Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-22-1048 Date: 2024/10/02 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Christine Anonby, Applicant And: Erik Anonby, Respondent

Counsel: Lisa Sharp, for the Applicant Altynay Teshebaeva, for the Respondent

Heard: March 26, 2024, further endorsement July 3, 2024

Trial Decision – Reasons for Judgement on Parenting

Before: Somji J.

Overview

[1] The parties are remarkably accomplished people. Both are highly educated, have PhDs in linguistics, and speak anywhere from 7 to 12 languages. The Respondent Mr. Anonby (“father”) is a full-time linguistics professor. The Applicant Ms. Anonby (“mother”) worked or volunteered periodically over the years but her primary role has been as a stay-at-home mother to the parties’ four children: P.R.A (21); N.A. (19); L.A. (17) and F.A. (15). All four children have been diagnosed on the autistic spectrum but are gifted and high functioning. Each child speaks five languages. They are all avid readers and appear to be artistically and musically talented.

[2] This decision concerns only the youngest children L.A. (Jan 2007) and F.A. (July 2009).

[3] The mother experienced intimate partner violence in the early years of the parties’ marriage. She never received the professional help she needed which, as discussed below, adversely impacted the parties’ relationship. After 21 years of marriage, the parties separated in the fall of 2021. The mother initially went to a shelter with L.A. and F.A.. The parents attended for mediation and agreed to a temporary nesting arrangement. The parties jointly retained Valerie Morinville to complete a Parenting Plan Assessment Report (“the Report”). Ms. Morinville’s 70-page Report (118 pages including collaterals) was issued on May 13, 2022, and contained recommendations for a parenting plan. Ms. Morinville testified at trial, and I have considered both her Report and her evidence in arriving at my decision.

[4] On March 7, 2023, the Honourable Justice Minnema ordered the sale of the matrimonial home. His Honour also issued a Temporary Parenting Order that one, the parents have joint decision-making responsibility for L.A. and F.A.; two, that L.A. and F.A. reside primarily with their mother; and three, that the father have parenting time on alternate weekends and alternate Tuesday nights. Justice Minnema acknowledges that while his decision closely mirror’s Ms. Morinville’s recommendations, it does not adopt them entirely. The parties were not able to agree to a final parenting order and the matter proceeded to a three week trial in the spring of 2024.

The mother’s position

[5] Given the children’s special needs and her role as primary caregiver, the mother seeks to maintain the parenting schedule issued by Minnema J. The mother is agreeable to the father having increased parenting time with L.A. and F.A. during the summer holidays provided the father maintains reasonable continuity of the children’s therapies and routines. The mother also seeks sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and other corollary relief.

The father’s position

[6] The father argues that it is in the best interest of L.A. and F.A. to have shared parenting and decision-making. The father acknowledges that there was intimate partner violence in the early years of their marriage, but claims he addressed it through counselling and mediation services offered through the Church. He denies the mother’s allegations of emotional abuse and coercive control. On the contrary, he alleges that he has been emotionally abused by the mother during the marriage. He argues that the mother has and continues to expose the children to adult conflict, and consequently, if L.A. and F.A. have less than half time with him, the mother will undermine his relationship with them. In addition, he has reconciled with the two eldest children, one of whom now lives with him and, therefore, a shared parenting schedule better maintains the children’s connection with their siblings.

[7] The father filed a detailed parenting plan modelled by the Association of Family and Conciliation Court (AFCC). It addresses parenting principles, communication, decision-making, parenting time, travel, management of documents, changes of name, social media and access to devices, managing the children’s belongings and extracurricular activities, and a proposal for managing disputes. With respect to a parenting schedule, the father requests an extra night each week compared to the interim parenting schedule which he believes would allow the children to settle better. He proposes the following schedule for the school year: Week 1: Thursday after school until Monday after school and Week 2: Wednesday after school until Friday after school. He also seeks to have the parenting time on alternating weeks during the summer.

Issues to be decided

[8] The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement on January 25, 2024, and again on June 17, 2024, after trial which resolved the following issues: decision-making for emergency health care, religion, and education; certain holiday parenting time; travel for children; communication, extra curricular activities; exchange of income information for child support; distribution of Canada Child Tax Benefits; release of proceeds of $80,000 to the father; and divorce.

[9] Both parties agree that child support can be determined by counsel upon issuance of a final parenting order.

[10] In addition, pending my trial decision, I issued an endorsement on July 3, regarding the 2024 summer parenting schedule for L.A. and F.A. I ordered that the children reside primarily with the mother and that each parent have three weeks of holiday time with the distribution of those weeks to be determined with input from the children and in accordance with their wishes given their current ages, ongoing therapies, and work schedules.

[11] The remaining issues to be decided as confirmed by counsel in their correspondence of June 17, 2024, are:

a. Decision-making responsibility for L.A. and F.A.; b. Parenting time for the school year, for summer holidays going forward, and for unresolved holidays for L.A. and F.A.; c. Parenting exchanges and travel with children; d. Clauses related to parenting courses; e. The mother’s claim for $20,000 in savings as of the date of marriage; and f. The father’s request for redistribution and valuation of household items.

Summary of my findings

[12] Upon consideration of the whole of the evidence, I find it is in the children’s best interests that:

1. L.A. and F.A. continue to reside primarily with their mother;
2. the mother have sole decision-making responsibility on the children’s education, day to day schooling, and programming and therapies for autism;
3. the parents have joint decision-making on all other issues upon consultation with each other and the children, but if after consultation the parents are unable to decide, the mother will make the final decision;
4. during the school year, the father will have parenting time with L.A. and F.A. on alternative weekends and one alternate week night with the possibility of modification should either child request additional time with their father and upon agreement by the parents.
5. that each parent have three weeks of holiday time with L.A. and F.A. in the summer with the distribution of those weeks to be determined with input from the children and in accordance with their wishes given their current ages, ongoing therapies, and work schedules.

[13] While I have considered all the best interests factors in arriving at this decision, I have accorded considerable weight to the views and preferences of the children. Both children clearly expressed to Ms. Morinville a desire to spend more time in their mother’s care. While I appreciate the father has made himself more available post-separation to care for the children, I am not persuaded based on the trial evidence that the children’s wishes and personal circumstances have changed since their interviews. Furthermore, I have considered that L.A. is approaching 18 and will soon be in a position to make his own decisions on matters of importance to him. F.A. is now 15 years of age and able to express her preferences should she wish to spend more time with her father.

[14] In addition, I find that the parents are not always able to effectively communicate on matters relating to L.A. and F.A. and this has emotionally impacted the children. This is because of their unresolved issues around historical family violence which has eroded the trust between them. I find that while the father has been engaged with the children’s lives, the mother has been their primary caregiver since birth. Despite her exceptional academic credentials, the mother stayed home full-time with the children because of their special needs. She educated herself on the subject of autism and diligently pursued whatever resources and funding she could to provide all her children with the therapies and support programs they needed to manage their condition. Even post-separation, the mother is acutely alert to L.A. and F.A.’s special needs. Therefore, I find she is better able to manage their full-time care particularly while they are in school. Her plan of care prioritizes the children’s needs in their final years of high school following which she hopes to return to the workforce. For all these reasons, I find that the mother is best placed to make decisions regarding the children’s daily schooling and autism related programming and therapies. I also find that granting sole-decision-making to her for these specific areas will minimize parental conflict and the consequent risk of emotional harm to the children.

[15] Detailed reasons for my decision are set out below. All legislative references are to the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp), as am (DA), unless otherwise stated.

Evidence and credibility findings

[16] In assessing credibility, I must consider the consistency of evidence internally and externally, corroboration by witnesses and other sources of information, demeanour and manner of presentation, motive to lie or minimize evidence, opportunity to observe, outside influences on memory, and common sense to determine what findings I make: McBennett v Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610 at para 41. In using my common sense, I remind myself that I must be careful to avoid reliance on myths and stereotypes about the manner in which allegedly abused and controlled persons can be expected to act: R.L v M.F., 2023 ONSC 2885 at para 124.

[17] I must also consider the notion that credibility is not an all or nothing idea. I am not required to believe or disbelieve a witness’s testimony in its entirely. I may believe none, part, or all of a witness and may attach different weight to the different parts of their testimony.

[18] The mother and father each testified for several days and filed over a 100 exhibits collectively in support of their respective positions.

[19] Counsel for the father devoted 22 pages in her closing submissions to suggest that there were issues with the mother’s credibility. I did not find that to be case. Counsel cited large excerpts of witness evidence highlighting their observations of the father’s role in caring for the children, but this evidence does not undermine the mother’s credibility. The mother does not deny that the father played a role in the children’s care, but disputes that it was equal to hers.

[20] While there were some instances, as discussed below, where I found the mother had minimized her conduct in the events in question, I found the mother to be a highly credible witness. Much of her witness testimony on the critical events in their lives was corroborated by other witnesses including the father and children. Her evidence at trial was also consistent with her evidence to Ms. Morinville.

[21] I found the mother to be calm and soft-spoken, but also highly articulate. The mother listened to the questions carefully, and in fact, so well that in one instance she asked counsel to repeat the question because their use of the double negative could change the meaning of the question. Her memory was very sharp. She provided clear answers and was able to recall events with considerable detail.

[22] I found the father to be an intelligent and honest witness. The father took considerably longer to answer questions and became emotionally distraught on several occasions during his testimony. In doing so I do not find he was trying to be evasive. Rather, I found the father was cautious and wanted to ensure that his answers were factually accurate. When confronted with tough questions including those related to domestic violence, his trip to B.C., or the events preceding and after separation, the father did not deny the events occurred, but his recall for detail was less than that of the mother.

[23] In short, I found both parents to be honest witness, but where there were discrepancies in the evidence, I preferred the mother’s account as it was often corroborated by other witnesses including the children. Ultimately, however, I find that this case does not turn on the father’s credibility. The father was trying to be truthful and acknowledged his conduct in events involving the mother and children, but I found he lacked considerable insight into how his conduct could emotionally harm others. This lack of insight resulted in harm to both the mother and the children and consequently, is a factor that has to be considered in determining a parenting plan that is in L.A. and F.A.’s best interests.

[24] In addition to their own testimony, the parties relied on affidavit or viva voce evidence of numerous witnesses. I have addressed the credibility of these witnesses if and when referring to their evidence below. The witnesses included:

a. On behalf of the mother: Heather Lim, Elaine Bissonnette, James Karpa-Bomhof, and Wilma Runia. b. On behalf of the father: Peter Pulsifier, Kumiko Murasugi, Carina Jahani, Maria Bruinsma, Anna Dominique, Annette Femma de Boer, Jonathan Patrick, and Pastors Craig Hoekema and Ron Hosmar of the Calvin Christian Reform Church (“Church”).

Issue 1: What parenting order is in the best interests of L.A. and F.A.?

