Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC958/19

DATE: November 26, 2021

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

FAMILY COURT

RE: M.P.D., applicant

AND:

C.J.S., respondent

BEFORE: MITROW J.

COUNSEL: Eric M. Vallillee for the applicant

C.J.S. in person

HEARD: November 12, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1] There were three motions that were argued. All motions sought interim relief. The respondent brought two motions and the applicant brought one motion.

[2] The parties cohabited from 2007 until they separated on August 9, 2019. The parties are not married to each other. The circumstances of the parties’ separation is discussed later in these reasons.

[3] The parties have two children, a daughter, M., and a son, L., who were ages 12 and 9, respectively, at the time of the hearing of the motions.

[4] For convenience, I will, at times, refer to the applicant, M.P.D., as “the mother” and the respondent, C.J.S., as “the father.”

[5] The father’s two motions were returnable initially on July 7, 2021. One motion was for an order that the parties’ jointly-owned residential property located at […], London, be listed for sale forthwith; and an order that the parties “… enter into a division of personal property from within the home, forthwith.”

[6] The claim relating to a division of personal property has no statutory basis, or any other basis in law, and is dismissed.

[7] The father’s second motion seeks an interim parenting order.

[8] Regarding M., the father seeks specified parenting time: (a) “as per the recommendations” of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”); (b) that M. and the father should begin weekly visits where M. can attend with L. at first; and (c) reunification counselling to begin “right away.”

[9] In relation to L., the father seeks, as a minimum, that he have parenting time with L. as set out in the interim order of Hebner J. dated November 27, 2019.

[10] In her motion, the mother seeks interim child support, interim spousal support, an order that the father’s parenting time with L. continue for now via videoconference only and that parenting time with M. continue to be at her discretion. In relation to the motion for sale of the residential property, the mother requests that that motion be adjourned pending receipt of some disclosure as requested by the mother or, in the alternative, that the motion for sale of the property be adjourned to the trial.

[11] The mother’s motion sought various disclosure, but most of those requests have been resolved. Specifically, during the hearing of the motion, the mother abandoned her request for disclosure regarding the father’s income from a previous employer, namely Robson Cartage 2000 Inc.; the request for a copy of the father’s probation order became moot as the mother was able to obtain a copy of same; and an order that the father produce a complete copy of the report regarding his involvement in the Caring Dads program was not pursued as the father provided a complete copy of that report during the hearing of the motions.

[12] The one unresolved order for disclosure was the mother’s request for the father to provide all information and particulars regarding a charge on the residential property registered in 2011 in favour of the Toronto-Dominion Bank in the amount of $216,000.

[13] For reasons that follow, an order is made requiring the father to pay interim child support and interim spousal support, requiring that the residential property be listed for sale on terms as specified in the order below, an order is made regarding the father’s parenting time with each child as particularized in the order below and other incidental orders are made.

PARENTING ISSUES

[14] There is significant conflict in the affidavit material. The mother portrays the father as being verbally and physically abusive. The mother deposes that the father has serious anger issues, with a limited ability to control his anger outbursts.

[15] The father denies the mother’s allegations. He deposes to having “a proven history of a calm and collected demeanour.”

[16] These conflicts in the evidence cannot be resolved on these motions. The focus must be on facts that substantially are not in dispute.

[17] The parties separated on August 9, 2019. There was a physical confrontation between the parties that was witnessed by both children. Police attended at the home after the child, M., called the police. The father was charged, according to the mother, with assault and forcible confinement, which the father does not dispute. The parties agree that the father was convicted of assault in July 2020 and was placed on 18 months probation, that includes non-association provisions regarding the mother, who was the victim of the assault.

[18] The father’s evidence includes a lengthy narrative, describing what he alleges happened that day. Having regard to the conviction of assault, the father’s narrative, which suggests that the mother was the aggressor, seems quite unbelievable and belies his self-description as having, historically, a “calm and collected demeanour.”

[19] The father’s affidavit does leave the reader in some doubt as to whether he has accepted responsibility for his criminal behaviour on that occasion.

