Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: FS-20-98992
Date: 2025-07-22

Parties

Between:
Mavis Amanquah (Applicant)
Represented by Efua Cobbina

-and-

Gbenga Bumni Oluwamuyide (Respondent)
Self-Represented

Heard: January 9, 10 and 20, 2025

Reasons for Judgment
Wilkinson

Introduction

This trial primarily involves a dispute about parenting orders. There is also a dispute about retroactive child support and payment of s.7 expenses, which the parties settled during the trial. However, one of the parties has now resiled from that agreement. The Applicant Mother also seeks an order permitting her to travel without the Respondent Father’s consent, to obtain government documents without the Father’s consent, and an order to secure the Father’s obligations to pay child support by making the children irrevocable beneficiaries of his life insurance policy.

Background

The Applicant Mother, Mavis Amanquah, and the Respondent Father, Gbenga Bumni Oluwamuyide, met while they were both working as screening officers at Lester B. Pearson Airport in Mississauga, Ontario. They continue to work in these positions at the present time.

There are two children of the marriage, Omari aged nine, and Jayden aged six. The parties separated in February 2019 after a ten-year marriage. Following the date of separation, the parties lived separate and apart in the matrimonial home until July 2020, when the Father moved out of the home prior to, or around the time that the sale for the home closed on July 31, 2020.

There was conflicting evidence as to where the Father lived after he moved out of the matrimonial home. The Mother testified that the Father has not been straightforward about telling her where he has been living. She stated that he initially told her that he was living in Whitby, Ontario but then in August 2022, he advised through his lawyer that he had moved to Brampton, Ontario. The Father testified that he lived in Brampton, but he also testified that he sometimes stayed with his brother in Whitby, Ontario, and that he sometimes exercised his parenting time at his sister’s home in Shelburne, Ontario. When asked if he had provided his current address to the Mother, the Father answered “I don’t recall.”

After the matrimonial home was sold, the Mother and the children lived at her cousin’s home, until April 2021, when the Mother was able to secure a rental accommodation in Brampton. The Mother testified that in the summer of 2022, her landlord informed her that the property was to be sold. Around this same time, the parties were able to obtain their respective shares of the net proceeds of sale from the matrimonial home.

The Mother testified that she was not able to afford a home in Brampton, but she was able to purchase a home in Orangeville, Ontario. The Mother and the children moved to Orangeville on July 14, 2022. Omari was permitted to continue attending his regular school in Brampton because the school allowed him to use the address of his babysitter in Brampton, Angelina Agyapong, for his registration. During this time, Jayden went to Ms. Agyapong’s for childcare. This arrangement continued for approximately one year.

The Mother testified that Ms. Agyapong was able to provide babysitting services up to twelve hours per day and treated the children like her own grandchildren. However, there was a dispute between the parties regarding payment for her babysitting services. Ms. Agyapong insisted on cash payments, and the Father challenged the legitimacy of the amounts the Mother claimed to have paid Ms. Agyapong. The Father wanted to pay the babysitter by cheque.

The Mother testified that ultimately this dispute over payment caused Ms. Agyapong to withdraw her services, which meant that Omari could no longer use her Brampton address for his school registration. The Father admits he did not propose an alternate person to provide childcare in Brampton.

The Mother was unable to obtain a subsidy for daycare in Brampton, as she lived in Orangeville. However, in the fall of 2023 she successfully secured a subsidy for daycare in Orangeville at the YMCA located close to the school, which allowed Omari to begin attending school in Orangeville, and provided affordable daycare for Jayden. Although the Father initially wanted the children to attend school in Brampton, during the trial he confirmed that he now agrees that the children should continue attending Princess Margaret School in Orangeville.

The parties have resolved all issues related to property division and ongoing child support. They have not reached an agreement regarding the quantum owed by the Father to the Mother for retroactive child support and s.7 expenses.

Prior to the commencement of the trial, the Father sought an adjournment on the basis that his prior counsel was removed from the record, regarding issues that required the involvement of LawPro. On December 16, 2024, RSJ Tzimas released an endorsement denying the adjournment on the basis that the trial date has been known by the parties for some time. Justice Tzimas endorsed that several conditions would have to be met to allow the adjournment, including obtaining consent of the Mother. This consent was not given, and accordingly, the trial was not adjourned.