[25] There are no shared parenting presumptions. The primary criterion in determining a parenting order on an interim or final basis is the best interests of the child: Section 16(1) DA.

[26] In considering the children’s best interests, the court must give primary consideration to the children’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being while also considering all factors related to the circumstances of the children: ss. 16(2) and 16(3) DA; see also S.S. v R.S., 2021 ONSC 2137 para 30.

[27] Section 16(3) DA lists the best interests factors that must be considered as follows:

Factors to be considered

16(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.

[28] The court has considerable flexibility and discretion in crafting a parenting plan. The best interests factors constitute a non-exhaustive list of considerations each of which is to be considered but may be differently weighed. Each plan must be crafted in accordance with the specific needs of the children and circumstances of the family keeping in mind that the key is what is in the best interests of the children and not the parents. The exercise is well articulated by the Honourable Justice Chappel in McBennett v Danis at para 93:

The wide array of factors relevant to the best interests analysis under the Divorce Act allows for a uniquely tailored analysis of the parenting issues, woven from the particular condition, means, needs and circumstances of the child whose well-being is under consideration. The factors that the court should focus on in carrying out the best interests assessment, and the weight that should be accorded to each factor, will vary depending on the unique features of every child and case. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that the analysis of the child’s best interests in the context of parenting disputes must be undertaken from the lens of the child rather than from the parents’ perspective; parental preferences and rights do not play a role in the analysis except to the extent that they are necessary to ensure the best interests of the child (Young, at paras. 74 and 202; Gordon, at pp. 50, 54, 68). All parties bear the onus of demonstrating where the best interests of the child lie (Persaud v. Garcia-Persaud, 2009 ONCA 782 (C.A.)).

[29] I have considered all the best interest factors in arriving at my decision, but focus below on those which I find are highly relevant to this motion, sometimes collectively, and not necessarily in the order in which they are listed in the legislation.

[30] I begin below with the factor of family violence because I find the intimate partner violence experienced by the mother in the early years of the parties’ marriage significantly influenced the trust relationship between the parties and consequently, impacted their ability to effectively co-parent their children.

Family Violence

Law

[31] Family violence is a significant factor impacting the best interests of the child test: Barendregt v Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22 at para 146. It is well recognized that harm to children can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath or hearing about it: Barendregt para 143.

[32] Section 2(1) DA defines family violence as any conduct by a family member toward another family member that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person – and in the case of a child, the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct. Family violence includes physical, psychological, and sexual abuse as well as threats or actual harm to persons or property. The conduct need not constitute criminal conduct.

[33] Section 16(4) DA states that in considering the impact of any family violence pursuant to s. 16(3)(j) DA, the court is to 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 children or whether the children are directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence; d. The physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the children; e. Any compromise to the safety of the children or other family member; f. Whether the family violence causes the children 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 children; h. Whether there is any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the children; and i. Any other relevant factor.

Domestic violence in the early years of the marriage

[34] The parties met while studying linguistics at the University of British Columbia. They were friends for four years but started dating in 1999. They married in July 2000. The mother completed her graduate degree in linguistics and applied to do field work in Iran for two years. She had travelled to Kuwait to teach English in 1998/1999. The mother received her visa for Iran just before the parties were married. At the time, it was difficult to obtain a visa for Iran, particularly for women. The father agreed to attend with her on a spousal visa.

[35] The parties resided in the southern city of Shiraz. Both parents acknowledged the stresses of their new environment. The parties were immersed in a highly different culture and confined to close quarters in a university guesthouse which had neither its own bathroom nor kitchen. The physical abuse began within two months of their marriage.

[36] The first incident of abuse occurred when the mother wanted to go to an internet café to send an email to her family. The parties had only one computer which they shared. The father would not let her go out. He punched her in the face, pushed her onto the floor, and kicked her in the stomach. She tried to run out of the room, but he blocked her and held her down. She ran into the corner and curled up into a ball where he continued to punch her. He then locked the room and left her for what she believes was two days. Without a bathroom available to her, she was left to pee in a container. There was a balcony, and she did try to call for help. When the father returned to the residence, she had a black eye, and he told her to wear make up to cover it. After that incident, she testified the father continued to hit her but would do so in the back of her head and stomach so that the bruises would not show.

[37] The mother was physically hurt and could not believe what was happening to her. She had no idea that he could be like this because she had never experienced any violence before their marriage. She acknowledged that she had a certain idea in her mind of what kind of people were abusive, and she did not think that somebody she knew intimately would be such a person. She felt she did not really know the father, but at the same time did what he wanted so he would not hurt her anymore. She sought help from the local police, but they would not assist her. She told the guesthouse manager, but his wife was in the same situation as her and being violated.

[38] In addition to the assaults, the mother came to realize how controlling the father was. For example, she always kept a personal journal. She did not write about the abuse, but believed the father was worried that she would say something about it. He asked to read her journal. When she refused, she claims he pushed a chair on which she was seated backwards until her head was on the floor and strangled her neck. She passed out. When she awoke, he was gone.

[39] The father recalls two incidents. He recalls her trying to go out the first time and that he did not want her to because she was complaining of being harassed. He recalls that he slapped and pushed her. He remembers that when he returned later she would not let him come back into the room. He acknowledged there was a bruise where he had hit her. Two days later when she wanted to go out to an internet café he did not want her to go so he stood in her way again. She started to scream and he put her hand on her mouth and she could not breath. They fell on the floor. She eventually left the room. They spoke to the police and family they were residing with. The father testified that he had not been violent before. He knew he had done wrong and did not have the personal resources to deal with the situation.

[40] While the mother had a two-year visa, the parties left after one year. They were called into the International University and told that they were disturbing guests and had to leave. She was in some respects relieved because her hope was to get help in Canada.

[41] When the parties returned to Canada, they moved into a one bedroom suite. The mother was five months pregnant. She claimed the father continued to be moody and violent. The parties were living in Langley, B.C. at the time. One day he refused to let her go out. He put a chair against the door. She called 911. He grabbed the phone while also hitting her, but she managed to get to the bathroom and locked the door. Unbeknownst to her, the father told the police that she was suicidal. The police took her to a hospital overnight to be assessed by a psychiatrist. She spoke to the psychiatrist about her experiences with the father. The psychiatrist advised her to go to a woman’s shelter and take an assertiveness course. He told her that she was also likely suffering from PTSD from the earlier violence she experienced and to obtain treatment for it. The psychiatrist informed the father to take an anger management course. Much of the information reported by mom was set out in a report from Langley Memorial Hospital.

[42] The father did not deny the incident but testified that the fight arose because she said words to the effect of her life was not worth living. She locked herself in the bathroom and he called the police because he was worried she would harm herself. The police took her to the hospital and psychiatric ward. After a few days, the doctor spoke to him and told him the mother had reported the abuse. The doctor recommended he take an anger management course. The father acknowledged that he took a 23-week anger management course in B.C. which he attended once a week as suggested by the psychiatrist due to the incidents in Iran. He learned comping mechanisms for his anger including taking responsibility for his own actions. He acknowledges his memory of past events is limited.

[43] The mother claims the father did not allow her to take an assertiveness course or obtain professional counselling for domestic abuse. Instead, the parties went to Christian marriage counselling. The father insisted that they go together. According to the mother, the father did not mention the abuse during the counselling. In his view, counselling was about communication, forgiveness, and keeping the marriage together. The mother acknowledged that the father did write a letter of apology and said sorry, but at the same time blamed her in the letter for getting him stressed. The mother feared that he would repeat his behaviour if he became stressed again. The father acknowledged the counselling was with Christian counsellors, but indicated that when the subject of the abuse came up, the mother shut down. He disputes he prevented the mother from attending counselling on her own.

[44] After their first child R.A. was born, the relationship was still fraught with tension. There were the stresses and challenges of a new newborn. The mother experienced a fourth degree tear while giving birth and was in a lot of pain. The father acknowledged this. She could not sit to feed the child and did not have anywhere to sleep and so one time in the middle of the night, she went to a hotel where she fed the child and slept comfortably. The father informed the police she had abducted the child, and they questioned her upon her return. She told them she had just gone to the hotel to get some sleep. She did not tell them about the abuse. The father acknowledged that it was in the realm of possibility that he called the police if she took R.A. to a hotel as that was indicative of the state of their marriage at the time.

[45] In 2003, the father received an offer from Wycliff to go to Chad and Cameroon in 2003. At the time, the parties had a second child N.A. The mother did not want to go to Chad. She entered into an agreement with the father that should he become violent they would return immediately to Europe or Canada where they have family, and he would get help.

[46] Wycliff is a Christian organization that focuses on translating the Bible into different languages. The organization engages people, particularly linguists, to assist them with the translation of the bible overseas. The linguists are not paid a salary, but provided a stipend of sorts. The organization collected donations from Church members that would be used to sponsor a family living abroad such as the Anonbys. Both parents had to be members of Wycliff. The mother was largely responsible for writing thank you notes and letters to supporters.

[47] During the time in Chad, the parties lived in a remote area and in what the mother described as very primitive conditions. There was an outdoor kitchen, bucket shower, pit toilet, and no running water. Managing a household, i.e.. cooking and cleaning, as well as caring for a toddler R.A. and a newborn N.A. under these conditions required a lot of time and energy on the mother’s part. The mother claims she also had to care for the father who became sick with malaria, giardia, and an amoebic liver abscess.

[48] There was a violent incident in Chad where, according to the mother, the father became angry and threw their youngest N.A. a distance of about two metres. Fortunately, the baby was not hurt. The mother felt that the incident was sufficiently violent that as per their agreement, they had to return to Holland. The parties returned to Holland and the father took further counselling for about three months through Wycliff. The parties then returned to Chad for another year. The mother does not recall any other incidents while in Chad, but read in the Report that the father admitted to Ms. Morinville an incident where he pushed R.A. to the ground because she was close to a water cooler. The child was not hurt.

[49] The father told Ms. Morinville that he did not recall the incident with N.A. but does recall pushing R.A. away from a water filter causing her to move a couple of metres across the sand floor. He did this because he was worried she would touch the filter and get sick. The father later filled a mandatory survey from his employer in 2014 where he stated that he had spanked R.A. while living in Holland in 2010. The matter was investigated and deemed to be inappropriate parenting. The father acknowledged that this occurred, but stated the employer that required the counselling was Wycliff not the university. He admitted his wrongdoing and attended for therapy with Dr. Groves. He claims he referred to the parties’ marital issues in this counselling, but it is unclear to what extent he obtained treatment for domestic violence in those therapy sessions.

[50] After Chad, the parties returned to B.C. and then resided in Oman between 2007 and 2010. The father finished his PhD around this time, but continued to work for Wycliff. In Oman, the mother instructed the children at home and enrolled them in school when they returned to Holland for the summers. L.A. was born in 2007. She tried to do some field work while she was in the Middle East, but it was difficult because she was primarily responsible for caring for three kids. The father continued his research and published a book. In 2009-2010, the father obtained a job at Carleton University, and the parties settled in Ottawa, Canada. F.A. was born just shortly before in July 2009.

