Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC271/20 Date: May 31, 2022

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

Colleen Durdle and Jeff Sawyer Pamela Biron for Colleen Durdle and Jeff Sawyer Applicants

- and -

Dale Gordon Kleber and Caitlin Durdle Robert Cunningham for Dale Gordon Kleber Caitlin Durdle, in person Respondents

HEARD: April 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 2022

TOBIN J.

Introduction

[1] This case concerns the child, Addison Lorraine Durdle-Kleber, who is now six and a half years old (the child). She has been living with the applicants since November 2020, they are her maternal grandmother and her maternal grandmother’s partner. In this case, they ask that the child remain in their care and that her parents, the respondents, have defined parenting time.

[2] The respondent, Caitlin Durdle, is the child’s mother. She asks that the child be returned to her care and that the father have defined parenting time. She also claims that there is no need for a contact order in favour of the applicants as she is confident they can work together to maintain the child’s relationship with them.

[3] The respondent, Dale Kleber, is the child’s father. He asks that the child be placed in his care and that the mother have defined parenting time. He proposes that the applicants’ time with the child occur as part of the mother’s parenting time.

[4] Once parenting issues are decided, child support must also be considered.

[5] In these reasons, I will sometimes refer to the parties by their first names, not out of any disrespect but rather for ease of reference.

The Evidence

[6] All parties testified and called supporting witnesses.

[7] The applicants and the father put some of their supporting witnesses’ evidence in-chief in by way of affidavit. These affidavits were filed on consent and without the need for those witnesses to attend for cross-examination.

[8] The mother’s witness was able to testify remotely because it was convenient for her to do so as she lived out of town.

[9] All parties agreed that the Children's Aid Society records that had been released to them could be filed in evidence without a Society representative being called. The evidence referred to at trial was admitted for the truth unless specifically denied.

[10] The document briefs filed by the parties were also filed and marked as an exhibit, but only those documents (other than the Children's Aid Society records) referred to by a witness are to be considered by the court.

[11] The trial record contained the s. 112 investigation and report of the clinical investigator assigned by the Children’s Lawyer. The clinical investigator’s affidavit, verifying the facts in the report, and the report form part of the evidence in this case: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 s. 112(6). I was not made aware that any party filed a statement disputing anything in the report: Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 r. 21(e). None of the parties required the clinical investigator to attend at trial for the purpose of cross-examination: Courts of Justice Act s. 112(7).

Facts

The Respondents’ Relationship Begins

[12] The mother is now 28 years old.

[13] The father is now 29 years old.

[14] The respondents met in 2014 while both were living in Edmonton, Alberta. The father was working as an apprentice millwright. The mother worked in a grocery store.

[15] Shortly after meeting, they began living together in the father’s home.

[16] The relationship was a happy one in the beginning, however, it eventually devolved into a difficult one. They argued. Police were called a couple of times to their home by their neighbours. When police did attend, it was for the purpose of de-escalating the situation between the respondents. Nonetheless, the respondents continued to live together.

[17] In December 2014, both returned to Ontario to spend the Christmas holidays with their respective families. Despite the father’s desire at the time that the mother not return with him, she did. They returned to Edmonton together.

[18] Early in the new year, the mother became pregnant.

[19] The respondents’ relationship continued to be fraught.

[20] In June 2015, the father’s mother (the paternal grandmother), went to Edmonton at the father’s request to help him convince the mother to leave his home. Shortly after the paternal grandmother arrived, the mother did return to her family in St. Thomas, Ontario. It appeared to the father that, from this point, the romantic relationship between the respondents ended. However, from the mother’s perspective, they remained in a relationship until much later, perhaps until early 2019. The father described their relationship after 2015 as one without structure and dysfunctional.

The Child is Born

[21] The child was born on October 23, 2015. The father was notified of the impending birth and he returned to Ontario so that he could be present when the child was born. He stayed in Ontario until November 2, 2015.

The Father’s Calendars

[22] The father prepared calendars for the years 2015 to 2022, purporting to show when he had contact with the child. The information he and his mother used to create the calendars were the receipts he had for plane tickets, credit card receipts and dated photographs taken on his phone of the child. These calendars were admitted in evidence on consent. While there was a dispute in the evidence about the accuracy of the calendars, I find that except for one date challenged by the mother and the applicants, they are an accurate record of the times the child was with the father either alone, in the presence of the mother, or with his family.

[23] The date that I find was inaccurately claimed by the father as a parenting time day was July 15, 2019. On that day, a Society worker attended the mother’s home for a scheduled visit. There is no indication in the Society note that the father was present at the mother’s home that day. The mother told the worker that the maternal grandfather, in whose home she was residing, was in the house sleeping. She also told the worker that the father had not seen the child and was not paying child support. The father claimed in cross-examination that he was there at the maternal grandfather’s home. His evidence is that he was told to stay downstairs and that he knew a Society worker was there for an interview. He did not provide any other corroboration for his attendance with the child that day. He did not explain why he had to stay in the basement. I do not accept his evidence on this point.

[24] I also find that the calendars do not reflect the extent of the care the father provided for the child or responsibility he had on each occasion. I accept that the calendars show the days during which he had some contact with the child, except as noted above.

[25] The father also testified that he probably had more time with the child than was set out in the calendars but did not have corroborating evidence. The extent of his actual time suggested by the father, over and above that set out in the calendar, is vague and, consequently, unreliable.

2015

[26] In 2015, the mother and child spent three weeks with the father in Edmonton. He also had contact with the mother and child during the 2015 Christmas holidays.

2016

[27] In 2016, the mother and child resided in Edmonton with the father. The father described the mother as struggling. She needed his help. The mother and child stayed with the father from January 14, 2016 until April 8, 2016, when all three returned to Ontario. The father took a parental leave from his employment. I accept his evidence that he said he did so because the mother was struggling with anxiety and the stresses associated with caring for the child. When they returned to Ontario, the mother and father tried to care for the child together at the maternal grandfather’s home in St. Thomas. Unfortunately, they would argue and decided it was best that they spend time apart. The father then stayed with his parents, the paternal grandparents, who lived in Watford. For the rest of the father’s paternity leave, the mother and father shared parenting time with the child equally. The father’s parenting leave ended on November 9, 2016. He then returned to Edmonton. The mother and child remained in St. Thomas.

