Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-18225 DATE: 20240402 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: Arya Huang Applicant – and – Jessica Chang Respondent
Counsel: Self-represented (for the Applicant) Snider, K. for the Respondent
HEARD: October 23, 27, November 8, 10, and December 12, 2023
Reasons for Decision
P.T. SUGUNASIRI, J.:
Overview
[1] There is one thing that Mr. Huang and Ms. Chang can agree on about their son, Teddy, aged four: They do not have the healthy communication needed to share decision-making. Each parent requests sole decision-making and primary care. Teddy has lived in the primary care of his mother since he was born. He goes to school in her catchment area in Scarborough. He visits with Mr. Huang on weekends from 6 p.m. on Friday to 7 p.m. on Sunday. CAS and the police have been involved with this family since his birth. No independent authority has concern about either parent’s ability to parent Teddy.
[2] While Teddy was in Ms. Chang’s primary care, Mr. Huang did not pay the appropriate amount of child support. This trial resolves parenting time, decision-making, retroactive and ongoing child support.
[3] On January 31, 2024, I released a bottom-line decision moving Teddy to live with Mr. Huang and giving Mr. Huang sole decision-making. These are my reasons for that decision.
[4] In addition to moving Teddy from Ms. Chang to Mr. Huang, I find that Mr. Huang owes Ms. Chang $16,616 in retroactive child support. I offset this amount with child support owing by Ms. Chang. She shall commence paying table child support on June 1, 2029, in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines based on her income as reported on her income tax return for 2028.
[5] I understand since my bottom-line order the parties have had to alter parenting time and have worked together on this. I direct the parties to provide me with an updated parenting schedule which will include holidays and Teddy’s summer vacations which once approved, will form part of my order.
Analysis
I. The Legal Framework
[6] Section 16.1(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3(2nd Supp.) (“DA”) gives the court the authority to make an order providing for the exercise of parenting time and decision-making responsibility in respect of any child of the marriage on application by either spouse. In this case, Mr. Huang applies for the court to exercise its jurisdiction in his favour. To determine who should have decision-making responsibility over Teddy and how much time each parent should spend with him, I look to section 16 of the DA. The court can only consider the best interests of the child when making a parenting order. I determine Teddy’s best interests by considering the factors set out in section 16(3) of the DA:
(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including
(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
(d) the history of care of the child;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well being of the child.
[7] Where, as in this case, there are allegations of family violence, the DA requires me to consider:
(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall take the following 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 their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
(h) any other relevant factor.
[8] The focus of the trial evidence reflects the parents’ lack of focus on Teddy’s best interests. Most of the evidence relates to the conflict between the parents, what happened and what did not happen between them, and the minutia of who was right or wrong in each conversation or a particular altercation during a parenting time exchange. I will speak more about the tenure of these exchanges when considering family violence. Suffice it to say for the moment that they reflect a mother doing her best to care for her child while in continual conflict with a father who does not treat her with respect and seems to lack empathy for her lived experience. That said, the totality of the factors relevant to Teddy cause me to conclude that it is in his best interest to live primarily with Mr. Huang.
[9] Mr. Huang, Ms. Chang, Teddy’s paternal grandmother and Mr. Huang’s best friend all testified. Teddy is four years old and attends kindergarten where both his parents say he is happy. He has lived with Ms. Chang since birth. Teddy enjoys sports and being outside. After school Ms. Chang picks Teddy up and spends time in the playground with another parent whose child Teddy is friends with. Ms. Chang and Teddy lived in a two-bedroom apartment where Teddy sleeps in Ms. Chang’s bed even though he has a Thomas the Tank bed. Ms. Chang uses her second bedroom to pursue her business endeavours which currently entails gathering internet nutritional information on various foods and products including their interaction with medications, creating cards, and selling them online. Ms. Chang is engaged and Teddy spends some time with her fiancé. Currently she receives $1800/month from ODSP, $800 in “baby bonus”, $150 “for some tax that you get every month” and sporadic child support from Mr. Huang. From time to time Ms. Chang also receives $500/month from her father who is her only family support. Her intention is to try and get into real estate.