[51] The father acknowledged to Ms. Morinville and again at trial that there was domestic violence in the first year of their marriage in Iran, but claimed to Ms. Morinville that the fights were mutual and got out of control on two occasions. He explained that because he is physically stronger “he feels he had a higher responsibility.” When testifying about the incidents in Iran that he did recall, he became emotionally distraught and was apologetic about what happened. He also reported to Ms. Morinville that the mother was emotionally abusive. His description of their marriage was that they had a difficult first two years and last two years of the marriage and “limped along” in the middle years.

Life in Canada

[52] The mother acknowledges that there were no overt incidents of physical abuse against her upon their return to Canada, but she believes that the father would arbitrarily hit her at night while she was sleeping. She often slept on the floor. While there were happy moments, there were also tensions throughout the marriage. She testified that the father was moody and would get angry at the children if they were too noisy or disruptive. She could anticipate when he would become mad because he would clench his jaw and fists, walk fast, and bang things like dishes and doors. If they had a verbal disagreement, she observed he was harsher with the kids. She acknowledged that she continued to have nightmares over the years about the initial incidents of violence. There was one time, possibly in 2019 during home renovations, where she became so nervous that he would get mad that she developed a stutter for a few months. The father does not recall a time where she stuttered.

[53] When the two older children became teenagers, issues developed over meals and devices. The children had food sensitivities, but the mother did not want to cook four types of meals each night. There were disputes about how to discipline the children in this regard as well as the children’s use of devices. The Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) became involved. The two eldest children requested to leave home before they completed high school. With the assistance of the Church, the parents found home placements for their two eldest children. R.A. left in October 2019 and N.A. in October 2020. In the process, divisions developed between the two eldest children and each of their parents which then resulted in further rifts between the parents.

The father’s trip to B.C. without the mother’s knowledge

[54] The party’s relationship ultimately broke down in 2021 when the father went to B.C. with L.A. and N.A. without informing the mother. N.A. had moved out of the house by this time. The mother had not seen her family in three years, and the parties had planned in the spring of 2021 to go to B.C. together with the two youngest children to see both extended families. The paternal grandfather was dying. In April 2021, the father informed the mother that they could not afford to go. The mother understood L.A. and F.A. would be remaining in Ottawa for the summer and applied for government funding so they could attend special camps.

[55] However, on July 31, 2021, without any prior notice to the mother, the father packed the family vehicle and took L.A. and N.A. to B.C. The father secretly asked the youngest daughter F.A. if she wanted to join them. While F.A. wanted to see her grandparents, she refused to both deceive and leave her mother. F.A. witnessed her father drive away from the house while her mother was in the bathroom. The mother learned of the trip in a note the father left for her. He told her he had rented a car for her while he was away. The mother contacted the paternal grandmother who initially said she did not know where the father was, but then later indicated he was coming to see the family. She called Pastor Hoekema who told her it was “not a big deal.” The father returned three weeks later at which time the mother had gone with F.A. on her own trip. The mother acknowledges that she cancelled one of the father’s public presentations scheduled for late August/early September. While she provided an explanation for her conduct, I find it was likely done in part out of spite. However, I do not find this single problematic explanation undermines her credibility.

[56] As discussed in the Report, L.A. was led to believe by his father that his mother did not want to go to B.C. He found it confusing as he had understood from their conversations in the spring of 2021 that his mother was excited about travelling to B.C. to see her parents. L.A was further confused in his conversations with N.A. during their trip out west and even more confused by his mother’s reaction when he returned home because she was angry and did not speak to him for a few days. He only came to realize later that his father had deceived him about his mother not wanting to go to B.C. As Ms. Morinville reports, it was a breach of trust both against the mother and children.

[57] The father provided a different explanation for why he went to B.C. suggesting that the mother had initially agreed to allow N.A. to come on the trip but then changed her mind on July 15th two weeks before the trip around. It was important for him that N.A. see his father before he died. He testified he even called CAS and the police to see if he could travel with the three children and they told him it was a difficult situation.

[58] I find the father’s explanation does not accord with the evidence of either the mother, L.A. or F.A. The mother testified she never refused to have N.A. on the trip. She understood they were not going because of the family’s finances, and this was the reason she enrolled the children in summer camps. Furthermore, both L.A. and F.A. reported to Ms. Morinville that their father told them that their mother did not want to go.

[59] I do not accept the father’s explanation nor does it account for his deception. It is clear that his priority at the time was to do what was in his best interest which was to repair his relationship with N.A. who had left home and to do so at the expense of his spouse and the youngest children’s feelings. He deceived his son L.A. and F.A. about the reason his mother was not going on the trip. He placed his youngest child F.A. in the untenable position of having to deceive her own mother while he secretly planned and left for a trip. He utterly betrayed the mother’s trust in him as a co-parent by taking L.A. out of the province for an extended period without her knowledge of his whereabouts. While the father believes his motives were well intended – to ensure N.A. was able to see her dying grandfather – he had no insight into the emotional impact of his deceptive conduct on his spouse and youngest children. I find the father’s conduct constituted controlling behaviour and caused emotional and psychological harm to the mother and children: s. 16(4)(d) and (j) DA.

[60] Furthermore, the father’s response to the mother’s absence upon his return home was to call the police alleging the mother had stolen a vehicle. According to the redacted police reports provided to Ms. Morinville, the father called the police on August 17th to report that the mother had taken a vehicle without his consent and to complain about her having spent money on their credit card. Police assured him that the car was not taken without consent because he had rented it for his wife’s use. When the mother later returned home on the same day, the father called the police again complaining that the mother refused to tell him where the keys to the rental car were but upon arrival and a brief search, the police located the keys by the door. On August 18, 2021, there was a third call to the police. Upon arrival, the father answer the door. The mother locked herself in the bathroom and refused to talk to the police. The mother testified it was because she was afraid to experience what she had twenty years earlier when the police took her to hospital.

[61] In the August 17th report, the police indicated that the father did not seem concerned about this wife or daughter’s well-being. The redacted police reports suggests that the father’s primary concern upon his return from the trip was the status, return, and extra cost of the rental car with little regard to the impact of how his clandestine trip could have affected the mother’s feelings and the trust within their marriage.

[62] Counsel for the father suggests that the mother is not credible because she authored an email to 13 people on March 21, 2022, stating that the father called the police three nights in a row while she was sleeping and attempted to have her detained for suicide or auto theft following the B.C. trip. While it is correct that the police reports do not refer to the father alleging the mother was suicidal, the father acknowledged to Ms. Morinville that when he was asked by the police if the mother had a mental health illness, his response was “I don’t know.” This is not a reassuring response. It is conceivable why the mother would have believed at the time that the father was not speaking favourably about her to the police and why she would fear a repeat of her 2001 experience.

[63] In around this time, the father also took other controlling measures. He closed an email account that the parties shared, took the mother’s phone, hid the parties’ home phone, and effectively emptied and closed the parties’ joint bank account leaving the mother with little access to funds. The father transferred most of the funds from the joint account to his own including the $10,000 the mother obtained for the children’s therapies. The father told the mother to open up her own account. His explanation for taking these steps without first speaking to her, particularly as it relates to closing the account, was that he was concerned the mother was overspending while he was in B.C. and that they were running short of funds.

[64] The mother sought the help of Pastor Hoekema and a committee of elders at the Church, but the solution offered by Pastor Hoekema was that the father would be responsible for making the necessary family purchases. The mother found this difficult given she had managed the household and children’s expenses for most of their marriage and was more attuned to what the children needed and what funds were available for their programming. For example, the father’s conduct in shutting the mother out of the joint account resulted in L.A and F.A. missing some of their programming in the fall of 2021. At the time of trial, the mother was still trying to resolve how to reimburse the government $10,000 for the funds the family received for L.A. and F.A. which was not used for intended programming in the summer and fall of 2021. Finally, there was a period of time in the fall of 2021 when the mother had insufficient money and was unable to obtain a credit card. She had to seek financial help from her own family members.

The breakdown of the parties’ relationship Thanksgiving 2021

[65] The tensions between the parties continued into the fall of 2021, and on/around October 9, 2021, the mother departed with L.A. and F.A. to a women’s shelter. The mother’s departure was triggered by an incident that occurred the day before Thanksgiving. During this period, the father was regularly organizing his own hikes on the weekends with the elder daughter N.A., and these were excursions in which the mother did not participate. On this weekend, the mother had planned a hike with L.A., F.A. and Heather Lim’s family and had not invited the father. It does not appear that the mother and kids had been fully transparent with their father about the plans for the day. The father thought he was going to drive L.A. to cello lessons, but L.A. had decided he was not going to go that day. The mother and two children went into the car and the father followed. The father got into the back seat and repeatedly asked the children if they wanted him to come along and they said no. At one point F.A. became anxious because the father was raising his voice and pressing upon her to explain why she did not want him to come. F.A. ran out of the car and went into the house. The mother turned off the car and followed F.A.

[66] The father then got into the driver’s seat and started backing out of the driveway to take L.A. to cello lessons. L.A. who was 15 at the time was saying he did not want to go. When the mother came back out, she saw L.A. jump out of the side door while the car was moving. The father tried to pull L.A. back into the car while it was moving, but he got away. The father chased him toward the house and L.A. locked the door behind him. The mother called the police. By the time they came, the father had left the home. The police advised her to go to a women’s shelter which she did.

[67] L.A. corroborated the mother’s account of the incident with Ms. Morinville. He explained that his parents separated because of an argument with his father when he did not want to go to cello. He confirmed that he told his father he did not want to go, but his father tried to drive him anyway and also grabbed him when he was trying to get out of the car. He said he locked the door once inside the house so his father could not enter and no one told him to do so. He was afraid his father would do something, but was not sure what that might be.

[68] F.A. did not report about what transpired between her father and L.A. but she did confirm that her father was angry that they were going on a hike without him, that he entered the car, that she became increasingly upset when he leaned over her, and that she eventually went into the house. She reported her parents were not yelling at each other when this occurred.

[69] The father acknowledged the incident. He testified that he deeply regrets his conduct and has apologized to L.A. While I accept that the father did not intend to hurt L.A. and that his apology is sincere, I find that his conduct compromised the emotional and physical safety of F.A. and L.A. on that day: 16(4)(e) DA.

[70] The mother spent the next two weeks at the shelter. The father would not provide them with a vehicle and so the mother had to rely on family friends to take the children to school. Without a vehicle, the children were unable to go to most of their therapies and programming during this time which were critical for maintaining their emotional stability. James Karpa-Bomhof testified that it concerned him and his partner that the father could not realize how his decision to keep the car and insist on staying in the home in October 2021 would affect the children.

