COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-00045620-0000

DATE: 2022-12-16

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Rebecca Gewurtz, Applicant

AND:

Jeffery McGroarty, Respondent

BEFORE: Kurz J.

COUNSEL: Fareen Jamal, for the Applicant

Aneesha Luthra, for the Respondent

HEARD: December 8, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

Introduction

1This is a motion dealing with financial and parenting issues. The parties have now resolved most of those financial issues.

2The parties agree that $200,000 will be withheld from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home (the “home”) with the net balance being divided equally.

3The parties agree that the Respondent father’s income for support purposes is $80,000. That is relevant to the calculation of child support. The parents ask me to set child support once I determine the parenting arrangements.

4They also agree that the father will produce all documents and information set out in para. 7 of the Applicant mother’s notice of motion by January 30, 2023.

5The key remaining issue is parenting time after the home is sold. The mother wishes to be the primary caregiver of the children after the home sale closes in January 2023. The father wishes a 2-2-3 shared parenting arrangement. Each parent says that they will have their own home.

6The parties are presently living separate and apart in the home. They are taking alternate week-about turns in primarily caring for the children, but the mother assumes a number of responsibilities during the father’s week. The fulcrum of the parenting issue is the question of the father’s alcohol use and its effect on his behaviour.

7For the reasons set out below, I accept that the father has an alcohol abuse problem that he is unwilling to admit and that it has significantly contributed to parental conflict. In considering the circumstances of the parties and children, I find that it is in the best interests of the children that the mother be granted their primary care.

Background

8The parties began to cohabit in September 2002 and married on November 11, 2006. They have three children: CJ, 14; MR, 11; CF, 9. They separated in May 2021 but have continued to live separate and apart in the home since then. They will physically separate in January, when the home’s sale closes. As set out above they have been sharing parenting since shortly after their separation.

9The father is currently self-employed as an IT manager/consultant. He lost a full-time job in March 2022, for reasons that have yet to be disclosed. The mother is an occupational therapist and an associate professor in the McMaster School of Rehabilitation Science, as well as an adjunct scientist in the university’s Institute for Work and Health.

10The parties have been living separate and apart in the home since they separated. They take one-week turns as the primary caregiver of the children, with the other parent sleeping in the basement. However, the mother says that she often takes on parenting responsibilities during the father’s parenting time. The children agree with that narrative.

11The mother complains that the father began to become controlling and verbally abusive in 2018. She says that this behaviour accelerated during the pandemic. The verbal abuse mainly consisted of disparagement of the mother. The mother asserts that alcohol abuse fuelled the father’s verbal behaviour. There is no question that there has been a great deal of verbal conflict between the parties.

12The mother points to a number of incidents of alleged verbal abuse and belligerence by the father. She points to one incident during the pandemic when the father falsely accused her of having an affair. He went so far as to claim that their youngest child, CF, was not his biological child. He was so loud during that argument that he awoke CJ, who heard the father’s allegation regarding his sister’s paternity.

13This incident led to CJ requesting that his mother find him a therapist. The mother retained the experienced and respected social worker, Andrea Barclay. Ms. Barclay now sees all three children. As set out below, Ms. Barclay has felt dutybound to contact the Halton CAS about this family’s conflicts and her concerns regarding the father’s drinking.

14The mother also points to an incident on April 10, 2021, as the precipitating event that led to the parties’ separation. On that evening, the father angrily berated the mother because she had had a friend over for lunch who later turned out to have caught Covid. The mother states that she had already tested negative and had been a week post-contact. Nonetheless, she says that the father berated her for hours, leading her to take the children to the basement of her home. She called the police, who attended at 2:00 a.m. The officer stated in the incident report that the father “appeared” intoxicated. He also stated that the children reported that the father acts “funny” but were unable to articulate how.

15This incident was reported to the Halton CAS. The Society investigated but closed its file because the father denied drinking and the officer only stated that the father “appeared” intoxicated.

16The mother says that there were other incidents in which the father was intoxicated and belligerent. On a number of occasions, he had forgotten about the incident the following day.

17On August 13, 2021, an unknown person called the police to report that the parties had separated, the father was drinking, and he was controlling. When the police arrived, they again found that he “appeared intoxicated”. The parties disagreed about the extent of their argument, but both agreed that no criminal offence had occurred. The officer’s report was forwarded to the CAS.

