Introduction

[1] This was an eight-day trial about a little girl who is very much loved by both of her parents. As I heard the evidence from both of the parties, their witnesses and the OCL clinician, and as I listened to the submissions from counsel, I was reminded of the following poem written by a child regarding her parents’ separation:

Two houses, two homes, two kitchens, two phones,

Two couches where I lay, two places that I stay,

Moving, moving here and there, from Monday to Friday I'm everywhere,

Don't get me wrong, it's not that bad,

But often times it makes me sad,

I want to live that nuclear life,

With a happy dad and his loving wife,

A picket fence, a shaggy dog,

A fireplace with a burning log,

But it's not real, it's just a dream,

I cannot cry or even scream,

So here I sit with cat number three,

Life would be easy if there were two of me.[^1]

[2] The primary issues for this trial were decision-making responsibility, relocation, and parenting time. The Applicant mother (“the mother” or “the Applicant”) sought a final order granting her sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the parties’ child, V.C. born March 19, 2015 (“V.C.” or “the child”), from Innisfil, Ontario to Brooklin, Ontario. If permitted to relocate, the Applicant sought a final order changing the Respondent’s parenting time. The Respondent father (the “father” or “the Respondent”) opposed the Applicant’s request for sole decision-making responsibility and relocation. He sought a final order that either stopped the Applicant from moving to Brooklin with the child or granted him primary residence of the child and set out a new schedule of parenting time for the Applicant. The other issues for this trial were the ongoing and retroactive child support. Due to the sensitive nature of some of the evidence, I decided to give the child some privacy by initializing the parties’ and the child’s names.

[3] The questions for the court are:

Is it in the best interests of the child to order joint or sole decision-making responsibility?
Is it in the best interests of the child to permit the relocation and change the parenting schedule as requested by the Applicant or is it in the best interests of the child not to permit the relocation and to change the parenting schedule as requested by the Respondent?
What is the appropriate retroactive and ongoing child support?

Decision

[4] I find it is in the best interests of the child to make an order granting the Applicant final sole decision-making responsibility regarding V.C.’s health, education, extra-curricular activities, and general welfare. I find it is in the best interests of the child to permit the Applicant to relocate with the child and to change the parenting schedule as requested by the Applicant (with some adjustments). Lastly, I have made findings and a final order regarding retroactive and ongoing child support.

Preliminary issues

[5] On November 17, 2022, Douglas J. granted the Respondent’s request for a virtual trial. The Respondent stated he was self-represented and that his lawyer at the time (who was not on the record) was not able to attend in person for the trial due to prior court engagement. However, if the trial proceeded virtually, the Respondent’s lawyer could continue to act as his agent to assist him virtually. Further, the Respondent’s witnesses for the trial were already arranged and available to attend virtually. The Applicant did not oppose the request. Therefore, the trial began virtually to accommodate the Respondent.

[6] At the commencement of the trial, the Respondent advised the court that his lawyer (agent) would not be assisting him in the trial. The Respondent did not request an adjournment and confirmed that he would be representing himself. The court gave the Respondent some guidance about representing himself at a trial and provided him with a short guide/handout called “Representing Yourself at Your Family Law Trial in the Superior Court of Justice.”

[7] The trial commenced virtually via ZOOM and proceeded without issue throughout the Applicant’s evidence-in-chief. However, when the Respondent began his cross-examination of the Applicant, he began experiencing significant internet instability which caused delay and, at times, the inability to see or hear the Respondent at all. Counsel for the Applicant provided assistance to both the Respondent and the court to try and accommodate the Respondent so he could continue in ZOOM. Unfortunately, the issues could not be resolved adequately and there was significant delay and loss of valuable court time. For these reasons, the court decided that the trial could not continue virtually. On consent, the trial was adjourned to recommence “in person” at 9:30 a.m. the next day. The court advised the parties that their witnesses could still attend virtually if they had stable internet, so the balance of the trial proceeded as a hybrid in person/virtual matter, and it was completed within the time estimated.

Background

[8] The parties separated in 2017 after a relationship of approximately three years. Each party has an older child from a previous relationship. The Applicant has a son named Jordan who is 21 years old. The Respondent has a son named Luca who is 16 years old.

[9] The parties have one child together, namely V.C., who is seven (7) years old. On September 28, 2017, the parties entered into Final Minutes of Settlement. Those Minutes were made into the Final Order of Justice Olah dated September 28, 2017, (the “Olah Order”). The Olah Order gave the parties joint custody of the child with joint consultation prior to making major decisions relating to the child’s health, education, and general welfare. The Olah Order gave the Applicant primary residence of the child and set out a schedule of parenting time for the Respondent that included day visits that would expand to include one overnight biweekly once he obtained “appropriate sleeping arrangements for the child, including her own room.” The Olah Order did not contain a mobility clause. The Olah Order was never changed. However, on consent of the parties, the Respondent’s parenting time schedule expanded over time such that by April 2020, the Applicant had slightly more parenting time than the Respondent.

[10] In September 2021, the Applicant unilaterally moved with the child to Brooklin, Ontario and registered her in a school there. The Respondent brought an ex-parte urgent motion requesting an order returning the child to Innisfil. On September 27, 2021, Justice Cameron made a temporary order (the “Cameron Order”) based only upon the Respondent’s written materials that prohibited the Applicant from removing the child from Innisfil without written agreement or court order. Justice Cameron further ordered that the Applicant re-enroll V.C. in Alcona Glen Public School and prohibited the child’s removal from this school without written agreement or further court order. She further ordered that the parties attend court on October 6, 2021, for an urgent case conference.

[11] On October 6, 2021, the parties participated in an urgent case conference with Justice McDermot. As a result of the case conference and negotiations between the parties and counsel, the parties agreed to a shared parenting schedule in the Temporary (without prejudice) Consent Order made by Justice McDermot on October 6, 2021 (the “McDermot Order”). The McDermot Order terminated the Cameron Order and addressed the urgent issues; however, as the McDermot Order was “without prejudice,” the Olah Order was still operative as well.

[12] On October 22, 2021, the Applicant issued a Motion to Change the Olah Order on a final basis. The Respondent served and filed his Response to Motion to Change opposing the relief sought. The Applicant served and filed a Reply. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer “OCL” was requested to become involved. The OCL agreed to appoint a clinician to conduct an investigation and provide a s. 112 Report under the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. The Respondent brought two further urgent motions in relation to his allegations that the Applicant was not complying with the Cameron Order and the McDermot Order. Both motions were dismissed. The OCL held a disclosure meeting in June 2021 and made recommendations that supported the Applicant’s relocation.

[13] In July 2022, the Applicant brought a motion seeking an interim order permitting her and V.C. to move to Brooklin and register V.C. in school in Brooklin. She said that this interim motion was brought as a result of her landlord terminating her lease for the property she and V.C. were residing in Innisfil. The Applicant’s interim motion was dismissed by Justice Sutherland on July 28, 2022. In his reasons for decision, Sutherland J. said that the Applicant’s Motion to Change was pending and that the final determination of whether the Olah Order and the McDermot Order should be changed or varied “should be determined on a full record with oral evidence, a trial.” He rightly found that absent compelling circumstances, the court should not decide the issue of whether it was in the best interests of V.C. to move with the Applicant to Brooklin at trial, based upon an incomplete evidentiary record. Sutherland J.’s order (the “Sutherland Order”) further clarified that until further order of this court or written agreement between the parties, the Olah and McDermot Orders were to be followed and the child’s primary and only residence and school remained in the Town of Innisfil.

The Law

[14] Sections 24 and 39.4 (3) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (CLRA) set out the considerations relevant to determining the best interests of the child. Section 24 (2) states that in determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child and, in doing so, shall give the primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well being. Section 24(3)(a-k) provides a non-exhaustive list of the factors related to the circumstances of a child that are to be considered by the court. Section 24 reads,

(1) Best interests of the child - In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section.

(2) Primary consideration - In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

(3) Factors - Factors related to the circumstances of a child includes,

(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.

(4) Factors relating to family violence - In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3) (j), the court shall take into account,

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor.

(5) Past conduct - In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person, unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of the person’s decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to the child.

(6) Allocation of parenting time - In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

(7) Application to related orders - This section applies with respect to interim parenting orders and contact orders, and to variations of parenting orders and contact orders or interim parenting orders and contact orders.

[15] In accordance with s. 39.4(3), when determining whether to authorize the relocation of a child, the court shall take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with section 24, as well as,

(a) the reasons for the relocation;

(b) the impact of the relocation on the child;

(c) the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or is an application for a parenting order with respect to the child, and the level of involvement in the child’s life of each of those persons;

(d) whether the person who intends to relocate the child has complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 39.3 and any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award and agreement;

(e) the existence of an order, family arbitration award or agreement that specifies the geographic areas in which the child is to reside;

(f) the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, taking into consideration , among other things, the location of the new residence and the travel expenses; and

(g) whether each person who has decision-making responsibility or parenting time or is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child has complied with their obligations under any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance.

[16] In accordance with s. 39.4(5) of the CLRA, the burden is on the Applicant to prove that the relocation would be in the best interests of V.C. Section 39.4(5) reads as follows:

Burden of proof – If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, family arbitration award or agreement that provides that a child spend substantially equal time in the care of each party, the party who intends to relocate the child has the burden or proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child.

