Pressey v. Pressey, 2025 ONSC 2854

Court File No.: FS-24-00110377-0000
Date: 2025-05-12
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario
Between:
Donald Taylor Pressey
-and-
Jacquie Diane Pressey

Before: Fowler Byrne
Counsel:
Gibrian Malicki-Sanchez, for the Applicant
Stephen Codas, for the Respondent
Heard: 2025-04-03

Endorsement

Background

[1] The Applicant Father has brought a motion in which he seeks equal parenting time pending trial. In the alternative, he seeks a step-up schedule so that he will have equal parenting time by September 2025.

[2] The Father and the Respondent Mother have been physically separated since March 1, 2024, following a 15-year marriage. The actual date of separation is disputed.

[3] There are two children of the marriage, a daughter, who will soon be 15 years old, and a son, who is now 13 years old.

[4] Prior to separation, both the Father and the Mother worked full time and worked from home. They have different views of who was the primary caregiver for the children. The only thing they do agree on is that the Father took the son to his hockey practices and games, and he coached the team, and that the Mother took the daughter to her rep volleyball practices and games.

[5] The Father maintains that his marriage and family life was a “fairy tale”. He further maintains that the Mother recently developed mental health problems, that led her to leave the marriage. He speculates that the Mother is Bi-Polar Schizophrenia and experiences paranoia, as it runs in the family. The Mother denies any such issues. She maintains that the relationship had been deteriorating over the last several years. She has accused the Father of being controlling, threatening, and unfaithful. Both accuse the other of drinking alcohol to excess.

[6] It is agreed that on March 1, 2024, while the Father was away on business, the Mother and the children moved out of the matrimonial home and into a new home purchased by the Mother. Following this move, the children lived primarily with the Mother and a schedule was worked out that the Father would have parenting time on alternate weekends and a mid-week dinner. The Father maintains that this schedule was forced upon him and that he always wanted equal time with the children.

[7] The weekend parenting time with the Father did not last long. By April 2024, the children started resisting overnight parenting time with the Father. The children continued to see the Father, but only twice a week. The exact length of time of the visits is not clear. At times it is stated that it was for 5 hours per visit and at other times it is stated that it is just for dinner. The Father was restricted to two alcoholic drinks per visit. Again, the Father maintained he had no choice as the Mother dictated the terms and he wanted to see his children.

[8] In May 2024, the parties agreed to jointly retain Dr. Shely Polak, a highly respected social worker, to provide a Voice of the Child report. As Dr. Polak rightly pointed out, this type of report only provides the views and preferences of the children. She did not investigate the veracity of the statements expressed, nor consider it against the perspectives of other significant adults in the family, collateral contacts, or direct parent-child observations.

[9] This report, completed in July 2024, states that it is the children’s preferences that they remain primarily with the Mother and that their time with their Father does not change. The Father believes the children were coached.

[10] Both parents are critical of the other’s parenting style. The Father accuses the Mother of not caring for the children, not cooking for the children, and not paying enough attention to their schoolwork. The Mother accuses the Father of being verbally abusive with the children, being prone to anger, and unnecessarily controlling. She states he is not interested in the children and will not attend their extra-curricular activities.

[11] What is clear to me, from the affidavits of the Mother, the Father, and from the Voice of the Child report, is that these two children are far too involved in this separation. While they are obviously impacted by it, they should not be involved in the dispute between their parents and the accusations as to why the marriage ended. That needs to stop, and I made such an order on the day this motion was argued.

[12] The parties attended a case conference in February 2025. It was noted that the Father was not paying child support, although earning over $750,000 in 2024. The Mother has proposed an updated Voice of the Child Report, but the Father has not agreed. Reunification therapy for the children and the Father was proposed at that case conference, but it was not until the hearing of this motion that I learned that the parties were able to agree on a therapist. The parties should be engaged in that therapy at this time.

[13] The Father maintains that a shared parenting schedule would be more reflective of what the children were used to. He remains in the matrimonial home, which is a short walk to the children’s school. The Mother’s house is further from the school. He believes the only reason the children do not want to spend more time with him is because the Mother has turned them against him.

[14] The Mother argues that this motion is premature. The current parenting schedule is aligned with the children’s views and preferences. It is the goal of both parties that the relationship between the Father and children improve. The Mother argues that the reunification therapy should be allowed to move forward in order to achieve that. It would be counterproductive at this juncture to force the children into a new parenting schedule when the issues with their Father have not been worked out.

[15] While this decision was on reserve, and after being advised that the parties have agreed to proceed with reunification therapy, I ordered the parties to cooperate fully in the reintegration therapy and follow the recommendations of the therapist.

Law

[16] When making an interim parenting order, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage: s.16(1) Divorce Act. The Act then lists a number of considerations. The factors relevant to this case are:

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;
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 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;
s.16(3) Divorce Act.

[17] When considering these factors, I must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being: s.16(2) Divorce Act.

[18] While there have been allegations of family violence, there is insufficient evidence, or too much conflicting evidence, for me to make any determination on that issue at this time.

[19] Also of importance is that the court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents. Adult preferences or “rights” do not form part of the analysis except insofar as they are relevant to the determination of the best interests of the child: Churchill v. Elliot and Ward, 2024 ONSC 1907 at para. 33 (g) (citations omitted).

[20] As has been often noted by my colleagues on the bench, on interim motions, the court is usually confronted with conflicting affidavits which are incomplete and untested. The facts continue to evolve. As a result, a temporary order is meant to provide a reasonably acceptable solution on an expeditious basis for a problem that will be fully canvassed at subsequent conferences or resolved at trial: Churchill v. Elliot and Ward, 2024 ONSC 1907 at para 35.