Issues to be Determined

1. Who should have decision-making responsibility for the children?
2. Where should the children have their primary residence?
3. What parenting schedule is in the children’s best interests?
4. Is the Mother permitted to travel with the children outside of the country without the Father’s consent?
5. Is the Mother permitted to obtain government documentation for the children without the Father’s consent?
6. Is the Father required to carry a life insurance policy to provide child support for the children in the event of his death?
7. Retroactive child support and s.7 payments to be paid by the Father to the Mother

Issue #1 – Who should have decision-making responsibility for the children?

Both parties seek sole decision-making responsibility for the children. Alternatively, the Father seeks joint decision-making responsibility.

The Mother gave evidence that from the time the children were born, she was their primary caregiver. She testified that she fed them, bathed them, and took them to medical appointments. She submits that it is appropriate that she have decision-making responsibility for the children as she has always been the primary caregiver and decision-maker for the children.

The Mother also submits that joint decision-making responsibility with the Father would unfortunately not work, as the parties do not agree on numerous subjects, including health care issues for the children. She further submits that the parties have significant communication issues, and that the Father does not trust her.

The Father submits that he was actively involved in childcare prior to the separation. In particular, he claimed to be the primary caregiver for the children prior to the date of separation, although he also testified that he worked full-time, and travelled frequently in his role as Union President. This claim by the Father requires some scrutiny. In the case of Gonsalves v. Scrymgeour, 2016 ONSC 6659, Justice Glustein set out the factors dealing with issues of credibility. Justice Glustein specifically noted the following factors which undermine the credibility of a witness at para. 15:

• Giving nonresponsive answers to questions on cross examination, sometimes to the point where the witness seems evasive
• Providing additional information, not requested by the questioner, where the witness perceives it would explain or be helpful to his position in the lawsuit
• Conceding that the testimony being given is at odds with documents [or pleadings] authored at the time
• Being contradicted by the witness’s own trial testimony
• Often stepping out of the role of witness and into that of advocate, either arguing with counsel over the premise of the question or explaining why a certain proposition put to the witness did not have the effect that counsel sought to give it.

There were numerous occasions during the Father’s testimony where his credibility was challenged through documents which contained information contrary to the Father’s evidence. The Father’s evidence was therefore unreliable at times. Where the evidence of the Father and the Mother conflict, I accept the evidence of the Mother, which was largely supported by reference to documents.

Health Care for the Children

The parties do not agree on some aspects of the children’s health care. Omari was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) in March 2024, and he began taking medication. The Father is not convinced that Omari has been properly diagnosed. He testified that he does not agree with Omari taking the medication.

The Mother testified that the medication helps Omari. She stated that once he started taking it, his ability to focus improved. She also testified that Omari’s behaviour at home improved, as he was not as active and rough when playing with his younger brother.

The Mother provided an email from Omari’s teacher, Danielle Legros, dated April 10, 2024, in which Ms. Legros stated that although Omari continued to demonstrate some impulsive behaviours, there had been improvement in Omari’s focus and work ethic. Ms. Legros also stated that Omari was able to retain information better, was working much better with his peers, and seemed happier.

The Mother also provided a letter from Omari’s pediatrician, Dr. Crisamore, to Omari’s teacher dated October 25, 2024, which stated that Omari was formally assessed in March 2024, and meets the diagnostic criteria for ADHD. The letter also stated that the medications Omari was taking seemed to be treating the condition successfully.

I find that both the email from Danielle Legros and the letter from Dr. Crisamore are reliable hearsay evidence when combined with the oral testimony of the Mother.

The Mother also testified that there were concerns that the Father was not giving Omari his ADHD medication, so she had a meeting at the school where they discussed the school administering the medication to Omari.

