Ehdego v. Puni, 2025 ONSC 3962

Reasons for Decision

Court File No.: FC-24-1286
Date: 2025/07/03
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Re: Asghedom Ehdego, Applicant
-and-
Rajpreet Puni, Respondent

Counsel:
Erin Lepine, for the Applicant
Katherine Cooligan, for the Respondent

Heard: May 26, 2025

Introduction

1The Respondent Mother, Ms. Puni (mother), brings a Motion seeking the following interim orders:

1. Permitting the mother to relocate with the child (Leena) from Ottawa to Richmond, British Columbia (BC).
2. Occupational rent for the period commencing August 2024 to date of sale of the parties’ jointly owned property.

2The Applicant Father, Mr. Ehdego (father), opposes both interim orders sought by the mother and brings a Cross Motion seeking the following interim orders:

1. An interim parenting schedule placing Leena in the care of each parent on an equal/shared basis.
2. Should an interim equal parenting schedule be ordered, imputing the mother’s income in the amount of $118,026 for the purposes of calculating child support and proportionate share of Leena’s special and extraordinary expenses.

3In support of each of their motions, the parties filed extensive materials that included two main affidavits each, Reply affidavits, as well as 7 to 8 collateral supporting affidavits each. They also relied on transcripts of questioning that occurred in February 2024.

4It should be noted that, prior to this motion proceeding, the parties resolved the issue of interim decision making as well as sale of the jointly owned property by way of a consent order dated May 1, 2025.

5The issue of costs arising from the sale of the jointly owned property remains outstanding.

Relevant Family Background

6Both parties are federal government employees at Immigration Citizenship and Refugees Canada (IRCC).

7The mother and her extended family are from Richmond, BC and of Punjabi, Sikh heritage.

8Since 2006, the mother has been employed at the IRCC. Around the same time, she moved to the Ottawa region for training prior to her first international posting. For 18 years she has served as a Foreign Service Officer at IRCC. Generally, this position requires the employee to be available for international postings.

9Throughout her career at the IRCC, except for a 12-month leave of absence around 2013, the mother has been posted internationally to various countries.

10The mother began residing in Ottawa in 2014 (per her Answer) and remained in Ottawa until August 2021 when she was posted to Kingston, Jamaica.

11The mother states that this duration of stay in Ottawa was exceptionally long as it included forgoing a posting due to pregnancy, maternity leave, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to cancellation of two international postings.

12After this period, she was finally posted to Jamaica in August 2021.

13Upon returning to Ottawa from Jamaica in September 2024, the mother has been on unpaid leave.

14The father and his extended family are from Ottawa. He is of Eritrean heritage.

15The father’s position at the IRCC is not that of a Foreign Services Officer. Although he has expressed an interest and, in fact, has had brief international postings himself, as it stands today, his position within the IRCC does not require him to be available for international postings.

Leena’s Birth

16The parties met in 2017. They began to reside together in July 2018 at a home that they purchased in Ottawa.

17On August 21, 2018, their daughter, Leena, was born in Ottawa. Following Leena’s birth, they continued to live in Ottawa. As indicated above, this time period coincides with the mother’s maternity leave as well as the Covid-19 pandemic.

18In August 2021, the mother was posted to Jamaica. The family relocated from Ottawa to Kingston, Jamaica. When the family was posted to Jamaica, the father maintained his employment with the IRCC and was able to telework from home.

19Leena was 3 years old when the family moved to Jamaica.

20Around March or April 2023, while living in Jamaica, the parties separated. They continued to live separate and apart under the same roof until they returned to Ottawa at the end of July 2024.

21While in Jamaica, on July 17, 2024, the mother served the father with a Notice of Relocation.

22It is the mother’s position that she returned to Ottawa because it is where the IRCC headquarters is located, and it is the location to where her employer pays for the family to return.

23Leena was 6 years old when the family returned to Ottawa.

24Leena is generally a healthy and active child. She has a severe allergy to cashews and pistachios and, therefore, she is required to carry an EpiPen.

Leena’s Parenting

25There is significant disagreement between the parties as to how Leena has been parented throughout her life and, in particular, for the purposes of this motion, Leena’s parenting responsibilities while the parties were in Jamaica.

26The mother takes the position that she was and has remained Leena’s primary parent throughout Leena’s life.

27In her evidence, the mother states that the father had clear notions about her role as a partner and mother, which included the expectation that she would take on the primary caregiving role for Leena as well as assume all the household responsibilities. The mother says she welcomed the role as Leena’s primary parent but objected to assuming all household responsibilities when both she and the father worked full time.

28While the mother concedes that the father is an involved parent, she asserts that she is the parent who has taken on the primary caregiving role for Leena. She states that she unexpectedly became a mother at 42 and this changed her life focus entirely. Her priority moved from her career to raising Leena. She articulates this in contrast to her perception of the father’s priorities. She notes that the father is 32 and continues to prioritize his career. In support of this assertion, she points the Court to the fact that his income has doubled over the last four years whereas hers has not.

