COURT FILE NO.: FC34/12-1
DATE: September 22, 2021
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
Megan Marie Abbott
Applicant
- and -
Paul Tanguay
Respondent
COUNSEL:
Stephanie Ouellette for the Applicant
Paul Tanguay, in person
HEARD: September 13 and 14, 2021
BEFORE: TOBIN J.
Issues
[1] In this case, the court is asked to determine the issues of decision-making responsibility, parenting time for the Respondent, and child support.
Facts
The Parties
[2] The Applicant (“mother”) and the Respondent (“father”) are the parents of two children, Sophie Abbott, born […], 2011 (“Sophie”), and Mason Abbott, born […], 2017 (“Mason”).
[3] The mother is 29 years of age and the father is 34 years of age. They started living together in 2008.
[4] The relationship of the mother and father was an “on and off” one. They separated at least two times. Following one of the separations, an order made by Mitrow J. dated September 3, 2013 granted the mother custody of Sophie. The father was granted access.
[5] After a period of separation, the parties reconciled and started to live together again in 2016.
[6] The parties last separated on the night of August 1, 2019. The police were involved. Each parent blamed the other for the escalation of their behaviour. The children saw their parents’ anger and volatility the night they separated. I find that both the mother and the father acted inappropriately that night, especially by allowing their actions to be observed by the children.
[7] When they separated, Sophie remained in the mother’s care in the family home. The father took Mason with him when he left the home that night, over the mother’s objections. The mother understood from an attending police officer that, without a court order, the police could not stop the father from taking Mason.
[8] The father refused to allow the mother any contact with Mason following the separation. The mother permitted the father alternate weekend access with Sophie
[9] As a result of the father’s refusal to allow the mother contact with Mason, she started this Application and brought a Motion for his return. In late August or early September 2019, Mason returned to live with the mother.
[10] On September 4, 2019, I made an order in this case that provided that the father have access to both children on alternate weekends and alternate Wednesdays.
[11] By order of Templeton J. dated September 24, 2019, the September 3, 2013 order of Mitrow J. was vacated by reason of the subsequent cohabitation of the parties.
[12] Both children have lived with the mother in her home since Mason’s return. The children had regular parenting time with the father until March 2020, when the mother was charged with an historical assault on the father. A non-association order was made.
[13] The father did not resume parenting time with the children until the spring of 2021. There was no explanation provided why alternate arrangements were not made for the father to see the children in this period.
The Children
[14] Sophie, now age 10, is attending school in person. She is in grade 5. She does not like school too much because she is picked on, though she does enjoy art. Sophie likes playing with her friends and on her tablet. She likes to read and has advanced to chapter books. Sometimes she likes to be on her own and the mother respects this.
[15] Mason is four years old. He has some delays and behavioural problems. He is eligible for junior kindergarten but is not yet toilet trained enough to allow him to attend. At the suggestion of Mason’s doctor, the mother has placed Mason on a daycare waiting list so he can have experience socializing with other children. According to the mother, Mason likes playing computer games. He also likes to be outdoors playing in the park. The mother suffers from anxiety and taking Mason to the park can trigger this anxiety. Consequently, Mason usually plays in the park when the father has him in his care.
[16] The children are close with one another. Sometimes Sophie is annoyed with or does not want to play with her younger brother. However, they are connected. Sophie will, on occasion, help make breakfast for Mason and she likes reading to him. The mother has observed them cuddle. Sophie will help Mason get his boardgames. According to the mother, whose evidence I accept, the children “lean on each other.” She has observed that Mason is sad when Sophie leaves for school.
[17] The mother appears to have a daily routine for the children. This routine now often includes an evening telephone call with the father. Bedtime stories are read to the children (unless Mason has already fallen asleep).
[18] When upset or in need of comfort or support, both children will go to the mother.
[19] The mother’s plan is to look for employment once Mason is enrolled in daycare. Her employment prospects are limited because of her experience, education, and the necessity that she be at home for the children when they are not in school or daycare. It is also her plan to complete her high school diploma. She wants to show Sophie that graduating high school is possible. This is something she wants for Sophie and Mason.
[20] As stated above, the father’s parenting time with the children stopped in March 2020. This is because the father was the complainant in an historical assault charge brought against the mother. While the criminal case was ongoing, a non-association term was in force. The father was not able to attend at the mother’s home for parenting time. The father was not able to have the children at his home, as will be explained below. The criminal matter was resolved in March 2021, with the mother entering into a one-year long Peace Bond. A term of the Peace Bond is that the mother is to have no contact with the father, unless he provides a revocable consent, which he has.