[20] The report of the Children’s Lawyer (“the report”) was filed as part of the evidentiary record. It is appended to the clinician’s affidavit sworn June 16, 2020. Both parties made references to the report and neither party objected to the report being part of the evidentiary record.

[21] I do note that the jurisprudence has progressed to the point where an assessment as to parenting issues, including a Children’s Lawyer’s report, is not confined solely to use at trial, but may be used on a motion for interim relief (without the necessity of having to establish exceptional circumstances) depending on the particular facts of each case, including the extent to which the report is relied on: see, for example, Bos v. Bos, 2012 ONSC 3425 (Ont. S.C.J.), at paras. 17-27; and Closner v. Closner, 2018 ONSC 7130 (Ont. S.C.J.), at paras. 6-14.

[22] While I do not consider the final recommendations made by the clinician, I do find that the clinician’s interviews with the children and observations of the children at each parent’s home is probative evidence that can be considered on the motions. It is noted that the clinician did not observe the child, M., at the father’s home, given M.’s refusal to be with the father and, accordingly, the clinician makes no parenting recommendations for M.

A. Previous Orders

[23] On the mother’s application, and urgent motion, Tobin J.’s order on August 20, 2019, included that the children shall reside in the care of the mother.

[24] On August 28, 2019, pursuant to the order of Price J., the father was to have access with L. on specified occasions, at specified times ranging from two to two and a half hours each, to be supervised as set out in the order.

[25] Pursuant to the order of Tobin J. dated September 11, 2019, the father was provided with one supervised visit, and one unsupervised visit in the community, with L.

[26] The last two orders, as mentioned above, provided for M. also to attend the visits, subject to M.’s wishes.

[27] The current existing order, made by Hebner J. dated November 27, 2019, provides that the father shall have access to occur on every weekend, alternating between Sundays and Saturdays from 1 p.m. until 7 p.m., and every Wednesday from after school until 6:30 p.m. There were also access provisions for the upcoming Christmas holidays. On weekends, access exchanges were at the residence of the maternal grandmother. In relation to M., the access was subject to her wishes.

[28] The last three orders referred to above were all made on consent and on an interim interim without prejudice basis.

B. The Child, M.

[29] M. has been traumatized by what she has observed, in particular, the assault perpetrated by her father against her mother.

[30] M. has, as noted previously, refused to attend all in-person access visits with her father since the assault incident. The father propounds a self-formulated theory that his estrangement from M. is a consequence of the mother having alienated M. from the father. This theory has no credible support within the evidentiary record before the court.

[31] The OCL report confirmed that, since March 22, 2020, that L. has had virtual access pursuant to his doctor’s recommendation at the time to shelter in place. The report indicates that the visits were for three hours each Wednesday and every Saturday and Sunday for three hours. The report noted that M. did begin joining in on some of the virtual access visits.

[32] As the OCL report is somewhat dated, it should be noted that M. was interviewed by the clinician on January 7 and 26, and on March 3, 2020.

[33] Through tears, M. told the clinician that she misses her father “a lot” and she confirmed that she did not want to see him anymore.

[34] M. described in detail, as recounted by the clinician, the assault incident. While it is outside the ambit of these reasons to make factual findings regarding that occurrence given the conflicting evidence, it is noteworthy that M.’s description to the clinician does not support, at all, the father’s narrative casting the mother as the aggressor.

[35] M. was quite emotional when describing the assault incident to the clinician, who stated in her report that M. talked about the incident “through tears.” M. told the clinician that, after she called the police, that the father, when she refused to talk to him, told her that he did not want to talk to a daughter who called the police on her father anyway.

[36] M. was tearful when she told the clinician about how this incident and her father’s comments hurt her feelings.

[37] M. did add in her interview that she believes her father misses her and that she loves him and misses him too. During the last interview, M. indicated that she wanted no further contact with her father.

[38] It is quite unfortunate that the father, in his letter to M., described his own hurt feelings as an explanation to M. as to why he had not given her the birthday gift he had purchased for her. That was very upsetting to M., as recounted by the mother.