2017

[28] The father returned to Ontario six times in 2017 and, on most occasions, for one or two weeks. However, he did have one extended stay. From May 10, 2017 until June 26, 2017, the father worked in Burlington at his employer’s shop. He stayed at a local hotel. The mother and child stayed with the father for days at a time at this hotel. On some weekends, the father went to Sarnia to see his brothers and, on others, the mother and child would go with him to spend time at the paternal grandparents’ home.

[29] From approximately July 3, 2017 until approximately September 15, 2017, the mother and child resided with the father in Edmonton. The mother and child then returned to St. Thomas.

[30] The father returned to Ontario for a week in September, a week in October and for two weeks during the Christmas holiday season of that year.

2018

[31] In 2018, the mother and child lived with the father in Edmonton from February 7 until July 5. The mother and child then returned to Ontario.

[32] Also, in 2018, the father successfully completed his apprenticeship and earned his Red Seal designation as a millwright. This designation allowed him to work as a journeyman millwright anywhere in Canada. With this designation, he returned to Sarnia in August 2018 and rented a room in a home owned and occupied by his two younger brothers, Wade and Ben.

[33] From August to November 2018, the father would, on occasion, have the child in his care at the brothers’ home or at the paternal grandparents’ home.

The November 2018 Incident

[34] In early November 2018, the father was visiting at the maternal grandfather’s home. This is where the mother and child were living.

[35] On that day, the father observed that both the mother and maternal grandfather were drinking alcohol and they were arguing in front of the child. As a result, the father took the child, with the mother’s knowledge, to the paternal grandparents’ home. The plan was that he would have the child for the weekend.

[36] The next day, the mother came to the paternal grandparents’ home and took some of the child’s items and left.

[37] The following day, the mother messaged the father, advising that it was the maternal grandfather’s birthday and asking him to bring the child back for the celebration. When he and the child arrived at the maternal grandfather’s home, he found that there was no dinner nor celebration. He also saw that the mother and maternal grandfather were drunk. An argument between them ensued. The Children's Aid Society and police attended. The father also called the maternal grandmother and the child’s maternal aunt, Shelby, and they also went to the maternal grandfather’s home.

[38] Children's Aid Society records of this event were introduced on consent and without the worker being required to testify. The mother disputed some of the information or narrative reported; she had not been drinking that day and neither was she belligerent and uncooperative with the police.

[39] The incident ended with the child remaining in the mother’s care.

[40] As a result of this incident, and the father involving the Society, police, the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt, the mother refused to allow the father to have the child in his care without her being present. The father did not bring any proceedings to address this circumstance because, he said, he did not have the money to do so. This arrangement or situation continued until court proceedings were started and the first temporary order was made on December 23, 2020 by Campbell J.

2019

[41] From February 2019 until June 2019, the father rarely saw the child in person, though he did have video contact. He was working long hours.

[42] During the rest of the year, the father had sporadic parenting time with the child, usually at the home of the maternal grandmother or the paternal grandparents.

[43] The mother's circumstances at the maternal grandfather’s home were difficult for her and the child. The maternal grandfather had (and continues to have) a very serious problem with alcohol. All the witnesses who testified in this trial, and who know the maternal grandfather, testified that he was and remains an alcoholic.

[44] When the mother had problems with the maternal grandfather, she would call the maternal grandmother to pick up the child and her. This would happen approximately once a month. The mother and child would stay with the maternal grandmother, including overnight on a couple of occasions, and then they would return to the maternal grandfather’s home.

[45] On July 5, 2019, there was an incident of conflict between the mother and the maternal grandfather. The child was present. The maternal grandfather called the police. The mother told the attending police officer that the maternal grandfather was constantly intoxicated and there were angry verbal arguments. The Children's Aid Society was subsequently notified. Following this incident, the mother and child again moved temporarily to the home of the maternal grandmother.

2020

[46] As stated above, in 2020, the father's parenting time with the child continued to take place in the presence of the mother. This parenting time remained, as he testified, irregular and erratic.

[47] The father knew about the ongoing conflict between the mother and the maternal grandfather. On occasions when he was at that home, he observed it to be dirty and the maternal grandfather being verbally mean to the mother. I accept the father's evidence regarding his observations. The father helped by doing some outdoor maintenance and repairs and buying groceries when there were not enough in the home.

[48] Even though the mother and child lived at the home of the maternal grandfather, they went to the maternal grandmother's home daily. As described earlier in these reasons, on occasion the mother and child would spend overnight with the maternal grandmother at her home and sometimes would remain there for up to a week at a time due to problems at the maternal grandfather’s home. The maternal grandmother saw the mother's relationship with the maternal grandfather as argumentative and volatile. I accept this evidence. The maternal grandmother also worried about their being proper food in the maternal grandfather’s home, so she too would take food over to them.

[49] In an effort to help her daughter, the maternal grandmother arranged for her to be employed by her partner, the applicant, Jeff Sawyer. Jeff co-owned an auto body shop with his friend, Paul Gemmell, in St. Thomas. The maternal grandmother worked there as the office manager. The mother's employment at Jeff’s auto body shop began in September 2019. This was when the child started school.

[50] The mother's employment at the auto body shop ended when the pandemic began in March 2020 and the child could no longer attend school in person. The mother was then responsible for helping the child with her online schooling.

[51] According to the maternal grandmother, Colleen, and her partner, Jeff, the mother was a good worker. However, the evidence of Mr. Gemmell was that he had concerns about the mother's behavior at work. Her attendance was inconsistent and she spent quite a bit of time in the washroom. He did not, however, complain about the work that she did.

[52] Also, with the advent of the pandemic, the mother and child did not go to the maternal grandmother's home as often as they had. Colleen's mother (the maternal great grandmother), then 90 years of age, lived with her. When the mother and child did go to Colleen’s home, visits were outside and took place about once a week. However, they did have Facetime communication daily.

[53] In April 2020, the maternal grandfather fell and hit his head. He was in the hospital and a rehabilitation facility for seven weeks.

[54] In the period March 2020 to September 2020, Colleen began having concerns about the mother’s alcohol consumption. When called to the maternal grandfather’s home because of an incident between the mother and the maternal grandfather, Colleen could often smell alcohol on the mother.