[71] The mother testified that the children found it stressful staying at the shelter. The parties attended for mediation. The father would not leave the matrimonial home. The mother could not tolerate the children being out the home, stressed, and emotionally dysregulated. Even though she had always been at home with the children, she agreed to a nesting arrangement where each parent returned to the matrimonial home. In her weeks away, the mother stayed in an Airbnb while the father found other accommodations with Church friends. The parties agreed to obtain a family assessment from Ms. Morinville. I find the mother’s time estimate of how long they were in the shelter is of no consequence in assessing her credibility as suggested by counsel. It is not disputed that they went to a shelter for a short period and it was a stressful time for all.

[72] For her Report, Ms. Morinville interviewed the mother six times and the father nine times. She conducted five observational visits with the parents and interviewed the children. In addition, she consulted extensive medical and educational reports about family members as well as CAS and police records. The parents provided her names of 35 collateral persons including friends, work colleagues and persons form the Church. Ms. Morinville interviewed a large number of these persons including the Church Pastors.

[73] Upon completion of her Report in May 2022, Ms. Morinville recommended that L.A. and F.A. be with the mother during the school year with the father having parenting time on weekends and one night a week. She recommended the parents have a week on/week off schedule in the summer when the father would be more available. She recommended the mother have decision-making on all issues but religion which was of particular importance to the father.

[74] Ms. Morinville recommended that both parties obtain treatment and take parenting programs. With respect the mother, she recommended that she undergo counselling for her PTSD from the domestic violence experienced and address her withdrawal responses. With respect to the father, Ms. Morinville recommended that he work with a therapist to express empathy toward other and with a therapist or faith based leaders to explore the concept of head of household and the impact of that belief on his intimate relationships and parenting. Ms. Morinville also recommended the father attend specific education workshops on parenting adolescents, particularly those related to children with autism. Finally, Ms Morinville recommended that both parents complete testing to determine if they are on the autism spectrum and if so, to canvass the resources available to them.

[75] Both parents have taken the parenting courses suggested. The mother is undergoing treatment for the mental health concerns identified and acknowledges her withdrawal responses were not healthy for the family. The mother has taken the Report to heart and has focused on adopting the recommendations therein.

[76] While the father has taken parenting courses and is seeing a therapist, he takes issue with some of Ms. Morinville’s findings and recommendations regarding his mental health. The father also disagrees with the recommendations around parenting time. He seeks joint decision-making on all issues and equal parenting time with L.A. and F.A. throughout the year.

[77] In the summer of 2022, a further conflict ensued between the parents when the father wanted to F.A. to travel to attend his father’s funeral in B.C. Still upset about the previous year’s trip, the mother drafted a travel agreement. While the mother’s conditions for travel were reasonable, the mother unfortunately used language in the preamble that “Erik has terrorised Christina and betrayed her trust by threatening to take the children away…” and referred to the circumstances of the previous year’s trip. The father would not sign the travel agreement. Worried the father would travel with the children again to B.C. without her consent, the mother brought an interim motion. The parties could not arrive at an agreement on travel. Upon hearing the motion, Audet J issued an interim order setting out conditions for F.A.’s travel specifically to B.C. including make up time for the mother.

[78] Following the issuance of the Report, the father would not agree to the parenting schedule proposed by Ms. Morinville. The mother brought a motion resulting in the current parenting schedule issued by Minnema J in March 2023 where the children reside primarily with her, and the father has parenting time on alternative weekends and one overnight on alternative weeks. Minnema J granted the parties joint decision-making responsibility on all issues.

[79] Finally, the father alleges in his affidavit January 6, 2023, that he has been emotionally abused by the mother throughout the marriage. At the time of the writing of his affidavit, he was attending a recovery program for male survivors of intimate partner abuse at the Canadian Centre for Men and Families. As examples of emotional abuse, the father argues that the mother has accused of him untrue things like adultery (the mother denies this except that she was upset when he viewed pornography), that she is often unwilling to communicate and discuss things with him (she acknowledges she often withdraws to avoid argument), that she would bring up past incidents to hurt him, and that she engaged in a litany of various passive aggressive behaviours like turning lights on and off and throwing away photos of people that were special to him.

[80] The mother was not cross-examined on each of these incidents. Where she was, she often denied the behaviour or provided an explanation. Furthermore, it is difficult to discern if some of these behaviours such as her withdrawal were the result of her continued struggle with the effects of the family violence in the early years of the marriage. I do accept that in the mother’s correspondence to friends and family members just before and after separation, the mother expressed considerable anger and disdain toward the father. However, this was at a juncture when she had experienced a significant breach of trust by the father and the causes for the marital breakdown were coming to a head. Those acrimonious sentiments, however, were not present in her correspondence prior to the spring of 2021 and the parties’ correspondence prior to that period was largely respectful. For these reasons, I am not prepared to find that the mother emotionally abused the father throughout the marriage as he suggests.

Conclusion on family violence

[81] I accept the mother’s evidence of the physical violence she experienced in her early years of marriage. Her testimony was consistent with what she told Ms. Morinville. It was corroborated by the medical report from B.C. She did not exaggerate the extent of the violence and was clear that the physical violence stopped upon their return to live in Canada permanently. The father did not deny that he had been physically violent with the mother, but had less recall of the details of the violence experienced in Iran, Chad, and B.C.

[82] I find that while the father did not engage in any overt physical violence upon the parties return to Canada, his conduct from those initial years left untreated undermined the parents’ trust in one another. Of particular concern is the father’s conduct in the final years of the marriage wherein he demonstrated considerable lack of insight into how his behaviour emotionally harmed the mother, L.A. and F.A. This includes, for example, his conduct in taking L.A. to B.C. without the mother’s knowledge; closing down the joint bank account and cancelling their credit card without informing the mother; repeatedly calling the police upon his return to B.C. over the status of a rental care and implying the mother may have mental health issues; inexplicably closing down a joint email account; and trying to drive away and physically restrain L.A. when he refused to go to a music lesson with him.

History of Care and Children's Needs

[83] It is not disputed that while the father was the primary breadwinner, he was also engaged in the children’s care. He attended pre-natal classes, assisted with infant care, and participated in the nightly bedtime routine while the children were young. As they became older, the father took them to activities such as rock climbing, ballet, swimming, choir, violin and cello lessons, Dutch language school, church on Sundays, and to religious education or activities on other days. Linda Wood, a long time family friend, provided affidavit evidence about the father’s active parenting role especially during the weekends, evenings, and summer holidays.

[84] The father also involved all four children in outdoor activities. For many years, the family engaged in outdoor hikes as a family, or the father would take the children alone so the mother would have some respite on the weekends. I accept the evidence of the father’s work colleagues Professors Kumiko Murasusi and Peter Pulsifer, and Carina Jahani that the father prioritized his family commitments and spent considerable time with his children on weekends and during the summers. The father’s friends Eric Hogertep and Jonathan Patrick also provided affidavit and/or testified that the father was actively involved in raising the children and observed him taking the children out for swims and camping trips and playing games with them at the Church. These friends were not in a position to speak to the mother’s similar commitment to her children since they neither knew her nor had they observed her parenting.

[85] I also accept the evidence of Maria Bruisma that she observed the father accompany the children to Dutch School on Saturdays and work alongside them in their activities. However, her observations were for a one year period and do not negate the mother’s equal involvement (she is of Dutch origin) in the children’s Dutch schooling over a 10 year period. As Ms. Bruisma noted, the whole family was very often present at Dutch cultural events and holidays.

[86] The father’s dedication to the emotional and intellectual development of his children was also demonstrated by the weeklong coming of age trips he did with each child. The week involved a wilderness trip that focused on the children’s spiritual and intellectual development. While camping in a wilderness setting, L.A. read the entire bible in both Norwegian and English and learned to recite famous prayers in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Given F.A.’s interest in writing, the father organized for her to write a series of 13 comic strips and they visited a professional author of children’s books. The father filed photos of these special week. It is evident that the children appreciated and enjoyed these trips. The mother was also supportive and would care for the other children during this special week.

[87] While the mother managed the children’s daily schooling and autism programming, the father was involved in the children’s schooling. Both parents attended school meetings regarding their children including parent-teacher nights. The father has continued to be engaged after separation. Anna Dominque, a French teacher at Redeemer Christian High School, testified that she was impressed by the father’s consistent involvement in his children’s schooling and noted he was one of the more involved fathers in the school community.

[88] The father was knowledgeable about the children’s medical situations, and there is evidence that he discussed these issues with the mother. He acknowledged the mother made most of the medical appointments, and he often watched the other children while she attended those appointments. However, he participated in medical telephone appointments and medical appointments when the family lived abroad. He also devoted considerable time in applying for disability tax credits for the children.

[89] While the father has been involved in the care of all four children, I find the mother has been children’s primary caregiver since birth. The mother effectively put her career on hold as a linguist to raise all four children since the first child was born. In the early years in Africa, the mother managed the household and cared for three infants while the father worked on his PhD. Upon coming to Canada, the mother continued to work primarily in the home but did continue some work with Wycliff while the father worked as a full-time professor. The fact that the mother engaged in some short periods of paid or unpaid work including two summers at Upsala University in 2017 and 2018 does not undermine her role as the primary caregiver to the children. She has effectively been and continues to be a full-time parent.

[90] The mother’s commitment to ensuring that all four children develop to their full potential is exceptional. She arranged for the children’s testing at an early age. Upon discovering her children had special needs, she dedicated herself to learning all that she could about autism and fiercely advocating for whatever resources were available to assist the children in their development. This is reflected in her resume which list dozens of courses she has taken on autism, mental health, and parenting children of all ages. The mother has read over 35 books, sometimes multiple times, on raising children and adolescents including books specifically related to Aspergers and autism. I would agree with the opening line of her CV wherein she states: “I have always taken my job as a parent as seriously as I do my research career (I have a PhD in anthropological linguistics and a Master in international education).”

[91] I find it is the mother who has been most involved in organizing the children’s programming and therapies. This was reflected in her efforts to secure $10,000 in government funding when she learned the family would not be travelling to B.C. in 2021 so that L.A. and F.A. could go to special camps. When L.A. was asked to stop participating in the youth program at the Church by Pastor Hosmar, it was the mother who searched and found a youth program at another Church so that L.A. could continue to nourish his spiritual development.

[92] Similarly, when the father indicated he wanted F.A. to be exempted from the human and sexuality health curriculum at school because he did not trust the school board programming would cover all topics with “wisdom, care, and sensitivity”, it was the mother who, as per her email to the father dated April 11, 2023, who engaged in long talks with F.A., explained to her what the curriculum would entail, and advised her to keep an open mind about different views on the subject. The mother was also mindful, and reminded the father accordingly, that excluding F.A. risked her being left in an awkward position within the classroom. The father did eventually agree with F.A. attending for these school sessions. I found this email demonstrates the mother’s ability to consult with and communicate with her children on issues of effecting them before arriving at a decision.