[39] M.’s pediatrician, Dr. Mia Sethna, in a medical report dated July 15, 2021, states that M. has been struggling with mental health and that M. has been assessed by Dr. Sethna and also a child and adolescent psychiatrist. Dr. Sethna opined that M. has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of witnessing and experiencing her father’s abusive behaviour.

[40] Dr. Sethna further opined that “having required contact” with her father would be detrimental to M.’s mental health and that M. should be allowed to decide if she would like contact with her father. Finally, Dr. Sethna noted that M. has worked with a social worker for counselling support. This medical report, provided by Dr. Sethna, is the latest medical report and is consistent with Dr. Sethna’s earlier medical report regarding M. dated September 10, 2019.

[41] In the circumstances, the most effective way to repair the relationship between M. and her father is to embark on a reconciliation process with an appropriately trained clinical therapist. However, no such counselling can commence until M. wishes to engage in that counselling.

[42] While the father wishes for there to be some in-person parenting time with M., the evidentiary record supports a finding, which I make, that it is not in M.’s best interests to make any order that would force her to have parenting time with her father against her wishes.

[43] In making that finding, I consider M.’s age and her consistent refusal to have in-person parenting time since the assault incident. I consider, also, Dr. Sethna’s diagnosis.

[44] Given that the order below requires the parenting issue to be brought back before me, the parties are encouraged to cooperate and work with M. in order to present to M. a process, with her approval, that would involve a therapist, who can commence the reconciliation therapy.

C. The Child, L.

[45] The mother’s position set out in her draft order is that the father should continue to have video parenting time with L. on Wednesday from 4 to 7 p.m. and on every weekend, both Saturday and Sunday, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and thereafter to be followed by supervised access at Merrymount – Family Support and Crisis Centre once the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions “have been lifted” or in consultation with L.’s physician.

[46] I reject the submission that all current parenting time with L. must continue to be virtual. The evidentiary record does not support that such a parenting order is in L.’s best interests. L. has already been engaging in virtual parenting time for approximately 20 months. In addition, there is a dearth of evidence to support an order that L.’s parenting time needs to be supervised.

[47] Prior to approximately March 22, 2020, and subsequent to the assault incident, L. continued to have in-person parenting time with his father pursuant to a series of orders, as discussed earlier.

[48] The evidence suggests that the change to virtual parenting time was precipitated not by any issues that had been occurring during the in-person parenting time but, rather, was a direct result of COVID-19. This is confirmed by Dr. Keith Thompson’s letter dated March 22, 2020, noting that L. is “very high risk” due to COVID-19 and his asthma, and opining that L. should remain at home with his mother and not to leave home “… until the state of the emergency is declared lifted.”

[49] Today, L. is not under a lockdown and he attends school. The evidence does indicate that the mother is very vigilant and careful in following all appropriate COVID-19 protocols given L.’s asthma diagnosis.

[50] The mother, in opposing the resumption of in-person parenting time, points to L. having panic attacks. She referred specifically to an occurrence on February 19, 2020 when L. came home following an after-school visit with the father. L. was observed by the mother, and by a collateral witness, to be crying and yelling and reportedly sounding hysterical. The next morning, L. was reluctant to go to school but, with some coaxing, he eventually did go.

[51] The mother deposes that L. would suffer from panic attacks “prior to visits” and would “often” return from access in tears and sobbing.

[52] Not surprisingly, the father deposes that L. always has enjoyed his parenting time with the father and that the father has observed L. “running to him after school with a big hug” and being sad after the short visit ended, asking when he could see his father again.

[53] There is some discussion in the report, at pages 33-35, where the clinician discusses the reasons for L.’s separation anxiety, not all of which can be linked to blameworthy conduct by the father.

[54] The mother claims that L. has been happier since not seeing his father in-person. It is quite difficult, I find, to put much weight on such a generalized observation.

[55] The mother claims that L.’s performance at school has “increased markedly” since he stopped seeing his father in-person. Assuming that L.’s school performance has improved, there is no evidence that links that fact to L. having video, rather than in-person, visits with his father. I place little weight on that evidence.