Analysis

Decision-Making Responsibility

[17] According to the Olah Order, V.C.’s primary residence is with the Applicant. Both parties have “joint custody” and are to make major decisions in consultation with each other. Five years have passed since the Olah Order. The Applicant requests an order granting her sole decision-making responsibility. The Applicant says that despite her efforts to communicate and consult with the Respondent, he has either been non-responsive, dismissive, disinterested, or highly controlling, insulting and conflictual in their communication. She says that the level of conflict between the parties is so high that joint consultation and decision-making is simply not possible.

[18] The Respondent opposes the Applicant’s request. He says that she has not shown there was a material change in circumstances to justify her request for sole decision-making responsibility. He says that the parties’ communication has improved. He does not believe that it is in V.C.’s best interests if the Applicant had sole decision-making responsibility because he is concerned about the Applicant’s “pattern of unsuccessful short-term relationships” and how, in his opinion, she “prioritized” her relationships over V.C.

[19] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis (2005), 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), 249 DLR (4th) 620 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 2, made it clear that it is not appropriate to award joint decision-making responsibility (then “joint custody) in certain situations. Specifically, “(a) where there was no evidence of historical co-operation and appropriate communication between the parents, and (b) in the hope that it would improve the parenting skills of the parties.” In addition to the above, from paras. 10-13, the court set out some principles to help in determining whether joint decision-making responsibility is appropriate. These can be summarized as follows:

• The fact that both parents are “fit” does not mean that joint decision-making responsibility should be ordered.

• The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate with the other does not mean that a joint decision-making order cannot be considered, but there must be some evidence before the court that shows that the parents can put their differences behind them and communicate effectively.

• No matter how detailed the parenting order is, due to the changing developmental needs of a child, there will always be gaps and unexpected situations arising that will need to be addressed.

• The court should review how any interim decision-making order has worked in the past. It is a relevant consideration as it shows the pattern of cooperation, or lack thereof.

• The age of the child is a relevant consideration because a younger child requires more communication between the parents, whereas an order regarding an older child requires consideration of the child’s wishes and the co-operation of the child.

[20] In this matter, there was unfortunately ample evidence provided during the trial of the high level of conflict between the parties. This level of conflict has been long standing. This was further corroborated and confirmed not only by both parties during their testimony, but also the parties’ emails and texts, the witnesses, the OCL, police reports and even V.C. herself. The evidence showed that conflict has erupted numerous times since separation and continued off and on all throughout the four and half years until the spring of 2022 when the OCL became involved.

[21] Conflict is not a one-way street, it takes two. The Applicant was not innocent in all the communication (there were times when she was unable to regulate herself and/or she was rude and reacted very poorly). Despite this, I found the majority of the evidence showed that the conflictual communication was either triggered or prolonged and/or escalated dramatically by the Respondent. For example, when the Applicant was trying to organize sharing the Easter holidays so that V.C. could spend time with both families, the Respondent ignored her messages until the last minute. Then the messaging from the Respondent degenerates into name calling where the Respondent calls the Applicant a “cunt” and a “loser” and a “horrible person.” He went on to say things like, you “ruined my life” and you “sponge off two guys” and “You think you’re a genius cause you opened your legs”. When he finally responded to the inquiry about Easter plans, he said, “she with me that weekend” and “ask me if I give two shits about what your family wants.” V.C. was indirectly and directly exposed to all this conflict as evidenced by the exchange that took place that weekend.[^2] The evidence showed this was not a one time or rare occurrence. There were numerous examples of messages that showed the Respondent not only said derogatory and insulting things to the Applicant, but he was also very aggressive, distrustful, competitive, controlling, and unreasonable. Although the evidence shows that the parents were in conflict at the time of the Olah Order in 2017, I find that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the high level of conflict would continue for years after separation until this day. I find that the inability to communicate effectively and the long-standing unresolved conflict is a material change in circumstances.

[22] Both of these parties showed significant challenges in their communication (both during their relationship and after separation). Prior to their use of Our Family Wizard (OFW), their communications were often frustrated and deteriorated quickly. Fortunately, both the Applicant and Respondent said that communication has improved (especially since the parties began using OFW). Despite this, I find there has been a consistent pattern of significant conflict and lack of mutual trust and respect in the parties’ relationship which contributes to them being unable to co-parent effectively in V.C.’s best interests. I am hesitant to rely upon the recent improvement in their ability to communicate as this only occurred while the matter was under the scrutiny of the court. I am concerned about what will happen after the trial and after this decision is released.

[23] The evidence showed that although the Respondent was not a passive parent, it has historically been the Applicant who was the person primarily responsible for decisions relating to V.C.’s health and education and extra-curricular activities. The Applicant took a one-year maternity leave with V.C.; she organized the majority of V.C.’s medical, dental and optometrist appointments; she investigated and organized and paid for V.C. to attend Innisfil Montessori Academy; she maintained a consistently high level of involvement and communication with V.C.’s teachers; she registered V.C. for most of her extra-curricular activities and paid for most of them; she initiated communications with the Respondent to organize and support his regular parenting time and over holidays and vacations and; she helped V.C. make small gifts for the Respondent for Father’s Day.

[24] The evidence of both the Applicant and Respondent showed that despite the conflict, the Applicant has tried, and continues to try, to discuss parenting issues with the Respondent. When the Applicant identifies a need for V.C., she usually makes a proposal to the Respondent. Further, the Applicant has been supportive of the Respondent’s requests for increases and/or changes to the parenting schedule. Both parties agree that despite the Olah Order, V.C. commenced having some overnight parenting time with the Respondent in early 2018 and that the Respondent’s parenting time schedule expanded over the years. At the time of this trial, V.C. was residing in a parenting time schedule where she was in the care of the Applicant for eight out of fourteen nights and in the care of the Respondent for six out of fourteen nights.

[25] For all the above reasons, I find that the Applicant has been very diligent in investigating, pursuing, and supporting what she believes is best for V.C. I find that despite the parties’ parenting schedule for the past couple of years, the Applicant has historically been and remains the primary caregiver for V.C. (both during and after their relationship). She has been the primary parent with respect to addressing V.C.’s medical/health and educational needs. Although the Respondent has been involved in V.C.’s extra-curricular activities, the Applicant has been, and continues to be, the primary organizer of same.

[26] The Applicant has shown a willingness and ability to: care for and meet all of V.C.’s needs; to support the development and maintenance of the V.C.’s relationship with her father and the extended family and; to communicate and co-operate with the Respondent on matters affecting the child. Under these circumstances, I find it in V.C.’s best interests that one party will need to have sole decision-making responsibility. In my view, the parent who has sole decision-making responsibility should still consult with the other parent if possible. For all of these reasons, and in accordance with s. 24 of the CLRA, I find it in the best interests of V.C. that the Applicant shall have sole decision-making responsibility regarding V.C.’s health, education, extra-curricular activities, and general welfare. I will make an order that the Applicant continue to consult with the Respondent regarding the decisions; however, this shall not reduce her authority to make the decision. Based on the evidence, I believe the Applicant would have done her best to consult with the Respondent with or without an order for same.

Relocation and Parenting Time

[27] The Applicant is seeking an order permitting her to relocate with V.C. to Brooklin, Ontario (which is a little over one hour from Innisfil). She says that it is in V.C.’s best interests that the parenting schedule be altered so that V.C. resides primarily with her and attends school in Brooklin. She proposes that the Respondent have parenting time on alternate weekends, plus one evening per week and equally sharing all holidays.

[28] The Respondent is opposed to the Applicant relocating with V.C. and the parenting time schedule proposed by the Applicant. He says that the Applicant has not met the threshold of the test for relocation. He says that that it is not in V.C.’s best interests to relocate with the Applicant and the move would effectively “destroy” the child’s ability to have a meaningful relationship with him.

[29] Both parties advanced evidence about the different attractions and friendliness of both the communities of Innisfil and Brooklin and regarding the pros and cons and quality of the schools in each community. I did not rely on any of the evidence of the attractiveness and friendliness of both communities as I found they seemed to be relatively equal. This evidence was purely based on the party’s opinions – which were really just a combination of their personal preferences and convenience at this time. I decline to make any findings about whether one community is better than the other for V.C. I am further not giving any weight on the evidence provided by the parties in reviewing the quality and/or ranking of the schools in each community. The internet reviews and ranking of the schools are based upon opinions and hearsay. They are unscientific and unreliable. The court has no doubt that both parties want the very best for V.C. I have no doubt that both parties want V.C. to reach her full potential, and they will do their best to support her in whatever community she resides and at whichever school she attends.

Office of the Children’s Lawyer

[30] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) filed a s. 112 Report Affidavit dated June 16, 2022 (the “Report”). The Report set out the facts, observations and recommendations of Ms. M. Fast, who was appointed to conduct the clinical investigation and file the Report with recommendations on behalf of the OCL.

[31] The Respondent filed a dispute to the facts set out in the Report. The Respondent criticized the Report because Ms. Fast performed the Applicant’s observation visit in Brooklin instead of Innisfil; and he alleged that Ms. Fast failed to interview sufficient collaterals. The Respondent also argued that Ms. Fast’s Report should not be relied on or given any weight because of these failings, and because of the unsupported inference/observation that Ms. Fast made when she mischaracterized him and concluded he had poor judgment as a result of “the comment”.

[32] The OCL filed a response. Ms. Fast attended the trial on behalf of the child. The Report was adopted as her evidence, and she was cross-examined by both parties.