29The mother states that she is the parent who has dealt with Leena’s medical care, school, activities, day care, etc. She emphasizes that prior to their move to Jamaica, she is the parent who coordinated and planned everything for Leena including identifying daycare/school, before and after school activities, etc.

30In support of her position, aside from her own sworn affidavit, the mother has filed affidavits sworn by several parties who had knowledge of the family while they resided in Jamaica. These include affidavits from former neighbours (A. Lampron and A. Colbourne), a school nurse at Leena’s school (D. Sherlock-Lyew), Leena’s pediatrician (Dr. N Gomes-Sale), Leena’s music teacher (E. Elliott), Leena’s teacher at pre-school (S. Walton).

31The general tenor of the affidavits sworn by these parties is that from their observation, it is the mother who took on the majority of the parenting role for Leena and/or she was the parent with whom these parties had primary contact.

32Each of these affidavits, however, also speak to the father’s involvement with the child, albeit to a much lesser degree. To that extent, their evidence augments the mother’s position that the father was an involved parent.

33For example:

• The school nurse, D. Sherlock-Lyew, says that she met the mother when the mother attended school to introduce herself and discuss Leena’s allergies. Ms. Sherlock-Lyew says she made a mental note as to which parent would be easier/more efficient to contact in case of an emergency for Leena. The mother was her primary contact, and she would only contact the father if she was unable to get in touch with the mother first.
• The neighbour in Jamaica, A. Colbourne, notes that she saw both parents split some childcare responsibilities, that both parents picked up Leena from daycare, and that she saw both parents attend school events.
• The pediatrician, Dr. N. Gomes-Sale, notes that while the mother brought Leena to an “overwhelming majority of her medical appointments”, the father brought Leena to one appointment and accompanied the mother and Leena to two other appointments.
• Leena’s music teacher in Jamaica, E. Elliot, also notes that it was the mother who did the “overwhelming majority of drop-offs and pick-ups”, that the mother was registered as Leena’s emergency contact and the only parent with whom she had contact. She notes, however, that on rare occasions the father did pick-ups and drop-offs, but they did not interact. She also notes that both parents attended the last day of term concert to see Leena perform.
• Leena’s head teacher at the pre-school in Jamaica, S. Walton, notes that prior to the family moving to Jamaica, both parents had a zoom call with her, that both parents would do drop-offs and pick-ups.

34The evidence of the neighbours in Jamaica (A. Lampron and A. Colbourne) and the mother’s former manager and friend (J. Lachance) speak to other aspects of the relationship between the parents. I will refer to this evidence in subsequent paragraphs when discussing the dynamics of their relationship.

35The father’s position is that since Leena’s birth, including the time that the family resided in Jamaica, both parents have been actively involved in Leena’s day-to-day care. He contests the mother’s narrative that she was Leena’s primary caregiver.

36The father notes that even though he was working during the mother’s 18-month parental leave, his work was shift-based and therefore, he was able to be more present at the home during daytime periods and, this allowed him to attend appointments with the mother and the child.

37The father concedes that he was not present at every health appointment for the child, but that he was present for all the major health care appointments. His affidavit describes in significant detail his involvement in identifying health care providers for Leena, identifying her daycare both in Ottawa and Jamaica and the school in Jamaica.

38He states that while in Jamaica he arranged his working hours so he could maximize his availability for Leena’s care. He acknowledges that he travelled on two occasions, once for a period of 7 weeks and once for a period of 5 days while they were in Jamaica. He says that this travel was undertaken with the mother’s support and encouragement much like when the mother travelled on three occasions for short periods of 4-5 days or when she undertook overtime work regularly on Saturdays and Sundays while he cared for Leena.

39Contrary to the mother’s assertions, his description of the daily routine while in Jamaica notes that he and the mother would rotate responsibilities for Leena, that included morning routine such as getting Leena fed, dressed and ready for school, as well as nighttime routine such as preparing dinner, bedtime, and bath. He notes that he was typically responsible for picking up Leena from daycare and then when she began attending school, meeting her at the school bus stop from Monday to Thursday with both parents attending the bus stop together on Fridays.

40Like the mother, the father too has filed many affidavits sworn by third parties that speak to their observations relating to his involvement with Leena’s care. The general tenor of these affidavits is that both parents were involved in caring for Leena.