[56] The mother does depose that, if the court is going to order any in-person parenting time, that the order should include a specific term that only the father be present and not the father’s partner and her two children.

[57] I do not accept that submission. The evidence is that the father cohabits with his partner and her two children. It is unrealistic to make an order that in effect could require the father’s partner and her two children to vacate the residence they live in, should the parenting time be exercised at the father’s home. In the medical report from Dr. Thompson dated April 4, 2020, it suggests, if L. could not continue to stay just in his mother’s home, that persons caring for L. should not allow visitors into their home that do not ordinarily reside there.

[58] The letter dated July 20, 2021 from L.’s pediatrician, Dr. Sethna, advocates for L. to limit close contact outside his immediate household “as much as possible.” The letter states that, if L. is to have in-person visits with the father, then those visits should include only the father and not other members of his household. The visit should not occur in indoor public places and, weather permitting, outdoor visits would be safest, with both L. and his father wearing masks.

[59] During the clinician’s interviews with L., he indicated that he enjoyed it when the father’s partner and her two children came to visit. Further, L. expressed to the clinician that he wanted longer visits, so he could spend more time with his father’s partner – that he really likes her. There were three interviews by the clinician with L. and all the interviews took place while in-person visits were occurring.

[60] The clinician’s description of the home visit with L. and his father was positive, with the clinician concluding that L. appeared “happy and comfortable” with his father. It is noted that the father and his partner were not cohabiting during the time of the various interviews done by the clinician, including the clinician’s interview with the father’s partner.

[61] I find that it is in L.’s best interests, for now, to have parenting time on both a virtual and in-person basis at the father’s home or, at the father’s option, outside in the community, provided the visits occur outdoors.

[62] Given the evidence of the good relationship between L. and the father’s partner, it would seem that her presence in the household would be a benefit for L. when L. has in-person parenting time at the father’s home.

[63] The father failed to disclose in his form 35.1 affidavit that he has pending charges for failing to comply with conditions in a probation order and/or release conditions prior to the probation order being made. The charges relate to conditions providing for non-association with the mother. While the father failed to make that disclosure in his form 35.1 affidavit, the pending charges were discussed elsewhere in the evidentiary record and that evidence was not in dispute.

[64] As the father is subject to Criminal Code non-association provisions, the order below includes provisions for parenting-time exchanges. It is not clear whether the maternal grandmother is still willing or available to have the exchanges take place at her residence, as had occurred previously.

[65] The order below further recognizes that it is in L.’s best interests for the parenting order to be staged and for the parties to return to court to make any submissions as to what changes, if any, should be made to the parenting order.

CHILD SUPPORT AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT

[66] The first issue to deal with is income. The father, who had been in receipt of employment insurance during 2021, was able to obtain employment. He disclosed in a late-filed financial statement sworn November 9, 2021, that his annual employment income is now $90,000. For the last three years, the parties had incomes as follows:

Year	Father	Mother
2018	$102,267	nil
2019	$98,883	$2,653
2020	$84,657	$27,305

[67] During the hearing of the motions, the parties were able to agree that, on a go forward basis, the father’s income from employment is $90,000 and the mother’s employment income is $23,600. These income amounts were agreed to on a without prejudice basis subject to readjustment at trial.

[68] In particular, the father was somewhat skeptical whether the income of $23,600 attributed to the mother was reflective of her income-earning capability.

[69] The income-related issue that was not agreed to was income from the father’s involvement in a business known as […]. The father is involved in this business with his live-in partner, referred to earlier.

[70] This business is a partnership. In his financial statement, the father discloses that he has a 50 percent partnership interest in this business.

[71] The father discloses no income from this business in his financial statement. He deposes that this business venture, as of yet, has not netted any income for either business partner.

[72] The father provided, as ordered by the court in July 2021, bank statements and a copy of the general ledger for the partnership for the period May 2020 up to and including June 2021. The mother submits that the general ledgers and the bank statements could not be filed as they were voluminous and exceeded the page limits.