[21] With the father’s revocable consent in place, the father resumed his parenting time with the children and contact with the mother. The mother’s evidence, which I accept, is that she is constantly terrified the police will come to her home. Despite this fear, she continues to allow the father in her home because it is her view that “his children need him in their lives.”
[22] Within the last month, the children started seeing the father every weekend. He often joins the mother and children at her home for a Sunday dinner.
[23] The father has lived with his father (“the paternal grandfather”) since the parties separated. The paternal grandfather will not allow the father to bring the children to his home. According to the father, the paternal grandfather is concerned that the mother is not complying with COVID-19 restrictions. As a consequence, the father’s parenting time with the children is in the community or at the mother’s home. In addition to the scheduled parenting time, the father has additional time with the children as arranged on occasion by the parties. If the mother needs someone to watch the children while she is out, she often calls on the father for help. She did so recently when she asked the father to care for the children in her home while she went to a Celebration of Life for a friend of hers who had recently died.
[24] The children have a strong relationship with the father. They are excited to see him for parenting time and are sad when he must leave. Sophie, in particular, likes to talk to father about her troubles at school.
Issue #1 What parenting order is in the best interests of the children?
Position of the Parties
[25] The mother asks that she be granted sole decision-making responsibility, while the father asks that this responsibility be shared jointly by them. There appears to be agreement that the children’s principal residence shall be with the mother. Both parents ask that the father’s parenting time with the children be defined.
Legal Considerations
[26] The statutory provisions relevant to the determination of the parenting issues raised in this case are found in the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 as follows:
18(1) “parenting order” means an order made under section 28 respecting decision-making responsibility or parenting time with respect to a child;
“decision-making responsibility” means responsibility for making significant decisions about a child’s well-being, including with respect to,
(a) health,
(b) education,
(c) culture, language, religion and spirituality, and
(d) significant extra-curricular activities;
“parenting time” means the time a child spends in the care of a parent of the child, whether or not the child is physically with the parent during that time;
Best interests of the child
24 (1) In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section.
Primary consideration
(2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.
Factors
(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,
(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;
(d) the history of care of the child;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
Factors relating to family violence
(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3) (j), the court shall take into account,
(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;
(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;
(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;
(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;
(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;
(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;
(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
(h) any other relevant factor.
Past conduct
(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person, unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of the person’s decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to the child.
Allocation of parenting time
(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
Parenting orders and contact orders
28 (1) The court to which an application is made under section 21,
(a) may by order grant,
(i) decision-making responsibility with respect to a child to one or more persons, in the case of an application under clause 21 (1) (a) or subsection 21 (2),
(ii) parenting time with respect to a child to one or more parents of the child, in the case of an application under clause 21 (1) (b), or
(b) may by order determine any aspect of the incidents of the right to decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, as the case may be, with respect to a child; and
(c) may make any additional order the court considers necessary and proper in the circumstances, including an order,
(i) limiting the duration, frequency, manner or location of contact or communication between any of the parties, or between a party and the child,
(ii) prohibiting a party or other person from engaging in specified conduct in the presence of the child or at any time when the person is responsible for the care of the child,
(iii) prohibiting a party from changing the child’s residence, school or day care facility without the consent of another party or an order of the court,
(vi) requiring a party to give information or to consent to the release of information respecting the child’s well-being, including in relation to the child’s health and education, to another party or other person specified by the court, or
Allocation of decision-making responsibility
(4) The court may allocate decision-making responsibility with respect to a child, or any aspect of it, to one or more persons.
Allocation of parenting time
(5) The court may allocate parenting time with respect to a child by way of a schedule.
Parenting time, day-to-day decisions
(6) Unless the court orders otherwise, a person to whom the court allocates parenting time with respect to a child has exclusive authority during that time to make day-to-day decisions affecting the child.
Right to ask for and receive information
(8) Unless a court orders otherwise, a person to whom decision-making responsibility or parenting time has been granted with respect to a child under a parenting order is entitled to ask for and, subject to any applicable laws, receive information about the child’s well-being, including in relation to the child’s health and education, from,
(a) any other person to whom decision-making responsibility or parenting time has been granted with respect to the child under a parenting order; and
(b) any other person who is likely to have such information.