18The CAS briefly investigated and then closed their file because of the parties’ impending separation and agreement to a week-about “nesting arrangement”. In a closing letter, the CAS worker set out the agency’s “expectation that there is always a sober caregiver around [the children] and that [the father] will not drink when he is in a caregiving role”.

19The mother claims that on December 31, 2021, the father became belligerent after her parents called to wish the family a happy New Year. She says that he yelled at the children, calling them “abusive” and complained that her parents had ruined his New Year’s Eve. The mother says that she became so concerned that she fled with the children to a bathroom and locked themselves in until the father stopped. No police were called. But the next day, the mother found that the father had vomited “all over the room”. He denied drinking and claimed that he had thrown up because he was ill.

20The mother told her therapist about the New Year’s Eve incident. The therapist felt obliged to report the incident to the CAS. This time, the Society decided to open a file for ongoing services because of its concerns regarding the father’s drinking and parental conflict.

21CJ and his father engaged in a physical altercation in January 2022. CJ’s therapist, Ms. Barclay, describes the incident, as related to her by CJ, as follows:

In January 2022 [CJ] was involved in altercations with his father. He reportedly became angry at his father who he reported was drinking and acting antagonistic toward the children and their mother. He unplugged the television they were watching and chased them up the stairs. [CJ] pushed his father in anger and frustration.

There was a second time that where [CJ] was discussing his school courses and his father did not support his choices and [CJ] hit and kicked his father, injuring his own foot. [CJ] expressed frustration that things in the home were not improving.

22In March 2022, the family (including both parties) went together on a ski holiday at Mt. Tremblant, Quebec. However, CJ suffered a serious leg injury while skiing and required surgery. The doctor on site suggested that they return to Ontario for the surgery. The mother and children left the next day after CJ’s family doctor advised them to take him to McMaster Children’s Hospital for the surgery. There is some dispute as to the reason, but the father stayed behind while the mother took the children. The father claims that he could not fit in the car for the return drive, but I understand that they all drove to Mt. Tremblant together. It was during this period that the father was terminated from his employment, for reasons that have yet to be disclosed.

23The mother says that CJ became angry at his father upon his return to Ontario. He had been given the father’s old phone. Looking at it, he saw texts showing the father in a hot tub get-together, along with others at Mt. Tremblant. This occurred while CJ was in the hospital. The mother does not say whether she saw the texts herself. This evidence is relevant to only to CJ’s state of mind towards his father, and CJ’s reasons for his anger. I do not consider it to be evidence proving any aspect of the father’s conduct.

24CAS records show that CJ called the police on May 9, 2022, as “he didn’t feel safe with his dad in the bedroom”. When officers arrived, they noted that the father was intoxicated, that he was slurring his words and uneasy on his feet. The father denied being intoxicated and said the police had woken him up. I do not have the police reports upon which the CAS relied.

25In an internal report of August 16, 2022, “[a]fter meeting with the family several times”, the CAS “verified”: “dad’s drinking”, “ongoing conflict” between the parents, and that CJ “is starting to say he wants to kill himself when the parents are arguing”. The CAS worker said that the agency came to the conclusion that the father is drinking in the basement (i.e., where it is not visible to the mother). The report also spoke of the mother being “extremely overwhelmed by everything”.

26I note that the CAS verification regarding the father, being a lay opinion, is neither proof in itself nor binding. It is based at least in part on second-hand information as well as the interviews with the family. But it does point to the concerns of a child welfare agency tasked with protecting children in need of protection. It was arrived at after speaking to all involved. The CAS records assist in confirming a number of the concerns raised in the firsthand evidence of the mother.

Report of Andrea Barclay

27In her report of November 29, 2022, therapist Andrea Barclay described her work with each of the three children. Regarding CJ, he has consistently struggled with his parents’ conflict. He and his sisters often begged his parents to stop fighting. Ms. Barclay described the escalation of the conflict between CJ and his father as follows:

[CJ] identified that his father used to be a really good person, but he has changed over the past few years. [CJ] stated that he felt his father’s alcohol consumption was the reason for the change. [CJ] began to identify his anger and frustration with his father. [CJ]’s main and consistent concern was his father’s alcohol consumption and how it escalated the conflict between his parents and conflict between himself and his father. He reported that his father stands silently in his room when he is drinking, which he finds unnerving and does not know how to handle. …

[CJ] stated his father denies the alcohol consumption and that Mr. McGroarty accused Ms. Gewurtz of drinking and abuse. [CJ] did not agree with his father’s view of his mother. [CJ] had asked his father to not drink while he cares for him and his sisters, but he stated that his father continued to drink alcohol, making [CJ] feel less safe.