[33] The recommendations in the Report are: the Applicant should have sole decision-making responsibility for V.C.; the Respondent should have full access to all information regarding V.C.’s academic, medical and extra-curricular matters; the Applicant should keep the Respondent informed as to all major decisions involving V.C.; the parents should refrain from speaking negatively about the other when V.C. is present; V.C. should be enrolled in school in Brooklin and then follow a parenting schedule where she would reside with the Respondent on alternate weekends from Friday after school until Sunday plus one evening per week (not overnight); daily phone contact for V.C. and the parent she is not residing with; equal sharing of the holidays; and a week-about schedule during the summer months. Counselling for the parties was also recommended.

[34] Ms. Fast observed and agreed with both the parents’ descriptions about V.C. that said she was “very smart” and “fantastic, a spit fire” with lots of “personality and a lot of emotions”, “caring and a rule follower” and “smart and bright” with a “funny personality” that “requires a lot of attention”.[^3] Ms. Fast did not agree with the Respondent’s description of V.C. as being a “Daddy’s girl”. She said that she “didn’t observe her to be any more a Daddy’s girl than a Mommy’s girl.”

[35] Ms. Fast summarized her interviews with V.C. and said that V.C. participated actively in the interviews. V.C. consistently shared her views and preferences and clearly stated that she wanted to reside with her mother during the school week and see her father on the weekends. She did not express any concern or unhappiness about the drive between Innisfil and Brooklin. V.C. spoke positively about both her mother and father and her feelings and love for them. She described the activities and things she likes in both homes. There was some evidence that she has been exposed to conflict and adult information when she shared her feelings of sadness after she witnessed her father “yelling at Mom for no reason” and said that “Mom’s nice to Dad. But Dad is not nice to my mom.”[^4]

[36] Regarding her interviews with the parties, Ms. Fast said that both parents indicated that they were not communicating well and there was a high level of conflict between them. The Respondent blamed the Applicant for the conflict and said that the Applicant “is not wanting to work together” and that “she is on a campaign to disparage me.”[^5] He expressed concerns about the Applicant’s proposed relocation and about her relationships with other men and alleged that she deliberately caused conflict. The Applicant presented concerns that were more focussed on the parties’ inability to communicate and about allegations of domestic violence. In his dispute to the Report, the Respondent said that he and the Applicant were able to co-parent very well, (which was contrary to his original expressed opinion of their ability to communicate and co-parent). Ms. Fast said that these two opinions simply cannot co-exist in reality. I agree.

[37] The Respondent told Ms. Fast that he couldn’t remember any police involvement and yet the Applicant gave information about past police involvement. When Ms. Fast received the police records, it confirmed the Applicant’s version. Ms. Fast found that the Applicant’s information was more accurate. I agree.

[38] Ms. Fast gave evidence about the significance of V.C.’s exposure to her parent’s conflict. Ms. Fast said that V.C. expressed that this made her feel “sad” and that she “didn’t understand.” Ms. Fast said that it is in the best interests of children for parents to be able to communicate openly and without conflict. She said this is so important because it shows the child that their parents can put their own issues aside and exchange information and communicate regarding the child’s needs. However, when children are exposed to conflict, it makes them feel caught in the middle. I agree.

[39] Ms. Fast reviewed V.C.’s school records and information at both the Innisfil Montessori and Alcona Glen Public School. From the evidence, she confirmed that although the Respondent was involved in V.C.’s schooling, it was the Applicant who organized and was more involved in V.C.’s education. This was the same observation regarding V.C.’s extra-curricular activities. Ms. Fast observed that the Applicant was V.C.’s primary caregiver as it related to who was organizing V.C.’s activities, schoolwork, and what school V.C. should attend. She said that it was the Applicant who was thinking and investigating and doing all the work. When this observation was raised with the Respondent, he said that he was always involved in V.C.’s schooling; however, he provided no other evidence of same.

[40] Ms. Fast summarized her observation visits with each party in their homes. The observation visits went well. She observed that V.C. had a comfortable and positive relationship with both her parents in both homes. She also observed good, positive and comfortable relationships between V.C. and her brother Luca, and between V.C. and the Applicant’s partner Mr. Willems and his child, Addison.

[41] Unfortunately, there was one comment made by Ms. Fast in the Report that caused a great deal of conflict and was a significant part of the Respondent’s dispute and objection to the Report. I will not repeat the details here as the issue is summarized at pages 10-12 of the Report. The essence was that the Respondent took issue with an observation that Ms. Fast made in the Report regarding a comment allegedly made by the Respondent about V.C.. In the Report, Ms. Fast characterized it as “sexualized” and suggested that the Respondent had “some poor judgment about what is appropriate to say” about, or in front of, the children. The Respondent vehemently denied he ever made the comment in the first place. The issue about “the comment” blew up during the disclosure meeting and, unfortunately, took up valuable time during the trial. The Respondent did not dispute the many other positive observations Ms. Fast made about how V.C. felt comfortable with him and that they have a good relationship. The Respondent did not question her methods or investigation until her observations and recommendations were made known to him at the disclosure meeting.

[42] In my view, it is understandable that the Respondent was offended by Ms. Fast’s observation and impression about “the comment.” The Respondent vehemently denies he ever made the comment. The evidence ultimately showed that the Respondent didn’t finish the sentence he was saying about V.C. and, therefore, Ms. Fast assumed what the Respondent was going to say. I did not give a great deal of weight to that small part of the Report. Given the evidence from both the Respondent and Ms. Fast, there is sufficient room for a possible misunderstanding of that specific and brief moment during the observation visit. I cannot and will not make a finding on the balance of probabilities that “the comment” was made or heard or intended exactly as Ms. Fast described or observed. In my view, whether the comment was intended as Ms. Fast assumed or not, it had no significant relevance or bearing on the issues of decision-making responsibility, relocation, and/or parenting time. In my view, the issue about “the comment” was blown out of proportion. It was the conflict and misunderstanding that ensued which was, in my view, relevant. According to the evidence of everyone present at the OCL disclosure meeting, the Respondent became aggressive, harsh, loud, and disruptive. Unfortunately, in my view, this showed that the Respondent completely missed the point regarding what Ms. Fast was concerned about and he experiences challenges in his ability to self-regulate.

[43] Ms. Fast indicated that although she gathers a lot of information from both parties through interviews with the parties and children and collaterals, she relied more on information that she received from independent sources and her own interactions with the parties and children. Accordingly, Ms. Fast reviewed the school records and medical records and police records and interviewed the collaterals that the parties provided her. She listened to all the concerns of both parents and gave them both opportunities to respond to the concerns they expressed about each other. She conducted the Respondent’s observation visit at his home in Innisfil and the Applicant’s observation visit at her home in Brooklin. If the Applicant was remaining in Innisfil, the Respondent was not asking for a change to the parenting schedule. He was only asking for a change to the parenting schedule if the Applicant moved to Brooklin. Therefore, in my view, it just made sense that, for the Applicant’s request to be decided upon, Ms. Fast observed V.C. and the Applicant’s living arrangement.

[44] In my view, the OCL response to the Respondent’s dispute sufficiently answered the Respondent’s concerns contained in his dispute. I found, the Report summarized the facts and observations of Ms. Fast in a manner that I found to be detailed and fair. There was no question about Ms. Fast’s education, experience, or ability to complete the investigation and the Report. I take no issue with her process or abilities. With the exception of the isolated observation about the alleged “comment”, I accept and agree with the observations and recommendations contained in the Report and the testimony of Ms. Fast. I found Ms. Fast was very knowledgeable and her evidence was highly credible. I found she was fair to both parties in her review and investigation of their concerns.

The Applicant

[45] The Applicant gave oral testimony. She seeks an order permitting her to move with V.C. from Innisfil to Brooklin, Ontario and requests changes to the parenting schedule to accommodate this relocation. She gave evidence regarding the history of her relationship with the Respondent and the history of V.C.’s care. She gave evidence regarding her family and her employment. The Applicant described her relationship with the Respondent as having moved fast in the beginning as they moved in together and were expecting V.C. after six months being together. She said the good times were short-lived and after she became pregnant, the Respondent became very jealous, insecure, and controlling. They purchased a house and placed it in the Applicant’s name and Respondent’s father’s name because the Respondent’s credit was low, and he was in a court proceeding with Ms. Bartelli (the mother of his son). He didn’t want to disclose to Ms. Bartelli that he owned a home.

[46] V.C. was born on March 19, 2015, and the Applicant took parental leave for twelve months. She describes her relationship with the Respondent as becoming “toxic.” She said there were many conflicts between them, and that the Respondent also picked on her son who was just sixteen at the time. She said there was a lot of fighting and screaming in front of the children. She alleged that he assaulted her, and she called the police but didn’t tell the police about the assault because she didn’t want that for the Respondent or V.C. She admitted that their communication was not good and there was a lot of name-calling on both sides when they separated. She said that her experiences with the Respondent’s parents were good in the beginning and shortly after the separation. They provided some daycare for V.C. However, after the house sold, they no longer spoke.

[47] The Applicant provided ample evidence regarding her being the primary caregiver for V.C. The Applicant said that after V.C. was born, she assumed all the responsibilities including feeding, diapers, bathing, dressing, playing, sensory boards, reading, and singing. She said that although she knows the Respondent loved V.C., she was responsible for the majority of the caregiving including medical appointments, parent groups and activities.[^6] She talked about her concern and thoughtfulness about V.C.’s education and wanting her to reach her full potential. It is undisputed that it was the Applicant who investigated and compared day-care and school options. She is the person who applied for the Montessori school, registered her, and solely paid for the Montessori school. She regularly communicated with V.C.’s teachers both when V.C. was attending Montessori and when she was attending Alcona Glen. The Applicant was the primary person to register V.C. for extra-curricular activities.