[10] There was little evidence on what Teddy does during his time with Mr. Huang other than going to church on Sundays and spending time with his mom, friends, and family in Etobicoke. I accept the evidence from both Mr. Huang and his mother that she is very involved in his and Teddy’ life. Mr. Huang currently lives in two different locations – on the weekends with his mother in Etobicoke, and in North York with his grandfather where he lives during the week. He does not currently have his own place. If Teddy is moved to reside with Mr. Huang, he will be living with Mr. Huang and his grandfather during the week. This means that Mr. Huang and Teddy will have to take public transportation to Teddy’s school in Scarborough before Mr. Huang then goes to work. He works from home on some days and has a flexible schedule to allow him to pick Teddy up on some weekdays. Otherwise, Teddy’s great-grandfather or grandmother will pick him up after school. On those days, Mr. Huang expects that he will be home from work at about 6 p.m.
[11] This family has been in conflict since Teddy’s birth. He has been exposed to this conflict and the numerous visits from the CAS and the police. In all cases, the CAS did not raise concerns with either person’s ability to parent. At various times in 2020 and 2021 Ms. Chang alleged that Mr. Huang physically assaulted her. The police investigated and found no evidence of assault. They concluded on two occasions that a person (whose name was redacted in the police records that formed trial exhibit 16), had altered photos offered as proof of the injuries arising from the alleged assaults.
[12] But there were altercations. Mr. Huang aggressively grabbed Teddy’s stroller handle. He agreed on cross-examination that he placed his hands on Ms. Chang to remove her from a computer on which she was allegedly displaying pornography. His tone, was no doubt as harsh as they appear in texts and email exchanges, when Mr. Huang was frustrated with Ms. Chang. Mr. Huang strikes me as unyielding in how he sees the world and how he expects Teddy to be raised. Mr. Huang exercised control over Ms. Chang by withholding child support and instead providing her with the supplies he believed Ms. Chang needed to care for Teddy. This is contrary to law. The payor cannot control how child support is used by the recipient nor can they withhold it because they do not like what they think the recipient is doing with the money. I have explained this to Mr. Huang.
[13] Ms. Chang also fuelled the fire. On multiple occasions she alleged that Mr. Huang was sexually assaulting Teddy and called him a “pedo”. Again, the police investigated, as did the CAS and they found no evidence of sexual assault or any harm caused by Mr. Huang to Teddy. To this day Ms. Chang insists that she has a head injury from Mr. Huang’s aggression but there is no medical corroboration of this injury. I accept that Ms. Chang honestly holds this belief but I do not accept as fact in this trial that Ms. Chang has a head injury due to an assault by Mr. Huang.
[14] Despite Mr. Huang’s troubling attitude toward Ms. Chang, I have three areas of concern that cause me to conclude that it is in Teddy’s best interest to be with Mr. Huang as the primary parent:
a. Teddy’s Medical care; b. Schooling; and c. Exposure to adult sexual activity.
Medical care
[15] Since Teddy was born, he has had a toenail infection, an eye stye that lasted for months, long colds, possible bed bug bites, and red dots on him that Ms. Huang diagnosed as chicken pox. On those occasions, I find that Ms. Chang erred on the side of not taking Teddy to a doctor. There was reference in her testimony to doctors but she tendered no doctor’s records beyond an ER record when she once found Teddy unresponsive. My impression from Ms. Chang’s testimony is that she relies a great deal on the internet to self-diagnose as well as to diagnose symptoms that Teddy is displaying. For example, she advised Mr. Huang that Teddy’ had chicken pox yet there was no such diagnosis from the doctor. Ms. Chang’s business idea that she will gather information on the internet to advise people on how medicines interact with nutrients is one example of this reliance. Another is her stated self-diagnosis of diabetes based on her symptoms and the purported side effects of a head injury that has never been diagnosed as far as the record is concerned.
[16] Ms. Chang admits in testimony that Teddy has had unusually long colds but attributes it to lactose intolerance. However, Ms. Chang has not taken Teddy to a doctor to confirm this. It has been a significant source of disagreement with Mr. Huang and might have been easily resolved by a doctor. Instead, the dispute continues over whether Mr. Huang should continue to give Teddy yogurt. Teddy’s eye stye remained untreated for at least two months until Mr. Huang got drops. At times both parents agree that Teddy was underweight and potentially undernourished. Ms. Chang ascribes it to Mr. Huang removing Teddy for several days thereby preventing him from nursing. Mr. Huang believes that Ms. Chang was not feeding Teddy as required but instead relied almost exclusively on breastmilk even at an age when solids are the norm. I find Mr. Huang’s evidence on this point more credible. I conclude that it is more likely than not that Teddy’s weight issues were linked to Ms. Chang’s nutritional choices for him.