28CJ also felt that his father was not being fair to him and denying him opportunities, such as a refusal to agree to a family summer camp. By the summer of 2022 he was speaking to Ms. Barclay of his feelings of helplessness and depression. He also has become quick to anger and experiencing problems with peers.

29On the other hand, he reported a positive relationship with his mother and no concerns in that regard.

30Ms. Barclay reported MR’s comments about the family conflict as follows:

[MR] spoke generally of the family conflict and of the police attending the home on one occasion because everyone was arguing over the family vacation. [MR] answered the door to police, and she said the officers spoke to her parents. [MR] reported overhearing a lot of arguing.

In August 2022 she reported that the conflict was at its worst and had been bad for over a year. She felt that it was especially bad when [CJ] was involved, and she felt he needed to stay out of her parents’ issues. She stated that when she thinks about living in two homes she thinks of living with her mother more, especially during the week and maybe weekends with her father. She does not think she could be away from her mother for too long.

31MR was also concerned about her sister’s anger and outbursts. It causes her anxiety, as does CJ’s conflict with her father.

32CF spoke to Ms. Barclay about the parental conflict, stating, as reported by the therapist:

[CF] spoke of her parents’ arguments and that she felt overwhelmed when the arguing was intense. She stated she felt mad, sad and confused by the conflict. She spoke of being upset that her father said her mother could not sleep upstairs anymore on his weekends. [CF] sleeps with her mother and she said her father declined to agree to sleep with her on his weeks.

[CF] talked of being concerned when her father was drinking alcohol. She stated her father behaved in weird ways often refusing to leave her room when Mom is reading to her. This causes her stress, and she is unsure why he wont [sic] leave. She stated that her and her mother attempted numerous strategies such as ignoring, moving to another room but her father followed them. She stated that [MR] and [CJ] were stressed about it too.

33CF reported that her mother gets mad as well but does not say mean things when she does.

34All three children confirmed their concerns about their father’s excessive drinking to Ms. Barclay. She wrote:

The children all expressed concern regarding the alcohol consumption of their father. The children report this is a component of the conflict and there are concerns with father’s ability to provide a safe and predictable environment for the children where their needs are met.

35But Ms. Barclay also reported that the children love their father and appear to struggle between their love for him and the instability that his behaviour creates. She stated:

The girls love their father and identify concerns with being fed and father not being home, however report that they can manage it for short periods of time. The children require a safe, predictable and reliable home environment. They have resided in conflict and chaos for three years, experienced a pandemic, and are facing moving from their home.

36Ms. Barclay also reported the children’s view of their mother as their primary caregiver, writing “[t]he children identified their mother as their primary caregiver and the person they feel most connected to.”

Applicable Law

37Parenting decisions are determined under ss. 16 and 16.1 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.). Under s. 16.1(1), a "court of competent jurisdiction may make an order providing for the exercise of parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of any child of the marriage on application by (a) either or both spouses". Under s. 16.1(2), the court may make an interim parenting order in respect of the children pending the hearing of the parent's application.

38Section 16(2) mandates that the court, when considering the best interests of the child, “shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well being”.

39This court has the jurisdiction to make broad range of parenting orders under s. 16.1(4) and (5), as follows:

16 (4) The court may, in the order,

(a) allocate parenting time in accordance with section 16.2;

(b) allocate decision-making responsibility in accordance with section 16.3;

(c) include requirements with respect to any means of communication, that is to occur during the parenting time allocated to a person, between a child and another person to whom parenting time or decision-making responsibility is allocated; and

(d) provide for any other matter that the court considers appropriate.

(5) The court may make an order for a definite or indefinite period or until a specified event occurs, and may impose any terms, conditions and restrictions that it considers appropriate.