[93] My finding that the mother has been the primary caregiver is supported by Elaine Bissonnette, a Behaviour Consultant and owner of Building Blocks in Ottawa which provides programming for teens on the autism spectrum. Ms. Bissonnette has worked with the children for over 11 years and continues to work with L.A. and F.A. Ms. Bissonnette attests that she has known the mother for 11 years and that she was the primary parent for the children and sole contact person for their programs. Ms. Morinville interviewed Ms. Bissonnette and she provided information about the children’s strengths as well as the way in which the mother had supported their special needs since 2012. She described the mother as an expert in autism who has read extensively about the subject. Ms. Bissonnette had little to say about the father because she acknowledge she had only first met him in 2022 when he dropped L.A. at the program and had not had any conversations with him.

[94] Witnesses such as Elaine Bissonnette, James Karpa-Bomhof, Heather Lim, and Wilma Runia all attest that the mother is a sensitive, caring, and organized parent. I found them to be credible witnesses. The father did not seriously challenge their evidence.

[95] The mother’s diligent approach to parenting her children was encapsulated in the testimony of Heather Lim, a close family friend, who stated as follows:

[Mother] demonstrates significant self-education and self-advocacy for her kids. She participates in various classes related to special needs and autism. She is very attentive to the needs of her children. She is very proactive in developing skills, conducting extensive research on available resources, and maintaining a detailed calendar to manager her children’s activities address and manages potential anxieties associated with autism.

[96] Ms. Lim went on to testify about how well the mother handled difficult situations with the children highlighting her calmness and composure. She made the following statements:

When managing different behaviours that are bothering her kids, I have observed [mother] remain calm, composed and provide her children clear explanations and expectations.

[mother] has always been gentle and nurturing. I have not witnessed her losing her composure or saying anything negative about her kids. Instead she focuses on helping them navigate challenging situations.

[mother’s] parenting is consistent. She has participated in numerous parenting classes to gain more of an understanding on her children’s needs…and always maintains a warm and nurturing atmosphere at home.

[97] James Karpa-Bomhof provided evidence that he and his wife Alanna observed the mother to be the primary caregiver in the ten plus years that they have known the family. Ms. Morinville found based on her interviews of friends and family members that the mother was the primary caregiver. Minnema J arrived at the same conclusion when issuing his Temporary Order based on the evidence available to him at the time.

[98] Ms. Morinville concluded in her Report that when the first child was born, the parents agreed that the mother would stay-at-home. This was based not only on her interviews with the parents, but also family friends such as James and Alanna who were informed by the father that the parents agreed the mother would be home with the children while he worked. There is certainly evidence to support that finding based on the evidence heard at trial. The mother testified that the parties agreed early in their marriage that she would stay home while he worked. The father was not as equivocal in his testimony, but suggested that his views on the traditional roles of parents in a marriage would have influenced the parenting arrangement they were in. The father acknowledges his views have changed over time. He supports the mother’s return to full-time work, but it is not clear that he did so during the entirety of the marriage.

[99] I accept the father’s evidence that he was immensely proud of the mother’s academic achievements. There were several witnesses – Linda Wood, Professors Jahani, Mursugi, and Pulsifer - who attested to this sentiment and his support for her. The mother obtained her PhD in 2015 which she earned over seven years while raising four autistic children. The eldest child was around 13 at the time and the youngest child would have been around six. This is no easy feat.

[100] Notwithstanding the father’s support for the mother’s continued education, the father does not appear to have ever suggested to the mother upon her receiving her PhD that they consider an alternative parenting arrangement whereby she might work full-time as a professor and he take an extended leave and be the stay-at-home parent. In fact, the father wrote a letter to Carleton University asking if the mother could apply to be an Adjunct Researcher Professor of Linguistics (unpaid position) but indicated she could not be there all the time because of responsibilities at home. This suggests that there remained on his part an expectation that the mother could not take on a full-time position due to home and parenting responsibilities.

[101] An inordinate time could be spent on analyzing whether the mother’s role as stay-at-home mother was entirely by choice or by agreement between the parties, but I find little is gained in doing so. The mother was ultimately the stay-at-home parent. I find that this arrangement has been a significant factor in why L.A. and F.A. have thrived emotionally, intellectually, and academically, but is also likely whey they report that they are more comfortable in their mother’s care.

[102] While both parents are attentive to their children’s needs and have done a tremendous job meeting their needs, it has been drawn to their attention that some of their parenting methods are problematic. The mother emotionally withdraws and does not speak when she is upset g which the children find challenging. The children, particularly the eldest children, reported that the parents engaged in inappropriate discipline techniques. The mother testified that the father would wash the children’s mouths with soap if they used foul language. She observed him do this and agrees she did not stop it. She testified that the father would send the children to their room if they did not eat supper, but it was suggested that it was she who was depriving them. The mother testified she never used food as a form of discipline to avoid eating disorders, but she did insist that if the children would not eat the family meal she made, they would have to have a sandwich. She was not prepared to make four distinct meals each night. The father acknowledged that he would make the children eat supper leftovers the following morning as it was important to him that food not be wasted. Ms. Morinville pointed out to him that this might an archaic parenting method and more punitive than economical.

[103] The children were also made to stand in the corner for extended periods for misbehaving. Upon being informed by the CAS that these discipline methods were inappropriate, the mother testified she stopped it. However, L.A. commented to Ms. Morinville that the father continued to remove his phone privileges or make him stand in the comer if he misbehaved.

[104] Ms. Morinville reported that both parents have made efforts to address concerns raised by the CAS and to take parenting and other therapeutic courses to improve on their communication (with the children) and parenting skills. Notwithstanding CAS’s involvement with the family with respect to the eldest children, I find that L.A. and F.A. are physically safe in their parents’ care. L.A. and F.A. told Ms. Morinville that they do not fear either parent.

[105] Having said this, I find there are continued concerns about the father’s ability to effectively co-parent with the mother and the consequent risk of emotional harm to L.A. and F.A. I discuss this in the subsequent sections.

[106] The mother testified about F.A.’s special needs and particular sensitivities, including to noise. This was corroborated by the testimony of Wilma Runia, an elder within the Church. In September 2023, Ms. Runia became F.A.’s mentor through the Church youth program. They arranged to meet at her house because F.A. could not handle the noise at a public place like Tim Hortons. As a mentor, they have regular meets at her house. She also speaks to F.A. when the family attends Church on Sundays and they do activities together in the community like carolling and volunteer work. Ms. Runia testified that F.A. is a highly intelligent girl who is also sensitive and fragile. This highlights the need to ensure stability in her parenting plan.

[107] Finally, in assessing the history of care, I have considered the interviews of the two eldest children to Ms. Morinville. It is clear from the Report that the two older children have their own views about each parent and to some extent, have aligned themselves with the father. Ms. Morinville testified that while she reported their views, she did not draw any conclusions as to their relationship with their parents as her Report was in relation to L.A. and F.A.

[108] I find it concerning that the father would show R.A. the entirety of the Report and request her to provide an affidavit for trial without considering how such steps would serve to draw R.A. further into the parents’ conflict and potentially undermine her relationship with her mother. Nonetheless, I have considered R.A’s affidavit filed for trial.

[109] In his closing arguments, the father relies extensively on the experiences and perspectives of R.A. and N.A. in advocating for shared parenting. Having considered the evidence at trial, including the mother’s testimony, I have concerns about whether the eldest children have formed their views without having a full appreciation of both parents’ perspectives.

[110] More importantly, I do not find the experiences of the two eldest children’s experience with their parents reflects the experiences of L.A. and F.A. and therefore, I disagree with the father’s suggestion that L.A. and F.A. are at risk of emotional harm if they have extended time in the mother’s care. Furthermore, I find that the views and sentiments of the eldest children toward each parent are not shared by L.A. or F.A. who, as discussed below, expressed their own views to Ms. Morinville. L.A. and F.A. stated they love both parents, but feel safer and more comfortable in their mother’s care. For all these reasons, I have put limited weight on R.A. and F.A.’s evidence in determining the parenting plan for L.A. and F.A..

[111] Both parents love and care for their children and have been exceptionally involved in raising them, but I find that the mother has been their primary caregiver since birth. While F.A. is a teenager and L.A. is almost a young adult, their special needs still require that they have stability of care in their final adolescent years.

Children’s Views and Preferences

[112] Ms. Morinville interviewed L.A. and F.A. fives times individually and privately following her observation visits with the children and parents. She interviewed them about multiple topics including the events leading to the parties’ separation. While L.A. and F.A. are autistic, they are undoubtedly intelligent, articulate, and high functioning. Upon review of Ms. Morinville’s 11-page summary of the children’s interviews, I found both L.A. and F.A. were able to respond to questions clearly and intelligently. Furthermore, I found they both commented on the events leading to the parties’ separation and the parental conflicts without necessarily taking sides in favour of one parent or another. They simply reported the facts as they observed them and how the various events impacted them personally.

[113] I do not agree with the father’s suggestion that the mother influenced the children’s views. Ms. Morinville reported that the mother was oversharing information with L.A. and F.A., particularly with respect to the family’s finances. It was inevitable that the mother would have had to share some information with L.A. and F.A. to explain why she was moving them to a shelter or why they could not go to programming when the father closed down the joint bank accounts and there were insufficient funds. She also acknowledged she shared an email dated July 25, 2023, with F.A. which referred to the father’s physical abuse and emotional abuse, but explained she did so at time when she believed the father had already started talking to the other children about it. While it was inappropriate given F.A.’s young age at the time, the mother took responsibility for it.

[114] Despite these instances of oversharing, I do not find the mother influenced the children’s views of their parents. What is remarkable is that while the children reported things each parent told them, they questioned the information they received and did not necessarily agree or adopt everything a parent or sibling had told them. Judging from the detailed, intelligent, fair, and frank responses the children gave to Ms. Morinville, I found the views and preferences they expressed to her were genuine and reliable.

[115] It is clear from reading the Report that the events of the summer and fall of 2021, the parental conflicts both before and after separation, and the disruption of their homelife including the departure of their elder sisters, has been very upsetting for L.A. and F.A. L.A. in particular was still upset with his father about the events of 2021. He stated to Ms. Morinville that he is often angry at his father. The father suggests it is because the mother overshares information with L.A. including about the family’s finances and her lack of access to money, but a close read of the Report indicates that L.A. is angry about many aspects of the father’s conduct. Ms. Morinville also observed that L.A. was more oppositional with his father than his mother.

[116] While identifying shortcomings of each parent, L.A. and F.A. both expressed to Ms. Morinville that they loved both their parents. When asked more specifically about what type of parenting arrangement they preferred, they each expressed that they wanted more time with their mother and felt more nurtured in her care. At the same time, the children wanted to spend significant time with their father and have the opportunity to build their relationship with him.