[17] Mr. Huang is the opposite – he errs on the side of consulting a doctor any time Teddy seems unwell. One might say his tendency is to overreact and consult professionals at every turn. This is clear from his repeated calls to CAS and the police when Ms. Chang was late for an exchange or when Teddy seemed under the weather. On the other hand, it was Mr. Huang’s intervention that addressed Teddy’s eye infection. In an ideal world, Teddy should benefit from the watchful eye of both parents who cooperate to get him the medical attention he needs in a timely way. Unfortunately, Mr. Huang and Ms. Chang cannot offer that unified support to Teddy. Sometimes this happens and is why this court has legislative and common law authority to intervene with a child-centered approach.
[18] Parenting decisions should never be held to a standard of perfection and there is not one way to approach a child’s health. However, I am forced to choose a primary parent and decision-maker in this case. My choice is between a parent who more likely than not, relies heavily on the internet to address her child’s medical issues versus a parent who potentially overuses the healthcare system when his child is unwell. Putting Teddy’s best interest at the center of my decision, I err on the side of Mr. Huang’s approach. This pulls toward putting Teddy in Mr. Huang’s primary care.
Schooling
[19] Since starting school in September of 2023, Teddy has been absent 12 days and late on three days. Ms. Chang stated that the record is inaccurate. She would let Teddy sleep in or stay home if he was unwell, again relying on her belief of his lactose intolerance which has never been medically confirmed. Ms. Chang testified that if Teddy was late the school would call. If they called and Ms. Chang did not answer, they would likely have marked him absent even if he was there. No one from the school testified nor was there evidence that Ms. Chang asked the school about her theory.
[20] The record does not support Ms. Chang’s evidence on this point. Mr. Huang’s regular parenting time was every weekend. One would expect Teddy’s absences to favour Mondays on the theory that Teddy would be sick from yogurt intake on the weekend. Teddy’s absences as they appear on the school’s records do not show such a pattern and I have no further evidence on this point. On the other hand, Ms. Chang also testified that junior kindergarten was not mandatory and so she did not think it mattered if he stayed home from time to time. This latter testimony aligns more with the record. I find the former testimony to reflect Ms. Chang’s inclination to diagnose Teddy herself.
[21] Based on his testimony and manner, I assess Mr. Huang to be a more formalistic person who believes in structure and discipline. Mr. Huang is not content with Teddy’s record of attendance. Further, he expresses concern about Teddy’s speech development and lack of toilet training at age 4. Ms. Chang agrees that Teddy was not toilet trained by kindergarten. She explains Teddy’s language deficits to being shy with Mr. Huang due to the infrequency of their contact. Mr. Huang’s mother echoes these concerns and testified that Teddy does not seem to be able to express himself the way she would expect someone of his age. Again, Mr. Huang’s insistence on speech therapy may be overkill – but I find that that it benefits Teddy’s overall well being more than Ms. Chang’s approach. This favours Teddy being in Mr. Huang’s primary care.
[22] To be clear, the fact that Teddy was not toilet trained by the time he started junior kindergarten is not in and of itself a reason to move Teddy from the only home he has known. Rather, I consider the matrix of factors particular to Teddy, as far as the evidence permits me, to conclude that Ms. Chang’s overall relaxed approach is not in Teddy’s best interest. This is despite however well-meaning Ms. Chang is and her success in raising Teddy so far. Both parents agree that Teddy seems to be happy. I consider this an important countervailing factor in favour of staying with Ms. Chang. Moving forward, however, I find it is Mr. Huang who will best be able to care for Teddy and make decisions for him as he grows, but with important regular contact with his mother.
Exposure to adult sexual activity
[23] Ms. Chang testified that Teddy sleeps with her in her bed. She also testified that she is engaged and intends to be married in two or three years. According to Ms. Chang, her fiancé had only slept over twice while Teddy was there. The rest of the time he does not sleep over unless Teddy is with Mr. Huang on the weekends.