The September 13, 2020 Incident and Consequences

[55] On Sunday evening, September 13, 2020, an incident occurred between the mother and the maternal grandfather. The mother called Colleen in distress and said the maternal grandfather was drunk and had hit the child and pulled her hair. In her evidence, the mother denied that this was the case. I do not accept the mother’s evidence on this point. There is a contemporaneous Children's Aid Society note that is consistent with Colleen’s evidence. I accept Colleen’s evidence that she accurately recounted what the mother told her that evening.

[56] The maternal grandmother brought both the mother and child to her home.

[57] A few days later, while the mother and child were still living at her home, Colleen came home from her work for lunch and to check on the maternal great-grandmother. She observed that everything appeared fine with the mother and child. The mother had made lunch.

[58] However, when Colleen returned home at 5 p.m., she found the mother was intoxicated. The mother was “argumentative, belligerent and yelling.” The child was crying and hiding in the maternal great grandmother’s room.

[59] The maternal great grandmother observed the mother and Colleen to be arguing. The mother was screaming at Colleen. The mother seemed erratic and very upset. She did not pay attention to the fact that her yelling was upsetting the child. The maternal great grandmother observed the child hide in her closet.

[60] Colleen called her daughter, Shelby, to come to her home, which she did. Shelby took the child to her home and kept her overnight.

[61] Colleen also called Jeff and asked him to come home. He did and ordered the mother leave their home. He drove the mother back to the maternal grandfather’s home. Later that evening, Colleen found alcohol hidden in various spots in their home, which they presumed was the mother’s. In evidence, the mother denied that this alcohol was hers. I do not accept the mother’s evidence in this regard.

[62] Colleen contacted the father to let him know what had happened and where the child was that night. He was fine with that.

[63] This incident caused Colleen to worry that the mother had a problem with alcohol. This worry was reinforced by her observations of the lack of food in the maternal grandfather’s home and the mother, on occasion, dressing the child in less than proper clothing.

[64] Nonetheless, the child was subsequently returned to the mother’s care.

[65] Sometime on or prior to October 9, 2020, the father met with a Society worker. The worker’s notes state that he advised the worker that he had no concerns with the mother at that time. But, later that month, he felt differently. His evidence is that he called a Society worker to suggest that they carry out a surprise visit at the maternal grandfather’s home.

The November 5, 2020 Incident and the Child is Removed from the Mother’s Care

[66] On November 5, 2020, a Society worker attended at the maternal grandfather’s home.

[67] Colleen was at work that day. While there, she received a call from the mother, who was described as hysterical. The mother wanted Colleen to come to her home and get the child. In response to questions Colleen tried to ask the mother about what was going on, she was told just to get over.

[68] Colleen left work and drove to the maternal grandfather’s residence. When she arrived, she saw the mother, who had the child with her, screaming at a woman (presumably the Society worker) in a car. The mother told Colleen she had to take the child.

[69] Colleen then got the child’s car seat from the mother and put it in her car. Eventually, Colleen drove away with the child. She returned to her place of employment and called Shelby to come and help her.

[70] Colleen met with the Society worker.

[71] The Society acted because it appeared to the Society worker that both the mother and the maternal grandfather were not capable of looking after the child.

[72] The safety plan was for Colleen to keep the child until there was a family meeting.

[73] That evening, Colleen picked up the child from Shelby, who had cared for her during the day.

[74] The next morning, there was a family meeting at the Society’s office. The consensus reached at that meeting was that the child would remain in Colleen’s care for the weekend and that there would be a second meeting the following Tuesday.

[75] Following the second meeting, the child remained in Colleen’s care. The mother asked Colleen if she could then stay at her home. Colleen agreed. This arrangement ended a few days later when the mother was asked to leave because she had been drinking.

[76] The mother then returned to the home of the maternal grandfather. This is where she has lived since.

[77] In December 2020, the father moved from his brothers’ home to his parents’ home. This is where he continues to reside.

This Court Case is Started

[78] Colleen and Jeff started this case by application issued December 11, 2020.

[79] On December 23, 2020, Campbell J. made the first temporary order in the case. It provided that the child was to be in the care of the applicants, Colleen and Jeff. The father was granted parenting time, to be exercised at his parents’ home. The mother was also granted parenting time, which was not to exceed “four hours unsupervised at any one time.”

[80] The case was next before Hebner J. on February 11, 2021. At that time, the court order provided, in part, that the child was to remain in the care of Colleen and Jeff. The parenting time for both the mother and father was expanded to alternate weekends and one evening each, per week. On that same day, a Children’s Lawyer order was granted.

[81] The last temporary parenting order was made by Hebner J. on May 11, 2021. Colleen and Jeff were to continue to have “primary care and parenting” of the child. They were granted the responsibility to make decisions regarding the child’s health and education, however, she was not to change her school and was to continue to attend with her doctor and dentist. The father was granted parenting time on alternate weekends and every Wednesday evening. The mother was granted parenting time on alternate weekends, but not overnight, and every Tuesday evening.

[82] The parenting time schedule ordered by Hebner J. on May 11, 2021 has remained in place since that date. The father has had some additional time with the child, as arranged with the applicants.

The s. 112 Investigation and Report

[83] The clinical investigator did not complete her investigation. The report stated that “[t]he file is being collapsed.” This was because there were “delays due to repeated difficulties in scheduling appointments with the mother …” As well, the mother did not provide executed consents for the release of collateral information. This was the case despite multiple attempts being made by the clinician for her to do so. The mother did not make contact with the clinical investigator for an extended period of time.

[84] The mother’s evidence was that the maternal grandmother printed the needed consents and she then signed them. Even if this was the case, the mother failed to provide an adequate explanation regarding her failure to provide the signed consents to the clinical investigator or contact her. The clinical investigator sought the help of the mother’s former legal counsel, but to no avail.

[85] The clinical investigator did conduct a virtual interview with all four parties. She also conducted virtual home visits with the parties. When conducting the virtual home visit with Colleen and Jeff, the child and maternal great grandmother were also present. The virtual visit with the mother included the child and the maternal grandfather. When the visit with the father was held, the child was also present.

[86] The home visits revealed to the clinical investigator that all parties “appear to care deeply” for the child. All were able to relate to the child in a caring and child-focused manner. It was the clinical investigator’s observation that the child appeared comfortable and in good spirits in their respective care.