[27] In determining whether decision-making responsibility should be joint or sole, the only consideration for the court is whether it will be in the best interests of the children. There is no presumption in favour of joint decision-making in the recent amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act.
[28] Joint decision-making requires a high degree of cooperation between the parents. Where parents are unable to cooperate effectively, joint decision-making responsibility is not appropriate. However, one party cannot create problems with the other parent and then claim sole decision-making authority on the basis of lack of cooperation. These principles were developed in the context of joint custody. The rationale for these principles applies with equal force to the new joint decision-making provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act.
Discussion
(i) Decision-Making Responsibility
[29] The parties acknowledge that there was conflict in their relationship. Both parties had criminal charges brought against them because of their actions towards the other. These criminal charges resulted in sanctions being imposed.
[30] The parties’ relationship can fairly be described as turbulent. It was and remains characterized by periods of conflict and rancor and at other times the parties are mutually supportive of one another.
[31] Both the mother and the father testified that they often call the other when in need. For example, when an intruder attempted to enter the mother’s home, she called the father first and then the police for help.
[32] However, the parties’ communication often triggers or provokes anger and hostility. I was able to observe the parties’ interactions during the trial when the father cross-examined the mother. He was at times aggressive and accusatory. He attempted to bully the mother. His manner toward the mother resulted in him being cautioned a number of times. At first, the mother remained calm and polite in her answers, but the manner of questioning inevitably led her to become sharp and sarcastic. Again, I was forced to intervene.
[33] The parties acknowledged that what took place in court is representative of how they interact outside of court.
[34] Despite the father agreeing that the children should reside primarily with the mother, he was most critical of some aspects of her parenting. Some of his criticisms were reasonable but how he dealt with them with the mother was not. He was fixed in his positions and did not appreciate the mother’s point of view.
[35] For example, the mother allows Mason to co-sleep with her. The mother’s reasons for doing so were that Mason wanted to and that Mason’s bedroom was being used as a storeroom. There is no room for Mason’s bed in his bedroom.
[36] Another criticism was that Sophie was often late for school. The mother offered no explanation for this.
[37] The father expressed concern that the mother had not seen to it that Mason was toilet trained at four years of age. This prevented him from being able to attend junior kindergarten this year.
[38] The father complained that the mother never takes out the garbage from her apartment. He produced photographs of garbage bags in her apartment. The mother did not respond to this evidence.
[39] He also complained that Mason is “always covered in bruises.” Photographs of Mason’s legs showing bruises were produced. The mother’s explanation is that Mason is a very active four-year-old child and sometimes he gets bruises.
[40] The father has contacted the Children's Aid Society so many times about the mother’s care of the children that they no longer respond to him. The father understands that the Children's Aid Society sees him as the aggressor.
[41] With some justification, the mother views the father’s treatment of her as being vindictive.
[42] I find that the father exaggerated some of his evidence about the mother’s shortcomings, as well as the extent of his involvement in caring for the children.
[43] I find that, the mother has a proper plan in place for the adequate care of the children; but it would be much improved with the mother addressing some of the concerns raised by the father.
[44] Throughout their relationship and subsequent to the separation, it was the mother who made the important decisions regarding the children. She arranged for the children to have a doctor. The mother arranged for Sophie’s school registration. The mother arranged for Mason to be placed on a waiting list for daycare. It was the father’s evidence that he would put in very long days of work. The child protection authorities are not involved with this family despite the father’s attempts.
[45] To the mother’s credit, she acknowledges that she is “not going to win any awards” as a parent but that she does her best. The mother may wish to consider involving her support, which she called her “village.” If this village is not able to provide sufficient support, the mother must consider accessing support from community agencies to address some of the concerns raised by the father. For example, Mason should have his own bedroom.
[46] I also find that the parties’ inability to consistently communicate effectively in the best interests of the children is not caused by the mother initiating the conflict between them.
[47] It is for these reasons that I find that it is in the children’s best interests that the mother have decision-making responsibility for the children. This will lessen the potential for conflict between the parties.
[48] I also find that the father has much to offer his children. They have a close and loving relationship with him. He cares about their wellbeing. His input should be considered when important decisions are being made by the mother about the children.