41For example:

• A. Nicholson and S. Nicholson were immediate neighbours of the family in Jamaica. Each affiant speaks to the fact that they observed both parents have a strong bond and be actively involved in Leena’s daily life and generally support the father’s description of his involvement with Leena’s care, particularly aspects outside the home such as pool activities, outings, attendance at school events, etc.
• A. Byrd, another neighbour of the family in Jamaica who had twin daughters the same age as Leena, describes the children playing together during play dates at both homes, often under the father’s supervision. He describes seeing the father playing basketball or swimming with Leena. He talks about the father attending school events, award ceremony, performances, etc.
• D-A Pryce Hoo Fung, is a teacher at Leena’s school. She is also a parent of a child enrolled in the same class as Leena. She says that she regularly saw and engaged with both parents through school events, birthday parties and play dates. Specifically, she observed them to be equally engaged in and caring for Leena.
• Leena’s kindergarten teacher in 2023-2024 in Jamaica, K. Edwards, notes meeting the father in person when he enrolled Leena. She specifically speaks to the fact that the father was diligent in ensuring that she and the school administration were well-informed about Leena’s nut allergy. She notes that as Leena’s teacher she has observed both parents being actively involved in Leena’s education, that both consistently attended school meetings, parent-teacher conferences, and that when the father was unable to attend, he would contact her to make sure that he had not missed any information.

42The mother does not claim that the father was an ‘absent parent’. In her affidavit she states that Leena loves her father and that the father has been a supportive parent. She concedes that he was interested and participated in caring for Leena but that he was not a hands-on day-to-day parent, rather that he was the ‘fun parent’.

43The mother asks the Court to make a finding that she was Leena’s primary parent, that she took on the lead in parenting, that she was the manager of the family and that she shared all the relevant information with the father so that he would have the necessary details when he could participate in parenting Leena.

44The mother argues that she went to ‘all’ the child’s appointments while the father went to ‘some’ of the child’s appointments. She draws the court’s attention to this detail not as a criticism of the father’s parenting but as a way to establish that she was the child’s primary caregiver.

Leena’s Habitual Residence

45Significant time was spent by the parties around the issue of whether or not the Court should begin its analysis with determining whether Ottawa is Leena’s habitual residence.

46Throughout her evidence and submissions, the mother took the position that Ottawa should not be considered Leena’s habitual residence. She asserts that Leena is an ‘international child’ and further that if the Court is to engage in the analysis of Leena’s habitual residence, the starting point should be Kingston, Jamaica where Leena has spent three formative years of her life.

47The mother asserts that Ottawa is simply a city where the mother’s employer’s headquarters is located requiring her to return to this city following her international postings. As noted above, she asserts that the family’s stay in Ottawa prior to residing in Jamaica was precipitated by her parental leave, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic. She submits that if it were not for those reasons, the family would have been posted elsewhere and would not have ties to Ottawa following Leena’s birth.

48The mother states that since the separation, the father has made a strategic effort to create an artificial connection between Leena and Ottawa. She states that his assertions that Leena has meaningful friendships in Ottawa that pre-date their move to Jamaica and continued while in Jamaica is fabricated.

49The father’s position is that this is not a case about determining whether Ottawa is Leena’s habitual residence but more about whether Leena should be removed from Ottawa to reside in BC.

50In answering this question, the father asks the Court to consider that Leena lived in Ottawa for the first three years of her life, and then for 10 months after the family returned to Ottawa from Jamaica. He points to Leena’s connections to friends in Ottawa and denies that these connections are fabricated. He has filed affidavits from third parties, all of whom are his friends, that speak to this connection.

51He further points to evidence that Leena has returned to the same health care providers such as, Dr. Pong who followed Leena for her allergies before she went to Jamaica.

52More than anything else, the father points out that he resides and has full time employment in Ottawa.

53In my view, given the circumstances of this family, and for the purposes of this motion, I do not need to make a finding on whether or not Ottawa is Leena’s habitual residence. I do, however, need to consider Leena’s connection to both Ottawa and Richmond BC.

54Leena certainly does have a connection to her extended maternal family in BC. However, even if the Court were to disregard the family returning to Ottawa from Jamaica and Leena’s residence in Ottawa for the past 10 months, her connection to Ottawa from birth until she was 3 years old is relevant.

55The mother’s reasons for why the family resided in Ottawa during that 3-year period, in my view, is not relevant to the analysis of whether Ottawa was Leena’s home during that period.

Parenting Plans

56The mother’s parenting plan is essentially as follows:

• Leena and the mother will relocate to Richmond, BC.
• They will reside with the maternal grandmother, in her home. This is a spacious home where she and Leena will have their own bedrooms and bathrooms with a separate play area for Leena. This is a home Leena is comfortable in and has visited many times.
• Leena will attend a French Immersion school close to the maternal grandmother’s home.
• Leena will continue many of her activities including art, music, dance, gymnastics, soccer and swimming.
• Leena will benefit greatly from being close to her extended maternal family that includes many uncles, aunts and cousins.
• Leena will have ‘meaningful’ parenting time with her father including regular communication with a dedicated tablet.
• The father would be welcome to visit Leena in BC during the school year.
• He will have ‘generous’ parenting time on all school breaks, including extended periods over the summer, two-week March break period and Christmas.
• Leena’s travel expenses between BC and Ottawa would be shared as a Section 7 expense with each parent bearing their own cost of accompanying Leena between the two cities. If travel cost is an issue for the father, the mother offers to pay Leena’s air fare.