[87] The clinical investigator was not able to investigate the substance abuse allegations made against the mother by the other parties. This was the case because the clinical investigator was not provided with the consents necessary for her to obtain pertinent collateral information.

[88] As the investigation could not be completed, no recommendations were made by the clinical investigator.

Issues

[89] The issues raised by the parties are as follows:

a) Which party should have decision-making responsibility with respect to the child?

b) With whom should the child primarily reside?

c) What parenting time or contact should each party have with the child?

d) What amount of child support should be paid and by whom?

Legal Considerations: Parenting Orders

[90] The determination of parenting issues will be based upon the best interests of the child. It is the sole consideration: Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 ss. 19(a) and 24(1) (sometimes referred to as the “CLRA” or “Act”).

[91] When determining the child’s best interests, the court must consider all factors related to the child’s circumstances. Priority must be given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and wellbeing: CLRA s. 24(2).

[92] Section 24(3) of the Act sets out a number of factors related to the circumstances of the child. The subsection is formulated as follows:

Factors

24(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.

[93] The court is not to take into consideration past conduct of any person, unless the conduct is relevant to that person’s exercise of decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to the child: CLRA s. 24(5).

[94] When considering what parenting time schedule is in the child’s best interests, the court is to give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the child’s best interests: CLRA s. 24(6).

[95] In this case, there are competing claims made by both of the child’s parents and the maternal grandmother and her partner.

[96] The father argues that parents have a preferred status or preferential claim over others. In support, he relies upon Foster v. Allison, [2003] O.J. No. 3681 and K.E.L. v. S.A.L., 2018 ONSC 1309.

[97] In Foster, on a motion for interim custody, the court held that while the ultimate test is the best interests of the child, parents have a “preferred status or preferential claim over others”, including grandparents (para. 2). Foster was a contest between the mother and paternal grandmother. The court found that, even though the mother had delegated extensive day-to-day childcare to the paternal grandparents, she had not relinquished or abandoned her custodial rights and responsibilities. A further factor considered by the court in that case was a concern that the paternal grandparents would gradually marginalize the mother’s role and exclude her from their family circle. They did not respect her.

[98] This is not the case with the maternal grandmother and the father. There is ample evidence that Colleen and Jeff have expressed and demonstrated respect for the father and his relationship with the child. As well, in the present case, the father was not the child’s primary caregiver for any length of time.

[99] In K.E.L., the court reviewed a number of cases dealing with competing claims by grandparents and parents. Following this review, the court concluded that “absent extenuating circumstances … parents have a preferential status in a claim for custody” (para. 90). In that case, the father demonstrated he was capable of caring for the children and wanted them to return to his care in “their own home as it was before the separation” (paras. 91 and 93).

[100] K.E.L. appears to be an example of decision-making responsibility being decided where the parent and grandparent were substantially equal when the best interests factors were assessed. In that situation, the parent will likely be preferred over the grandparent.

[101] In Hutchinson v. Ross, 2019 ONSC 3035, relied upon by the applicants, I considered the issue of competing claims by a parent and non-parent, at paras. 136 to 144, as follows:

[136] There are no presumptions to rebut, or which regulate, the determination of best interests. This means that a parent is not presumptively entitled to custody of their child in preference to a claim made by a third party.

[137] While there are no presumptions in favour of a parent, in a contest with a third party, parental claims are entitled to serious consideration and should not lightly be set aside: K.(K.) v. L.(G.), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 29 and Rodriguez v. Guignard, 2013 ONSC 146, at para. 97. However, if on a consideration of all relevant factors, the best interests of the child favour a third party, a parental claim cannot prevail.

[138] Under the Act, consideration of a party as a biological parent of the child is one of a number of factors the court must consider in determining the child’s best interest: McGlade v. Henry, 2015 ONSC 3036, at para. 260 and Sui v. Law, 2009 ONCA 61, at para. 3.

[139] In Khan v. Kong, [2007] O.J. No. 5340, affirmed 2009 ONCA 21, Nelson J. addressed the importance of biology in a best interest analysis at paras. 232, 233 and 239 as follows:

232 There is no presumption of law respecting parental rights in custody disputes. The welfare of the child, which is to be considered in its broadest aspect, is the paramount consideration in determining custody. The benefit of a child's bond to a biological parent is a question of fact to be determined in each case and is encompassed as a factor in the best interest test. The right of a biological parent is thus a secondary consideration to the best interests of the child.

233 The Court of Appeal in Moores v. Feldstein, supra, stated it thus at para 48:

[It] is the duty of the court to view all the circumstances relevant to what is in the interest of the child, including a consideration as to whether the evidence disclosed that the child would benefit from the tie of a child to its mother.

239 The love and care which may be provided by biological parents, however, has become an important factor to be considered in assessing the child's best interests. As Wilson J. further stated in R. (A.N.) v. W. (L.J.), supra:

[102] It (the child's tie with its natural parent) is obviously very relevant in a determination as to what is in the child's best interests. But it is the parental tie as a meaningful and positive force in the life of the child and not in the life of the parent that the court has to be concerned about (p. 185).

[140] In Vanderhoek v. Stark, [1999] O.J. 4479, Aston J. held, at para. 7:

7 I do not accept the proposition that there is any legal presumption in favour of the parent or any heavier onus or burden of proof on the grandparents. Notions of onus or presumption in custody cases have been expressly rejected in cases such as Carter v. Brooks (1990), 30 R.F.L. (3d) 53 (Ont. C.A.) and Gordon v. Goertz (1996), 19 R.F.L. (4th) 177 (S.C.C.). But the fact that parents are a degree closer to children than grandparents in the family constellation may be taken into account under the rubric of the "best interests of the child", even if it is not specifically listed as a factor under section 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

[141] The court can take into account non-biological parents who may be as close or closer psychologically to the child: Khan v. Kong, supra, at para. 261.

[142] The father argues that the Act prioritizes parents in part because it treats non-parents differently. When non-parents apply for custody, they are required to provide more information with their application: see Children's Law Reform Act ss. 21.1, 21.2 and 21.3.

[143] This more onerous obligation, it is argued, indicates that third parties, like grandparents, are at a different level than parents. To the extent this submission requires the court to give pre-eminence to biological parents in a best interest analysis, with respect, I disagree.