[49] I therefore direct that before the mother makes any important decisions about the children, she shall meaningfully solicit the father’s views on the issue at hand. Because of the challenges in their in-person communication, this consultation shall be in writing through text or email, or preferably a parenting communication app so that there is a written record that will demonstrate the fact of the communication and how it was undertaken. To be clear, it is the mother who has the final decision-making responsibility with respect to important matters pertaining to the children once she has informed the father of the issue and considered his input.
(ii) Parenting Time
[50] At present, the father is not able to have the children for extended periods of time because he is not able to take them to his residence.
[51] The mother asks that the father have parenting time with the children two out of every three weekends on a 2-1-2-1 rotating basis. She also asks that there be a holiday residence schedule.
[52] The father asks that parenting time take place every other weekend and, at other times, as the parties agree.
[53] The father resides in the paternal grandfather’s home. The paternal grandfather is not willing to have the children stay there. As a consequence, the father has been seeing the children at the mother’s apartment. This plan is no longer viable. There is too much potential for conflict. This has been the case in the past. The mother’s evidence, which I accept, is that when they cannot get along, the father raises his voice and calls her names, even in front of the children. In addition to the conflict that arises, when exercising parenting time at the mother’s apartment, her privacy is being invaded. He has looked at her computer. He has gone through her personal possessions.
[54] The father does not yet have a long-term plan for how the children can be in his care during parenting time. His evidence is that he is looking for employment and for his own home. In the meantime, he testified that he is prepared to take the children to a hotel or have them in the community.
[55] It is also the father’s expectation that he will be able to join the Canadian Armed Forces very shortly. He was scheduled to undergo a physical. He testified that if he passes the physical, he will be able to enlist. If he does enlist, he will be sent to Quebec for training and then somewhere else for a posting. In response to a question from me, the father stated that he thought he could be posted to London. I am not confident that the father received definitive information in this regard. I do not accept the father’s evidence that it is definite that he will be posted to London.
[56] As the plans concerning the father’s residence and employment are not yet finalized, the weekend proposal made by the mother will not be in the children’s best interests. Also, the father does not want that much weekend access.
[57] I find that, in the present circumstances, it is in the children’s best interests that they have parenting time with the father on alternate weekends as he has asked for, starting October 1, 2021.
[58] The father’s parenting time is not to be exercised at the mother’s residence.
[59] The father’s alternate weekend parenting time is to be exercised in the community (including a hotel), at a residence obtained by the father, or at the father’s current residence, should the paternal grandfather permit it. The pick-up and return times shall be as agreed to by the parties. If they are not able to agree, then:
a) If the father does not have overnight accommodations for the children, the children shall be in his care on alternate weekends on Fridays from 4:30 PM until 7:00 PM, on Saturdays from 10:00 AM until 7:00 PM and on Sundays from 10:00 AM until 5:00 PM. Where the Monday of the father’s parenting time weekend is a statutory holiday, the children shall be in his care on Fridays from 4:30 PM until 7:00 PM, on Saturdays from 10:00 AM until 7:00 PM, on Sundays from 10:00 AM until 7:00 PM, and on Mondays from 10:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
b) If the father has overnight accommodations, then alternate weekend parenting time shall start Friday at 4:30 PM and continue until Sunday at 5:00 PM or Monday at 5:00 PM if it is a statutory holiday.
c) The father may have additional parenting time with the children as may be agreed to from time to time by the parties in advance and in writing.
[60] The father may have telephone/video contact with the children three weeknights each week. If the parties are unable to agree on the time for this contact, it shall take place at 7:00 PM on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.
[61] The mother proposes that holiday parenting time – long weekends – be defined. This is not necessary as long weekends are dealt with as part of the alternating weekend schedule. Christmas parenting time shall be as proposed by the mother – it is to be shared.
[62] If the father has overnight accommodation available to him and the children, the children shall be in his care in odd-numbered years from December 24 at 9:00 AM until December 25 at noon. The children will then be in the care of the mother from December 25 at noon until December 26 at 9:00 AM. In even-numbered years, the children shall be in the care of the mother from December 24 at 9:00 AM until December 25 at noon. The children will then be in the care of the father from December 25 at noon until December 26 at 9:00 AM.
[63] If father does not have overnight accommodation available for him and the children, his parenting time shall be as arranged by the parties in writing and, if they are unable to agree, then as determined by the mother. I am confident, based on her evidence that she wants the children to have a positive relationship with their father, that she will allow him reasonable parenting time during these holidays.