57The father’s parenting plan is essentially as follows:

• Leena will continue to reside in Ottawa.
• The parents will have equal 2-2-5-5 parenting time schedule with Leena with exchanges occurring by and large at Leena’s school.
• Leena will continue to attend school in Ottawa.
• Leena will continue all her activities in Ottawa.
• Leena will continue to be followed by all her current health care professionals.
• Leena will continue to benefit from her being close to her paternal family and the father/Leena’s close friend circle.
• He asserts that during his parenting time, he will be the primary caregiver for Leena as opposed to his sister, Eden, who the mother alleges takes on a significant parenting role during the father’s parenting time.

Relocation to BC

58The leading case for determining if a relocation should be permitted on an interim basis is Plumley v. Plumley.

59The court sets out the following principles:

• A court will be more reluctant to upset the status quo on an interim motion and permit the move when there is a genuine issue for trial.
• There can be compelling circumstances which might dictate that a judge ought to allow the move. For example, the move may result in a financial benefit to the family unit, which will be lost if the matter awaits a trial or the best interests of the children might dictate that they commence school at a new location.
• Although there may be a genuine issue for trial, the move may be permitted on an interim basis if there is a strong possibility that the custodial parent’s position will prevail at trial.

60The following are additional principles regarding temporary relocation cases (see: Boudreault v. Charles, 2014 ONCJ 273).

• The burden is on the parent seeking the change to prove compelling circumstances exist that are sufficient to justify the move. See: Mackenzie v. Newby, [2013] O.J. No. 4613 (OCJ).
• Courts are generally reluctant to permit relocation on a temporary basis. The decision will often have a strong influence on the final outcome of the case, particularly if the order permits relocation. The reality is that courts do not like to create disruptions in the lives of children by making an order that may have to cause further disruption later if the order has to be reversed. See: Goodship v. McMaster.
• Courts will be more cautious about permitting a temporary relocation where there are material facts in dispute that would likely impact on the final outcome. See: Fair v. Rutherford-Fair, 2004 CarswellOnt 1705 (ONSC). In such cases, the court requires a full testing of the evidence. See: Kennedy v. Hull, [2005] ONCJ 275.
• Courts will be even more cautious in permitting a temporary relocation when the proposed move involves a long distance. It is unlikely that the move will be permitted unless the court is certain that it will be the final result. See: Downey v. Sterling, 2006 ONCJ 490 and Costa v. Funes, [2012] O.J. No. 3317 (OCJ).
• Courts will permit temporary relocation where there is no genuine issue for trial (see: Yousuf v. Shoaib, [2007] O.J. No. 747 (OCJ)), or where the result would be inevitable after a trial; see: Mackenzie v. Newby, where the court observed that the importance of the father’s contact with the child could not override the benefits that the move would have on the child.
• In assessing whether the three considerations in Plumley are met, the court must consider the best interest factors set out in subsection 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act and any violence and abuse in assessing a parent’s ability to act as a parent as set out in subsections 24(3) and (4) of the Act as well as the leading authority on mobility cases, Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27.

61Both parties referred to case law during their submissions either permitting or denying interim relocation. As expected, these cases are fact specific and do not necessarily assist the Court in making a decision specific to the unique circumstances of this family.

62Suffice to say that the legal test for an interim relocation order is an onerous one. The mother faces a high threshold in meeting this legal test.

63The mother’s submissions fall into four broad categories:

1. The mother’s employment/financial circumstances – The mother notes that she is unable to continue in her current position at the IRCC as, following the separation, she is no longer available for international postings; a requirement that she says is absolutely necessary for her to remain employed at the IRCC. In these circumstances, she argues that if she is able to move to BC to reside with her mother until she is able to retire with a full pension, she will have not only emotional support from her extended family, but such a move will ease the financial burden on her.

   Based on the evidence before me, I do not find this argument to be compelling.

   There is certainly evidence to suggest that the mother’s position at the IRCC as a Foreign Services Officer has required her to be available for international postings. However, there is evidence filed by the father (although somewhat dated i.e. 2019) that IRCC has regular rotations at their headquarters in Ottawa and that this type of rotation is part of the normal cycle of assignments.

   The mother argues that this information is dated but does not provide updated information nor does she provide proof or any documents from her employer that clearly states that she cannot currently remain employed with the IRCC in Ottawa in any position primarily as a result of not being available to be posted internationally at this time or in the near future.