[144] As set out above, while the Act and case law recognizes the importance of familial relationships, it is not an overriding factor. The interpretation suggested by the father – absent extenuating circumstances, parents have a preferential status in a claim for custody – appears to be based on the now rejected parental rights doctrine, rather than a child-centered best interests one: Moores v. Feldstein, [1973] 3 O.R. 921 and Khan v. Kong, supra, at para. 271.

[103] In summary, the importance of being a parent may carry great weight in some situations and significantly less in others, but the importance of the parent must always be analyzed through the lens of the best interests of the specific child whose parenting arrangements are being determined: T.B.S. v. S.J.B., 2020 SKCA 93, at para. 58.

Best Interests Factors

[104] A consideration of best interests factors, as set out in s. 24(3) of the Act, follows.

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability

[105] A consideration of this factor requires understanding the particulars of this child. She is now six and a half years old and is completing grade one. She can be described developmentally as an early school-aged child. She is engaging with people outside of her family both at school and in the community.

[106] In her February 18, 2022 report card, she is described by her teacher as “a cheerful, thoughtful member in our classroom and always enjoys helping others around her.” She needed additional support for all her independent work and with reading. The child struggled when shifting from kindergarten to grade one. She was being helped by the school informally with additional instruction and a seat at the front of the classroom.

[107] The maternal grandmother’s evidence, which I accept, is that these skills are improving with help. The child has come a long way since last November, according to Colleen. Reading is part of Colleen’s nightly routine with the child. The father helps her with reading based on lists Colleen gives him and he too reads with her.

[108] The s. 112 investigation and report normally would provide insight into the needs of the child. However, the clinical investigator did not interview the child because the “file did not progress to this stage.”

[109] The clinical investigator did see the child with the parties and observed her to appear “comfortable and in good spirits” in the care of each of them.

[110] The child has a very close connection with her aunt, Shelby.

[111] This child needs to be able to maintain the relationships she has with those now involved in her care and life, including all the parties. This is consistent with providing her with stability and predictability.

[112] Another of this child’s needs that must be met is that she not be exposed to conflict, especially between the mother and the maternal grandfather.

[113] After the many moves this child has experienced, she needs to be in a stable home.

(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

[114] It is clear on the evidence that the child has a close connection to her mother, her father and to Colleen and Jeff. This is also the case for each party towards the child.

[115] This child is most fortunate in this regard – she is well loved and supported by her immediate and extended family.

[116] As stated above, the clinical investigator described the child as being “comfortable and in good spirits” in the care of each of the parties. The child’s positive relationship with each of the parties and extended family was confirmed by all the witnesses who have had the opportunity to see the child in their care.

[117] The child’s relationship with the mother is quite strong, based on her having been the child’s primary caregiver for most of her life up to November 2020.

[118] The evidence of the father’s relationship with the child also supports a finding that they too are close. They engage in many activities while at the home of the paternal grandparents. The paternal grandmother observed that the father interacts with the child “in a great way” and that the child appears to trust him.

[119] The child has positive relationships with extended family members. One relationship in particular stands out. That is the relationship she has with her aunt, Shelby. Shelby plays a very important role in the child’s life. From the time of the child’s birth, Shelby has been a constant in the child’s life when the child has been living in St. Thomas. This continues to the present. Shelby provides support for the maternal grandmother whenever it is needed. According to Colleen, the child views Shelby as a very important person in her life, “like another mother or cool aunt.” The two have contact almost daily.

(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent

[120] There were incidents where both parents interfered with the other’s parenting time and relationship with the child. Prior to the court case being started, the mother limited the father’s time with the child and had to be present when he saw her. She feared that he would not return the child to her care. Another example was when she refused the father any parenting time with the child during the 2022 Easter weekend. Examples with respect to the father’s behaviour include his limiting the mother’s parenting time with the mother on Mother’s Day and not allowing her to attend with the mother at a family bridal shower.

[121] On one occasion, the mother threatened to move with the child to Sarnia and that Colleen and Jeff would not see her again.

[122] Despite these incidents, I am satisfied that the parents recognize that the other needs to have a positive relationship with the child. While both want the child to live primarily with them, they want the other to have regular parenting time with the child.

[123] Both parents want the child to have an ongoing relationship with Colleen and Jeff. They recognize that these two persons are very important to the child.

[124] Colleen and Jeff recognize that, when sober and healthy, the mother is a very good and capable parent to the child. They want her to have an important and safe role in her life. They also recognize that the father has an important role in the child’s life and they support that.

(d) the history of care of the child

[125] Prior to November 5, 2020, the mother was the parent primarily responsible for the care of the child. When the parents were not living together, the child would remain in the mother’s care. The only exception was when the father was on a paternity leave and had shared parenting time with the child for a number of months. He was assisted at that time by the paternal grandparents.

[126] The father has been consistent in his commitment to the child. He returned to Ontario for the child’s birth. He took a paternity leave. Since returning to Ontario in 2018, he has made an effort to see and care for the child regularly. He has consistently exercised his court ordered parenting time.

[127] Also prior to November 5, 2020, Colleen and Jeff provided assistance to the mother, as did their extended family. When the mother needed a safe place to stay or help caring for the child, they helped.

[128] Since November 5, 2020, the child has been in the primary care of Colleen and Jeff. They have been responsible for and are successfully meeting the child’s needs.

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained

[129] There is no reliable evidence of the child’s consistent and independent views and preferences.

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage

[130] This was not a circumstance relevant to the determination of the child’s best interests raised by any of the parties.

(g) any plans for the child’s care; and (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

Mother’s Plan

[131] The mother’s plan is for the child to remain in St. Thomas with her.

[132] She wants the father to continue to have the same parenting time as he currently enjoys. She also proposes that holidays and special events be more clearly defined. She wants the child’s life to be centered in St. Thomas.

[133] She has applied for Ontario Works.

[134] It is her plan to try to get her own premises. She would try to obtain premises so that the child could remain at the same school.

[135] She wants Colleen and Jeff to remain involved in the child’s life.

[136] With her desire to seek her own premises, I infer that she recognizes that staying in the home of the maternal grandfather with the child is not the best solution for the child. This exposure to the maternal grandfather’s behaviour is concerning. What was not explained was why she did not try to put this plan into place over the last two years.