The Father testified that he found out that Omari was on ADHD medication from Omari’s teacher. He sent an email to the Mother on March 20, 2024 stating that he did not want Omari taking the medication, as he was concerned that it was impacting Omari’s nervous system. He testified that he believed Omari does not have ADHD, and that he is demonstrating behavioural issues as a reaction to his parents’ separation. The Father told the Mother he wanted to obtain a second opinion. However, he admitted under cross-examination that he has not yet obtained a second opinion.

The Father also stated that Dr. Crisamore told him that Omari does not have to take the ADHD medication as it hurts his stomach. The Father did not provide any written letters or other records from Dr. Crisamore to confirm this statement. I do not accept this evidence, as it is contrary to common sense, given that Dr. Crisamore prescribed the medication for Omari, and commented that Omari’s condition was improving with the medication.

The Father also suggested that the Mother tried to hide from him that Omari was receiving ADHD medication, as when she asked him to pick up a prescription from the pharmacy, he believed he was only obtaining medication for Omari’s eye infection. However, he actually picked up two medications – one for the eye infection, and the other for ADHD. The Father did not have a response when questioned why the Mother would have had him pick up the medication, if she was trying to hide from him the fact that Omari was taking ADHD medication.

In his testimony the Father refused to agree with the suggestion that Omari taking the ADHD medication inconsistently prevented him from receiving the full benefit of the medication. He also refused to accept that taking the medication inconsistently might be confusing for Omari.

I accept the Father’s evidence that he first found out about the ADHD medication from Omari’s school. The Mother ought to have informed the Father that Omari was taking medication for ADHD. However, the Father provided no medical evidence to support his position that Omari does not have ADHD, or that he should not be taking medication for ADHD.

On the limited medical information available before me, I find that it is in Omari’s best interests to take medication for ADHD on a consistent basis for optimal treatment of his condition. It is the responsibility of both of his parents to ensure that he takes his medication consistently.

It is concerning that the Father has resisted the Mother’s efforts to provide medical treatment for Omari, but took no steps to obtain a second opinion, or find alternative treatment for him.

Regarding Jayden, the Mother testified that she asked the Father to use a shea butter cream that she provided to him to assist with Jayden’s sensitive skin. The Father stated that he didn’t use the shea butter for Jayden’s skin because the skin cream had not been prescribed by a Canadian doctor.

Given the parties’ differing approaches to these medical issues involving the children, it is not possible for them to make decisions jointly. One parent must be responsible for making decisions efficiently and effectively regarding the children’s health.

Communications Between the Parties

The Mother testified that the Father’s new partner, Cathy Carbone, participates in the electronic communications between the Mother and the Father. In their evidence, both the Father and Ms. Carbone confirmed that she assists the Father when communicating electronically with the Mother. Ms. Carbone stated that her involvement helps keep the Father calm.

The Mother also testified that frequently, when she has asked the Father electronically to confirm agreement to issues relating to the children, he often fails to respond to her request. The Mother provided the example of the summer of 2024, when she wanted to put the children into swimming and basketball. After the Father had not responded to her email request after three weeks, she registered the children in these activities. She picked a program in Brampton that was close to where the Father was living. The Father refused to pay for the activities, and refused to take the children to the activities when they occurred during his parenting time.

The Mother provided a copy of an email sent to her by the Father on July 21, 2024, which included the following statement:

I am not understanding how you expect for me to have meaningful parenting time with our children, when you continue to unilaterally schedule activities on my parenting time and expect me to transport the children. I would like to note, that I have already have a planned agenda for the children during my scheduled parenting time with them, and this sudden change has now impacted my arrangements.

This response from the Father is not child-focused. Whatever “agenda” the Father had prepared for the children ought to have also incorporated their regular extra-curricular activities. It can be challenging for children to thrive in these activities if their attendance is inconsistent, which can lead to embarrassment for the children, or at times, negative self-esteem.

At trial, the Father acknowledged that if he had responded to the Mother’s initial email earlier, the two parents might have been successful in coordinating a schedule for the children’s activities.

In his written materials, the Father frequently accuses the Mother of moving the children to Orangeville without input from him. However, the Mother provided a copy of a letter written by her lawyer on January 29, 2023, which was sent to the Father’s lawyer, confirming that the Mother would be seeking subsidized daycare in Orangeville. The letter also confirmed that the children would be attending Princess Margaret School in Orangeville in September 2023.

