Wojick v. Wojick, 2025 ONSC 1888
Court File No.: FS-24-0177-00
Date: 2025-03-25
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
Daniel Adam Wojick (Applicant)
Christopher M. Arnone, for the Applicant
-and-
Lindsay Kristin Wojick (Respondent)
Theodora Millward, for the Respondent
Heard: at Motions Court on February 20, 2025, at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Justice: S.J. Wojciechowski
Decision on Motion
Introduction
[1] This motion was brought by the applicant, Daniel Adam Wojick, seeking an order for temporary parenting time with the children of the marriage, Olivia Grace Wojick (born August 6, 2016) and Jack William Wojick (born March 8, 2020) (“the Children”). The motion also seeks a determination of temporary support issues.
[2] Both the applicant and the respondent, Lindsay Kristin Wojick, have been separated for a period exceeding two years. After being married for approximately eleven years and a bit, the applicant and the respondent separated on January 22, 2023. Since that time both have continued to reside in the matrimonial home with the Children.
[3] The applicant and the respondent have not advised the Children that they are separated, despite both parties essentially residing on different floors of the matrimonial home. The applicant has secured another residence which will accommodate the Children. Bedrooms have been set up in a rental property owned by the applicant’s brother, and this rental property is in close proximity to the matrimonial home and the school where the Children attend. The applicant has not yet moved into this rental property, however, because he and the respondent have been unable to agree on a parenting schedule.
The Parties’ Positions
[4] The applicant’s evidence is that he plays a significant role in the Children’s lives, as does the respondent, and is proposing a parenting schedule which splits the time equally between the Children and both parents.
[5] The respondent’s evidence is that she has been the primary caregiver for the Children. While she does not deny the importance of the applicant to the Children, because her involvement with the Children addresses most aspects of their lives—from arranging and scheduling extracurricular activities, to maintaining daily activities including morning and bedtime routines, getting to and from school, to making and attending at medical appointments, and meal preparation—her position is that the parenting time should reflect more time with her at the matrimonial home.
[6] The evidence of the applicant is that while he works full time, he is involved with the Children during their breakfast routine, attends parent-teacher interviews and school field trips, and spends evening and weekend time with the Children including settling them for bed in the evening and reading to them. He also acknowledges that the respondent is a good parent, is well bonded with the Children, but submits their respective time with the Children is balanced between parenting roles and family life.
[7] While the applicant is seeking a 50/50 arrangement with respect to parenting, the respondent proposes an interim parenting arrangement such that the Children spend time with the applicant:
- every second Friday from 8:00 a.m. to Monday at 8:00 a.m.;
- every alternating Wednesday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Friday morning; and
- every alternating Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
[8] From my review of the materials filed, and after hearing submissions of the parties, it strikes me that the respondent has played a larger role with the daily activities of the Children due to her work schedule which is more flexible than the applicant’s. The family roles adopted by both the applicant and the respondent have been shaped by this work schedule, one which has provided opportunities to the respondent to take on the responsibility for scheduling and organizing the Children’s activities and events. The applicant, on the other hand, has not had such an involved “hands on” approach to making these arrangements, however he has participated in the Children’s lives as much as possible and supported the family dynamic according to his availability.
[9] Both the respondent and the applicant strike me as being responsible, competent parents. Neither questions the other’s ability to provide basic parenting skills. The affidavit evidence reflects incidents of conflict, but this is perhaps not surprising given the decision of the applicant and the respondent to live together post-separation to lessen the impact of the marriage breakdown upon the Children.
[10] The evidence also suggests that some of this conflict has played out in front of the Children because of the actions of the applicant. Nothing in my decision should be read to condone this in any way, and the applicant’s conflict with the respondent or her mother playing out in front of the Children is not acceptable, and the expectation is that such conflict will not occur in front of the Children in the future. When insults or demeaning names are used as part of any interactions between the parties which occur in front of the Children, these only teach the Children how they should treat members of the opposite sex, and how they should expect to be treated by their life partners. This is obviously not proper role modeling for young impressionable minds, and the applicant is well advised to have a discussion with the Children apologizing for his behaviour.
[11] Once the applicant moves out of the matrimonial home, the opportunities for conflict between the applicant and the respondent will still exist—after all, they will be associated together as the Children’s parents for the rest of their lives—but should be significantly reduced. Aware that this decision on this motion is only to provide for parenting on a temporary basis, the conflict issue involving conduct which demeans and/or belittles the other in front of the Children is concerning, but not an overriding consideration as it would be for me if I were deciding a final parenting time order.