[137] The mother denies she has a problem with alcohol. On the evidence, I find that the mother has abused alcohol on many occasions and has behaved in a manner consistent with her having an inability to control her consumption of it. For example, I find that she hid alcohol while staying at the maternal grandmother’s home, despite denying doing so. She was observed to be unable to care for the child because of her state of intoxication on the day the Society intervened.

Father’s Plan

[138] The father’s plan is to reside with his parents and the child at their premises in Watford. He will continue to work and receive childcare assistance from his parents.

[139] At some undetermined time, it is his plan to obtain his own residence, presumably in the Watford or Sarnia area.

[140] The father has secure employment and an employer who could be accommodating with respect to his childcare responsibilities.

[141] Despite having secure and well-paid employment, the father’s financial circumstances seem strained.

[142] The father would share his many outdoor interests with the child. He also intends to allow the child to continue to develop the relationships she has with his brothers and his friends.

[143] He spoke to the principal at a school where the child could attend and has consulted with a doctor and a dentist regarding them caring for the child.

[144] The applicants and the mother argued that the father had substance abuse and addiction issues. The evidence presented did not support the father having these problems. The father acknowledged using marijuana in a moderate way. He testified that he would not use marijuana while caring for the child. I accept that evidence.

Applicants’ Plan

[145] Colleen and Jeff want to continue with the plan they now have in place for the child. It is a plan that has provided the child with stability and the ability to maintain relationships with her mother and father and extended family.

[146] They have the financial security to provide for and meet the child’s needs.

[147] Colleen and Jeff are committed to meeting this child’s needs for the long-term.

(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

[148] I am satisfied that all the parties are able and willing to communicate with one another regarding the child, as long as there is some certainty regarding the time each is to have the child in their respective care.

[149] I accept father’s counsel’s submission that the father has demonstrated that he has a steady and calm demeanour that allows him to interact well with others. I also accept that the father has always demonstrated a willingness to work with the other parties.

(j) family violence

[150] The mother and father did have a tumultuous relationship when they lived together. This is not a current issue.

[151] The child’s exposure to conflict between the mother and the maternal grandfather is of concern, as set out earlier in these reasons.

[152] There is no evidence that the applicants engage in family violence, nor allow the child to be exposed to it.

Discussion

[153] There are three competing plans for the long-term care of the child.

[154] There are some positive aspects to the mother’s plan.

[155] It is clear that she very much loves her daughter.

[156] The child has a positive relationship with the mother. This is understandable, as the mother was the child’s primary caregiver for so much of her life until November 5, 2020.

[157] Under the mother’s plan, she would be a stay-at-home parent. She would continue to rely upon the applicants and her siblings for support.

[158] The mother’s plan would maintain the child’s connection to her extended family and community in St. Thomas.

[159] However, there are concerns with the mother’s plan.

[160] The mother’s plan would subject the child to much uncertainty and instability. She continues to live in a home with the maternal grandfather, a person who has a very serious alcohol problem and other health issues. This has created volatility and conflict in that home. The child has been and would continue to be exposed to this under the mother’s plan.

[161] At some time in the future, the mother hopes to move from the maternal grandfather’s home. Details of this part of her plan were not provided to the court. Where she will live and what changes to the child’s circumstances this will bring about are not known.

[162] The mother’s use of alcohol remains a serious problem. It adversely affects her ability to provide adequate and safe care for the child. It makes her angry and belligerent. This leads her to have conflict with others, including her close family members. The mother has not yet realized or acknowledged her problem. This puts the child at risk if placed in the mother’s fulltime care.

[163] I accept the maternal grandmother’s evidence that, when the mother is sober and healthy, the mother can be an excellent and loving parent to the child.

[164] Despite the child being out of the mother’s care for the last 19 months, she has not adequately taken steps to address her challenges.

[165] It is not clear on the evidence that the mother, in her current circumstances, can provide a secure and stable home for the child, one that is conflict-free and safe.

[166] The father’s plan has a number of positive aspects to it.

[167] The father wants to be a responsible and loving parent to his daughter. Since the child’s birth, the father has demonstrated his commitment to her. He took a lengthy paternity leave and has seen the child and exercised parenting time with her as often as he has been allowed. He travels the four hours it takes to exercise his alternate weekend parenting time.

[168] His plan is to live with the child in the home of his parents, at least initially. This home is a comfortable and loving one. This plan would afford him the regular support of his parents in caring for the child on a daily basis, especially while he works. I find that, on the evidence given by the paternal grandmother and the father, the paternal grandmother would end up being primarily responsible for the day-to-day care of the child.

[169] The child is comfortable with the father’s family and his plan would allow this to continue.

[170] The father has made plans for the child’s schooling and healthcare providers. He also has the stability that his well-paid and secure employment provides.

[171] The father has much to offer the child as a parent, as she grows and develops.

[172] A significant problem with the father’s plan is that it would cause her to be removed from the life she has in St. Thomas. It is in this community the child is so deeply integrated with the mother’s extended family. It is where she connects with her family members, goes to school and has friends.

[173] If placed in the primary care of the father, the child would lose these close connections developed over years through almost daily contact with the maternal grandmother and other family members, especially her aunt, Shelby. The distance and needed travel time between the father’s residence and St. Thomas would strain the child’s connection with all that she has experienced during her life to date.

[174] Another concern is the father’s plan to move from the paternal grandparents’ home as soon as he can afford to do so. This will be one more change for the child, change at this point that is undefined in how it will affect her.

[175] The father’s ability to care for the child on a fulltime basis is untested. He has not been the child’s fulltime caregiver. He has always had the help of his parents and especially the paternal grandmother in caring for the child.

[176] The plan of the applicants has been in place since November 2020. This plan has provided the child with a safe, stable and secure home. She is loved by the maternal grandparents and she loves them back. Her routine in their home is predictable and the description of the child’s interactions with the maternal grandparents, her maternal great grandmother and other family members demonstrates the comfort and safety she feels there.

[177] The maternal grandparents have been helping to care for the child while she has been in St. Thomas. Their plan will maintain the status quo that has seen this child develop well. She will be able to continue to enjoy the very close relationships she has with extended family members.

[178] The father suggests that the obligations the maternal grandmother has to other family members will dilute or restrict her ability to care for or be there for the child. With respect, I disagree. This demonstrated connection with family is a strength of the maternal grandmother’s plan. These extended family members support her and provide family connections for the child.