   I find that if this condition of her employment is as unequivocal as the mother suggests, it would have been fairly straightforward for her to obtain confirmation from her employer that there is no position for her at the IRCC headquarters in Ottawa.

   The fact that the Court has not been provided this information even in the form of a simple format letter from the mother’s employer significantly dilutes the mother’s argument.

2. The mother is Leena’s primary caregiver – As noted above this aspect is hotly contested between the parties. I have described above, the assertions made by both parties on this issue along with third party evidence that each parent has filed.

   Clearly, there is significant competing evidence regarding Leena’s parenting. On the evidence before me at this motion, I am unable reach the conclusion that the mother was the primary caregiver for the child. I am, however, able to conclude that the father was an involved parent well beyond being just a ‘fun parent’ as suggested by the mother.

3. Leena’s connection to Ottawa is not strong and is, in fact, a narrative that has been fabricated by the father for the purposes of this litigation.

   The mother’s argument is that Leena’s true connection is with Jamaica as those were her formative years where she made friends and memories. The mother suggests that Leena was too young to form connections in Ottawa from birth to when she was 3 years old and that any friendships that the father relies on, specifically friendships with children of his friends in Ottawa, pre-existed their move to Jamaica and did not continue thereafter. She questions the closeness of father’s friendships given that none of these friends were aware that the parties had separated until they returned to Ottawa.

   I am not persuaded by this argument.

   There is undisputed evidence before the court that one of Leena’s friends from Ottawa, Dylan and his mother, visited the family in Jamaica. There could be any number of reasons as to why the father did not inform his friends about the separation. The argument that the father’s friends were unaware of the separation, in my view, is not a basis to conclude that these were not close connections to the father and/or Leena.

   In any event, the fact that Leena has friendships and social connections in Ottawa is not as significant as other factors including, the fact that she was born here, lived here for 3 years, had health care providers, has returned to these health care providers, and that her father and the extended paternal family reside in Ottawa.

   In the circumstances of this case, I have to look at both Ottawa and Richmond BC in determining whether Leena’s connection to one of these locations tilts the legal analysis in any manner.

   I do not disagree with the mother that Richmond BC is a place that is important to the mother, and for that matter to Leena as well. Leena’s maternal grandmother lives there and by all accounts she has enjoyed visiting with her maternal family and cousins through the years.

   The issue is that the mother’s request to move to BC is based on her assertion that BC is her home. This may well be true from an emotional point of view for the mother. However, the mother left BC in 2006. She came to Ontario in 2006 and then to Ottawa in 2008. She has had overseas postings since then. She has not lived in BC since 2006 except for one year in 2013 when she was on unpaid leave, which was before she met the father or had a child.

4. The mother is unhappy and isolated in Ottawa. She will likely be happier in BC and, her well-being and state of mind directly benefits Leena.

   The mother’s evidence is that she has no meaningful connections in Ottawa. Her entire family is in BC and the friends she had in Ottawa prior to being posted to Jamaica no longer reside in Ottawa.

   The mother also alleges that the paternal family including the father’s mother and sister have mistreated her and this has led to Leena being exposed to significant family conflict. Specifically, she alleges that the extended paternal family undermines her heritage and parenting. As an example, she argues that the paternal family excluded her from planning and celebrating Leena’s baptism, that the ceremony occurred in a language unfamiliar to her and that Leena’s baptised name ‘Martha’ was given without consulting the mother. She takes this to mean that the paternal family deliberately removed Leena’s Sikh name.

   The mother also raises concerns that the paternal aunt, Eden, undermines her role as a mother. As examples, she points to incidents such as Eden insisting on piercing Leena’s ears or Leena being forced by Eden to hug people when the mother has taught Leena the importance of personal boundaries and bodily autonomy.

   The father contests the mother’s narrative. He provides evidence to the contrary, particularly as it relates to the languages spoken during Leena’s baptism and the mother’s participation and involvement at this celebration.

   A parent’s happiness and general well-being is, no doubt, relevant to a child’s well-being, particularly if the parent is the child’s primary caregiver. I have already determined that on the basis of the evidence before the Court I cannot reach the conclusion that the mother was Leena’s primary caregiver.

   That said, there is certainly evidence before the Court that the relationship between the mother and the extended paternal family is tense leading to conflict. The mother has no close family or friends in Ottawa and therefore, the stress that she experiences from the strained relationship with the paternal family exacerbates her unhappiness, particularly when compared to the supportive environment and family network that she has in BC.

   At this stage of the proceeding, however, the evidence in this regard is simply not compelling enough to be the single determinative factor on the issue of interim relocation.

64Based on the above, I find that the mother has not met the high threshold to permit an interim relocation with Leena from Ottawa to BC.

65There are many material facts in dispute and the answers provided by the parties in questioning do not unequivocally support a conclusion in favour of the mother.

