COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-1122-2

DATE: 2021/11/10

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Edson Joachim

Applicant

– and –

Nastassja Joachim

Respondent

Self-represented party

Manraj Grewal, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18, 2021

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RYAN BELL J.

Overview

[1] On December 10, 2018, following a nine-day trial, Audet J. made a comprehensive parenting order in relation to the parties’ two children (at the time, six and four years of age). Justice Audet concluded that it was in the children’s best interests for the parents to have joint custody, with each parent having sole decision-making authority in certain areas of the children’s lives, and for some areas on a rotational basis, and for the children to spend an equal amount of time with each parent pursuant to a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule during the school year, and on a week about basis during the summer. The parties also consented to an order for the appointment of a parenting coordinator.

[2] In her Reasons for Decision (reported at Joachim v. Joachim, 2018 ONSC 7733), Audet J. described the matter as having “all of the elements of a very high conflict custody and access litigation.” Little appears to have changed.

[3] The parties attended a final joint session with the parenting coordinator, Marianne Cuhaci, on August 5, 2020. Within days, the mother, Nastassja Joachim, filed her motion to change. Her position is that the father, Edson Joachim, continues to show her “relentless animosity” and uses parenting decisions for “combat.” She says that matters between the parties have become “perpetually worse” since the trial before Audet J., constituting a material change in circumstances. In her motion to change, Ms. Joachim seeks final decision-making authority in matters pertaining to the children’s education and in relation to the children’s extracurricular activities. She also requests that the order be varied to provide for the parties’ parenting time to be on a week about schedule and to permit her to travel internationally with the children without the father’s consent.

[4] In response, Mr. Joachim requests final decision-making in relation to major issues relating