[48] The Applicant is employed as a Business Development Manager. Her work is based out of the home and on the road. Her territory is in the greater Toronto area. The Applicant’s father and siblings live in Mississauga, Brampton, and St. Catharines. She says the family gets together quite often, usually every other weekend at her father’s in Mississauga.

[49] The Applicant has been in a relationship with Mr. Leigh Willem for more than two years. They met in 2020 and slowly became more serious. Mr. Willem has a daughter named Addison (11). Mr. Willem and Addison’s mother have a shared parenting schedule and it works around Mr. Willem’s work schedule. He is an acting Captain (Toronto Firefighter). The Applicant said that she and Mr. Willem waited until Canada Day in July 2021 to introduce V.C. to Mr. Willem and Addison. They wanted to make sure they were in a long-term committed relationship. The Applicant and Mr. Willem have purchased a home together in Brooklin, Ontario. The Applicant and Mr. Willem are now engaged and are planning their wedding.

[50] The Applicant provided evidence of her parenting plan for V.C., if permitted to relocate to Brooklin. She described how she loves the community of Brooklin, which is a small community close to Whitby (about one hour and ten minutes drive from Innisfil). The Applicant has planned and would continue to plan activities and events for V.C. in Brooklin, like piano and voice lessons. She says that V.C. has friends in Brooklin and attended a birthday party there. She said that V.C. enjoys her time with her in Brooklin. The Applicant said that V.C. is a loving and happy child and that she wants to reside with her in Brooklin and go to school there. The Applicant has investigated the schools and outlined her plan for registering V.C. in school in Brooklin (if permitted by the Court). She showed the court pictures of V.C.’s room in the Brooklin home which was designed by V.C. and meets all of her needs. She provided details of all the activities V.C. and her do when they are in Brooklin with Mr. Willem and Addison. She described how close V.C. and Addison are and how well they get along. She described how comfortable V.C. is in the Brooklin home and that she is happy there (as confirmed by Ms. Fast). The Applicant described how often they visit with her family. She explained how she will continue to support the Respondent’s parenting time with V.C.

[51] In Innisfil, the Applicant acknowledged that she feels isolated and alone. She doesn’t work there. She has no family or friends in Innisfil. She bumps into the Respondent’s family all the time, which is not a positive experience. She knows that the Respondent is driving past her house all the time because he messages to show that he is driving by and “spying” on her.[^7]

[52] When asked about the parenting time transitions, the Applicant said that some are fine, and some range from “not easy” to complete “meltdowns.” Sometimes when V.C. is going to the Respondent’s, V.C. has broken down crying, screaming, and running away. Recently the Respondent had to physically pick up V.C. and put her in his car. When V.C. is upset, the Applicant tries to comfort her and encourage her to get excited to go with the Respondent. The Applicant said that V.C. has never exhibited this type of behaviour when she is returning or transitioning back to her care. This was not disputed by the Respondent.

[53] The Applicant agrees with the observations and recommendations made by Ms. Fast. She believes the schedule recommended by Ms. Fast will give V.C. a regular structure. The expanded summer schedule will give the parties and V.C. uninterrupted week-about time in the summer. She thinks that V.C. and both parties will thrive in this parenting schedule.

[54] The Applicant called the following witnesses to give evidence: Anthony Miniaci; Michael Pileci; Amber Carruthers; Jeanette Steele; and her father P.K.; and her fiancée Leigh Willems.

[55] Anthony Miniaci was a realtor for the Applicant and Respondent and the Respondent’s father in 2017 regarding the listing of their home at 1321 Bardeau Street in Innisfil. He provided his direct evidence by way of adopting his affidavit sworn and dated November 17, 2022.[^8] The substance of his evidence was that he found it challenging to work with the Applicant and Respondent due to what he described as the Respondent’s “aggressive and combative” demands and “belittling, angry and controlling” demeanour. During cross-examination, Mr. Miniaci confirmed that his statements were regarding his impressions of the Respondent during their brief interactions in 2017 and that he has not seen or heard from the Respondent since that time. I did not find Mr. Miniaci’s evidence to be relevant to the issues before the court.

[56] Michael Pileci provided his direct evidence by way of adopting his affidavit sworn and dated November 17, 2022.[^9] Mr. Pileci is a paralegal and he represented Mr. Amir Sharif in landlord/tenant matters related to unit 2058 Dale Road. The Applicant was Mr. Sharif’s tenant at the time. The substance of his evidence was that he exchanged communications with the Applicant regarding terminating her tenancy so that Mr. Sharif could sell the property in the beginning of January 2022. The Applicant was not agreeable to moving in the middle of her daughter’s school year. Then, in June 2022, Mr. Pileci served an N12 requiring the Applicant to vacate the property by August 31, 2022, as Mr. Sharif intended to come to reside at the property. The Applicant initially resisted, but eventually agreed to vacate. Although I found the evidence of Mr. Pileci to be irrelevant to the issues before the court, I also found that it was inconsistent with the evidence of Mr. Sharif (which is explained later in this decision).

[57] Amber Carruthers was V.C.’s teacher for grade one at Alcona Glen Elementary School (the 2020-2021 school year). Ms. Carruthers provided her direct evidence by way of affidavit sworn and dated November 18, 2022.[^10] She discussed how despite V.C. starting the year with some self-regulation issues, V.C. progressed well and that she was a smart student and had a love for literacy. She described witnessing the Applicant in her parenting capacity in a meeting with the Principal and V.C. She said she thought the Applicant was kind and appropriate. She said that she communicated with and had positive relationships with both of V.C.’s parents and they were both very engaged in V.C.’s life.

[58] Jeanette Steele was the Casa Directress for V.C. at Innisfil Montessori Academy from September 2019 to June 2021. V.C. attended Innisfil Montessori Academy for a year prior to 2019 and had a different Directress during that time. Ms. Steele provided her direct evidence by way of affidavit sworn and dated November 21, 2022.[^11] Ms. Steele discussed V.C.’s academic strengths in language and math and music. She described how V.C. could be heard singing throughout the classroom while she worked. Ms. Steele said that she had a “positive rapport” with both of V.C.’s parents. She said that she communicated “frequently” with the Applicant and “very little” with the Respondent. She said that the “vast majority” of her correspondence about V.C. was with the Applicant. Ms. Steele shared her impressions that the Applicant was very communicative with her and prioritized V.C.’s wellbeing, happiness, and would go out of her way to bring something to V.C. at school if needed. She described how she was aware that V.C. was “close with her mom” and that she witnessed V.C. “calling for her mom at pick-up time” and being “distraught when her dad would pick her up, as she cried for her mom.”[^12] She said that the Respondent was “less diligent” than the Applicant as it related to correspondence, homework, and notifying the school when V.C. was going to be absent. Ms. Steele described how V.C. displayed some behaviour issues towards her classmates and expressed some anger and negative “hands on” behaviours. Ms. Steele said that the Respondent asked her for advice on how to assist V.C. with her behaviour issues while in his care. She described how during a meeting to discuss these issues, the Applicant was very involved and strategized whereas the Respondent was present and listened, but he did not contribute during the meeting or discussion.

[59] It became obvious during the Respondent’s cross-examination of Ms. Steele that he was very defensive about anything he perceived to be critical of his parenting. Despite the Respondent’s efforts to discredit Ms. Steele’s evidence, I found Ms. Steele to be very credible. In my view, she presented as fair to both parents and she didn’t exaggerate any of her observations. She was clear that although the Applicant was more involved and communicative, this didn’t mean that the Respondent was a bad parent.

[60] P.K. is the Applicant’s father and V.C.’s maternal grandfather. He provided his direct evidence by way of adopting his affidavit sworn and dated November 23, 2022.[^13] He also appeared in court and gave oral evidence and was cross-examined in person. P.K. described his family and how usually every other weekend several of them get together at their home. He described how much he adores V.C. and confirmed that she appears to be a “happy child” who is “artistic, playful, friendly and loving,” a “good listener,” and “brave and independent.” He corroborated the Applicant’s description of the relationship with the Respondent and how the Applicant was “responsible for making dinner, cleaning up, caring for V.C., and making sure everyone had everything they needed.” He said that he witnessed the Respondent engaging with V.C., however, the Applicant “was the parent who was responsible for dealing with [V.C.]” and caring for her.[^14]

[61] P.K. said he had some concerns about the Applicant and Respondent’s relationship, but that he didn’t share his worries with anyone. P.K.’s evidence was that he has visited the Applicant and Mr. Willems home in Brooklin and observed them and V.C. and Addison together. He described how V.C. and Mr. Willems interact positively and that he has witnessed her freely chatting with him, hugging him, or sitting on his lap. P.K. confirmed that he has not witnessed the Respondent’s parenting since approximately 2019, however, he did say that he has witnessed V.C.’s resistance to going to her dad’s as recently as a couple weeks ago (prior to the trial). He said that when she is told it is time to go, “her body language changes, and her whole body seems to sag. She sometimes stomps her feet and says that she does not want to go.” He said that during these times, he has witnessed the Applicant encouraging V.C. to go and reminding her that “she loves her father, he loves her and that they will enjoy their time together.”[^15] Overall, I found the evidence of P.K. to be credible. He corroborated and supported the evidence of the Applicant and did not exaggerate his concerns about the Respondent.