66The circumstances that the mother finds herself in are, no doubt, difficult but they are not compelling or exceptional to the point that I can find that the mother’s position will prevail at trial.

67The mother’s request for an interim order relocating with Leena from Ottawa to Richmond BC is, therefore, denied.

68Having determined the interim relocation request, I now turn to the father’s request for increased interim parenting time.

Parenting Since August 2024

69On August 20, 2024, the parties signed an Interim Without Prejudice Minutes of Settlement.

70Pursuant to these Minutes, Leena resides in the mother’s primary care. The father’s parenting time is as follows:

• Week 1: On Tuesday and Thursday from after school (or 9:00 a.m. if there is no school) until 7:00 p.m.
• Week 2: On Tuesday from after school (or 9:00 a.m. if there is no school) until 7:00 p.m.; and after school on Thursday (or 9:00 a.m. if there is no school) until Sunday at 7:00 p.m.

71The father asserts that this parenting schedule is not reflective of how the parties shared Leena’s parenting since birth until August 2024.

72Regardless, it is clear that this parenting arrangement is an interim one, put in place on a without prejudice basis.

73This sort of arrangement is commonplace in family matters as a ‘band aid’ temporary solution, particularly when the parties are already engaged in litigation. In fact, Courts encourage parties to reach these types of interim without prejudice resolutions.

74I recognize that without prejudice arrangements are time limited and after an extended period may be considered the status quo parenting arrangement. However, I do not find the August 20, 2024, Interim Without Prejudice arrangement in this matter to be the status quo parenting arrangement from where the Court should begin its analysis as to what interim parenting arrangement is in Leena’s best interest.

75The parties were clearly engaged in litigation and both parties expected to be before the Court to seek interim determinations on relocation and parenting schedules. There was no delay on the part of the father in pursuing his claim for a different interim parenting arrangement than the one he agreed to on August 20, 2024.

76As such, my analysis takes into account pre-August 2024 parenting arrangements for Leena.

Interim Parenting Schedule

77The father seeks an interim 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule as outlined in his Notice of Motion dated April 11, 2025.

78In the event the mother is not permitted to move, she asks that there be no increase in the father’s parenting time with Leena beyond the August 20, 2024 schedule.

79In determining an interim parenting schedule, the Court is guided by best interests of a child in accordance with the considerations set out in section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

80Subsection 24(2) of the Act provides that the Court must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests. Subsection 24(3) of the Act sets out a list of factors for the Court to consider related to the circumstances of the child.

81I have considered all the relevant factors under section 24 of the Act in reaching my decision on the issue of interim parenting schedule.

82Much of the evidence analyzed under the heading ‘Leena’s Parenting’ is relevant to this issue as well. In particular, I am mindful that as a primary consideration the Court’s analysis should be tailored to Leena and her physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

83Much of the mother’s argument stems from her position that she has always been Leena’s primary caregiver. As noted above, I cannot make that finding, at this time, on the evidence before me.

84In addition, the mother states that the father does not have the ability to provide for Leena with stable and consistent care. As an example, she asserts that the father has not properly stored Leena’s EpiPen.

85The mother further notes that the father relies extensively on his extended family to care for Leena during his parenting time as he is focused on his career. As an example, she points to the communications between the parties during March break this year, where she sought confirmation from the father that he had taken time off work to parent Leena as opposed to having her cared for by his extended family. The mother says that the father was evasive when asked and would not provide proof of having taken time off.

86There is evidence before the Court that the father has relied on his family from time to time to care for Leena. He contests the mother’s assertion that this occurs frequently.

87I do not find that the examples provided by the mother are sufficient to conclude that the father is unable to meet Leena’s needs in keeping with her age and stage of development.

88The evidence, even from the mother, is that Leena has strong bond with both parents.

89Leena is an only child with her paternal and maternal family living at two ends of the country. These familial relationships are no doubt important, particularly for a bi-racial/religious/cultural child.

90The evidence before the court is that Leena is fortunate to have fostered a bond with both sides of the family even though they live so far apart.

91Clearly, both parents, and, in particular, the mother has made the effort to ensure that the distance to BC, and the fact that Leena lived in Ottawa for the first three years of her life and then Jamaica for the next three, did not create a barrier to Leena forming a bond with her maternal family. This, in turn, has allowed Leena to enjoy her maternal cultural, religious and linguistic heritage.

92The mother’s evidence speaks to Leena’s wish to live in BC. Unfortunately, however, there are no objective markers of reliability, including when the statements were made, who was present, the context surrounding the statement etc., for the Court to accord, at this interim stage, any weight to Leena’s views and wishes.

93I note that section 24(4) of the Act requires the Court to consider any family violence when determining the best interest of a child.