[179] The maternal grandmother has demonstrated flexibility in her employment obligations and is able to be available for the child when needed. When she needs help, Aunt Shelby has always been able to do so.

[180] I accept the maternal grandmother’s evidence that she and Jeff are willing and able to remain the child’s caregivers for the long-term.

[181] A concern with the applicants’ plan is that the child would not be raised by a parent, both of whom remain connected to her. Their plan will, of necessity, limit the time the mother and father will be able to spend with the child.

Decision

Decision-making Responsibility

[182] Based on my consideration of the best interests factors and an assessment of the plans proposed by the parties, I find that it is in the child’s best interests that the parties share joint decision-making responsibility with respect to the child.

[183] The parties demonstrated an ability to communicate. Despite being critical of the others’ parenting abilities, the evidence satisfies me that each respects one another’s insight about and the relationship they have with the child. An example of this is the mother’s submission that a contact order for Colleen and Jeff is not necessary because she is confident that they could work out their involvement with the child. The father has appreciated the responsibilities that Colleen and Jeff have so far assumed.

[184] I am satisfied that the parties have the ability to communicate effectively with each other regarding the child: see Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 CarswellOnt 266 (Ont. C.A.).

[185] The court does not expect a standard of perfection in their ability to communicate. What is expected and is already evident in this case is a reasonable measure of communication and cooperation. This will assure the child’s best interests going forward: see Warcop v. Warcop, [2009] O.J. No. 638 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 94. All are supportive of the others’ safe relationship with the child.

[186] The child attends Southwold Public School, a school that is outside the catchment area associated with the applicants’ residence. The school has supported the child and Colleen asked the principal if the child can remain there. The principal will allow her to remain as a student at the school if that is what the court order provides, if the applicants provide transportation.

[187] The child is to continue to attend Southwold Public School as long as Colleen wishes and the school authorities allow.

Primary Care

[188] When balancing the strengths and weaknesses of all the plans presented, together with the best interests considerations, I find that it is in the child’s best interests that she continues to reside in the primary care of the applicants. Their plan of care offers the most certainty and stability for the child. If in the father’s primary care, the child will effectively be cut off from the daily interaction she has with those she has now.

[189] By allowing the child to remain in the care of the maternal grandparents, there is a continuation of the status quo that is now longstanding and working very well for the child.

[190] She will remain in the community where her mother, who was her primary caregiver prior to November 2020, continues to reside.

Final Decision-making Authority

[191] Even though I found that it is in the child’s best interests that the parties share joint decision-making responsibility, I also find that it would be in her best interests if final decision-making authority rests with the maternal grandmother in the event the parties are unable to agree on a major decision concerning the child. The maternal grandmother will have greater responsibility for the child’s upbringing as well as implementing and living with the decisions made.

[192] The final decision-making authority is to be exercised by the maternal grandmother after meaningful consultation with the other parties: see Bourke v. Davis, 2020 ONSC 7667, aff’d 2021 ONCA 97, at paras. 64-67.

Parenting Time

[193] Both parents should continue to have parenting time to ensure that their respective relationships with the child continues. A balance must be made between the time she spends with each parent and the applicants and the need for the child not to be constantly on the move between three homes.

[194] In order to achieve this balance, the applicants are to have the child in their care one weekend each month with some exceptions. This will allow them time to engage with the child and extended family without the limitations of weekday routines and responsibilities. However, this will not take place in January as that first weekend of that month will be part of the child’s winter break from school, nor in July and August when summer vacations will be scheduled.

[195] The mother asked that if she was granted primary care of the child, parenting time for the father remain as is provided for in the temporary order of Hebner J. dated May 11, 2021, with some specified times related to Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. Both the applicants and the father provided proposed draft orders based on the child being in their respective care and parenting time proposals for the others. I have taken these submissions into account.

[196] I find that the following parenting time schedule is in the child’s best interests.

[197] The father shall have parenting time with the child as follows:

a) alternate weekends from Friday at 4:30 p.m. until Sunday at 7 p.m., to extend to Monday at 7 p.m. in the event that Monday is a school or statutory holiday;

b) every Wednesday from 4:30 p.m. until 7 p.m., provided that this parenting time is exercised in Elgin County;

c) summer vacation: two non-consecutive weeks during the child’s summer vacation from school, from Friday to Friday or Sunday to Sunday, such that it includes one of his parenting weekends and does not interfere with the mother’s parenting weekends. The father shall advise the applicants and mother of the weeks he chooses by May 1 in even-numbered years and by May 15 in odd-numbered years. He will have first choice in even-numbered years. His time with the child during these weeks shall be uninterrupted by parenting time with the applicants or the mother;

d) on Father’s Day from Sunday at 10 a.m. until 7 p.m. if Father’s Day does not fall on his regularly scheduled alternate weekend;

e) Easter long weekend: as arranged by the parties but, if they are not able to do so, then every Easter Saturday from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m.;

f) Thanksgiving long weekend: as arranged by the parties but, if they are not able to do so, then every Thanksgiving Saturday from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m.;

g) Christmas Eve and Christmas Day: as arranged by the parties but, if they are not able to do so, then December 24 at noon until December 25 at 5 p.m. in 2023 and every third year thereafter, with the balance of the child’s winter break from school divided equally between the applicants, the father and the mother;

h) the father shall be responsible for transporting the child to and from his parenting time; and

i) such further and other parenting times as the parties may agree.