40The sole consideration for the determination of parenting decisions under the Divorce Act is the best interests of the child: s. 16(1). Under s. 16(2) and (3), the court is required, in determining the child's best interests, to "give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being," while considering "all factors related to the circumstances of the child".

41The factors that relate to the child's best interests are set out in s. 16(3) as follows:

Factors to be considered

(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including

(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 spouse, each of the child's siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child's life;

(c) each spouse's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other spouse;

(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 cooperate, 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 cooperate 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.

42As I wrote in Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480, at para. 47: "The list of best interests factors is not a checklist to be tabulated with the highest score winning. Rather it calls for the court to take a holistic look at the child, her needs and the people around her."

The Parenting Time Factor

43A further parenting factor that this court is called upon to consider is the provision in s. 16(6) of the Divorce Act, which states that "[i]n allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child." [Emphasis added.] The previous iteration of this clause of the Divorce Act contained the same wording but also included the heading, "Maximum Contact", to describe it. Citing that provision and dated precedent, the father argues that the “maximum contact principle”, embodied by both the provision and its former heading, remains the law of Ontario. That is no longer the case.

44In Rigillo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 548, 31 RFL (8th) 356 the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that a court's failure to advert to the “maximum contact principle” represented an error in law. Any judge who departs from that principle must provide reasons for doing so. Implicit in the principle is the notion that those reasons must be in a child's best interests.

45In Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305, 155 OR (3d) 721, issued after the amendments to the Divorce Act cited above, the Court of Appeal for Ontario strongly implied that the principle set out in Rigillo remains in place following the coming into force of those amendments. At para. 30, Justice Benotto appears to have implicitly accepted the continuing application of the Rigillo principle. But writing for the court, just before adverting to the former and current Divorce Act parental contact provisions, Justice Benotto cautioned:

As this court said in Rigillo v. Rigillo, [2019] O.J. No. 4088, 2019 ONCA 647, 31 R.F.L. (8th) 361, at para. 13, the maximum contact principle does not necessarily require equal parenting time.

46Whatever broad view may exist regarding the reach of the “maximum contact principle” has now been dispelled by the Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt. There, Karakatsanis J. began by describing the “maximum contact principle” and its corollary, the “friendly parent rule”, as follows:

133 What is known as the maximum contact principle has traditionally emphasized that children shall have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with their best interests. A corollary to this is sometimes referred to as the “friendly parent rule”, which instructs courts to consider the willingness of a parent to foster and support the child’s relationship with the other parent, where appropriate: see Young, at p. 44. Both of these considerations have long been recognized by the Divorce Act: see Divorce Act, pre-amendments, ss. 16(10) and 17(9); and Divorce Act, post-amendments, ss. 16(6) and 16(3)(c).

47At para. 134, Karakatsanis J., continued, referring to the decisions of some courts, based upon the “maximum contact principle”, as “effectively creating a presumption in favour of shared parenting arrangements, equal parenting time, or regular access.” She then referred to the implication which arises from the “maximum contact” label, stating:

[i]ndeed, the term “maximum contact principle” seems to imply that as much contact with both parents as possible will necessarily be in the best interests of the child.

48That view is incorrect, as Karakatsanis J. explained:

135 These interpretations overreach. It is worth repeating that what is known as the maximum contact principle is only significant to the extent that it is in the child’s best interests; it must not be used to detract from this inquiry. It is notable that the amended Divorce Act recasts the “maximum contact principle” as “[p]arenting time consistent with best interests of child”: s. 16(6). This shift in language is more neutral and affirms the child-centric nature of the inquiry. Indeed, going forward, the “maximum contact principle” is better referred to as the “parenting time factor”.

Analysis

The Father’s Drinking and Credibility

49As set out above, under s. 16(2) of the Divorce Act, I must “give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well being”. Here, the concerns about the father’s drinking make the physical, emotional and psychological protection of the children my paramount consideration.

50The father denies drinking and claims that the mother has put the children up to confirming her narrative of his alcohol abuse. He further claims that his conduct can be explained by illness, not alcohol.

51But his claims are belied by a number of persons. The mother openly admits that she never saw him drinking (in part because they were in separate living areas following their separation) but she and the children often found empty vodka bottles. She also found bottles with clear liquids in them, that she said smelled like vodka.