94The mother alludes to family violence in a few collateral affidavits that she has filed. For example:

• A. Lamporn’s affidavit speaks to him becoming concerned about the dynamics in the parent’s relationship based on his observations of how the father talked down to the mother, being dismissive of the mother, giving her a cold shoulder when she asked for help with Leena, getting angry with her, all of which led him to suspect that “this was an abusive relationship”. He goes on to say that his wife suggested that he seek advice from the Canadian High Commission’s security officer but that he did not do so as he “did not know concretely whether abuse was occurring”.
• Mr. Lamporn’s wife, A. Coulourne, also swore an affidavit in which she recounts an incident when the mother confided in her that the father would scream and yell at her for minor things.
• J. Lachance, the mother’s former manager and friend, has sworn an affidavit in which she notes that the mother told her that the father “would yell at her and make living in the home tense” and speaks about the mother “feeling limited and isolated” by the father’s behaviour. She recalls a specific evening when the mother called her from Jamaica after locking herself in a room following a fight with the father to get away from him. She notes that she stayed on the phone for hours with the mother talking about safety planning. Ms. Lachance’s observation was that when the father travelled on work, the mother was more joyful and relaxed.

95This evidence filed by third parties referred to above is untested at this time.

96In her own evidence, the mother alleges that the father has a misogynistic attitude. She specifically draws the Court’s attention to an incident where the father allegedly refused to provide Leena’s car seat to the mother if she did not provide him with Leena’s blood work/EpiPen requisition. She states that this resulted in the father grabbing the requisition from the mother’s hand all while Leena was in the vicinity. The mother alleges that the father gave Leena his phone to keep her pre-occupied while this conflictual incident took place.

97The father denies all these allegations. Specifically, as it relates to the incident above, he states that this was more of a “discussion” than “conflict” but that he anticipated that a conflict may arise quickly, which is why he gave his phone to Leena to keep her occupied. He describes this as “situational awareness” on his part.

98It is not difficult to imagine that following the separation, when the parties resided in the same home in Jamaica and upon their return to Ottawa, while they were engaged in this litigation, there were likely conflicts that arose between them.

99The main evidence of Leena being exposed to their conflict as referred to by the mother, however, (other than the negative remarks about her that the mother alleges the paternal family makes in Leena’s presence) is the blood requisition form incident mentioned above.

100While not ideal, the ‘requisition incident’ in and of itself does not lead the Court towards considering the factor as relating to family violence as a significant part of the best interest analysis at this interim stage.

101Based on an objective analysis of evidence before me, while applying the best interest test, and in keeping with section 24(6) of the Act, I am also required to give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interest of the child.

102In this case, I find that it is in Leena’s best interest to have shared parenting time with both parents, subject to the father being her primary caregiver during his parenting time.

103Although the mother contests the father’s truthfulness, the father assures the Court that his sister has bathed Leena only once, done her hair once or twice, Leena has only slept over once at his parent’s home and during his weekend time, they spend about half a day with his family, usually when they are outside or doing activities together.

104To be clear, while the father may rely on his extended family from time to time to care for Leena, the main responsibility of parenting Leena during his parenting time, falls on him.

105In these circumstances, the Court grants the 2-2-5-5 shared parenting schedule per the father’s Notice of Motion dated April 11, 2025.

106Neither party has asked the Court to deal with special occasion/holiday/summer schedule. The Court hopes that the parties will reach an amicable resolution on these issues, in particular, summer schedule which may include Leena travelling with her mother to visit her extended maternal family in BC.

Child Support & Section 7 Expenses

107In the event the Court granted the father’s request for shared interim parenting time, the father seeks that child support be payable by the parties in keeping with their respective incomes and in accordance with section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

108The father’s estimated income for 2025 is $172,720. As indicated above, the mother is currently on leave without pay. The mother’s income in 2023 was $143,701.

109The father seeks that the mother’s annual income be imputed at $118,026. This amount is at the low end of the range of income for her level of employment as a Foreign Services Officer at the IRCC.

110The father makes the argument that the mother’s decision to remain on leave without pay is a choice that she is exercising and that this choice is not a reasonable one.

111In this regard, the mother’s assertion remains that she is not fit to remain a Foreign Services Officer at the IRCC as she cannot be available for a posting as a result of the separation.

112During questioning on February 21, 2025, the mother maintained the same position. However, the mother also indicated that she was not looking for alternate work, and given her age and years of service, her plan was to remain on leave without pay until she can retire in about a year. The mother also emphasized that given her current situation with the IRCC, her priority is not to find a new job or career as her first and foremost priority is Leena. She notes that she will be 50 in less than a year, at which time, she will be eligible for early retirement with pension.

113While I agree with the mother’s position that she is no longer available for cross posting as a Foreign Services Officer, when dealing with the issue of the interim relocation request, I have already referred to the gap in the evidence as to the mother’s ability to obtain a different position within the IRCC at their headquarters in Ottawa. This gap in evidence is relevant to the issue of her income for the purpose of calculating child support.