[73] However, the mother does depose that, for the 14 month period from May 2020 to June 2021, inclusive, that the bank records disclosed deposits totalling $154,464.83. In her affidavit, the mother listed the amount of deposit for each of those months. The father took no issue with this evidence.

[74] In her factum, the mother has a list of withdrawals for a number of expenses[^1] that appear in the first 10 pages of the ledger, out of a total of 291 pages. It is not clear why this particular information appears only in the factum, rather than an affidavit; nevertheless, I take into account that this is information from the father’s own records and, further, that the father took no issue with this information in the mother’s factum.

[75] The father filed no financial statement or statement of income and expenses for the partnership. The mother protests loudly and seeks to impute income to the father for this partnership. She submits that the father has failed to provide full financial disclosure, the onus of which lies on him, and that it is not up to the mother to “ferret out” information about the father’s partnership income. The mother relies on Hevey v. Hevey, 2021 ONCA 740 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 34:

34 Suggesting that she could have cross-examined Mr. Hevey misses the mark. It is up to the party with the assets to make the disclosure and the valuation of assets. According to the Ontario family law regime, and as already stated, financial disclosure is a paramount consideration. That also applies to a summary judgment motion such as this one. Moreover, it is not up to the claimant to "ferret out" information, as the appellant put it, about income and assets from the other party. Although, in Colucci [2021 SCC 24], the Supreme Court was dealing with retroactive child support, the same imperatives apply when dealing with issues of retroactive spousal support, namely that courts must encourage proactive financial disclosure and in no way reward those who improperly withhold, hide or misrepresent information they ought to have shared: at para. 54.

[76] The father’s position is little more than asking the mother to trust him that there is no income from the partnership. I draw an adverse inference against the father for failing to make full and frank disclosure regarding the profitability of the partnership.

[77] The deposits from the partnership business are significant – an average of over $11,000 per month over the 14 month period. The list of expenses, as disclosed in the mother’s factum, include restaurants, pharmacies and many other locations, which are prima facie indicative of personal expenses. The father has failed to provide an income statement for the partnership, even though that information is within his control. The business venture is non arms-length between two people who live together. The lack of full disclosure, in light of the evidentiary record, leads me to place no weight on the father’s claim that this partnership generates no income.

[78] It is appropriate to impute income to the father from the partnership. The mother’s approach was to take the total deposits over the 14 months, assume expenses at 50 percent of the total to arrive at a profit, and then allocate 50 percent of the profit to the father. This approach results in income imputation of $38,616 to the father from the partnership income.

[79] For May and June 2020, the bank account deposits were zero and $5,401.03, respectively. For the 12 month period ending June 2021, the total revenue would be a little over $149,000, which I round to $150,000 as an annual gross revenue.

[80] I find in the circumstances that a reasonable imputation of income should be based on partnership expenses being 60 percent of the gross revenue, yielding an income equivalent to 40 percent of the gross revenue, which be $60,000 (40% x $150,000). The father’s 50 percent share would be $30,000. I impute that amount of income to him from the partnership.

[81] I assess the father’s income at $120,000 for spousal support and child support.

[82] The Guideline amount for two children on an income of $120,000 is $1,716 per month.

[83] In relation to spousal support, there is evidence, which supports a finding, that the mother did sacrifice income-earning potential by assuming a disproportionate obligation in relation to childcare. During the course of the 12 year relationship, the mother gave up job opportunities to stay home and care for the children.

[84] Given the length of the relationship, and the current income disparities, the mother’s entitlement to spousal support at this time, on an interim basis, is clear.

[85] Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAG”) scenarios were included in the mother’s material. In addition, during the course of the hearing of the motions, the mother’s counsel, at the court’s request, provided a number of additional SSAG scenarios[^2], which were provided also to the father.

[86] The mother’s entitlement to spousal support is both compensatory and needs based, which typically would result in an award at the high end of the SSAG range: see Gray v. Gray, 2014 ONCA 659 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 50, although in that case there were specific factors to keep the spousal support toward the low end of the range.