Analysis

[21] As indicated, the children are 13 and 14 years of age. They are old enough to understand that their parents have separated and that it is acrimonious. Although not young children, they will still benefit from stability. To the credit of the parties, they have continued the children in the same school and continued the children’s activities, even with their current living arrangement.

[22] At one time, it appears that the children had a good relationship with both parents prior to separation. It continues with the Mother but unfortunately broke down with the Father. Despite this breakdown though, they still do continue to see him at least two times per week. The children appear open to an improvement in their relationship with the Father, telling Dr. Polak what they would need to see from the Father in order to move forward in a positive manner. Both want the Father to be kinder and less volatile during their visits and to not speak negatively about the Mother when they visit with him. They don’t want to hear about the conflict between their parents. The daughter states that she wants to move forward slowly to rebuild the relationship.

[23] Based on the untested affidavit evidence, the Mother appears willing to foster the children’s relationship with the Father. She has urged reintegration therapy. She has invited the Father to attend the children’s extra-curricular activities. While the amount of time the Father has with the children is insufficient in his views, the Mother has ensured that the children have consistent contact with the Father several times a week. It also appears that the Father texts the children without restrictions.

[24] The Father does not wish to attend any extra-curricular activities when the Mother is present. That being said, he is willing to enter into a shared parenting arrangement, despite his position that he was the primary care parent prior to separation.

[25] As for the history of care, this has often been identified as the “status quo”. The status quo may be established by reference to the parents' practice or the child's routine prior to separation, by any consensual arrangement made after separation, or by court order: Churchill at para. 37 (a); Gray v. Canonico, 2020 ONSC 5885 at para. 48; Falarz v. Gullusci, 2023 ONSC 2644 at para. 56. It is preferable that the status quo remain in place on an interim motion unless there is evidence that the best interests of the children dictate otherwise: Batsinda v. Batsinda, 2013 ONSC 7869; Papp v. Papp, [1980] O.J. No. 219 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 34.

[26] As further explained in Churchill at para. 37 (b), if a motion is brought immediately after separation, the court will need to determine parenting roles and the child’s routine while the parties were together, with emphasis on more recent patterns. If a time-sharing arrangement has emerged on a consensual basis since the date of separation – and if it is meeting the child’s needs – the court will be reluctant to change an arrangement which the child has become used to. But if only a short amount of time has elapsed between the creation of a new status quo and the hearing of the motion, the court will be more inclined to presume that restoration of a previous successful status quo is appropriate (citations omitted).

[27] In this case, the parties have lived primarily with the Mother for the 13 months since separation. They have told Dr. Polak that they are happy where they are and find it more peaceful. While I acknowledge the Father’s position that this parenting schedule was thrust upon him, and was in no way consensual, I must still view the situation from the children’s perspective. They have grown accustomed to this new situation. It is meeting their needs.

[28] Finally, I must consider the children’s views and preferences. They are clear. They do not want any change. They prefer to reside with the Mother primarily and continue to see their Father twice a week. To the Mother’s credit, she understands that such limited time is not sustainable or recommended over the long term, and as a result, has urged reunification therapy.

[29] I am not prepared at this point to find that the children were coached and coerced. They appear though, to be in the midst of a loyalty conflict. This sometimes happens when a family separates. That is all the more reason for the children to attend counselling and reunification therapy.

Conclusion

[30] For these reasons, I do not find that it would be in the children’s best interests to order that they immediately reside equally with the Father, at this time. To force them into that situation, which is clearly against their wishes, could end in disaster and potentially further delay any meaningful reconciliation with the Father.

[31] As for the proposed step-up schedule, in principle that is the preferable route. The best way though, to find a step-up schedule that will be successful, is to utilize the services of an expert who will work with the children and the Father to find a way to increase time with the Father in a way that will be sustainable and conflict free, in the long run.

[32] The parties are urged to not view parenting as a contest as between the parties. They are urged to view it from the children’s perspective. Parent-child contact issues are often not the fault of one parent. They are often the result of many factors. A separation causes complete upheaval in a child’s life. Children react in different ways. This is a period of great transition. Its effects can spill over to school, with friends. These are all factors that must be explored with a qualified professional. I urge the parties to look forward. Acknowledge that the problem exists, without blame, and focus their efforts on how it can be remedied. The parties, especially the Father, are urged to be patient. This may not change overnight. The goal is that this therapy is successful, and long lasting.

[33] Accordingly, I urge the parties to work cooperatively with the reintegration therapist and to consider and follow her recommendations. I will require the parties to return in several months to advise as to the status of the therapy. At that time, I will consider whether a parenting time variation is appropriate.

[34] Accordingly,

a. the children shall reside primarily with the Mother;
b. the children shall have parenting time with the Father for a minimum of two times per week, one of which shall be on the weekend and shall be for no less than 5 hours;
c. if one of the children has extra-curricular activity during the Father’s parenting time, the Father shall bring the child to that activity;
d. parenting time for the Father shall increase in accordance with the recommendations of the reintegration therapist;
e. this motion is otherwise adjourned to July 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., by Zoom, before me, to revisit this parenting time schedule, if necessary;
f. in advance of this next attendance:
i. the reintegration therapist shall provide a short report, no more than two pages, to provide the court with an update on how the therapy is progressing; and
ii. the parties shall serve and file a short affidavit, limited to 4 pages, regarding the status of the therapy and the parenting schedule;
g. If this return date is not possible, the parties shall email my assistant at scj-csj.general.brampton@ontario.ca to provide the dates they are available during the weeks of July 21 or July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., for the return of this motion; if this date is changed, a supplementary endorsement will be released; and
h. costs are reserved to the next attendance.

Fowler Byrne

Date: May 12, 2025