[24] Mr. Huang testified that he and his mother observed sexual behaviour in Teddy that were of concern including touching her breasts and thrusting while on her lap. The CAS worker investigating the incident testified. She stated that she discussed it with Ms. Chang and concluding that it was normal for a child to “wiggle around”. Nothing further was done.
[25] I am not satisfied with this conclusion for the purpose of determining what is in Teddy’s best interest and where he should primarily reside. The CAS worker agreed that she did not ask probing questions about Ms. Chang’s fiancé, how often he sleeps over, or what sexual activity, if any, Teddy might have experienced.
[26] I do not find Ms. Chang credible on this issue. I do not believe that her fiancé only sleeps over on weekends when Teddy is not there. I find that it is more likely than not that Teddy’s sleeping arrangement exposes him to adult sexual activity. Ms. Chang has no plan to move Teddy out of her room and intends to continue to use the second bedroom as her office. This is concerning. It is wonderful that Ms. Chang has a new life with a new life partner. The concern is that I heard little evidence on how Teddy will be accommodated in that new life including his sleeping arrangement.
[27] Placing Teddy with Mr. Huang will minimize this potential exposure. Teddy will have his own bedroom either at his great-grandfather’s house or his grandmother’s house, and ultimately Mr. Huang’s house when he has his own place. Mr. Huang was on disability for some time but now has full-time employment. He hopes to be able to obtain a place for him and Teddy. Focusing on Teddy’s best interest, my concern pulls toward Teddy primarily residing with Mr. Huang.
Family violence – verbal and emotional abuse
[28] I have already described that neither the CAS nor the police have concerns about Mr. Huang’s ability to care for Teddy. Nor have any family violence investigations come to anything. However, this does not alleviate my obligation to consider the impact on Teddy of negative attitudes his parents may have toward each other or conflict that he has experienced.
[29] Having heard from the parties and read the WhatsApp and Our Family Wizard exchanges between the two, Mr. Huang has no respect for Ms. Chang or her ability to parent Teddy. I accept Ms. Chang’s evidence that she has been subject to Mr. Huang’s verbal and emotional abuse. This is a form of family violence. This is a significant factor in considering whether it is in Teddy’s best interest to be in Mr. Huang’s primary care. My concern is that Mr. Huang will diminish Ms. Chang’s worth in Teddy’s eyes and will alienate her. Such conduct would have serious ramifications for Teddy. Mr. Huang must understand and accept that the CAS has found nothing wrong with Ms. Chang’s ability to parent and has no concern about Teddy being in her care. It is Mr. Huang who often involved the CAS. He should then be bound by their conclusions.
[30] Notwithstanding my concern, I believe it remains in Teddy’s best interest to reside with Mr. Huang and for Mr. Huang to be his primary decision-maker, with generous and frequent parenting time with Ms. Chang to nurture their bond. This is because overall, Mr. Huang will provide Teddy with a stable, healthy environment as described above. This environment outweighs the potential harm to Teddy of Mr. Huang alienating him from his mother. I hope the resolution of this case will re-focus Ms. Chang and Mr. Huang on Teddy and will calm what have been very choppy waters.
[31] A condition of my decision to place Teddy with Mr. Huang is that Mr. Huang does not speak ill of Ms. Chang, and speaks to her respectfully when in Teddy’s presence, regardless of whether Mr. Huang agrees or disagrees with what Ms. Chang is saying or doing. This includes leaving Ms. Chang to parent Teddy how she sees fit when Teddy is with her. If Mr. Huang is unable to do that, this would amount to a material change where Ms. Chang could seek a variation of my order. This is not to suggest that Mr. Huang must be superhuman. A few digressions are inevitable. On the other hand, a pattern of behaviour that alienates Teddy from Ms. Chang emotionally or otherwise is cause for this court to re-visit my decision to place Teddy with Mr. Huang. If such intervention is necessary, Mr. Huang risks a significant costs award against him and relocating Teddy back with Ms. Chang. This would not be good for Teddy.
[32] Ms. Chang has a reciprocal responsibility to Teddy to do what she can to work cooperatively with Mr. Huang, be on time with exchanges, and communicate through Our Family Wizard if something goes awry.
