, 2016, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent $750.60 per month being the table support for two children pursuant to the 2011 FCSG’s on an annual income of $50,500;

13. Commencing December 1, 2017, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent $763.60 per month, being the table support for two children pursuant to the 2017 FCSG’s on an annual income of $50,500;

14. Commencing October 1, 2019, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent $915 per month, being the table support for two children pursuant to the 2017 FCSG’s on an annual income of $60,000;

15. Commencing January 1, 2017, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent $0.00 in spousal support;

16. The Family Responsibility Office shall make all necessary adjustments to the arrears owed by the Applicant in accordance with this order; and,

17. Upon request and receipt of an original court order or certified copy of the order, pursuant to section 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the Police Force having jurisdiction in any area where it appears that Hannah and Cody Cosman-Geldart respectively may be shall apprehend and deliver the children to the Respondent.

Costs

[39] Given the divided success of the trial, Mr. Geldart having been successful in obtaining an order of joint custody and the rescission of some arrears, and Ms. Cosman having been partially successful in altering Mr. Geldart’s parenting time, having entitlement to spousal support established and obtaining a police enforcement clause, I am not inclined to make an order of costs. However, if the parties are unable to agree on costs and seek to make submissions with regards to same, they may do so by providing no more than three double-spaced pages of submissions along with bills of costs and offers to settle by October 15, 2019.

Madam Justice T. Engelking

Released: October 7, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-1324

DATE: 2019/10/07

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Joseph Geldart Applicant

– and –

Lisa Cosman Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Madam Justice T. Engelking

Released: October 7, 2019

[^1]: R.S.O. 1990, c.C.12, as am. [^2]: R.S.O. 1990, c.F.3, as am. [^3]: O.Reg. 114/99, as am.