52In response, the father offers only broad, unparticularized and uncorroborated allegations. He does attach to his affidavit a LifeLabs blood test result. But absent expert evidence it is meaningless to me. The father also attaches a brief, one-sentence note from his family doctor, which purportedly confirms that a medical professional does not believe that he has an alcohol abuse problem.

53The letter from Dr Hawa Kamara, presumably offered as the evidence of a participation expert, is addressed to the father’s counsel. It reads as follows:

In response to the questions in your letter dated 8^th of June 2022, I have not had reason to be concerned about Mr. McGroarty’s alcohol consumption in the past and I have not counselled him about his alcohol use.

54I note the following about this note:

a. Counsel’s instructing letter to Dr. Kamara is not produced, so the questions asked of her are not before the court;

b. The note is brief, to the point of virtual meaninglessness;

c. It fails to set out the basis of Dr. Kamara’s expertise, if any, regarding alcohol abuse. I have not been requested to and in any event, am unwilling to take judicial notice that a family doctor has expertise in alcohol abuse;

d. It does not state the length of time that Dr. Kamara has treated the father;

e. It does not state whether the issue was even broached with the father. Unless the issue was raised by the father, or he smelled of alcohol when he attended for a medical appointment, it is unlikely that a family doctor would detect alcohol abuse, even if it exists. I cannot ignore the fact that the father denies alcohol abuse, so it is unlikely that he raised the issue with his family doctor. I also point out that the LifeLabs blood test form shows that it was not ordered by Dr. Kamara. He, of course, makes no reference to that blood test.

55The father also makes broad allegations of the mother’s abuse of the children. As set out below, they are completely uncorroborated and actually contradicted by Ms. Barclay, based on her work with the children.

56I find the mother’s evidence credible and where it conflicts with that of the father, I accept her evidence. I do so for a number of reasons. First, it is far more detailed and particularized than that of the father. Second, is candid in offering admission as to the limit of her direct observations of the father’s drinking. Third, the mother’s account is corroborated, as set out above, by others, including her children and police records. More than one police officer attended at the home only to find the father apparently intoxicated. The children all reported to Ms. Barclay their observations of the father’s excessive drinking and the concerns that it raises for them. This is important evidence.

57Further, the father admits to the vomiting, which can be indicative of excessive drinking. To the extent that he claims that medical issues explain any aspect of his conduct, he fails to provide any helpful medical evidence. As stated above, I do not find the brief note of Dr. Kamara to have an evidentiary value in motion.

58I recognize that the father claims that the mother has negatively influenced the children against him. He asks me to take their reports of his behavior with a large grain of salt. The report of Andrea Barclay, which may be the most powerful evidence in this motion, puts lie to that claim. The children’s comments to her about their father are not those of estranged children. MR and CF speak of their love for their father and desire to spend time with him; only not overnight. Their love is tinged with concern for his behaviour and its effect on them.

59CJ has engaged in real conflict with his father; going so far as to engage in physical confrontations with the man. But when he speaks of his father, it is not black and white. He describes his father as having been good but now changed because of his alcohol consumption. CJ does not refuse to see his father.

60The words of children regarding their father’s drinking are not those of children who are speaking for their mother rather than themselves. They are the words of children struggling with their love, concern and even disappointment in their father. They seem to want their old father, the one who is not drinking, angry and distracted.

Finding Regarding Father’s Alcohol Abuse

61While this is not a trial and thus the evidence is limited, I accept the evidence of the mother, buttressed with the statements of the children and observations of the police officers who attended at the home. Together, they confirm that the father suffers from alcohol abuse. That abuse raises a significant risk to the children should they be placed in his care for seven consecutive days or even for overnights.

62The father’s denials are, in the face of the other evidence upon which I rely, the cause of further concern for the children. The mother accuses the father of “gaslighting” her about his drinking. But I believe that it may be more accurate to say that he is in denial. That fact means that he is not willing or able to take any steps to deal with his alcohol problem. He cannot do so unless he first acknowledges the problem. Thus, the fact that Dr. Kamara (or any other professional) has not counselled the father for his alcohol use, within the context of the other evidence in this motion, is a cause for increased concern rather than relief. Again, it is likely that he has never raised the issue with Dr. Kamara.