The Father’s former lawyer responded with a letter dated February 6, 2023. This letter did not mention any objection to the children attending school in Orangeville.

The evidence is clear that the Father’s lawyer was aware of the Mother’s plan to have the children attend school in Orangeville by February 2023. It is therefore simply not correct for the Father to suggest that the Mother moved the children to a new school with no input from him, or adequate notice to him.

The Father mischaracterized the Mother’s efforts to relocate the children to a school in Orangeville because of the loss of Ms. Agyapong’s childcare services in Brampton, as a unilateral removal of the children from the Brampton school. This type of misleading statement contributes to communication challenges between the parties.

There are other examples of the communication difficulties between the parties. Both parties testified about an incident in September 2024, when the Father picked up the children from school on a Monday, after having not exercised his Monday afternoon parenting time for the year prior. When the Mother was unable to reach the Father by phone, she contacted the police to ensure the children were safe. The Father states that the Mother was aware that he was exercising parenting time that Monday, and that this incident was scary for the children.

The Father also gave evidence about another time that the police were involved, when he attempted to take the children out of the YMCA program prior to his scheduled parenting time. The Mother testified that she involved the police to ensure that the children remained in the YMCA daycare program so that she did not lose her subsidy for daycare.

It is unfortunate that the children were negatively impacted by police involvement on both occasions, but I accept that the Mother contacted the police in September 2024 because she thought it was in the children’s best interests to determine their location and ensure their safety. Reasonable communication between the parties would likely have avoided any police involvement regarding this circumstance. The Father admitted at trial that he missed a phone call from the Mother on that day.

Regarding the second police interaction which involved an attendance by the police at the school, it must be remembered that the Mother had not received any financial support for daycare expenses from the Father. It is therefore understandable that she was motivated to ensure that her children were not disqualified from remaining in the YMCA daycare program due to non-attendance. Although involving the police over this issue may be excessive, it appears to have helped the Mother achieve her goal of ensuring that the children remained in the daycare program with access to a significant subsidy.

The Father’s Lack of Trust Towards the Mother

The Mother also submits that the Father does not trust her. One primary example of the Father’s lack of trust towards the Mother is the dispute that developed over payment of Ms. Agyapong’s babysitting services.

The Mother testified that the Father refused to financially contribute to the children’s childcare payments because Ms. Agyapong demanded that she be paid in cash. The Mother provided copies of email communications in which she provided bank statements to the Father to demonstrate the cash withdrawals she took out each week to pay Ms. Agyapong. But still, the Father did not believe her, and refused to contribute to the childcare costs.

In his testimony the Father agreed that he did not believe that Ms. Agyapong’s fees were legitimate. He also agreed that the fact that he asked for the Mother’s bank records to show the cash withdrawals demonstrated his lack of trust towards the Mother.

In addition, the Father bluntly testified that the Mother is untruthful most of the time, although he did not provide an example or further evidence to support this statement.

The Father also confirmed that when the Mother was travelling to Ghana in 2023, he would not provide her with his identification to facilitate providing his consent for the children to travel because he did not trust her.

The Father also suggested in his evidence that the Mother engages in abusive behaviours towards the children. He testified regarding involvement of the Children’s Aid Society (“the CAS”) with the Mother, but there are no records from the CAS before me. The only document before me concerning the CAS is an email from the principal of Princess Margaret indicating that Omari had reported that the Mother would beat him if his behaviour log was sent home, so the school contacted the CAS.

The Father also gave evidence that he saw a visible deep cut in Omari’s arm, which he says was reported by Omari to be caused by the Mother when she dug her nails into him. I was not provided with any photographs or medical evidence regarding the cut. The Father also gave evidence that Omari told him that the Mother used a mop and physical force to discipline him when he vomited.

Without any documentation from the CAS, these statements allegedly made by Omari to someone working for the school board, and statements the Father claims were made to him by Omari, do not establish that Omari is unsafe when he is in the Mother’s custody. I am of course, concerned by any allegation that Omari may be at risk with either parent. However, there is no reliable evidence for me to find that the Mother poses a threat to Omari’s safety. However, the Father’s belief that the Mother abuses the children is further evidence of the Father’s mistrust of the Mother.