[64] The mother also proposes a number of parenting terms that will be set out below. I am satisfied that these terms are necessary and proper in the circumstances of this case.
Issue #2 What amount of support is to be paid by the father to the mother for the children?
[65] The father is not employed at this time. His evidence is, and I accept, that he is actively looking for employment, including the possibility of enlisting in the Canadian Armed Forces. His only source of income at this time is Employment Insurance benefits, which will end in two weeks.
[66] The mother asks that the father’s child support obligation start October 1, 2021 and be based upon imputed part-time minimum wage income of $18,000 a year.
[67] I find that it is appropriate to impute income to the father in the amount requested by the mother. The father has the education, experience, and admirable work ethic that should allow him to obtain employment. He is actively looking for employment. His evidence is that he has sent out almost 1,000 job applications. He has not been able to obtain employment, he says, because he does not want to work on Wednesdays, so that he is able to see the children. This limitation in his job search is not reasonable. He does not now have in-person parenting time on Wednesdays. It is expected that he will be employed in the near future. He will be given another two months to obtain employment. Beginning the 1st of November and on the 1st day of each month thereafter, until further order of the court, the father is to pay child support of $263 per month based upon imputed part-time minimum wage income of $18,000. As he is actively looking for employment, he shall be required to inform the mother, in writing, by text, email, or parenting app within 14 days of obtaining any employment or any change in employment. He shall similarly inform her in writing of any changes to his income, and he shall be obliged to comply with s. 24(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97 to provide ongoing disclosure of his income.
Issue #3: Arrears of Child Support
[68] The order of Mitrow J. dated September 3, 2013 provided at paragraph 5 that in the event the father earned more than $11,000 in any year, he was to pay the applicable amount of child support required under the Child Support Guidelines.
[69] The father produced evidence from CRA of his income for the years 2012 to and including 2019. The only years he earned more than $11,000 were 2014 ($14,320.67), 2018 ($20,820.03).
[70] The Director, Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”) has been taking money from the father on account of child support, presumably pursuant to the order of Mitrow J.
[71] The father claims that the FRO has incorrectly enforced payment of child support arrears.
[72] The father asked that the issue of arrears be dealt with at this trial. In the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form prepared in advance of this trial, it was noted that the father wanted to raise as an issue “unjustified support arrears.”
[73] The father did not provide any evidence as to the amount of arrears claimed to be owing as calculated by the FRO. It was not clear if the father meant to assert that the amount taken by the FRO was incorrect or that the FRO should not have been taking money from him at all.
[74] The mother did acknowledge that she received some payments from the FRO. Earlier this year she received $150. She kept some of it for the children and gave the rest back to the father. She knew it would help him.
[75] This is all the evidence provided on this issue. I am not able to determine what child support the father was obliged to pay through the FRO, what was paid to the mother by the FRO, nor the amount returned by the mother to the father.
[76] The mother requests an order that all arrears claimed to be owing be rescinded and fixed at NIL.
[77] I will accede to this request as between the mother and father. This means that the FRO will no longer enforce payment of child support alleged to be owing to the mother under the order of Mitrow J.[^1] On the record before me, I am not able to make any other order with respect to the father’s unjustified support arrears claim.
Costs
[78] Counsel for the applicant asked that there be no order for costs. As the applicant would otherwise be entitled presumptively to costs in this case, an order for no costs will be made.
Order
[79] For these reasons, the following order shall issue:
The primary residence of the children, Sophie Abbott, born […], 2011, and Mason Abbott, born […], 2017, shall be with the Applicant, Megan Marie Abbott.
The Applicant, Megan Marie Abbott, shall have decision-making responsibility with respect to the children, Sophie Abbott, born […], 2011, and Mason Abbott, born […], 2017.
Before making any final decisions regarding important matters concerning the children, the Applicant, Megan Marie Abbott, shall consult with the Respondent, Paul Tanguay, by email, text, or parenting app. After such consultation, the Applicant has the authority to make the major decisions for the children.