[87] The SSAG calculations for an income of $120,000 for the father and $23,600 for the mother produce low – mid – high SSAG ranges of $400 - $829 - $1,357.

[88] Considering the evidentiary record, including entitlement to spousal support on a needs and compensatory basis, I fix spousal support at $1,200 per month. There is no dispute that, since separation, the father, although not paying child support, was paying the mortgage and some other expenses for the benefit of the mother and both children, who continued to reside in the jointly-owned residence. There was evidence from the mother that these monthly payments totalled in the range of $1,154 per month. The father disagreed with that amount, saying it was higher.

[89] During the hearing of the motions, the mother acknowledged that, if an interim order was made for child support or spousal support, that the father’s obligation to make mortgage or other payments would cease and that those payments would then become the responsibility of the mother.

[90] Although not specifically discussed at the hearing of the motions, I do find that in regard to a Toronto-Dominion Bank mortgage registered on the property, which is a collateral mortgage securing a line of credit, that the father should continue making the payments on the line of credit on the basis that he has been accessing the line of credit. According to the father’s financial statement, that line of credit currently totals about $22,000 and the father apparently is paying the interest component on that debt on a monthly basis.

[91] The child support and spousal support payments shall commence December 1, 2021.

LISTING FOR SALE OF THE JOINTLY-OWNED RESIDENCE LOCATED AT […], LONDON, ONTARIO

[92] I am unable to accept the mother’s position that the jointly-owned property should not be ordered to be listed for sale. The mother wishes that issue to be left for the trial judge.

[93] The reality is that this property has already been ordered listed for sale. On October 15, 2019, Leach J., at a case conference, ordered that the family residence be listed for sale, using the services of a mutually agreeable real estate agent, Marcia Beaton, subject to further negotiation regarding the timing at which the property is formally listed, and the minimum period to be allowed in relation to any agreed closing date.

[94] As it turned out, for various reasons, much to the dismay of the father, that order has not been implemented.

[95] The parties apparently have not been in agreement regarding the timing at which the property is to be listed and the timing of any potential closing date.

[96] In reality, the father’s motion in relation to this property is little more than a motion for directions to implement the order made over two years ago.

[97] During the hearing of the motions, submissions were made as to when the property should be listed for sale, should the court make that order. The father provided short timelines for the listing and sale of the property.

[98] The mother submitted that the children should be allowed to finish their current school year and proposed that, if the property was to be listed, that it should not be before July 1, 2022.

[99] The reality is that the mother needs time to be able to arrange for new accommodation. She is also the primary caregiver of two children.

[100] In the circumstances, the order below provides that the property is to be listed for sale on or before July 15, 2022.

[101] I would add that, during the hearing of the motions, that both parties made helpful and significant submissions to attempt to resolve the issue of the listing of the residence and, more importantly, the distribution of the sale proceeds, as that remains an issue in this case.

[102] In addition, there is no disagreement between the parties that the mother wishes to buy out the father’s interest, if she can qualify for a mortgage. The evidentiary record indicated that she would be in a position to seek financing to purchase the father’s interest once she had a court order formally obligating the father to pay child support and spousal support. The mother now has that order.

[103] Now that the parties are aware of the date by which the property is to be listed for sale, I encourage the parties strongly to make all reasonable efforts to enter into final minutes of settlement in relation to the jointly-owned property and the division of the sale proceeds. The parties are also encouraged to make best efforts to come to an agreement regarding the mother’s desire to purchase the father’s interest in the property, on the assumption that the mother is now able to qualify for a mortgage.

[104] I make this observation as this case has been in litigation for a number of years and it would be beneficial for the parties and the children to resolve at least the property issues of this case on a final basis.

MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR FATHER TO PROVIDE DISCLOSURE REGARDING THE COLLATERAL MORTGAGE IN FAVOUR OF TORONTO-DOMINION BANK SECURING THE LINE OF CREDIT

[105] The mother’s request for information regarding the collateral mortgage is the remaining disclosure issue that is outstanding.

[106] Given that this mortgage is joint, it is quite unclear as to why the mother is apparently having issues at the bank in getting disclosure or information about this mortgage.