114Had the mother provided objective evidence as to the lack of positions at the IRCC headquarters in Ottawa, the Court may have been persuaded to find that her decision to remain on leave without pay is a reasonable one. I do not have this evidence before me.

115In these circumstances, I find that the father’s position that the mother be imputed income at the lowest range for her position is a reasonable one.

116As such, the father shall pay the mother child support in the set off amount of $411.00 per month.

117Section 7 expenses shall be shared proportionate to their incomes.

Interim Occupational Rent

118The mother seeks occupational rent retroactive to August 2024 until date of closing of the jointly owned property located at 1128 Trent Street in the amount of $1,605.78 per month.

119Generally speaking, occupational rent is an issue to be determined at trial, “when on all the evidence, the property issues will be dealt with. At the time, the equities can be appropriately balanced and financial fairness ensured”. Puckering (Litigation Guardian of) v. Puckering.

120A similar finding was made by CarroCcia J. in Reif v. Reif, 2021 ONSC 3976. The Court stated:

[86] Keeping in mind that an order for occupation rent should only be made where it is reasonable and equitable to do so, I decline to make the order given the lack of evidence outlined above along with the conflicting affidavit evidence on a without prejudice basis.

[87] In my view, a trial judge would be in a better position to deal with this issue on a proper evidentiary record.

121Mackinnon J. in Meliambro v. Meliambro found that there were too many factual issues to be dealt with, both as to entitlement and quantum, for occupation rent to be dealt with on a motion.

122Faieta J. in Bonas v. Houston, 2021 ONSC 2116, held:

[123] I dismiss this motion for occupation rent given that such motions are usually deferred to the trial judge who can better balance the equities between the parties on a more complete record with fuller submissions: Wu v. Wu, 2013 ONSC 5804.

123The parties have agreed that the jointly owned home will be sold.

124In view of this as well as the well-established state of the law on awarding interim occupational rent, I am not inclined to deal with this issue at an interim stage of the proceeding.

125This issue is best left to be dealt with by the trial judge.

Credibility Issues Raised

126Both parties have made submissions asking the Court to make credibility findings against the other, based on the answers provided by each party at questioning.

127The mother submits that the father’s answers on who was Leena’s primary parent or whether he was interested in foreign postings himself are ‘illogical and replete with irrational and completely distorted evidence’.

128The father, on the other hand, submits that the mother’s questions on his involvement with Leena’s care were hyper specific such that when asked if he picked up Leena from one specific activity, he may have answered that he didn’t but that this took away from the whole picture where he was involved with Leena’s care in other ways.

129The father states that his position was always that both parents were involved in many different aspects of Leena’s life and in phrasing questions in the way that the mother did during questioning was a blatant attempt to paint a picture that was inaccurate.

130I find that based on the topic on which questions were being asked, both parties were, from time to time, less than forthcoming.

131Regardless, at this stage, I do not need to, nor do I make any findings of credibility.

132I am able to make an interim decision on the two main issues, i.e. interim relocation and interim parenting arrangement based on the evidence before me, without having to undertake an exercise on making credibility findings.

Interim Order

133The Court makes the following interim order:

1. The mother’s request to relocate with Leena from Ottawa to Richmond, BC on an interim basis, is hereby, dismissed.
2. The order of May 1, 2025 related to interim decision making framework that the parties will follow for Leena shall remain in effect.
3. Leena shall reside with parent equally in accordance with a 2-2-5-5 schedule as outlined in the father’s Notice of Motion dated April 11, 2025.
4. As far as possible, all parenting exchanges shall take place at Leena’s school. If a parenting exchange is to take place at a time when the school is closed or Leena is not in attendance due to illness, then the parent whose parenting time is ending shall deliver Leena to the home of the parent whose parenting time is commencing.
5. Prior to requesting any third party, including extended family or friends, if a party with whom Leena is scheduled to be, according to the Court ordered parenting time schedule, is unable to care for her, for more than a 24 hour period, that party shall notify the other party and give the other party the opportunity to care for Leena.
6. On a temporary and without prejudice basis:
   • The father shall pay to the mother, child support for the benefit of the child in the amount of $411 per month.
   • Section 7 expenses as outlined in the consent of Order of May 1, 2026 shall be apportioned between the parties with the father paying 59.4% and the mother paying 40.6% of such expenses.
7. This matter shall be added to the November 2025 trial list.

134An interim order may be taken out incorporating these terms.

Costs

135The father is the successful party at this Motion.

136The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs, failing which, they may file brief written submissions not exceeding 4 pages excluding the Bill of Costs and any Offers to Settle exchanged between them.

137The father shall file his submissions by July 11, 2025 and the mother shall file her submissions by July 25, 2025. Costs submissions are to be sent to scj.assistants@ontario.ca marked to my attention.

Justice V. Naik