[117] More specifically, L.A. who was between 14 and 15 at the time, reported to Ms. Morinville that he does not always want to spend time with his father. He attributed that in part to the fact that he and his father had different personalities and that his father often imposes activities on him regardless of his wishes. L.A. reported he did not like the nesting arrangement that was in place following separation and preferred to be with his mother 6/7 days of the week. L.A. stated he felt more secure when his mother was present and more comfortable in her care. His mother has less rules, is playful, and more open to his and F.A.’s thoughts and ideas than his father. He found his father to be more inflexible, less tolerant in general, and quick to judge or assume things. While he enjoys doing activities with his father, he finds the father has less regard about what the children want to spend time doing.

[118] F.A. was 12 at the time of the interviews. She was able to explain what she observed with respect to the family dynamics, conflicts, and events pre- and post-separation. She questioned both her parents’ behaviours as well as the things they said about one other. She reported what she observed and was reluctant to take sides. When asked about a parenting schedule, F.A. reported she was more comfortable in her mother’s care and presence but could not necessarily articulate why. She indicated her mother had been more present in their play and care than the father. While she did not specify a preference in days, she indicated she wanted to spend more time with her mother but did not necessarily want less time with her father.

[119] Ms. Morinville testified about the multiple factors that influenced the parenting plan she recommended in her Report. This plan was for L.A. and F.A. to reside primarily with the mother and the father to have parenting time on alternative weekends and one day per week followed by more generous time in the summer through a week on/week schedule. Based on the historical parenting practices, who was more available, and her proposed parenting schedule for the school period, she believed it made sense for the mother to have decision-making for education, health, and activities, but that the father retain decision-making for religious issues. In arriving at her recommendations, she considered the children’s preferences to have more time with the mother, that the mother had historically been the primary caregiver and responsible for managing the children’s school, health care, and activities, and information provided to her by the father. According to Ms. Morinville, the father informed her that he found parenting difficult while managing a full workload. He shared with her the challenges of raising four autistic children and managing their non-compliant behaviour. The father acknowledged he was sensitive to noise. He often preferred to be with the children one on one, or if the noise was too much, to be away from the home. He testified that during the pandemic, he used space within the Church as an office because the home was noisy and he did not want to be constantly telling the children to be quiet. Hence, it was the mother who would have remained home to care for and manage the kids.

[120] While the children’s interviews occurred between November 2021 and April 2022, I do not find the evidence presented at trial in the spring of 2024 establishes that the children’s views and preferences have changed. The father testified about the happy occasions he recently had with the children on birthdays and holidays, but this in and of itself does not suggest the children’s views have changed regarding their daily parenting schedule.

[121] Furthermore, while I agree that L.A. reported to Ms. Morinville that the blames his father for his mother’s “miserable situation” and that this could be based in part on the mother oversharing, it does not in and of itself undermine L.A.’s claim to Ms. Morinville that he prefers to be more in the care of his mother.

[122] I also disagree with the father’s assertion that because F.A told Ms. Morinville she wants more time with her mother but not necessarily less time with the father, that this warrants a shared parenting schedule. As Ms. Morinville explained, there are multiple factors that are determinative of a parenting schedule.

[123] The mother testified that while she did not discuss the trial issues with the children, L.A. and F.A. were aware of the trial. She testified that F.A. had expressed to her that she was worried that the schedule would revert to the nesting arrangement with her spending one week on and off with each parent. The mother testified that she had observed that both L.A. and F.A. were more anxious and emotional before and after their parenting time with their father. To manage their anxieties, she marks the time on the family calendar and reminds them when it is coming. She testified that F.A. had made her own calendar and sometimes crosses the dates that her father is to pick her up. F.A. has also indicated to the mother that she would like to be able to determine her own calendar when she is 16. The mother testified she continues to encourage both children to attend their parenting time with their father and offers suggestions to manage their anxieties.

[124] As stated by the Ontario Court appeal, while the children’s best interests are not necessarily synonymous with the children’s wishes, the older the children, the more a parenting order requires the co-operation of the children and consideration of the child’s wishes: Kaplanis v Kaplanis, .

[125] The children are 17 and 15. Their best interests require that their wishes be given very significant weight: Fraser v Logan, 2013 ONCA 93. In this case, the children have expressed a preference to be more in the mother’s care.

Communication and Cooperation

[126] The father provided evidence that he has as been able to make work adjustments to be more with the kids and support them. He has flexibility around the courses he teaches. As a result, he is more available for the children than prior to separation. The father was also approved for a year-long sabbatical with no teaching duties for the 2024-2025 school year.

[127] The father objects to Ms. Morinville’s findings regarding his mental health and has not followed up on some of her recommendations in that regard. However, the father has taken a large number of parenting courses including workshops at CHEO for parenting autistic children.

[128] The mother claims that there are continued concerns about the father’s ability to prioritize the care of L.A. and F.A. over his own personal needs and conflicts with the mother.

[129] While the father is caring and well intended, there have been incidents where he has exercised poor judgment. As already discussed, he took L.A. to British Columbia without informing the mother and misled the children about why the mother was not going.

[130] That trip was not the only time he deceived the mother. The mother testified, and the evidence was corroborated by Pastor Hosmar, that he and the father made arrangements to move the two eldest children R.A. and N.A. out of the family home without involving the mother. This was entirely unnecessary, and again, an example of the father’s failure to perceive how this would emotionally impact the mother and further escalate the conflict between them.

[131] The CAS addressed the concerns expressed by R.A. between 2016 and 2019 over disciplinary measures used by the parents in the home and found that while they were inappropriate and should be stopped, there was no abuse or neglect. When N.A. raised concerns in September 2020 about her mother’s refusal to speak to her and engage in counselling, CAS addressed the issue with the mother and closed the file finding that N.A. was well supported in the community and the mother did not wish to engage in ongoing services.

[132] While both parents were responsible for the ongoing parental conflict within the home and parenting issues related to R.A. and N.A., the father’s resort to plans with the Church that would exclude the mother from knowledge of the whereabouts of her children is concerning.

[133] Furthermore, there is evidence that the father through his discussions with the Church Pastors was, whether intentional or not, falsely suggested the mother had mental health issues and undermining her reputation within the Church. Wilma Runia testified about this.

[134] Ms. Runia has been attending the Church for 57 years and serves as the chair of the worship committee. She has observed the Anonby family at the Church and watched the children grow up over the years. Over the past few years, she got to know the mother better.

[135] Ms. Runia filed an affidavit in support of the mother. In her limited 2 ½ page affidavit, she describes her background, her role as mentor to F.A., the mother’s diligence in carrying out her volunteer duties, and her observations of the mother as a patient and caring parent. She stated that her interaction with the father was limited to their joint participation on a Church committee, and she made no comments about his parenting. Ms. Runia indicated in her affidavit that she has observed Pastor Hoekema provide ongoing support to the father but she was unsure whether the mother received the same support. In this regard, it is not disputed that the father participated in a men’s group with Pastor Hoekema on Thursday nights and regularly confided in him during their walks. Finally, Ms. Runia stated in her affidavit that she disagreed with Pastor Hosmar’s decision to remove L.A. from the Church youth group and suggested it perhaps because he did not have a strong understanding of working with autistic children.

[136] The week before she was scheduled to testify, Ms. Runia received an email from Pastor Hoekema wherein he stated that he had become aware from the father that she was scheduled to testify at the Anonby trial. Pastor Hoekema then proceeded to make very disparaging remarks about the mother. The email placed Ms. Runia in a quandary. She was disturbed by its contents but also the situation Pastor Hoekema had put her in. Ms. Runia was uncomfortable with having to file the email as an exhibit, and so I had her read it into the court record.

[137] In his email, Pastor Hoekema stated that he thought it would be helpful for Ms. Runia to hear a bit of his perspective of the family. He stated that he and Pastor Hosmar had written affidavits on behalf of the father. He noted that Pastor Hosmar had read his email before he sent it and concurred with it contents. Pastor Hoekema went onto provide his views on the family situation. He cautioned Ms. Runia about testifying about some of the behaviours she may have witnessed at the Church and implied that he and the Pastor Hosmar had some insight about the family situation.

[138] Pastor Hoekema then went on to state in the email that the mother has “some kind of personality disorder. The result of which can be very dishonest, manipulative and given to threatening, slandering anyone who gets in her way of what she wants.” He stated this was based not only on what the mother says about the father but because of what she says about him and Pastor Hosmar. It was Pastor’s Hoekema “conviction” that the mother has been abusive and controlling in the marriage. It was his opinion that there has been a serious injustice in limiting the father’s parenting time over the past year, and unless this is what the kids want, parenting time should be shared equally. Pastor Hoekema then provided his view on how the court would handle the matter as follows:

My fear is that the court sees such a high percentage of abusive husbands rather than vice versa. That the accusations [mother] has levelled against him unmask most of which I believe to be misleading and/or false, will make it hard for him to gets a just hearing.

[139] When asked about how she felt about the email, Ms. Runia testified she was “horrified.” She was stunned that Pastor Hoekema, having no professional experience, would accuse somebody of a having a personality disorder. She testified that she has shared many cups of tea with the mother and they have talked about a lot of things, but she has never observed anything like what Pastor Hoekema suggested. Ms. Runia then went on to testify, consistent with her affidavit, that from her observations and experience, the mother is kind, caring, sympathetic, addresses the children’s needs given they are autistic, and is a “fantastic mom.”

[140] Ms. Runia also clarified that it in writing her affidavit, it was never her intent to testify negatively about the father. She wanted what was best for the children and to testify about what she had observed. She acknowledged that while she had made some observations of the family at Church, from the vantage point of a 79 year old, she has seen lots of strange things including by parents and is not necessarily bothered by it. In this regard, I note that there was nothing in her affidavit about the family’s behaviour at Church nor did it appear she had any intention of testifying about any such behaviours as alluded to in Pastor Hoekema’s email.

[141] Pastor Hoekema attended court to testify. He acknowledged the letter was inappropriate. He apologized for the situation he put Ms. Runia in. He acknowledged he did not have the professional experience to make such remarks regarding the mother and eventually apologized to the mother for his remarks. He also acknowledged he did not have any sound basis for his comments about the justice system and apologized to the court for expressing such views.

[142] Pastor Hoekema provided additional evidence consistent with what he had stated to Ms. Morinville. The father had reported to him during the men’s group and in their personal conversations that the marriage was not a happy one. He encouraged the parents to seek professional help, but found that while the father was receptive, the mother was not.