Other factors – Ms. Chang’s mental health
[33] Ms. Chang testified that she was born in Canada but went to Costa Rica with her mother and family when she was thirteen. Her mother then permitted her to be married at aged fifteen. I have no evidence as to the age of her spouse. They are now divorced. Ms. Chang and Mr. Huang met at Enercare in 2017, after Ms. Chang had returned to Canada amid divorce proceedings. Ms. Chang states that CAMH diagnosed her with PTSD due to the divorce and the trial record shows that on at least one occasion she revealed suicidal thoughts to Mr. Huang. Ms. Chang testified that she is on ODSP while she receives counselling from the effects of the divorce, and that they are “giving her time” before looking for employment. Ms. Chang was prescribed medication to treat PTSD but stated on the stand that she was no longer taking it and is better.
[34] I am troubled by this testimony about Ms. Chang’s current health. It does not make sense that ODSP continues to fund Ms. Chang if she is better. This means that either she is defrauding ODSP or she is not better. Having observed Ms. Chang on the stand, it is more likely than not that Ms. Chang is not better. Ms. Chang’s demeanour on the stand was unusual. She was monotone, emotionless, and often did not appreciate the gravity of the question that was being asked. Of note is that Ms. Chang unilaterally chose to explain her demeanour. She attributes it to the head injury alleged to have been caused by Mr. Huang. As noted earlier, there is no corroboration by anyone that Ms. Chang hit her head. There are no medical records nor any medical diagnosis of a head injury that would affect Ms. Chang’s manner.
[35] We know that demeanour is a minor factor in assessing a witness. There is no one way a person testifies and usually a person’s demeanour sheds little light on credibility and reliability. On the other hand, there is a logical inference that I draw when combining Ms. Chang’s demeanour on the stand with her evidence of her state of mind and continued reliance on ODSP. The inference is that Ms. Chang is still dealing with mental health issues. And there is nothing wrong with that. People dealing with mental health are not disqualified from caring for their children. In this case however, my concern is Ms. Chang’s lack of awareness of what is likely to be the reality of continuing mental health challenges and/or her active attempt to minimize it.
[36] I am also concerned that Ms. Chang and Teddy will have no support to assist Ms. Chang in caring for Teddy, should she have a particularly bad mental health day. Ms. Chang’s mother and other family has returned to Costa Rica leaving only her father to help. There was no evidence that he could or would step in if needed. Ms. Chang testified about being friends with the mother of Teddy’s best friend, and she now has her fiancé. I note however that even during the trial Ms. Chang reported that she and her fiancé broke up, and then got back together. In other words, I am not sure how secure the relationship is and whether he is truly a source of support for any mental health challenges Ms. Chang might face. These challenges will affect Teddy. This, on its own, does not warrant moving him. But, after considering all relevant factors already discussed and focusing on Teddy’s best interest, Mr. Huang should be the primary caregiver and sole decision-maker.
[37] I turn now to the issue of child support.
Child Support Arrears
[38] Mr. Huang candidly admits that he has not paid appropriate child support. Part of the reason is that he was, for a time, on long term disability. The other reason I find Mr. Huang did not pay child support is because he mistrusted Ms. Chang’s use of the funds. Instead, Mr. Huang decided to pay it by providing diapers, and wipes and food. I have explained to Mr. Huang that the payor cannot control how child support is paid. It is owed to the child via the custodial parent.
[39] The Federal Child Support Guidelines (SOR/97-175) were established to simplify child support and is the appropriate beginning and end point for this family to determine how much child support arrears Mr. Huang owes. The tables are based on the payor’s total annual income. Teddy was born August 29, 2019. Mr. Huang’s income since 2019 is as follows:
| Year | Total income (line 15000) |
|---|---|
| 2019 | $32,884 |
| 2020 | $49,800 |
| 2021 | $33,348 |
| 2022 | $27,267 |
| 2023 | $48,000 |
[40] Based on the table amount, Mr. Huang owes arrears of:
| Year | Arrears owing |
|---|---|
| 2019 | $282/month = $3,384 |
| 2020 | $461/month = $5,532 |
| 2021 | $282/month = $3,384 |
| 2022 | $223/month = $2,676 |
| 2023 | $445/month = $5,340 |
| TOTAL: | $20,316 |
[41] Mr. Huang provided bank records showing child support payments from 2020 to 2023. Those amounts equal approximately $3700 leaving outstanding arrears of $16,616.