[62] Leigh Willems is the Applicant’s fiancée. He appeared in court and gave oral evidence in person. Mr. Willems described his family of origin and discussed his daughter Addison. He said that most of his family lives close to the Whitby area. He told the court that he worked as an Acting Captain for Toronto Fire Services which requires him to work seven 24-hour shifts per month on a four-week rotation. He said that his parenting plan for Addison is shared and basically works around his employment schedule.

[63] Mr. Willems confirmed that he and the Applicant met in the summer of 2020 and then when they became more serious, they introduced the kids on Canada Day in 2021. He described Addison and V.C. as getting along great. He said he has witnessed them playing and working together, confiding, and supporting each other. He said they are close. He was very positive about his relationship with the Applicant and confirmed they bought a house together and they are engaged and planning their wedding in August 2023. Mr. Willems described his relationship with V.C. and said that she is “fantastic, loving and caring” and that she loves telling “riddles and singing, playing piano and dancing and has a huge heart.” He said that he helped teach her to ride a bike in the summer. He said that he sees his role in V.C.’s life as a positive male role model and someone V.C. can trust. He said, “[V.C.] has a dad.”

[64] Mr. Willems said that he attends on about 30% of V.C.’s exchanges to support the Applicant because she has historically felt bullied by the Respondent. He said he wants the Applicant to feel safe and he wants V.C. to be encouraged to spend time with her dad. He described an incident from his perspective that took place on May 1, 2022, in the Respondent’s driveway during an exchange. He also described how he has witnessed V.C. resisting going to her dad’s and he has seen her screaming and crying and saying she “didn’t want to go.” He confirmed that the Applicant did her best to try and encourage V.C. and make her look forward to going to spend time with the Respondent.

[65] The Respondent did not cross-examine Mr. Willems on any of his evidence. I found Mr. Willems to be a credible witness who was genuine in his evidence and regarding his feelings for and intentions towards the Applicant and V.C.

The Respondent

[66] The Respondent gave his direct evidence by way of adopting the contents of his affidavit dated November 21, 2022.[^16] In his affidavit, the Respondent gave evidence regarding the history of his relationship with the Applicant and V.C. The Respondent described his close and loving bond with V.C. and said he was a “very involved father right from the beginning taking many of the parenting responsibilities like changing diapers, food preparation, playing games, bath time and bedtime routines.” He alleged that in February 2017 he discovered that the Applicant was in a romantic relationship with one of her co-workers and that after this, their relationship became highly volatile, and they eventually separated around September 2017. He confirmed that with the help of a mediator, they negotiated an agreement (which became the Olah Order). The Respondent acknowledged that there were disagreements between the Applicant and him; however, he minimized them and said that they “moved on quickly from any arguments and successfully worked together in [V.C.’s] best interests” and this “continued until mid-September 2021.”[^17]

[67] The Respondent provided evidence regarding his family and employment. The Respondent resides in Innisfil, Ontario and is employed and works based out of a home office, reporting into the Toronto Leadership team. The Respondent described how his parents, his brothers and their families have all moved to Innisfil and live close to the Respondent within a ten-minute radius. He said they all get together often, and that V.C. is surrounded by family and friends that provide a “solid foundation of support, love and consistency for [V.C.]”

[68] Although the Olah Order was never changed, the Respondent’s parenting time increased significantly over the years. He now enjoys parenting time for six out of fourteen days. The Respondent is opposed to the Applicant and V.C.’s relocation and any change to the parenting schedule. He provided his plan of care for what he believes is in the best interests of V.C. which included V.C. coming to reside primarily with him and Luca and continuing to attend her current school at Alcona Glen Public School. He would support the Applicant having parenting time with V.C. on alternate weekends and an additional two evenings per week (not overnight) in Innisfil. He said that V.C. would continue to enjoy residing in the same home and community, close to the paternal side of her family including her paternal uncles, aunts, cousins, and grandparents.

[69] A primary theme of the Respondent’s opposition to V.C. relocating with the Applicant were his allegations about: what he perceived to be the Applicant’s “instability” in relationships and its effect on V.C.; and what he perceived to be the Applicant’s non-compliance with court orders. The Respondent also strongly expressed his objections to the OCL Report (as discussed above). It is the Respondent’s view that the move proposed by the Applicant would destroy the close and meaningful relationship that V.C. has with him and her paternal extended family.

[70] In his trial affidavit, the Respondent described the Applicant as having a lack of stability. The Respondent said he “did not agree” with the Applicant’s “lifestyle”. He referred to the Applicant as having a “pattern of revolving door relationships” to which she has “exposed both her son and now [V.C.], since at least 2015.”[^18] The Respondent says that he is “not concerned with [her] personal dating life,” and that his “only focus” is “the negative example this displays for [V.C.] as a young girl growing up.”

[71] Although the Respondent said that the Applicant’s relationships were having a negative effect on her children, I find that the Respondent failed to provide any substantive evidence of same. None of the Respondent’s witnesses (including the Respondent himself) gave the court any evidence of how the Applicant’s alleged relationships have negatively affected V.C. (in fact, every witness described her as happy, smart, and resilient).

[72] I found that the Respondent’s expressed concerns are really just masked anger and judgement and an attempt to shame the Applicant. I found the tone of all the comments and opinions he and his witnesses expressed about the Applicant and her so called unstable “lifestyle” to really be an attempt at insinuating negatives about her character and trying to shame her by painting her as being promiscuous. The comments in the affidavits were just cleaner versions of the Respondent’s derogatory text messages to the Applicant that refer to her as a “cheater” and alleges the Applicant was exchanging “goods and services for sex” and that she could “bang someone for groceries.” When the Respondent would accuse the Applicant of having “another guy” around their daughter he would refer to them as the Applicant’s “monthly flav” (referring to a “flavour of the month”).[^19] I found all the so-called evidence of the Applicant’s “instability” and “multiple relationships” completely irrelevant to the issue of the proposed move and/or V.C.’s best interests. I gave it little to no weight.

[73] Further, the court gave little to no weight to the evidence of the father’s witnesses Brittany Pringle, Andria Bartelli, Marianna Kyriacopoulos, Viv. C., and Ari Sharif. In my view, the majority of the evidence they provided was irrelevant to the important issues at hand. I found that in their evidence they expressed inconsistent information and opinions that were obviously based on hearsay or gossip. I found them to be unhelpful, judgmental, and lacking credibility.

[74] Brittany Pringle met the Applicant in 2018 and was originally a friend of the Applicant. Now she is a friend of the Respondent and is no longer friends with the Applicant. Her daughter (Sienna) attended at Innisfil Montessori with V.C. and the children met there and became friends.

[75] Ms. Pringle gave evidence about her friendship with the Applicant and how she and the Applicant had socialized and vacationed together at a cottage. Ms. Pringle said she decided that she didn’t want to be friends with the Applicant in or around December 2021. She said that she had been asked by the Applicant to housesit and care for V.C. for a weekend so that the Applicant could go away. She described the poor state of the Applicant’s residence and that it was almost empty. Although the Applicant apologized and provided an explanation, Ms. Pringle says she felt taken advantage of. She went on to give her opinions about both the Applicant’s and Respondent’s parenting. She further gave her opinions about vaccinating children for COVID and her involvement in the dispute between the parties on that issue, because as she put it, “I am very informed about it.” She said she told the Applicant that “[V.C.] should not be vaccinated, because it is experimental.” She admitted that when she was still friends with the Applicant, she said that the Respondent “could go fuck himself and that he has no soul.” She attempted to give evidence about her knowledge of the Applicant’s financial arrangements and sale of the Applicant’s house. This witness had to be told numerous times to stay focused on the parenting issues that she had been asked to give evidence about. The court advised her that her opinions were not admissible as evidence. I found Ms. Pringle’s evidence generally unhelpful to the parenting issues as it was primarily based upon her opinions. It was clear that both parties had shared details about their separation and this matter with her. I found there was inconsistency in her opinions and evidence because it was largely dependant upon who she was friends with at the time.

[76] Andria Bartelli is the ex-wife of the Respondent. In direct examination, Ms. Bartelli provided evidence of what can only be described as an ideal coparenting and communication relationship between her and the Respondent for their son Luca. She said they were “good friends.” She said that it only became conflictual when the Applicant came into the Respondent’s life. Interestingly, despite the conflict that Ms. Bartelli blamed solely on the Applicant, Ms. Bartelli and the Applicant became good friends after the Applicant and Respondent separated. These unlikely friends spent time together at barbeques and even vacationed together with their children. Under cross-examination, Ms. Bartelli denied that she ever told the Applicant that she had “struggled with [the Respondent] for 12 years.” However, when presented with the text message thread between her and the Applicant, she confirmed that she did in fact say that to the Applicant. In fact, Ms. Bartelli said much more about her feelings about the Respondent. The thread of messages shows that Ms. Bartelli described the Respondent as “sick” and “mean” and “competitive” and “delusional” and referred to him being “sick since I met him.” When asked whether she meant what she said, she said “no.” She explained that she was saying all these horrible things about the Respondent because she didn’t trust the Applicant and she was curious about their separation and wanted her to give her more information. I found that Ms. Bartelli’s evidence was unhelpful and irrelevant. She was either being disingenuous and manipulative with the Applicant, the Respondent or with the court. Either way, her testimony and evidence lacked a ring of truth and I found she lacked credibility.