[198] The mother shall have parenting time with the child as follows:

a) alternate weekends from Friday at 4:30 p.m. until Sunday at 7 p.m., to extend to Monday at 7 p.m. in the event that Monday is a school or statutory holiday;

b) every Tuesday from 4:30 p.m. until 7 p.m.;

c) summer vacation: two non-consecutive weeks during the child’s summer vacation from school, from Friday to Friday or Sunday to Sunday, such that it includes one of her parenting weekends and does not interfere with the father’s parenting weekends. The mother shall advise the applicants of the weeks she chooses by May 1 in odd-numbered years and by May 15 in even-numbered years. She will have first choice in odd-numbered years. Her time with the child during these weeks shall be uninterrupted by parenting time with the applicants or the father;

d) on Mother’s Day from Sunday at 10 a.m. until 7 p.m. if Mother’s Day does not fall on her regularly scheduled alternate weekend;

e) Easter long weekend: as arranged by the parties but, if they are not able to do so, then every Easter Sunday from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m.;

f) Thanksgiving long weekend: as arranged by the parties but, if they are not able to do so, then every Thanksgiving Sunday from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m.;

g) Christmas Eve and Christmas Day: as arranged by the parties but, if they are not able to do so, then December 24 at noon until December 25 at 5 p.m. in 2024 and every third year thereafter, with the balance of the child’s winter break from school divided equally between the applicants, the father and the mother;

h) the mother shall not consume alcohol 12 hours before or during her parenting time with the child;

i) the mother shall be responsible for transporting the child to and from her parenting time, unless otherwise agreed to by the applicants and her; and

j) such further and other parenting times as the parties may agree.

[199] The parties shall not allow or cause the child to be exposed to adult conflict.

[200] There shall be reasonable video and telephone parenting time between the parties and the child as arranged by them.

[201] The applicants shall be entitled to two, one-week periods during the child’s summer vacation from school, uninterrupted by parenting time by either the father or the mother. They will advise the respondents of the two one-week periods by June 1 in each year.

[202] Christmas Eve and Christmas Day: as arranged by the parties but, if they are not able to do so, then in 2022 and every third year thereafter, the child shall be in the care of the applicants on December 24 at noon until December 25 at 5 p.m., with the balance of the child’s winter break from school divided equally between the applicants, the father and the mother.

Child Support

[203] The parents have the obligation to pay child support to the applicants for the child. The amount of child support is based upon the parents’ respective incomes: Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97 ss. 3(1)(a) and 16.

[204] The mother has no income at this time. She is supported by the maternal grandfather’s sources of income. If she receives Ontario Works, it is unlikely that the income provided will reach the threshold for her to pay child support.

[205] Counsel for the applicants asks that income of $29,000 per year (approximating minimum wage fulltime employment) be imputed to the mother on the basis that she chooses, without good reason, not to work. I find that it is premature to impute income to the mother. She must address her health problems. She will need some time to do so. The request for child support from the mother is reviewable on the earlier of (a) the mother obtaining employment or any other change in her sources of income and (b) January 1, 2023.

[206] The father’s income has been as follows:

2018	2019	2020	2021
$77,235	$97,046	$57,759	$52,232

[207] The father provided a payslip with year-to-date information to March 19, 2022. That week, he worked 23.9 hours at a regular rate of $44 per hour, and 2 hours at the overtime rate of $88 per hour. He is also paid vacation pay each week.

[208] Based on this paystub, the father had gross pay year-to-date of $12,720, with union dues of $380. For child support calculation purposes, his annualized income is approximately $56,000. [1] The table amount of child support based on this income is $517 per month.

[209] Except for the effects COVID-19 has had on the father’s employment schedule, it is not clear why the respondent is not earning as much income as he had in the past. However, on the record before the court, child support is to be paid based on the father’s expected 2022 income of $56,000.

[210] Both parents are required to advise the applicants, in writing, of any changes in their income or employment circumstances.

[211] If the father’s anticipated 2022 income is expected to exceed $56,000 because he is working fulltime hours or on a more consistent basis, he is well advised to keep the applicants informed and to adjust his child support payments accordingly. If he does not, he may very well owe a significant amount of unpaid child support at the end of the year.

Order

[212] For these reasons, the following order shall issue:

Under the Children’s Law Reform Act

1. The parties shall share joint decision-making responsibility with respect to the child.

2. The parties shall consult and confer with each other before significant decisions about the child’s wellbeing are made. In the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement after having meaningful discussion, whether in-person, virtually or electronically, the maternal grandmother shall make the final decision and keep the other parties informed.

3. The child shall reside in the primary care of the applicants.

4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the child is to continue to attend Southwold Public School as long as Colleen wishes and the school authorities allow.

5. The father shall have parenting time with the child as set out in paragraph 197 above.

6. The mother shall have parenting time with the child as set out in paragraph 198 above.

7. Notwithstanding paragraphs 5 and 6 above, the child shall remain in the care of the applicants during the first weekend of each month except January, July and August. For the sake of clarity, the first weekend of the month includes the weekend when the new month starts on either Saturday or Sunday.

8. There shall be reasonable video and telephone parenting time between the parties and the child as arranged by them.

9. The applicants shall be entitled to two, one-week periods during the child's summer vacation from school, uninterrupted by parenting time by either the father or the mother. They will advise the respondents of the two one-week periods by June 1 in each year.

10. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day: as arranged by the parties but, if they are not able to do so, then in 2022 and every third year thereafter, the child shall be in the care of the applicants on December 24 at noon until December 25 at 5 p.m., with the balance of the child’s winter break from school divided equally between the applicants, the father and the mother.

11. The parties shall not allow or cause the child to be exposed to adult conflict.

Under the Family Law Act

12. Commencing on the first day of June and on the first day of each month thereafter, the father shall pay to the applicants for the support of the child the monthly sum of $517 based upon:

a) Child Support Guidelines s. 3(1)(a); and

b) the father’s anticipated 2022 income of $56,000.

13. The applicants’ claim for child support from the mother is dismissed at this time, but is reviewable on the earlier of (a) any change in the mother’s income or employment circumstances and (b) January 1, 2023.

14. The respondents shall forthwith advise the applicants, in writing, within ten days of any change in their respective income or employment circumstances.

Costs

15. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue of costs, the applicants may make written submissions within 14 days of the release of these reasons. The father and the mother shall have 14 days after the receipt of the applicants’ submissions to respond. The submissions shall be no more than 3 pages, double-spaced, and a minimum of 12-point font, together with a bill of costs and any offers to settle. A party opposing a claim for costs shall include in their submissions documentation showing their own fees and expenses.

“Justice B. Tobin”

Justice B. Tobin

Released: May 31, 2022

COURT FILE NO.: FC271/20 DATE: May 31, 2022 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY COURT BETWEEN: Colleen Durdle and Jeff Sawyer Applicants - and - Dale Gordon Kleber and Caitlin Durdle Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TOBIN J. Released: May 31, 2022

[1] $12,720 - $380 = $12,340 ÷ 11 weeks x 50 weeks