[143] The mother’s testimony is quite distinct. She testified that Pastor Hoekema would only provide funding for marital counselling through the “safe church fund” if the parties attended together. She indicated to him that this was not appropriate because of the power imbalance in their relationship. She then wrote to higher authorities within the Church and was advised funds would be available through the Deaconist Fund. The mother believes it was this correspondence and advocacy that upset Pastor Hoekema. Her account is corroborated by her email correspondence filed with the court. Pastor Hoekema acknowledged in his testimony that he was upset by her correspondence to higher authorities as he felt it undermined their trust in him.

[144] Pastor Hosmar also testified. He confirmed he was the youth pastor at the Church and had worked with all four children over the years. The eldest child had issues with both the father and the mother. He acknowledged he did not know any specifics about the marital issues they were having other than what the father told him which was that it was stressful, the mother was provoking him, and that the mother was spending all their money. When asked if he was aware of the domestic violence by the father in the early years of the marriage, Pastor Hosmar indicated he learned this after the fact.

[145] Pastor Hosmar acknowledged he had limited conversations with the mother and had visited the family on only two occasions. He acknowledged he read Pastor Hoekema’s email and that he thought “it was not inaccurate.” When asked about whether Pastor Hoekema’s descriptions of the mother were accurate, he replied that “she has tendencies to lean in those directions.” When asked to give examples, he said it was nothing he observed and could not offer any. When asked what the terms personality disorder or PTSD meant, he tried to proffer explanations but conceded he is not a trained professional. Finally, he testified that he found L.A. difficult to manage in the youth group and after the discussing the situation with the father, he kicked him out of the group. He did not think it was important to consult with the mother in relation to this decision. I found his demeanour when testifying to be smug. He offered no apologies for endorsing the contents of Pastor Hoekema’s email.

[146] I found the evidence of Pastors Hoekema and Hosmar to be biased and unreliable as it relates to the mother’s character, mental health, or parenting, and I decline to rely on any of it. I do not wish for these remarks to reflect in any way on the teachings and members of the Church. It is clear from the evidence at trial that Church has been an important aspect of the children’s development, and this is a community they closely identify with. It was also clear that members of the Church generously opened up their homes to support this family in their time of need.

[147] What is disconcerting about the Pastors’ evidence, however, is the father’s role in undermining the mother’s reputation within the Church community and his failure to maintain the children’s relationship with their mother as a co-parent.

[148] First, the father was well aware of the parties’ marital struggles, but rather than engage in professional counselling outside the Church, he continued to confide in the Pastors with no regard to how this could, depending on what he said, alienate the mother within the Church. Given the limited conversations the Pastors had with the mother, one can reasonably infer that a lot of their negative opinions about the mother were formed from the father’s comments about her mental health. In this regard, I note that the father had both in 2001 and again in 2021 told the police that the mother was mentally ill and unstable which was determined not to be true.

[149] Second, the father did not support the mother’s inclusion in important decisions involving their children whether it was the meetings around the eldest children moving out of the house or L.A. being kicked out of youth group demonstrating his low regard of the mother as a co-parent.

[150] Third, rather than focusing on addressing the parenting issues and recommendations identified in the Report, the father shared the Report with the Pastors without the mother’s knowledge or consent. He then called upon the Pastors to testify. In contrast, the mother has taken the Report very seriously and has been diligent in obtaining the treatment and programming she needs to address her PTSD from the domestic violence, address her withdrawal behaviours, and improve her parenting. While the mother did ask several friends and Ms. Runia to file an affidavit and testify on her behalf, she did not share the Report with them to influence their testimony. This is consistent with the evidence of James Karpa-Bomhof that even when she was heading for the shelter, the mother refrained from speaking negatively about the father. Her focus was always on ensuring the children’s needs were met.

[151] Fourth, the father continues to share misinformation about the mother with the eldest children and continues to involve them in the parental conflict to the detriment of the mother. The father misinformed N.A. that the mother did not want to do activities or go hiking or travel with her in the summer of 2021. If this were really the case, the father would not have secretly organized a trip but invited his daughter and mother, including with supports from the Church, about how they could best organize such a trip. The father’s remarks to N.A. left the mother in the untenable position of having to rebuild N.A.’s trust in her because it was never the case that she held such feelings toward N.A. While not perfect, they have been able to restore their communication and relationship. One hopes the mother will be able to do the same with R.A.

[152] The father also wrote a letter to R.A. in attempt to reconcile with her. This letter was written two years after R.A. had left the home and coincidentally after the mother had left for the shelter. The father never disclosed the letter to the mother, and it is unclear what it said. Furthermore, he shared the Report with R.A. and then asked her to write an affidavit for trial without considering how this could adversely impact the mother’s relationship with R.A.

[153] Even after separation, the father continued to embroil L.A. and F.A. over conflicts about books in the parents’ respective homes. The mother had made the children go through the exercise of selecting which children’s books they wanted to keep at each house. Later, unbeknownst to the mother, L.A. took some of the children’s books off the father’s shelf and returned them to the mother’s home which upset N.A. when she visited. The father falsely told N.A. that the mother had directed L.A. to do this which again was not the case, further eroding N.A.’s relationship with her mother and embroiling further family conflict.

[154] I find that while the parents have been able to make joint decisions on a number of issues in the past, they have not resolved their marital issues. There remains a risk of continued parental conflict and consequently, a risk of emotional harm to the children. Furthermore, while the father has made efforts to take parenting courses, there are continued concerns even at the time of trial about his ability to perceive the emotional impact of his behaviour on others or how that conduct serves to undermine the mother’s relationship with her children. I find there are continued concerns about the father’s ability to effectively co-parent, to make decisions that prioritize his children’s needs and preferences over his own, and to act in a manner that does not undermine the mother’s relationship with her children.

Cultural, Linguistic, Religious, and Spiritual Upbringing

[155] Both parents support the children continuing in their current schools, programming, and participation within various church communities they now attend.

[156] Given the father’s Norwegian roots, the mother takes no objection to the father having additional parenting days to celebrate certain religious Norwegian holidays at a Lutheran Church in Montreal.

[157] The father speaks with the children in Norwegian. Both parents continue to foster their children’s linguistic and cultural development as evidenced by the fact that the children speak five languages and participate in a variety of cultural activities.

[158] There is no evidence that either parenting plan proposed by the parties would compromise the children’s cultural, linguistic, religious, or spiritual upbringing.

Nature and Strength of Relationships

[159] The parties have close bonds with both parents and appear to have relationships with members of both extended families.

[160] The father suggests that if he had the children more at his place, they would have more time with their siblings who are more apt to stay with him. I do not find this to be a determinative factor. F.A. and L.A. are both mature enough that if they want to make arrangements to see their siblings, they can do so whether it is at a parent’s home or elsewhere. Their schedules need not be tied to the schedules of their siblings.

Plans of Care

[161] As already noted, the mother seeks to maintain the current interim parenting schedule. Her plan is to primarily stay home with the children until they finish high school with a view to gradually returning to part-time and eventually full-time work.

[162] The father seeks shared parenting in the summer and a schedule that more closely approximates shared parenting during the school year.

Conclusion and Order on Parenting

[163] The father and many of the witnesses who provided evidence on his behalf stated that given the father’s significant engagement in the children’s lives, he should be accorded equal parenting time with the children. However, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt and as is consistent with the s. 16(6) DA, there is no presumption of shared parenting. As the court explains at para 134:

134. …some courts have interpreted what is known as the “maximum contact principle” as effectively creating a presumption in favour of shared parenting arrangements, equal parenting time, or regular access…

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

[164] In Knapp v Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305, the Ontario Court of Appeal further explained the maximum contact principle as follows:

The trial judge applied these principles and did not mistake maximum parenting time with equal time. Nor did she place an onus on the appellant to rebut equal parenting time. Her reasons, read as a whole, demonstrate that she was alive to the principle that a child-focused approach to achieving as much parenting time as possible with each parent is the objective of the maximum contact principle. It may end up being equal time. It may not. Each family is different, and the principle is a guide set out to benefit children. [Emphasis added]

[165] Upon consideration of the whole of the evidence and all the best interest factors, I find that it is in the best interests of the children to reside primarily with the mother during the school year and for her to be responsible for the decisions related to the children’s education, daily schooling, and programming and therapies for autism. I also find that it is in the children’s best interest to have parenting time with the father on alternative weekends and one overnight in alternative weeks during the school year. As indicated in the summary of my findings, the mother has been the children’s primary caregiver since birth, is very attuned to the children’s special needs which require stability of care, and is in a better position to manage the children’s daily routines and programming particularly during the school year.

[166] Ordering a parenting schedule that accords less than equal parenting time to the father does not diminish the role he has played in raising his children. It is clear the father loves his children and is dedicated to their well-being. Similarly, the children have expressed that they love their father and enjoy spending time with him. However, they have also clearly expressed that they are more comfortable in their mother’s care and given their ages, their preferences are entitled considerable weight.

[167] In addition, the parties have not resolved their marital issues, including those related to the mother’s experience of intimate partner violence. There has been and continues to be parental conflict which has adversely affected the children. I find the father continues, even at the time of trial, to lack insight into how his conduct emotionally impacts others. This makes co-parenting with the mother challenging. While I find that the parents would be able to communicate on significant decisions relating to health and religion, the mother is best placed as the children’s primary caregiver to make decisions on their education, schooling and autism programming and therapies. Historically this has been her role. She has demonstrated that in making those decisions, she discusses and carefully considers the children’s views. Allowing her to continue in this capacity is in the children’s best interests as it minimizes the risk of parental conflict and the potential for emotional harm and stress to the children: McBennet v Danis at para 96.

[168] The following orders are made on parenting which have not already been agreed to by the parties as per their Minutes of Settlement.

[169] It is ordered that:

Parenting time

1. The children shall reside primarily with the mother.
2. During the school year, the father will have parenting time with L.A. and F.A. on alternative weekends and on one alternative weeknight to be determined by the parties in consideration of the children’s school schedule, activities and preferences.
3. The parties may agree to modify the parenting schedule during the school year upon consultation with the children and any such agreement shall be confirmed between the parties in writing.
4. Should either child fall ill, the parent with whom the child has parenting time will contact the school or activity providers to inform them of any absence. Unless otherwise mutually agreed upon, the ill child shall remain in the care of the parent with whom they have their parenting time.
5. Each parent is responsible for transporting the children to and from school or their activities during their parenting time.
6. During the summer break, each parent will have three weeks of holiday time with the children in the summer with the distribution of those weeks to be determined with input from the children and in accordance with their wishes given their current ages, ongoing therapies, and work schedules.
7. Any summer holiday time period beyond three weeks, including proposals for study or travel abroad, shall be upon agreement between the parties and upon consultation with the children.
8. The parent proposing travel abroad shall be solely responsible for all expenses associated with travel and those expenses will not adversely affect any child support owing unless agreed upon by the parties.
9. In addition to the statutory holidays, Easter, and Christmas holiday scheduled agreed to by the parties, the father will have an additional 24 hours of parenting time with the children for Norwegian Church Services in Montreal four times per year upon consent of both L.A. and F.A. that they wish to attend such services.