[77] Marianna Kyriacopoulos is the neighbour of the Respondent. They met in or around February/March 2022 and now they are friends. She provided her evidence by way of affidavit regarding an incident that she said she witnessed on May 1, 2022, during an exchange in the driveway of the Respondent’s residence. From her evidence, she said she heard a car horn honking and then saw the Applicant walking V.C. to the vehicle and heard the Applicant yell at the Respondent. She gave no evidence as to what occurred prior to the car honking, nor did she witness the entire incident as she did not know how long the vehicle had been in the Respondent’s driveway.

[78] Viv. C. is a sister-in-law of the Respondent and paternal aunt to V.C. She provided her direct evidence by way of an affidavit sworn and dated November 4, 2022. The affidavit of Viv. C. contained information that was very similar to the evidence provided in the Respondent’s evidence and opening statement. As Mr. Harris-Lowe put it, it is like they all “sat around and talked about this” because the witnesses all gave the same stories and gave the same evidence as the Respondent. For example, in the Respondent’s opening statement, he said “since [the Applicant] and I met in 2013, [she] has lived with no less than five men, having an unknown number of additional short-term relationships. Since 2017, [the Applicant] has had no less than three fiancées.” At para. 10 of the affidavit of Viv. C. dated November 4, 2022, she says, “Since the end of [the Respondent] and [the Applicant’s] relationship, [she] commenced and ended multiple short-term relationships. Since 2017, [the Applicant] is now engaged for the 3^rd time in 5 years to her current partner.” She goes on to say that “Being a mother myself, I have serious concerns on the negative example of short-term relationships sets for [V.C.]”

[79] During Mr. Harris-Lowe’s cross-examination of this witness, Viv. C. told the court that she has had no contact with the Applicant since the parties’ separation. Mr. Harris-Lowe suggested that her knowledge of the Applicant and her plans and her relationships is really just “gossip.” She denied this. I found her evidence was not only unhelpful, but it also contained irrelevant hearsay. I agree with it being characterized as Mr. Harris-Lowe said, it was simply gossip.

[80] Mr. Ari Sharif was the Applicant’s previous landlord at 2058 Dale Road in Innisfil from 2018 to October 2021. The Respondent called Mr. Sharif as a witness to provide evidence of the state of the Applicant’s residence, which, he said was relevant to the best interests of V.C. Mr. Sharif stated that when the Applicant left the residence, he took approximately 4200lbs of garbage to the dump and there was significant damage left from the Applicant’s pets.

[81] Mr. Sharif confirmed that the Applicant was paying him $1,700.00 per month rent. He admitted that in February 2021 he tried to raise the Applicant’s rent for the residence by $300.00 per month (which was substantially higher than the 1% rent increase allowed during the pandemic). Under cross-examination, he admitted he said positive things to the Applicant about her tenancy when he sent her a message that said “you set the bar so high, I don’t want to rent to anyone else” and that she had “spoiled him and he didn’t want another tenant.”

[82] The relationship clearly deteriorated between the Applicant and Mr. Sharif when she refused to leave the residence when he was attempting to sell the house. A curious thing that he blurted out during cross-examination was that the Applicant “made $500,000.00 on her house that she sold” while he was “getting screwed around by her.” He clearly felt that her refusal to leave delayed and/or denied him the opportunity to sell his house. He didn’t expand on this statement or provide any evidence regarding it. I have no idea what the source of that information was, but it was clear to me that he was bitter about it. This was clearly irrelevant hearsay and I do not put any weight on the truth of the statement. I found Mr. Sharif’s evidence about the state of the home during the Applicant’s tenancy was inconsistent and was directly contradicted by the pictures of the home when it was listed for sale while the Applicant resided there.[^20] Further, the evidence of Mr. Sharif and the evidence of his paralegal Mr. Pileci was somewhat inconsistent. Mr. Sharif hired Mr. Pileci to terminate the Applicant’s tenancy. Although the reasons for the termination changed (from selling the home to wanting to reside in it), Mr. Pileci gave no evidence that the state of the home was a reason to terminate the tenancy. Mr. Sharif provided no evidence to support any of his allegations. I find that he provided no credible evidence of any concerns that he stated he had regarding her care of the house during her tenancy. In my view, Mr. Sharif lacked credibility and his testimony was inconsistent, irrelevant, and unhelpful to any of the issues of this trial.

[83] D.C. is another sister-in-law to the Respondent and paternal aunt to V.C. She provided her direct evidence by way of an affidavit sworn and dated November 4, 2022. The affidavit of D.C. was helpful and descriptive of V.C.’s life with the Respondent and the extended family in Innisfil. Her affidavit confirmed the family get-togethers and described how involved V.C. is with her extended family. I found it provided a very nice picture and confirmed and corroborated the Respondent’s evidence of V.C.’s loving relationship with her cousins, grandparents, and extended family.

[84] The Respondent alleged that the Applicant was non-compliant with the court orders, and this concerns him in terms of her compliance with future orders and supporting his parenting time if she is permitted to relocate with V.C. Specifically, the Respondent complained that the Applicant was not compliant with the Cameron Order and the McDermot Order. The Cameron Order was made without notice to the Applicant. However, the evidence shows that upon receiving the Cameron Order, the Applicant immediately returned to Innisfil with V.C. and re-enrolled her at Alcona Glen Public School. She complied with the Order even though she didn’t understand how it was made without notice to her. She further has acknowledged and taken full responsibility for the poor decision she made by trying to move to Brooklin in September of 2021. The parties attended at the urgent case conference on October 6, 2021, and negotiated interim minutes of settlement, which became the McDermot Order. There was some ambiguity in that Order, and it was further clarified by the Sutherland Order. During the trial, it became clear to the court that the Respondent was complaining about non-compliance with the Cameron Order because he did not understand that the Cameron Order was terminated by the McDermot Order. Mr. Harris-Lowe indicated that he had the same understanding of this issue as the court. I took a moment during the trial to explain this to the Respondent.

[85] In my view, the Respondent is not truly concerned about the Applicant’s “stability” and/or compliance with court orders. Throughout the trial it became clear to the court that aside from the incident in September 2021, the Applicant has always made sure that the Respondent had parenting time in accordance with the Orders. In my view, the Respondent only complained about non-compliance when it suited him. He didn’t complain when the Applicant expanded his parenting time (which was not in accordance with the Olah Order). He said very little about his own non-compliance with the Olah Order regarding payment of child support and disclosure of income. He of course did not complain when the Applicant agreed to a lower the child support amount in April 2020.

Conclusion regarding the Relocation and Parenting Time issues:

[86] The children in the middle of a conflict did not choose to be placed in this difficult position. They have very little choice about where they reside and with whom them spend their time. They lack control because their lives (especially when they are young) are ruled by the behaviour and choices of their parents. They have no control over their parents’ choice of getting together or separating. Younger children especially lack control in developing parenting schedules and plans. By giving them a voice in the process, we are not giving them a choice. However, we are telling them that their opinion matters and that if one or both of their parents are not listening to them, at least the court is. In my view, in a situation where you have an intelligent, well-adjusted child expressing their views, the adults in her life should give some attention and weight to them.

[87] If granted primary residence for V.C., the Respondent has expressed that he will support the Applicant’s parenting time with V.C. However, his actions and words have shown the opposite. Even V.C. does not have faith in the Respondent’s ability to support her relationship with her mother (she expressed to the OCL that “Mom’s nice to Dad. But dad is not nice to my mom”.[^21] The Applicant has shown that historically, with all her planning and organizing, she will continue to support the Respondent’s relationship with V.C. Although I do not find the Respondent to be an unfit or passive parent, I find that the Applicant has shown she has superior ability and willingness to communicate and co-operate with the Respondent on any and all matters affecting the child.

[88] I have no doubt that the Respondent and V.C. share a close and loving bond, just as the Applicant and V.C. do. Parents do not have to be perfect. Both parents described V.C. as an intelligent, smart, creative, fun young person. They both refer to her lovingly as “Bunny”. During the trial, the only time the parties smiled was when they were speaking about and describing their daughter. Nobody said V.C. was dishonest or that she was a “pleaser” or that she would say whatever she thought you wanted to hear.

[89] Both parties agreed that V.C. could be hard on herself and that she has some challenges with regulating herself when there is conflict. Children learn what they see. Although the Respondent cares very deeply for V.C., in my view, the evidence is clear that he does not have the same level of self-awareness and self-regulation as the Applicant.

[90] I have no doubt about either the Respondent’s or the Applicant’s ability to care for and parent V.C. I further have no doubt about the Respondent’s reliance upon his extended family to help him care for V.C. This is not a negative, like the Respondent said, “it takes a village to raise a child.” However, the fitness of the Respondent as a parent is not the primary concern in this matter. The issue is what is in V.C.’s best interests.

[91] The importance of ensuring children’s voices are heard clearly and independently cannot be overstated. V.C. has expressed her wishes clearly, consistently, and independently through the OCL Report and Ms. Fast. V.C. has said that she wishes to reside with her mother in Brooklin and go to school in Brooklin. She wishes to visit her father on weekends. V.C. loves both her parents equally and does not wish to hurt either of them. Ms. Fast recommends that V.C. go to school from the Applicant’s home in Brooklin and spend alternate weekends with the Respondent. She recommends the parties follow a week-about schedule during the school summer holidays and share all other holidays equally. I agree.

