COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-FO000740

DATE: 2019/10/15

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Natasha Dawn Wright,

Self-Represented

Applicant

• and -

Keith Lamon Garner,

Self-Represented

Respondent

HEARD: September 24, 25 and 30, 2019

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE L. MADSEN

[1] This is the Judgment in relation to a three-day trial about parenting and child support.

[2] To their credit, the Applicant, Natasha Wright ["Ms. Wright"], and the Respondent, Keith Garner ["Mr. Garner"], who are the parents of 10 year old Neveah Wright, born January 7, 2009 ["Neveah"], resolved custody, primary residency, and several incidents of custody in mediation on the morning of the first day of trial. By the end of the trial, it became clear that the parties also agreed on issues including ongoing quantum of child support, special expense sharing, counselling for Neveah, and some aspects of holiday time. Those agreements are summarized below.

[3] As at the conclusion of trial, the sole issues remaining for this court to decide were the following:

a. when Neveah will spend time with her father, Mr. Garner, who resides in Rochester, New York, both on a regular basis and during holidays throughout the year;

b. what the appropriate special and extraordinary expenses are for Neveah;

c. the amount, if any, of retroactive child support is owed from December 2016 to September 2019.

[4] Even on the three issues which remained for determination at the conclusion of the trial, the parties were not far apart in their positions. It is regrettable that this three-day trial was required at all.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Ms. Wright's Position

[5] Although the court requested clarity numerous times about the access schedule which Ms. Wright was seeking in the trial, this was never altogether clear. It appeared that she would like to continue the status quo of three hours on alternate Sundays between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., but she also testified that from 1:00 pm to 6:00 pm would be in Neveah's best interests. She expressed concern to balance the access schedule with Neveah's dance commitments which sometimes take place on Sundays. Regarding holiday access, Ms. Wright's position was also less than clear, although it appeared that she would like such access to be minimal. Ms. Wright did not say why or how this would be in her daughter's best interests.

[6] On sharing of special and extraordinary expenses, Ms. Wright's position was that Mr. Garner should share the cost of braces which Neveah had in 2018, as well as the ongoing cost of dance. The parties agreed at the end of the trial that the special expenses identified by the court would be shared on a 50/50 basis.

[7] Ms. Wright also sought retroactive child support based on the applicable Child Support Guidelines, from December 2016 to the date of the trial.

Mr. Garner's Position

[8] In terms of parenting time, Mr. Garner sought modest alternate weekend access, on either Saturday or Sunday, from 1:00 pm to 6:00 pm, in Kitchener, Ontario, with flexibility for the access to be moved to a weeknight if there is a conflict with Neveah's dance obligations. In terms of holiday access, he sought access in Rochester, New York for the American Thanksgiving. The parties agreed to limited access during the Christmas period each year.

[9] On special and extraordinary expenses, Mr. Garner was agreeable to sharing ongoing dance expenses, but argued that he should not have to share the cost of braces as he was not told about that expense in advance, and because he doubted whether an eight year old (Neveah's age at the time) would truly need braces.

[10] Mr. Garner acknowledged retroactive child support owing form December 1, 2016. However, from his perspective that obligation should be based on a 2015 written agreement between the parties setting child support at $150 per month. He did not propose to change the interim amount set by Justice Oldham on April 4, 2018, of $381 per month.

WITNESSES

Ms. Wright's Case

[11] Ms. Wright testified. She also called her 18-year-old son, Rashone Henry and her husband, Marlon Wright, to testify.

[12] For the most part, Ms. Wright testified in a straightforward manner, although she was somewhat defensive in cross-examination. It was clear that she is angry at Mr. Garner for his failure to pay child support for a period of time, and that she has found communication with him to be difficult.

[13] Ms. Wright was candid that from her perspective, whether Mr. Garner should have information about Neveah should be linked to whether he is paying child support.

[14] I had difficulty with Ms. Wright's evidence that Mr. Garner pushed her son Rashone Henry down the stairs when he was "9 or 10 years old." The allegation, which was flatly denied by Mr. Garner, lacked specificity both in terms of what actually was alleged to have taken place, as well as when it was to have taken place. Had this happened I do not believe that Ms. Wright would be agreeable to holiday access over the Christmas break, in Rochester, for her daughter, which she agreed to at the end of the trial.

[