Decision-making

10. The mother will, upon consultation with the children, have sole decision-making responsibility on issues related to the children’s education and day to day schooling. If any school activities fall on or could impact the father’s parenting time, the mother will reasonably consult with the father before granting consent to the school for such activity.
11. The mother will, upon consultation with the children, have sole decision-making responsibility on the children’s programming and therapies for autism. The mother shall take into consideration the recommendations of professionals where available prior to enrolling the children in such therapies and programming.
12. The parties will have joint decision-making responsibility on all other issues including health, religion, and extra curricular activities that are not specific to autism treatment. The parties shall consult L.A. and F.A. with respect to decisions that affect them. If upon reasonable consultation the parents cannot arrive at a decision on any issue, the mother will have final decision-making authority.
13. The mother will continue to make the children’s medical and dental appointments
14. The mother will inform the father of the appointment dates within 48 hours of making the appointment and the outcomes of the appointment within 48 hours after the appointment.
15. The mother will continue to take the children to their appointments unless either child requests the father take them or the parties otherwise agree.
16. Both parents will provide consents to allow for the father to contact the medical and dental professionals and speak with them directly should he require further information.

Extracurricular activities

17. The parties will, in consultation with the children and one another, determine which extracurricular activities (unrelated to autism therapy and programming) the children shall be enrolled in.
18. The parties shall share in the expense of all extracurricular activities in proportion with their income after any distribution of government or insurance benefits is paid out. This includes autism related therapy and programming.
19. Should any of the children’s extracurricular activities land on one or the other parents’ parenting time, the parent with whom the child is residing will determine, in consultation with the child, if they wish to attend the activity on any given day.
20. The parent with whom the child is residing at the time will be responsible for taking the child to and from any activities the children are enrolled in unless an alternate arrangement is agreed to by the parties.
21. The parents will provide full information about all institutional support that the children receive toward their schooling and activities to each other.
22. The parties shall provide each other with copies of all receipts related to the children’s activities, including for autism related programming, to facilitate payment by the father’s insurance.
23. The father shall administer the insurance claim as soon as reasonably possible upon obtaining the receipt and will reimburse the mother for any expenditures within 48 hours of receiving any funds for the programming by an insurer, CRA, or other provider.

Information sharing and communication

24. The parents shall not speak ill of each other in the presence of L.A. and F.A. or in the presence of their siblings R.A. and N.A..
25. Should either parent engage in any form of reconciliation therapy or counselling with any of the parties’ four children, they shall do so with a professional therapist (i.e.. outside the Church) and discuss the parameters for discussions about family dynamics and conflict with the therapist at the outset so as to minimize the risk of undermining the child’s views and relationship with the other parent.

RESPs and Documentation

26. The mother shall maintain the children’s passports, health cards, immunization records, birth certificates, citizenship certificates, and SIN cards and will provide the father a copy of these records.
27. Upon request by the father the mother shall provide an electronic copy of any documentation relating to the children.
28. The mother may apply to renew the Canadian or Dutch passports of the children without the father’s consent and will provide him a copy of such passport upon receipt. The costs will be shared equally.
29. The mother shall provide the children’s passports and health cards to the father one week prior to travel and the fall shall return the documents to the mother within one week of the children’s return from travel.
30. The parents will hold the children’s RESPs and RDSPs in an account that they may jointly access. Neither party will make withdrawals without the consent of the other spouse. The parties shall manage these accounts together and consult with the children on the use of these funds for post-secondary or other programming within one year of the children’s 18th birthday so they may plan their futures accordingly.
31. L.A. and F.A. will maintain their own personal bank accounts. Neither parent shall have access to their accounts except if either child authorizes them to do so.

[170] There was some language in the draft Order provided with respect to the two eldest children, but I decline to make any orders related to R.A. or N.A. as this decision does not pertain to them.

[171] Finally, the parties proposed language in the Final Order for attendance at treatment and programming. At this juncture, I do not find it is necessary to make such an order. Both parents have taken a significant number of parenting courses since Ms. Morinville issued her Report. In addition, Ms. Morinville’s report has provided the parents with tremendous insight into the family history and dynamics and what they can do personally to improve their relationships with each other and their children. In this regard, Ms. Morinville made specific recommendations for counselling and treatment for each parent to address their own personal mental health issues. The parents are encouraged to consider these recommendations if they have not already done so as they may assist them in managing their relationships with their loved ones going forward.

Unresolved property claims

Mother’s Request for Pre-Marital Savings

[172] The mother seeks to have the court attribute $20,000 in her RBC bank account on the date of marriage in order to settle equalization of net family property. The father opposes the request arguing that such funds were not in her account.

[173] The mother claims that following her year teaching in Kuwait in 1999, she earned a considerable sum of money which she deposited into her RBC Bank account a month before their wedding. It is not disputed that the mother added the father to her bank account on his request on/around the time of marriage so that he could pay off some of his own debts to Wycliff and to pay off a loan he took to purchase her a wedding ring. The mother does not have those bank records, but claims she had little by way of expenses while in Kuwait because her employer paid for her accommodation and flight back to Canada which is why she was able to put away so much money. The father did not visit her in Kuwait and did not know the terms of her employment or how she was paid. She acknowledged she omitted to put it in her Financial Statement, but she was self-represented at the time she was preparing it.

[174] The father disputes the claim. He argues they each had $5,000 to $7,000 in their bank. He had just come from Chad with Wycliff and she had just come home from Kuwait. They met up in England before coming to Canada. He acknowledges he borrowed $500 to pay for a custom wedding band. He argues that she sent cheques home by mail to her dad in Canada but the cheques did not make it. They were cashed somewhere, possibly in China, but were not deposited it into her account. He believes there could have been some fraud. He states they joined accounts just after they were married and with his salary, the purchased tickets for Iran.

[175] I find the father’s suggestion that the mother did not obtain what she was owed because of fraudulent cheques problematic. It is unclear to me how he would have viewed the cheques having been in Chad. I find it hard to believe given how sharp the mother’s memory is that she would not remember being shortchanged by her employer after a year of work. I find her version of events more credible. Furthermore, the father does not deny that they joined accounts on/around the time of marriage to allow him to pay off some of his debts which suggests there must have been a meaningful amount of funds in her account.

[176] Having said this, the mother is not able to produce a record of her bank statements and in the absence of such records, I am reluctant to attribute the full amount of $20,000 to her RBC Account. For this reasons, I find that a fair and reasonable to attribute $7,000 which is an amount the father does not dispute she had.

[177] There will be an order that the Net Family Property Statement shall be adjusted to show a credit of $7,000 to the mother on the date of marriage.

Father’s Request for Household Goods Reconciliation

[178] The father argues that he left the matrimonial home without taking much. He sent the mother various lists of household items that he wanted in June 2023, but was not able to resolve the issue with the mother. On December 27, 2023, the father sent the mother a 40-page color coded table itemizing 2,827 household items that he wishes to reconcile (Caselines B979). He identified the items he wanted in full or half and if they could not be shared equally, he requested that either he or the mother be compensated for half the value. The list was not limited to items of any significant monetary or sentimental value but included items as trivial and replaceable as a soccer ball, plastic cutlery, soap dispenser, and toilet plunger, to name but a few.

[179] After hearing my remarks about the scope of the father’s request, the father reduced his list for reconciliation of household goods to a 3-page list attached as Schedule C to his draft Order (Caselines B1726).

[180] The mother argues that when the house was sold, the contents were divided, and she gave the father several opportunities to pick up half of the contents. She also sent him detailed checklist of items in March and April 2023 of the things he has already removed from the house and that are in his possession. The father continues to believe that she has certain items, but that is not always the case. On January 15, 2024, the mother sent the father a list of items (Exhibit 18 Caselines A389) that he has requested and identified what items she has given him, what items were gone before separation and that she does not have, what she is willing to give him, and if she has kept the items, that she is willing to pay him for half the value.

[181] I make the following findings with respect to the father’s request for reconciliation of household goods listed in Schedule C of his draft Order.

[182] First, the father requests the return of items which he says were his before marriage or gifts to him during the marriage. These are set out in an 8-row table on Schedule C and consist of: Camping supplies, bronze arm bracelets from Cameroon, tennis racket, gold plastic suit cover, folding black suit tote cases, dishes from his grandmother, and a list of books that were gifted or he purchased from his school account.

[183] I find this request is reasonable given these were not jointly owned items. However, some of these items are listed in the mother’s January 2024 list as having been returned to the father or having been gone before separation. Hence, there will be an Order that should the mother have these items in her possession, she will return them to the father in 30 days.

[184] Second, the father seeks the return of a variety of items he believes the mother has and values these items at $3602. Only a handful of items on the list were valued over $200. More importantly, almost all the items have been accounted for the mother in her January 2024 list as items she has already provided to the father in full or half or which were gone before separation and don’t exist. It is unclear to me why the father is not able to locate these items. I have no basis to disbelieve the mother’s evidence in this regard particularly since she went to the trouble of preparing a very specific list in January 2024 of the items she had given him to resolve the issue.

[185] The only items on the larger table that I could not reconcile from the two lists were a 5x3x1 wooden utility shelf valued at $20, printed family photos, 3 small melamine oil/spice dishes valued at $4, and a paperback green NLT bible valued at $5. There will be an Order that should the mother have these items, she will provide them to the father in 30 days. She may provide reproductions of the family photos.

[186] Third, the father requests he be credited $13,000 which is half the monetary value of the items on the 40-page list (Caselines B979). I disagree. Upon reviewing the emails related to the division of household goods, the mother states she gave half the household items and furniture to the father before the sale of the home except that which the real estate agent advised should be kept for the showing, and she offered to divide the rest after. I accept her evidence and am satisfied that the mother has made best efforts to fairly distribute the family property.

[187] It is inevitable that following a separation and a household move, parties will have to refurnish their homes with basic items. There are costs to both parties in outfitting a new home. I find it is unreasonable and petty to ask the mother to financially reconcile each and every trivial item that existed in the home such as a plastic hanger. I decline to make such an order.

[188] Finally, on behalf of the eldest children R.A. and N.A., the father requests the return of certain baby plates, bowls, and cups. I find that R.A. and N.A. are adults and mature enough that if these items are important to them, they can make the request directly to their mother. The mother does communicate with her eldest daughters. Having reviewed some of the mother’s email communications to R.A. and N.A. post-separation, I am satisfied that the mother would respectfully and affectionately respond to any such request by them.

Costs

[189] The mother was the successful party at trial and is presumptively entitled to costs. The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs. If they are unable to, they may submit submissions, maximum of three pages excluding the Bill of Costs for my consideration. The mother may file her submissions by October 16th, the mother by October 30th and a reply by November 6th. These are to be sent to scj.assistants@ontario.ca and to my attention.

Somji J.

Released: October 2, 2024