[92] In my view, the Respondent’s relationship with V.C. is not so fragile that the Applicant’s relocation of a little over an hour away could destroy it. This is not a move to another province or country. There are many people who commute for over an hour every day for work. The Respondent can share the driving with the Applicant for their daughter on the weekends and holidays. Further, the equal sharing of V.C.’s school holidays as proposed by the OCL with a week-about schedule in the summer will compensate for some of the reduced regular parenting time and ensure V.C. gets to spend lots of valuable time with her extended family on the Respondent’s side. In this day and age, connection can be maintained throughout the week with evening visits and face time calls. Lastly, and very importantly, I have confidence in the Applicant to continue to support and encourage V.C.’s relationship with the Respondent.

[93] Sometimes children do not have the words to express their views and preferences, so they do it in their actions. When they show resistance and emotionality when separating from one parent more than the other, they are likely saying with their body language that they are more comfortable with one parent. This is not to say they are uncomfortable with a parent, just that they are more comfortable with the other one.

[94] I note that during the trial and during his closing submissions, the Respondent apologized for the derogatory messages he sent to the Applicant. He seemed remorseful and expressed his disappointment in himself and disgust in the content of the messages. I do not question the sincerity of his remorse. There is value in an apology. I choose to find that he is showing some insight. However, I find that given the tone of the Respondent’s evidence and the totality of the evidence on the whole, his apologies and insights at this late stage are somewhat self-serving. The Respondent’s messaging and communication did not change until they began to be under the scrutiny of the court. Something the Respondent should remember in the future is that he is raising both a son and a daughter. How would he feel if his son spoke to anyone like that? How would he feel if V.C. was being spoken to like this by her partner or ex-partner?

[95] I note that during the trial and during closing submissions, the Applicant expressed regret over her unilateral decision to try and move to Brooklin with V.C. in 2021. She was remorseful and expressed disappointment in herself. Again, I do not question the sincerity of the Applicant’s regret. I am sure that she understands how this one unilateral act set in motion some high conflict litigation. However, given the totality of the evidence, I find that this one unilateral act was actually out of character for the Applicant and is not likely something that will be repeated.

[96] Overall, I preferred the evidence and testimony of the Applicant over the Respondent. I found her to be genuine in her care and concern for V.C. In her care historically and in her plan for the relocation, I found the Applicant to be very attentive and focused on meeting all of V.C.’s needs (including her health, education, activities, and supporting her relationship with the Respondent). Although she lost her patience at times with the Respondent when the messaging, conflict, and verbal abuse escalated, she never seemed to hold a grudge. I found her efforts to communicate positively and openly with the Respondent to be almost heroic at times, even when faced with horribly derogatory language and insults being launched at her by the Respondent.

[97] I found it understandable that the Applicant felt uncomfortable, alone, and unsupported in Innisfil with all the Respondent’s family and friends living in such close proximity in a small community. This is especially understandable after hearing all the negative things they thought and said about her. The lack of a cooperative relationship, positive communication, and trust with the Respondent has made it difficult for the Applicant and by extension, for the child as well. V.C. doesn’t have to hear or read the exact words that are being said to know that her dad and his family think and speak so poorly of her mom and that her mom and dad have difficulty communicating. Most people do not remember exactly what somebody says to them, but they definitely remember how what was said made them feel. It is undisputed that V.C. is a smart, sensitive little girl. Both parents would do well to continue trying to improve their communication. The OCL Report recommended both parties consider engaging in counselling to help them work through issues of past conflict and current stresses. I agree.

[98] Both of these parents would do well to remember and practice that when someone goes low, it does not make it okay for you to go even lower. Try taking the high road. You cannot control what someone else does or says, you can only control how you react.

[99] In accordance with ss. 24(1-5) and 39.4(3, 5) of the CLRA and for the reasons set out above, I find it in the best interests of the child to make an order allowing the Applicant to relocate with the child to Brooklin and changing the parenting-time schedule accordingly, as requested by the Applicant and recommended in the OCL Report. I will add one more day of parenting time on long weekends during the school year to slightly increase the Respondent’s regular parenting time.

Ongoing and Retroactive Child Support

[100] There is significant dispute about when, how, and why the parties commenced the current parenting schedule. The Respondent says it commenced on consent of the parties in 2018. The Applicant does not agree. She says that she always maintained the primary care of V.C. She says that the Respondent’s work required him to travel, but that in or around April 2020 (during the initial stages of the COVID pandemic), the Respondent lost his job and unilaterally insisted on increasing his parenting time to basically follow the same schedule as his son, Luca. The change to the parenting arrangement made it so that V.C. would be in the Respondent’s care each Tuesday after school until Thursday, and alternate weekends from Friday after school until Sunday at 4:00 p.m. V.C. otherwise remained in the care of the Applicant the rest of the time, so she was in the care of the Applicant for eight out of fourteen nights and in the care of the Respondent for six. There is no dispute that this schedule has continued from April 2020 and throughout all of 2021 and 2022.

[101] The Applicant seeks an order for the Respondent to pay her $1,504.00 per month for ongoing child support in accordance with the Respondent’s estimated income for 2022 at $178,482.00 and setting the Respondent’s overpayment of support at $5,324.00. The Respondent seeks an order for an adjustment of child support retroactive to 2019 to account for what he alleges to be over-payments that he made when the parties were sharing parenting time. The parties provided the court with undisputed evidence of their incomes going back to 2019. The parties provided the court with undisputed evidence of the child support that was paid from March 2021 (being $650.00 per month).

[102] It is undisputed that the Applicant’s income according to her income tax returns has been:

(a) 2019 - $60,828.00;

(b) 2020 - $100,477.00;

(d) 2022 – base pay is $70,000.00 plus commissions. Recent paystubs show a year-to-date total gross income of $142,397.00.

It is undisputed that the Respondent has been paying the Applicant $650.00 per month for child support since March 2021. The Respondent’s income according to his tax returns and other evidence has been:

(a) 2019 - $109,319.00;

(b) 2020 - $65,869.00;

(d) 2022 – base pay $115,000.00 plus commissions. Recent paystub dated October 15, 2022, shows a year-to-date total gross income of $153,080.40. Financial Statement sworn October 28, 2022, claims a total annual income of $165,896.28.

[103] There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the Applicant was supposed to include the proceeds of the sale of her property in 2021 as income in her Income Tax Return. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the Respondent was earning cash income in 2020.

[104] The Respondent was required by the Olah Order to pay the Applicant $848.00 per month in child support. However, in the spring of 2020 the Respondent lost his job due to the COVID pandemic. Substantial arrears of child support had already accumulated at that time (the court was not provided with evidence on this issue; however, it was undisputed). The Respondent requested that the Applicant withdraw from enforcement of the child support by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO). She agreed to do so. It is unclear to the court what the arrangement and/or payments for child support and/or arrears were from the spring of 2020 to March 2021. The court was not provided a FRO arrears statement.

[105] The evidence shows that on March 30, 2021, there was a discussion between the parties via text message wherein the Respondent advised the Applicant that he got a new job. She congratulated him. The Respondent told the Applicant that his income was now $115,000.00 and the Applicant told the Respondent that her income was $47,000.00 plus commissions. The Respondent advised the Applicant that child support should be adjusted to $650.00 per month. The Applicant agreed. Neither party requested proof of incomes.

[106] In my view, there is no need to go into a deep dive analysis to determine the incomes of the parties on the issue of ongoing child support or retroactive child support arrears. I am not satisfied with the Applicant’s evidence to impute cash income to the Respondent for the year 2020. The Respondent declared an income of $65,869.00 in 2020, the year that he lost his job. There was no evidence provided that showed he was living a lifestyle above this modest income. Nor am I satisfied with the Respondent’s evidence to impute capital gains income to the Applicant for the year 2021. The Applicant gave evidence that she followed her accountant’s advice. Except for the Respondent’s opinion or theory about capitol gains income, there was no evidence provided that showed the Applicant’s income tax return was incorrect or deficient.

[107] It is undisputed that the parties began sharing parenting time from around April 2020 when the Respondent lost his job. Both parents were supporting V.C. when she was in their care and neither party requested financial disclosure. According to the Olah Order, both the “payor (and recipient if applicable) must provide disclosure to the other party each year” in accordance with s. 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97 (CSGs). In my view, when V.C. was attending Montessori and when the parties began sharing time, the obligation to disclose was not solely on the Respondent. At that time, both parties had an obligation to disclose their incomes to calculate the appropriate ongoing child support amount and the proportionate sharing of the section 7’s. Neither party did this.

[108] March 2021 is the date when the parties first exchanged some limited income information and discussed ongoing child support. That is the date when they both indicated they had base salaries plus commission/bonus. Both parties were uncertain as to their total annual income; however, neither party insisted upon nor provided disclosure of income tax returns at that time.

[109] Although the Respondent’s parenting time increased in 2018, there is no meaningful or undisputed evidence on which the court can rely upon to find that the parties began to equally share parenting time in 2018 or 2019 or the beginning of 2020. I am not satisfied with the evidence of the parenting time arrangement from 2018 to the spring of 2020 to retroactively set off and decrease the child support. It is undisputed that arrears of child support accumulated prior to the Respondent losing his job in 2020. It is undisputed that the Respondent did not pay his proportionate share for V.C.’s Montessori school and the Applicant paid the Montessori fees for the four years V.C. attended the daycare and Casa programs. As set out in Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, 458 D.L.R. (4^th) 183, at para. 83, the presumption arises in favour of varying the support to the date effective notice:

A retroactive decrease will mean less funds, a possible set-off and even a repayment from the recipient to the payor. This in turn implicates and intensifies the certainty interest of the child that, once a party establishes a material change in circumstances, a presumption arises in favour of varying support to the date of effective notice.”