Other Best Interests Concerns

63The father’s relationship with CJ is fraught. Further, there has been physical conflict between the father and CJ, which raises a large red flag to the issue of leaving the children with the father overnight. The child does not feel safe in his father’s care.

64It appears that the father’s drinking takes place at night, and that it makes him angry. Without the mediating and protective role of the mother, the father’s nocturnal, unchecked drinking could pose a risk to the children. They should not be exposed to it unless and until their father is successfully able to overcome that problem.

65Regarding the father’s allegations that it is the wife who is abusive to the children, those claims are unsupported by the evidence. Ms. Barclay wrote: “Mr. McGroarty expressed concerns that Ms. Gewurtz was abusive to the children, however the views of the children in therapy do not support this statement.” I add that nothing in the CAS reports even hints at the mother abusing the children.

66Finally, Ms. Barclay reported that “[t]he children identified their mother as their primary caregiver and the person they most feel connected to”. That statement makes sense in the circumstances. At a time of great change for the children, moving out of their home and their present parenting arrangement, they should have a continuation of their mother’s primary care.

67All of the factors set out above make merely overnight parenting time, let alone a full shared parenting arrangement, contrary to the children’s best interests.

68I add that the children want both of their parents to stop fighting. The alcohol does seem to fuel the conflict but does not seem to be the only factor. Both parents should take their desire for domestic peace to heart.

Conclusion

69I find that the mother is best placed to be the children’s primary caregiver. The children see her in that role. The physical separation of the parties will assist in that regard.

70Accordingly, on a temporary without prejudice basis, I order that the parenting time with the children will be allocated as follows:

1. The children will primarily reside with the mother;

2. The children will have parenting time with the father as follows:

a. every Wednesday evening from after school until 8:00 p.m.;

b. alternate weekends, from Saturday at 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and from Sunday at 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.;

c. every Thursday evening from after school until 8:00 p.m. (on the weeks that he does not have weekend parenting time);

d. The father will be responsible for picking the children up at the commencement of his parenting time, and the mother will be responsible for picking the children up at the end of his parenting time, provided the father resides in Oakville;

e. The father will be responsible for transporting the children to/from their extra-curricular activities during his parenting time;

f. Neither party will cancel any activities or appointments previously scheduled;

g. Going forward, the parents will schedule any therapy or medical appointments during their parenting time;

h. Any other parenting time that the parties agree upon in writing.

3. At all other times, the children will have parenting time with the mother.

4. Neither parent will consume any alcohol while caring for the children, and 24 hours prior to caring for the children.

5. The children are not to be left with the father if there is any indication that the father is under the influence. The mother can refuse any parenting time with the father and/or terminate parenting time early if there is any indication that the father has consumed alcohol 24 hours prior to caring for the children.

6. The terms set out above may be reviewed if the father can prove that he has successfully completed a course of alcohol abuse treatment.

7. Each parent may make day-to-day decisions about the children while those children are in their care.

8. The mother shall consult with the father in regard to any major decisions regarding health, education and activities of the children but if the parties are unable to agree she shall have final say. However, she shall not arrange children’s activities on the father’s parenting time without his consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

71I further order the following additional terms:

1. Starting January 7, 2023, and on the first day of each month until further court order or agreement of the parties, the Respondent, Jeffrey McGroarty (“Jeffrey”) will pay to the Applicant, Rebecca Gewurtz (“Rebecca”) interim child support of $1,583.00 for the children of the marriage, CJ, MR, and CF, based on an $80,000 income for Jeffrey.

2. Jeffrey will pay support by direct bank transfer from his bank account to Rebecca’s bank account at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Account #7098138 on the first day of each month.

3. On consent, the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home located at 263 Callaghan Crescent, Oakville scheduled to close on January 6, 2023, shall be distributed as follows:

a. $200,000 shall be held in trust to address any post-separation accounting and/or equalization claims, until further agreement of the parties or a court order; and

b. The remaining balance of the net proceeds of the sale, after paying all encumbrances registered against title, real estate commissions and other expenses, will be divided equally (50/50) between the parties, with Rebecca and Jeffrey each receiving one-half of the remaining net proceeds.

4. The father shall pay the mother her costs of this motion, fixed at $4,500.