The lack of respect that the Father feels towards the Mother was clearly communicated in his closing submission that he prepared as a self-represented litigant (quoted exactly as written):

All the mother’s actions have clearly indicated are spiteful, selfish, and with a devious mentality with no relevance of the upbringing of the children, the relationship of the two parents but the sole purpose is to gain an advantage over the former husband and deprive the children and the father valuable upbringing meaningful time.

It is very surprising that the Father describes the Mother in such harsh terms, but still suggests that joint decision-making could work effectively.

The Law

Under s.16(1) of the Divorce Act, the court shall only consider the best interests of the children when making parenting orders. In determining best interests, s.16(3) mandates that the court is required to consider all factors related to the circumstances of the children, including their needs, the history of care of the children, any plans for the children’s care, the ability and willingness of each parent to care for and meet the needs of the child, and the ability and willingness of each parent in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate with the other parent on matters affecting the children.

If there is a history of significant conflict that has impacted the functioning and parenting of the parties and the well-being of the child, these factors will support an order for sole decision-making responsibility: Khairzard v. Erroussa, 2023 ONSC 6741, para 107.

Joint decision-making responsibility may be appropriate when there is a reasonable measure of communication and co-operation in place, so that the best interests of the child can be ensured on an ongoing basis: Khairzad v. McFarlane, 2015 ONSC 7148, para 29.

Justice Pazaratz summarized the problematic potential of joint decision-making responsibility in Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 6451, para 504:

In the wrong family circumstances, a joint custody order can perpetuate hostilities, indecision, and power struggles. Children – particularly children already exposed to the upset of family breakdown – look to their parents for love, guidance, stability, protection, and consistency. They need to have confidence that adult decisions will be made quickly, properly and uneventfully.

Justice Sherr recently summarized the test for joint decision-making responsibility in McGuire v. Tyrell, 2024 ONCJ 643, para 39:

Courts do not expect communication between separated parties to be easy or comfortable, or free of conflict. A standard of perfection is not required and is obviously not achievable. See: Griffiths v. Griffiths, 2005 ONCJ 235. The issue is whether a reasonable measure of communication and cooperation is in place, and is achievable in the future so that the best interests of the child can be ensured on an ongoing basis.

Conclusion - Decision-Making Responsibility

The evidence before me establishes that these two parents are not capable of joint decision-making. For the following reasons, I find that it is in the best interests of the children that the Mother has sole decision-making responsibility for the children.

I accept the Mother’s evidence that when she has communicated with the Father about various issues related to the children he often does not respond. Joint decision-making responsibility requires excellent communication between the two parents, with swift responses when one of them contacts the other.

The Father’s evidence contained numerous references to his lack of trust towards the Mother. Joint decision-making responsibility for a child is not possible if there is no trust between the parents.

The Father and his partner Ms. Carbone both testified that Ms. Carbone assists the Father in communicating with the Mother. While the intervention of a third party may sometimes be helpful in managing communication between two parents, it also suggests that that one or both parents require that assistance. The fact that the Father feels it is necessary to rely upon his new partner to communicate with the Mother lends support to the Mother’s position that the Father is not capable of co-parenting with her, and making joint decisions with her on an ongoing basis.

I also accept the Mother’s evidence that the Father has difficulties controlling his temper. Her evidence was unchallenged as the Father chose not to cross-examine her. The Mother testified that on one occasion before the separation the Father broke down the door to their home when she and the children were in bed. She also testified that one time when the parties were arguing the Father slammed a door, which resulted in an injury to Omari’s finger.

The Father denied that he has difficulty controlling his temper. However, his level of irritation was evident during his cross-examination.

It is in the best interests of the children that decisions relating to their needs and well-being are made efficiently and without conflict. The Father has not demonstrated that he is capable of working co-operatively with the Mother to make joint decisions for the children.