[110] In my view, the material change was established in March 2021 when the parties discussed the Respondent’s new job, the parties’ incomes, and the new child support amount. In my view, the date of effective notice was March 2021. Even if V.C. lived in a shared parenting arrangement from the spring of 2020, neither party has provided the court with any meaningful evidence or budget to complete an analysis pursuant to s. 9 of the CSGs prior to March 2021.

[111] I find that the date of effective notice for a retroactive adjustment of child support and extra-ordinary expenses is March 2021. Using the DivorceMate calculations provided by the Applicant (which the Respondent does not dispute), this would create an overpayment situation for the Respondent in the amount of $392.00 per month from March 2021 to December 2021 (totalling $3,920.00) and $313.00 per month from January 1, 2022, to December 1, 2022, (totalling $3,756.00) plus $313.00 for the month of January in 2023. Based upon these calculations (and assuming the Respondent pays the $650.00 in December and January) I find the total overpayment of child support by the Respondent for 2021 and 2022 and one month of 2023 was $7,989.00. Therefore, the Respondent will be credited with an overpayment of child support in the total amount of $7,989.00.

[112] For the reasons set out above, Final Order to go:

Decision-Making Responsibility, Relocation, and Parenting Time

The Applicant shall have sole decision-making responsibility regarding major decisions with respect to the child, V.C., born March 19, 2015.
The Applicant shall consult with the Respondent prior to making any major decisions regarding the child’s health, education, extra-curricular activities, or general welfare. She shall keep the Respondent fully informed as to all major decisions involving V.C.
Both parties shall have full and complete access to all information and documents regarding V.C., including her academic, medical, and extra-curricular activities.
The Applicant is hereby permitted to relocate with the child to Brooklin, Ontario.
V.C. shall primarily reside with the Applicant in Brooklin, Ontario, effective February 5, 2023, at 6:00 p.m.
V.C. shall be enrolled in school in Brooklin as arranged by the Applicant, effective February 6, 2023.
Both parties shall refrain from speaking negatively about each and shall not speak about adult or court matters in V.C.’s presence or within her earshot.
The Applicant shall provide the Respondent with at least 60 days’ notice of any proposed change in the child’s residence.
The Respondent shall have parenting time with the child as follows:

(a) Every other weekend from Friday after school until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

(b) V.C.’s weekend with the Respondent shall coincide with Luca’s weekend schedule with the Respondent to ensure the siblings are able to spend time together.

(c) Every Wednesday from after school until 7:30 p.m. where the parties will meet at an agreed upon location in Brooklin.

(d) During the school year, when Friday is a P.A. day or school holiday on the Respondent’s weekend, his parenting time will begin on Thursday after school and end on Sunday evening at 6:00 p.m.

(e) During the school year, when Monday is a P.A. day or school holiday on the Respondent’s weekend, his parenting time will end on Monday evening at 6:00 p.m.

The parties shall share the transportation for exchanges on the weekends and holidays (not on the Wednesdays). The parent receiving V.C. for commencement of their parenting time will pick her up at an agreed upon public location. To be clear, unless otherwise agreed in advance, the Respondent or his designate shall pick up the child in Brooklin and the Applicant or her designate shall pick up the child in Innisfil.
V.C. shall, if she chooses, have daily phone or electronic contact with the parent with whom she is not residing.
Both parties shall continue to communicate on matters relating to V.C. through the Our Family Wizard application.

Holiday Parenting Time Schedule

The following parenting arrangements at special times during the year will supersede the regular parenting schedule.

(a) Easter: In even-numbered years, the Applicant shall have care of V.C. for the Easter Sunday and Monday commencing at 10:00 a.m. on the Sunday. On odd-numbered years, the Respondent shall have care of V.C. on Easter Sunday commencing at 10:00 a.m. until Easter Monday at 6:00 p.m.

(b) March Break: V.C. shall stay with the parent where she would be residing for the first weekend of March Break according to the regular parenting schedule until Wednesday evening at 6:00 p.m. and with the other parent from Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

(c) Mother’s Day: V.C. shall reside with the Applicant for the entire Mother’s Day weekend from Friday after school until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

(d) Father’s Day: V.C. shall reside with the Respondent for the entire Father’s Day weekend from Friday after school until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

(e) Summer: During the school summer holidays, V.C. shall reside with the parties on a week-about basis beginning the first full week of summer after school is completed with the Applicant and then rotating on a weekly basis on the following Sunday at 4:00 p.m. with exchanges occurring each Sunday thereafter at 4:00 p.m. The summer schedule shall end on the day before school is to commence. All week-long vacations throughout the summer shall be scheduled to align with each parent’s time (unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parties in advance). The party requesting the change will give the other party a minimum of 30 days’ notice in writing of the request. The other party shall respond in writing within 7 days to the request.

(f) Thanksgiving: V.C. shall reside with the Applicant on the odd-numbered years and the Respondent on the even-numbered years.

(g) Christmas/New Years: In even-numbered years, V.C. shall reside with the Respondent from December 23^rd after school or at 4:00 p.m. until December 25^th at 12:00 p.m. and then from December 30^th at 10:00 a.m. until January 2^nd at 6:00 p.m. V.C. shall reside with the Applicant on December 25^th at 12:00 p.m. until December 30^th at 10:00 a.m. All days before and/or after these dates will follow the regular parenting plan schedule. This Christmas/New Years schedule will be reversed in odd-numbered years and rotate accordingly each year.

(h) Halloween: In the odd-numbered years, the Applicant will have care of V.C. and the Respondent will have care of V.C. in even-numbered years. Halloween parenting days will commence at 12:00 p.m. if on a weekend. If the Respondent’s Halloween parenting time falls on a school night, the Respondent may keep V.C. overnight and shall bring her to school the following day.

The parties shall maintain flexibility to accommodate important family events for V.C. to participate in. In that regard, the party requesting a change to the parenting schedule will give at least 14 days’ notice of the request in writing which will be responded to in writing within 48 hours. Consent to such requests shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The Respondent shall not withhold consent for V.C. to participate in the Applicant’s wedding related activities and events once the Applicant provides 14 days’ notice to the Respondent in writing.
Either party may travel and take a vacation with V.C. outside of Ontario during their parenting time. The travelling party shall provide the other party with a minimum of 30 days’ notice of the planned travel. They shall also provide the other party with an itinerary and contact information as to where they can be reached during the vacation. The non-travelling party shall sign any necessary documents to allow the vacation to occur, such as travel consents and passport applications to enable V.C. to cross the Canadian border. Such consents and signatures shall not be unreasonably withheld and shall be signed within 7 days of the written request.

Child Support

Commencing February 6, 2023, and each sixth of the month thereafter, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant $1,504.00 per month in child support. This amount is in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines for one child based on the Respondent’s estimated income of $178,482.00 in 2022.
The Respondent shall contribute 57% to special or extraordinary expenses incurred in respect of V.C., which includes medical expenses not covered by the parties’ extended health benefits and agreed upon extra-curricular expenses.
The Respondent will be credited with an overpayment of child support in the total amount of $7,989.00.
The parties shall each ensure that V.C. is a named beneficiary on any extended health benefits available to them through their employment. They will coordinate their benefits and the Respondent father will immediately reimburse the Applicant upon the receipt of insurance benefits if they cannot be paid directly to the Applicant mother.
SDO to issue.
If the parties cannot agree on costs, I will receive written submissions on a 7-day turnaround, commencing with the Applicant on or by February 10, 2023, followed by the Respondent’s responding submissions on or by February 17, 2023, then the Applicant’s reply submissions, if any, on or by February 24, 2023. Cost submissions shall be no more than 3 pages in length (12 pt. font size, regular 1-inch margins, 1.5 spacing), exclusive of any costs outline or offers to settle. All costs submissions shall be delivered via email through my judicial assistant at barriejudsec@ontario.ca. If no submissions are received by February 24, 2023, the issue of costs will be deemed to have been settled between the parties.

R. S. Jain

Date: January 31, 2023

[^1]: Meghan Markle's Heart Breaking Childhood Poem About Parents Divorce in Full (newsweek.com), Newsweek, December 8, 2022.

[^2]: Exhibit 25 and 26 - text messages in March and April 2019 about trying to make plans for Easter.

[^3]: OCL Report dated June 16, 2022, at page 5 and page 7.

[^4]: OCL Report page 12-13.

[^5]: OCL Report at page 9.

[^6]: Exhibits 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12.

[^7]: Exhibit 22 and Exhibit 71.

[^8]: Exhibit 55.

[^9]: Exhibit 56.

[^10]: Exhibit 57.

[^11]: Exhibit 58.

[^12]: Exhibit 58.

[^13]: Exhibit 60.

[^14]: Exhibit 60, paras. 5-13.

[^15]: Exhibit 60, paras. 25-29.

[^16]: Exhibit 61, Affidavit of Respondent dated November 21, 2022.

[^17]: Exhibit 61, Affidavit of Respondent dated November 21, 2022, at para. 38.

[^18]: Respondent’s Affidavit dated November 21, 2022, at para. 42.

[^19]: Exhibits 10, 13, 22 – 24.

[^20]: Exhibit 77 Photographs of 2058 Dale Road.

[^21]: OCL Report page 13.

S.K. v. P.C., 2023 ONSC 734

Case Summary

Introduction

Decision

Preliminary issues

Background

The Law

Analysis

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Expert Witnesses

Issues

Legal Tests 2

Legislation 3