Child support moving forward
[42] Mr. Huang will now have primary care of Teddy and sole-decision-making. Ms. Chang will have parenting time from Thursday, after school, to Sunday at 10 a.m. For table support purposes, Ms. Chang earns $32,000 annually. This means that she owes Teddy $273/month and $3,276 annually. Given the arrears, Ms. Chang is relieved from paying child support until June 1, 2029 based on the assumption that she will continue to earn $32,000 annually.
[43] Starting June 1, 2029, Ms. Chang shall pay table child support based on her income as reported on her 2028 income tax return. which amount can be found if she googles “Federal Child Support Guidelines” and then selects the table for Ontario. On June 1 of every year after June 1, 2029, Ms. Chang shall adjust her child support payment and pay the table amount for whatever total income is listed on her income tax return for the prior year. If she cannot file a return, Ms. Chang must send Mr. Huang a sworn financial statement attesting to her income. She can send this to him by mail or if their relationship improves, at an exchange.
Disposition
[44] Mr. Huang shall have sole decision-making and primary care of Teddy, with the caveat that Mr. Huang will give Ms. Chang the opportunity to provide input to major educational, religious and medical decisions.
[45] The parties shall continue to communicate about Teddy through Our Family Wizard until such time as they can speak respectfully with each other.
[46] Ms. Chang shall have weekly parenting time from Thursday, after school, to Sunday at 10 a.m., subject to any proposed changes by the parties which they are to provide to me in the form of a draft order, including their proposed arrangement for holidays and summer break. They can send it to my assistant Jessica.Crispo@ontario.ca. If they cannot agree, the parties can each send their proposed schedule and I will decide on one.
[47] For exchanges, Mr. Huang shall pick up Teddy from Ms. Chang on Sunday mornings at 10 a.m. in the lobby of her building. Ms. Chang can directly pick Teddy up from school on Thursdays.
[48] The parties shall work together to prepare Teddy for his new living arrangement. To that end, Ms. Chang shall ensure that Teddy is able to take with him, any of his personal items that would assist him in the transition.
[49] Even though I give Mr. Huang primary care, it is in Teddy’s best interest that he continues to have a strong bond with Ms. Chang. Mr. Huang shall foster their relationship, regardless of his thoughts on her parenting abilities or about her as a person. It is critical for Teddy’s well being that both parents are respectful to each other, and about each other, when talking to Teddy.
[50] Mr. Huang shall not micro-manage Ms. Chang and shall leave her to parent Teddy how she sees fit when Teddy is with her. If Mr. Huang is unable to do that and shows a pattern of controlling conduct that alienates Teddy from Ms. Chang, Ms. Chang can seek to vary this order.
[51] Mr. Huang owes Ms. Chang child support arrears of $16,616 which shall be offset but future child support owing from Ms. Chang.
[52] Ms. Chang shall commence child support payments on June 1, 2029, based on her total income reported for the 2028 taxation year. If she did not file an income tax return, her income for the purpose of calculating support will be based on a sworn financial statement of her income as at May 1, 2029, that she mails to Mr. Huang no later than May 1, 2029. This is the pattern to follow every year – Ms. Chang’s support will be based on her income as reported in her income tax return for the prior year or based on a sworn financial statement indicating her income as at May 1st.
Costs
[53] The successful party who has retained counsel is normally entitled to recover some of their cost from the unsuccessful party. In this case, Mr. Huang was self-represented. He is entitled to claim some cost for time spent on work that would otherwise have been done by a lawyer. Mr. Huang does not have to claim costs. It is up to him.
[54] If Mr. Huang claims such costs, he needs to itemize his time and hourly rate that he is claiming from Ms. Chang. Mr. Huang shall provide this information to Mr. Snider, file it with the family office within two weeks of today and send it to Ms. Crispo. Mr. Snider can respond with submissions of no longer than three pages double-spaced, within two weeks after receiving Mr. Huang’s proposed costs.
[55] If Ms. Chang feels that she should recover some of her costs from Mr. Huang, she can include that in her responding submissions, in which case Mr. Snider should include a Bill of Costs.
Justice P.T. Sugunasiri Released: April 2, 2024