The Mother is a more appropriate choice than the Father to be the sole decision-maker for the children. The Mother has been a consistent and stable presence in the children’s lives. The children have been in the primary care of the Mother since they were born. She has also been the primary contact for medical providers for the children since their births, and the primary contact for the school. It is appropriate that she manage the decisions that affect the children.

The Mother has established that she is more likely than the Father to ensure that Omari takes his ADHD medication consistently. The Father was blunt in his evidence about his rejection of Omari’s ADHD diagnosis, even though he did not provide any medical opinion to support his opinion that Omari does not have ADHD, nor did he provide any evidence as to the efforts that he has made to obtain a second opinion regarding Omari’s condition.

The Mother provided medical evidence that Omari has been diagnosed with ADHD. She also provided evidence from his teacher, and from her own observations, that once he began taking the medication he was better focused, and his behaviour improved.

When two parents cannot agree on medical treatment for a child, one parent must have final decision making-responsibility to enable decisions to be made without having to constantly involve the courts in adjudicating parenting disputes. On the evidence before me, I find that the Mother’s choice to treat Omari’s ADHD condition is in Omari’s best interests.

I also note that the Father was unwilling to use shea butter cream on Jayden’s skin because it was not prescribed by a doctor, but then did not provide any evidence of steps that he has taken to address Jayden’s skin issues.

The Father submits that the Mother has alienated the children from him, and that she puts her own interests ahead of the children. The only evidence the Father put forward in support of this position was the fact that the Mother went to Ghana for five weeks in 2023 and did not take the children with her. He alleges that she has a spouse and another family in Ghana. The Father did not provide any evidence to support this allegation. The Father’s testimony failed to establish that the Mother has alienated the children from him.

The Father also suggested that the Mother was not a responsible parent by alleging that she went to Ghana with the children in 2020 and failed to notify him. However, the Mother provided a police incident report confirming that the Mother had written authorization from the Father for her travel plan. I therefore disregard the Father’s evidence regarding this issue.

There is no reliable evidence before me to establish that the Mother is a selfish parent who is only interested in satisfying her own needs, as argued by the Father. The evidence before me is that the Mother is a concerned parent who prioritizes the welfare of the children. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the Mother has undermined the Father’s relationship with the children. The Mother is the appropriate parent to have sole decision-making responsibility for the children.

Issue #2 - Where should the children have their primary residence?

The Mother seeks an order that the children will have their primary residence with her, with regular parenting-time arranged for the Father. The Father seeks an order that the children will have their primary residence with him, with regular parenting-time with the Mother.

The Mother testified that the Father was never really engaged with the children during the marriage, or after the separation. She stated that after the matrimonial home was sold, the Father did not exercise consistent parenting time with the children, including an eight month period when he didn’t see the children at all. During this time, it was exclusively the Mother who drove them to the babysitter before her work began, and who picked them up from the babysitter at the end of her work day.

The Mother submits that the Father’s interest in joint custody is motivated by his desire to reduce his financial contributions for the children, as opposed to genuinely being interested in spending more time with kids.

The Father is seeking equal parenting time with the children, which he described in his evidence as wanting “equal rights” to his children. The Father expressed frustration over the Mother’s refusal to allow him to have had primary care of the children when she travelled without them to Ghana for five weeks in the summer of 2023.

The Father testified that he has a desire to be fully engaged and a full-time father to the children. He believes it is in the best interests of the children to have him as an active and engaged parent in their daily lives. He alleges that children’s lives are worked around the Mother’s life, and that she is focused on having the children with her primarily for her financial benefit.

All parenting decisions must be based on the children’s best interests: Rigillo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 647, para 13. In my view, it is in the children’s best interests that their primary residence be with the Mother in Orangeville, which is in the same catchment area as their school. The children have always lived with the Mother. The Mother is the person who has consistently arranged for the medical care, and looked after them.

The Father asks for equal parenting time, but does not provide reasons as to why it is in the children’s best interests to live with him half of the time. The evidence suggests that the Father has taken a more involved approach to the children’s medical care and education recently than he did when the parties first separated. However, his increased engagement does not establish that it is in the children’s best interests to shift the parenting schedule to equal parenting time.