Best Interests of the Children
[12] The principles in the legislation and the jurisprudence make it clear that parenting time shall be determined based upon what is in the best interests of the children. Following Lang v. Qureshi, 2025 ONSC 585:
a) Best interests of a child is determined by focusing on the child, not the parent. The analysis should be centered on the rights of the child, from a child-centred perspective. See para. 26(c).
b) Primary consideration is to be given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. See para. 27.
c) A proper consideration is the willingness of each spouse to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse. See para. 29.
d) An assessment of the best interests of the child must take into account all of the relevant circumstances with respect to the needs of the child and ability of each parent to meet those needs. Each child deserves to have a meaningful and consistent relationship with both parents. See para. 30.
e) The allocation of parenting time must adhere to the principle that “a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child”. See para. 33.
f) A child focused approach is required, with an important goal of achieving as much parenting time as possible with each parent, so long as it is consistent with the child’s best interests. It may end up being equal time. It may end up being some other division of time. See para. 33(c).
g) Frequent and meaningful parenting time is necessary for the formation and continued development of healthy attachments between young children and their parents. See para. 33(f).
h) A young child with attachments to both parents needs sufficient contact with both, without prolonged separations to maintain a meaningful and close relationship with them. See para. 33(g).
i) The allocation of time must address both quantitative and qualitative considerations. Parenting time entails more than simply one-on-one parent and child interaction. It includes parental responsibility and involvement with respect to all aspects of the child’s life—throughout the child’s schedule—including school-related matters, extracurricular activities, and other events. See para. 33(h).
[13] Both the applicant and the respondent play significant roles in the lives of the Children. Both are good parents, who want what is best for the Children.
[14] More importantly, from the perspective of the Children, they have lives which depend upon the support from both the applicant and the respondent. At this time, that support is provided in different ways by each of the parties, partly because of the strengths each party brings to the table, but more because of roles which have developed during the course of the relationship such that the applicant and the respondent have responded to the needs of the Children based upon their availability to fulfill those needs.
[15] The evidence suggests that the Children have developed strong relationships with both the applicant and the respondent. These relationships are about to change dramatically for this family once the Children are told that their parents are separated and the applicant moves from the matrimonial home to the rental property. While this change will thrust the Children into a situation where only one parent is physically available at a time, the Children will need both the applicant and the respondent even more to assure them that they are safe, secure and supported despite the immediate, and hopefully short term, sense of loss and fear of the unknown caused by the breakdown of the family unit.
[16] Based upon the evidence, I see no reason why the new family situation with equal parenting would not be in the best interests of the Children. With both the applicant’s and the respondent’s involvement in their lives, the Children’s best interests on a temporary basis would be served by a parenting schedule which provides the Children with as much contact as possible with both of their parents.
[17] The extent to which this parenting regime becomes permanent will depend on the ability of the applicant and the respondent to take on the roles provided by the other during the relationship. Each will become responsible for all aspects of the lives of the Children throughout each of the Children’s schedule including home life, all school-related matters, the extracurricular activities in which they are involved, and all other matters involving the Children. For the moment, setting up a temporary parenting schedule which meets the best interests of the Children will set the stage for what is to come.
[18] The applicant and the respondent have not sat the Children down and provided them with the information about the breakdown of the marriage. While the Children might, in fact, be aware of what has happened, no doubt “saying it out loud” will provide the Children with a lot to process.
[19] As such, it would not be appropriate to immediately begin a 50/50 parenting schedule which would effectively displace the Children from their current routines and home life. A transition period is necessary for the Children to get adjusted to what will become their new normal, as well for the applicant and the respondent to figure out in real time what needs to be done in order to meet the Children’s best interests.
Transition and Parenting Schedule
[20] At the end of the motion hearing, I asked both parties if they wanted to make submissions—on a without prejudice basis to their positions—on a form of transition which could be put in place to get the Children from the status quo to what will be their new reality. I did not expect the parties to provide these submissions on the spot, and gave each time to consider my offer and get instructions.
[21] During the hearing, the respondent took the position that equal parenting time would not be appropriate for the Children, and indicated that she would likely not be making submissions with respect to what parenting might look during a transition period. No submissions were then received from the respondent.