The Respondent, Paul Tanguay, shall have parenting time with the children, Sophie Abbott, born […], 2011, and Mason Abbott, born […], 2017, as follows:
(a) alternate weekends starting October 1, 2021;
(b) the Respondent’s parenting time is not to be exercised at the Applicant’s residence; and
(c) the Respondent’s alternate weekend parenting time is to be exercised in the community (including a hotel), at a residence obtained by the Respondent, or at the Respondent’s current residence, should the paternal grandfather permit it. The pick-up and return times shall be as agreed to by the parties. If they are not able to agree, then:
i. if the Respondent does not have overnight accommodations for the children, the children shall be in his care on alternate weekends on Fridays from 4:30 PM until 7:00 PM, on Saturdays from 10:00 AM until 7:00 PM and on Sundays from 10:00 AM until 5:00 PM. If the Monday of his parenting time weekend is a statutory holiday, the children shall be in his care on Fridays from 4:30 PM until 7:00 PM, on Saturdays from 10:00 AM until 7:00 PM, on Sundays from 10:00 AM until 7:00 PM, and on Mondays from 10:00 AM until 5:00 PM;
ii. if the Respondent has overnight accommodations, then alternate weekend access shall start Friday at 4:30 PM and continue until Sunday at 5:00 PM or Monday at 5:00 PM if it is a statutory holiday;
iii. the Respondent may have additional parenting time with the children as may be agreed to from time to time by the parties in advance and in writing; and
iv. the Respondent may have telephone/video contact with the children three weeknights each week. If the parties are unable to agree on the time for this contact, the contact shall take place at 7:00 PM on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.
- Christmas holiday parenting time:
(a) if the Respondent has overnight accommodation available for him and the children, the children shall be in his care in odd-numbered years from December 24 at 9:00 AM until December 25 at noon. The children will then be in the care of the Applicant from December 25 at noon until December 26 at 9:00 AM. In even-numbered years, the children shall be in the care of the Applicant from December 24 at 9:00 AM until December 25 at noon. The children will then be in the care of the Respondent from December 25 at noon until December 26 at 9:00 AM;
(b) if the Respondent does not have overnight accommodation available for himself and the children, his Christmas holiday parenting time shall be as arranged by the parties in writing and if they are unable to agree, then as determined by the Applicant; and
(c) the balance of the Christmas school holiday is to be shared equally as agreed to by the parties and if they are not able to agree, then as determined by the Applicant.
Any other times agreed to by the parties.
Both parties shall have the right to participate in any association of the children’s schools that requires involvement of the student’s parents and have the right to attend parent/teacher interviews and any function at any of the children’s schools that is open to parents to attend, including any school trips that the parents are invited to attend with the children. Each parent shall be designated at the children’s schools as contact in the case of an emergency involving the children.
Each party shall have the right to make inquiries and be given information by the children’s teachers, school officials, doctors, dentists, and healthcare providers. If, for whatever reason, this clause itself is not sufficient, the parties shall execute any required authorization or direction necessary to enforce the intent of this clause.
The Applicant and the Respondent shall keep each other advised as to their respective current addresses and telephone numbers, including cellphone numbers.
The parties shall communicate via text, email, or parenting app only about issues pertaining to the children. They shall not make negative remarks about the other parent to or in front of the children nor allow third parties to do so.
The Applicant shall retain possession of government identification of the children. If the children require any government identification, including but not limited to their social insurance numbers, the other party will sign all necessary consents.
Commencing on the 1st day of November 2021 and on the 1st day of each month thereafter, the Respondent, Paul Tanguay, shall pay child support to the Applicant, Megan Marie Abbott, for the children, Sophie Abbott, born […], 2011, and Mason Abbott, born […], 2017, in the amount of $263 per month based upon an imputed 2021 part-time minimum wage income of $18,000 and Child Support Guidelines s. 3(1)(a).
The Respondent, Paul Tanguay, shall be required to inform the Applicant, Megan Marie Abbott, in writing, either by text, email, or parenting app within 14 days of any change in employment, as well as any change in income.
Child support arrears shall be fixed at NIL as of October 31, 2021 as between the parties and subject to the rights or claims by any assignee.
The Respondent, Paul Tanguay, by June 15 of each year wherein child support is payable, shall produce to the Applicant, Megan Marie Abbott, in writing, a copy of his income tax return and any Notices of Assessment or Reassessment for the previous year to determine whether adjustments to child support are required in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.
Support Deduction Order to issue.
There shall be no order for costs of these proceedings.
“Justice B. Tobin”
Justice B. Tobin
Released: September 22, 2021
[^1]: This is subject to the right of any assignee of the child support, if any. No evidence with respect to any assignment was provided.