[107] It was the father’s position that the mother can obtain that information from the bank; the mother takes the position that she has tried to do that and cannot get the information.

[108] The father was clear that he has the information and can obtain it and, rather than prolong this matter, the order below includes that the father provide the mother with the information requested.

[109] The mother had deposed that she had no knowledge of the existence of this mortgage until the father served his materials. It is unclear how that could be the case as the mortgage is joint.

[110] Nevertheless, it would assist the parties, and perhaps aid in resolution, if the information regarding this collateral mortgage can be shared between both parties as quickly as possible.

COSTS

[111] Based on each party’s claims in their respective motions, there has been some divided success. On that basis, the parties are urged to make best efforts to settle the issue of costs, failing which the order below does provide for written costs submissions.

ORDER

[112] I make the following interim order:

1. The father shall have interim parenting time with both children, with all parenting time to be in-person unless specified otherwise, as follows:

(a) commencing Sunday, December 5, 2021, every Sunday from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m., except that on Sunday, December 26, 2021, the parenting time shall be from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.;

(b) every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and, for greater clarity, this includes December 25, 2021;

(c) every Wednesday from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.;

(d) up to and including December 31, 2021, all Saturday and Wednesday parenting time shall be by videoconference; and

(e) effective January 1, 2022, the Saturday visits only shall be by videoconference.

2. All in-person visits shall take place either at the father’s residence, or outside in the community. If the visits are outside in the community, then the father shall ensure that both he and L. wear masks. The first two in-person visits shall occur at the father’s residence.

3. During the father’s parenting time with the children, the father shall ensure that he complies with all legislation and regulations enacted by the Province of Ontario in relation to COVID-19.

4. Parenting-time exchanges shall take place at the residence of the maternal grandmother on the condition that the maternal grandmother is available and agrees to same. To the extent that the maternal grandmother is not available, or not willing, to have parenting time exchanges at her residence, then:

(a) the exchanges shall take place at a location agreed to by the parties; and

(b) failing agreement of the parties, the parenting time exchanges shall take place at a location as specified by the mother.

5. In relation to the father’s parenting time with M., as ordered above, all parenting time between the father and M. shall be subject to M.’s wishes and preferences, and shall be at her discretion, and M. shall be permitted to attend the same visits with L. if she chooses to do so. The mother, at all times, shall continue to encourage M. to attend the parenting time visits with L. and the father, whether the visits are in-person or by videoconference.

6. Neither party shall discuss adult issues or disparage the other party, or encourage others to disparage the other party, in the presence of or within earshot of the children.

7. This matter is adjourned before me to 8:30 a.m. January 26, 2022 (one hour) as follows:

(a) the purpose of the adjournment shall be to receive some brief evidence and to hear submissions as to whether any changes should be made regarding the father’s parenting time with the children, and to receive an update as to what efforts have been made by the parties to implement counselling to assist M. and the father in repairing their relationship; and

(b) each party may serve and file one further affidavit related to the matters listed in paragraph 7(a) no later than January 20, 2022 at 4 p.m., limited to 3 typed pages, double-spaced, minimum font 12, plus any exhibits not to exceed 2 pages.

8. The parenting order is made pursuant to the Children's Law Reform Act.

9. Commencing December 1, 2021, the father shall pay interim child support to the mother for both children in the amount of $1,716 per month pursuant to s. 3(1)(a) of the Guidelines.

10. Commencing December 1, 2021, the father shall pay interim spousal support to the mother in the amount of $1,200 per month.

11. Paragraphs 9 and 10 above are without prejudice to the right of either party at trial to seek a readjustment of interim child support and/or interim spousal support on the basis of any evidence adduced at trial.

12. The father’s obligation to pay child support and/or spousal support for any period of time prior to December 1, 2021 is reserved to the trial judge, absent any agreement between the parties settling that issue.