[22] The applicant initially submitted that given the significant involvement he played in the lives of the Children, initiating a 50/50 parenting plan “tomorrow” would align with the best interests of the Children. However, within the time period I provided for additional submissions, the applicant did file a draft order which contemplated a transition period.
[23] It would not serve the best interests of the Children if they were expected to leave the matrimonial home, their bedrooms, their toys, their clothes, their neighbourhood friends and their parent the day after this decision is released. Ripping off the band aid is not an approach which makes sense in this situation. A transition period which allows for the Children to adjust to their new reality would be appropriate in order to lessen the impact of the changes which they will have to endure.
[24] The transition period proposal presented by the applicant is the following:
Commencing immediately following the applicant vacating the matrimonial home, for a period of four weeks, the parties will have care of the children as follows:
(a) On an alternating weeks basis, the applicant shall have parenting time with the Children:
i. On the first week, commencing Tuesday after school/daycare, until Thursday morning, when the applicant shall drop the Children off at school;
ii. On the second week:
- Commencing Monday evening from immediately after school/daycare until 7:30 p.m.;
- Commencing Thursday immediately after school/daycare until Sunday evening at 7:30 p.m.
(b) The respondent shall have the Children in her care during all other times.
[25] Commencing after four weeks has elapsed of the previous schedule, the parties will have care of the Children as follows:
a) On an alternating weeks basis, for a further 4 weeks, the applicant shall have parenting time with the Children:
i. On the first week, commencing Tuesday immediately after school/daycare, until Friday morning, when the applicant shall drop the Children off at school;
ii. On the second week, commencing Thursday immediately after school/daycare, until Sunday evening at 7:30 p.m.
b) The respondent shall have the Children in her care during all other times.
[26] Insofar as the shared parenting time schedule which would commence after the transition period, the proposal of the applicant is the following:
The applicant and the respondent shall have care of the Children on an equal basis, on a “2-2-3” schedule of care, as follows:
a. One party shall have parenting time with the Children for two overnights, commencing at the conclusion of school/daycare on Monday;
b. The other party shall have parenting time with the Children for two overnights, commencing at the conclusion of school/daycare on Wednesday; and
c. The first party shall have parenting time with the children for three overnights commencing at the conclusion of school/daycare Friday until the commencement of school on Monday.
[27] The two month transition period suggested by the applicant would be in the best interests of the Children, and the applicant’s proposed schedule for the first eight weeks is hereby adopted. In addition, while I might have been convinced that a week-about parenting schedule could work, the temporary parenting time schedule proposed by the applicant as a “2-2-3” schedule of care shall also become effective once the eight week transition period has been completed.
[28] For transitions of the Children which are not occurring at school or daycare, the party receiving the Children on a transition shall be responsible to transport the Children. For morning transitions, the parties shall use 8:30 a.m., and for afternoon transitions, 4:30 p.m.
Child Support
[29] With respect to the issue of temporary child support, the parties have agreed that their respective incomes are such that the applicant earned $68,316 in 2023, and the respondent earned $60,838 in that same year. According to the Child Support Guidelines, if the applicant were paying child support, the amount would be in the sum of $1,040.44 per month, and if the respondent was paying child support, this would be in the amount of $927.32 per month.
[30] A review of the parenting time provided by the transition period results in the applicant having the Children for 35% of the time during the first four weeks, 41% of the time for the second four weeks, and then 50% of the time thereafter.
[31] Accordingly, on a temporary basis, in accordance with section 15.1 of the Divorce Act and the Federal Child Support Guidelines,
a) Commencing April 1, 2025, the applicant shall pay child support to the respondent on account of the Children the sum of $1,040.44 per month which amount shall be payable on the 1st of each month thereafter until varied; and
b) Commencing May 1, 2025, the respondent shall pay child support to the applicant on account of the Children the sum of $927.32 per month which amount shall be payable on the 1st of each month thereafter until varied.
Costs
[32] If either party is seeking its costs of this motion, then within ten (10) days of this decision, that party shall file costs’ submissions which do not exceed three pages, double spaced, not including any documents supporting his or her submissions. The opposing party shall then have another ten (10) days to provide responding submissions, again not to exceed three pages, double spaced, plus supporting documents. There shall be no right of reply with respect to these costs’ submissions.
“Original signed by” ___
S.J. Wojciechowski
Released: March 25, 2025