13. Commencing December 1, 2021, the mother is responsible for all expenses relating to the jointly-owned residence located at […], London, Ontario, including the first mortgage, property taxes, utilities and insurance, but not including any payment on the mortgage registered in favour of Toronto-Dominion Bank as collateral security to a line of credit, which shall remain the obligation of the father.

14. The orders in relation to child support and spousal support are made pursuant to the Family Law Act.

15. Pursuant to the order of Leach J. dated October 15, 2019, requiring the family residence, which is located at […], London, Ontario, to be listed for sale using the mutually agreeable real estate agent, Marcia Beaton, this property shall be listed for sale with Marcia Beaton no later than July 15, 2022. The parties are at liberty to agree to a different listing agent. Both parties shall cooperate with the listing agent and shall sign all necessary documents as required by the listing agent to list the property by the deadline set out above.

16. If any issue arises related to the listing and sale of the property, including distribution of sale proceeds, which the parties are unable to resolve, then either party is at liberty to bring a motion for directions on an urgent basis and the trial coordinator, on request, shall provide the party requesting an urgent motion with the first reasonably available urgent motion date.

17. The father shall disclose to the mother all information available to him about the charge registered against the jointly-owned property at […], London, Ontario in the amount of $216,000 in favour of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, including a statement showing the current balance of the loan, line of credit or other debt connected to this mortgage, within 21 days.

18. The father’s claim for a division of personal property is dismissed.

19. Except for costs, all other claims made in the motions by both parties are dismissed.

20. If the parties are unable to settle costs of the motions, then the parties may file written costs submissions, to be forwarded to the trial coordinator. The costs submissions shall not exceed 3 typed pages, double-spaced, minimum font 12, plus copies of any offers to settle, bills of costs and time dockets. Any authorities referred to in the written submissions shall be hyper-linked. The mother’s written submissions shall be served and filed by December 21, 2021, the father’s responding written submissions shall be served and filed by January 10, 2022 and the mother’s reply written submissions, if any, shall be served and filed by January 24, 2022. If the parties settle costs, then a letter shall be forwarded to the trial coordinator advising of same.

“Justice Victor Mitrow”

Justice Victor Mitrow

Date: November 26, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: FC958/19

DATE: November 29, 2021

ADDENDUM

[113] The endorsement in this case was released November 26, 2021: see M.P.D. v. C.J.S., 2021 ONSC 7567.

[114] Although it should be clear from the reasons that any parenting time to be exercised at the Respondent father’s home should be only in the presence of household members, the purpose of this addendum is to include that provision in the order.

[115] Accordingly, the following sentence is added to paragraph 2 of the order at page 13 of the endorsement: “When the father is exercising parenting time at his residence, the father shall ensure that no other persons are present except the other members of the father’s household, namely the father’s partner and her children”.

[116] When the order is issued, it shall be marked as an “Amended Order” and the additional sentence shall be added as per paragraph 3 above. The amended order shall continue to be dated November 26, 2021.

“Justice V. Mitrow”

Justice Victor Mitrow

Date: November 29, 2021

[^1]: Paragraph 81 of the mother’s factum states that “[t]he general ledger shows withdrawals for expenditures at McDonalds, Smokes Poutinerie, Walmart, Starbucks, Lonestar restaurant, Shoppers Drug Mart, Rexall Pharmacy, Borealis Grille, Tim Hortons, TSC Stores, Esso, Shell, Petro-Canada, and Husky gas stations, Canadian Tire, Montana’s restaurant, Swiss Chalet, Fitwell clothing alterations, Wayfair furniture orders, Amazon.ca, Wimpy’s Diner, Ironworks Kitchen, an e-transfer to C.J.S. for over $300, Michael’s Canada, Archie’s Seafood, online Canadian Tire shopping orders, Homesense, Kelsey’s Roadhouse restaurant, a shop called Cozy Corner, and Red Lobster, all within the first 10 of a total of 291 pages.”

[^2]: Although the SSAG scenarios that were provided during the course of the hearing of the motions were not marked as exhibits, all the SSAG calculations were uploaded into OneDrive during the hearing and placed in the “motion folder” in this file and, therefore, are part of the evidentiary record on the motions.