I accept the Mother’s evidence that the Father has refused to confirm the address of where he resides. He has at times stated that he lives with his brother in Whitby, that he stays with his sister in Shelburne, and that he lives in Brampton. It is a basic, fundamental requirement that the Father inform the Mother where the children will be staying when he is exercising overnight parenting time with them.

The Father also did not provide specific evidence as to where the children sleep when they stay with him. He testified that the children sleep “wherever they want.” The Father’s lack of transparency surrounding the children’s living arrangements when they stay with him does not support a plan of equal parenting time.

The evidence that the Father does not ensure that Omari takes his ADHD medication also does not support a plan of equal parenting time. It is in Omari’s best interests that he take his medication regularly. If half of his time is spent with his Father, there is a risk that he will not take his required medication half of the time.

There was also evidence during the trial that the Father did not ensure that Omari completed his homework assignment when he was in the Father’s care. The Mother provided a copy of a text message she sent to the Father confirming that he had known about Omari’s assignment for weeks before it was due, and that he had told the Mother he had a copy of the assignment. Yet the Father gave evidence that the homework assignment was not completed because it was not in Omari’s backpack.

I accept the Mother’s evidence that she had confirmed previously with the Father that he would make sure Omari completed the assignment, but that the assignment was nonetheless not finished. Ensuring that children complete homework and school projects is an important aspect of parenting. It is not in the children’s best interests to spend half of their time with the Father if he cannot properly monitor the work they bring home from school, particularly given Omari’s challenges with focus and concentration.

Issue #3 – What parenting schedule is in the children’s best interests?

On November 17, 2022, Justice Kumaranayake made a consent order on an interim basis that the children were to have their primary residence with the Mother, and parenting time with the Father as follows:

a) From Saturday at 10:00 am to Monday at 6:30 every other weekend; and
b) On Monday from 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm on alternating weeks.

The child exchanges were ordered to take place at the home of the babysitter. The Mother now seeks an order that the children have parenting time with the Father:

a) From Saturday at 10:00 am to Sunday evening at 6:00 pm every other weekend; and
b) On Monday from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm on alternating weeks.

The Mother asks that the Father’s parenting time on Sunday nights be removed to ensure that Omari takes his medication, and to ensure that he has a full night’s rest before going to school on Monday. The Mother supports the children having parenting time with the Father after school on Mondays on alternating weeks, provided that the Father ensures that Jayden attends the daycare program at the YMCA in Orangeville, so that his enrollment in the program is not jeopardized.

I find that it is in the children’s best interests to continue with the parenting schedule already in place. There is no evidence before me that Omari’s performance at school has been negatively affected on Mondays after staying overnight at the Father’s house on the previous Sunday night. By way of this ruling, the Father is ordered to ensure that Omari takes his ADHD medication. If further evidence becomes available that the Father is not giving Omari the required medication, it will be open to the Mother to bring a motion to change the parenting schedule.

The Mother asks that the exchange location for the children remain at her home in Orangeville. The Father proposes that the parenting exchanges on Mondays take place at a location halfway between Brampton and Orangeville. The Mother submits that the Father stated he will be exercising his parenting time at his sister’s home in Shelburne, which is north of Orangeville, so the Father will be driving through Orangeville anyway on route to his sister’s home. As I have no clear evidence as to where the Father resides, the Mother’s proposal makes sense. The exchanges shall occur at the Mother’s residence.

If the Father will not be exercising his parenting time, he must notify the Mother at least two days in advance so that she can make suitable alternate arrangements for the care of the children. If the Father repeatedly fails to exercise his Monday afternoon parenting time, the Mother may bring a motion to change to remove the Monday afternoon parenting time with the Father.

The Father also criticizes the Mother for selecting night shifts at work that do not maximize her parenting time when the children are not in school, thereby requiring the assistance of outside childcare. The Mother testified that she believes it is in the children’s best interests to receive social contact with other children at the YMCA.

I was not provided with any evidence regarding difficulties being experienced by the children that are connected to the Mother’s work hours, nor did the Father choose to cross-examine the Mother about this issue. I have no evidence before me from the Mother to assist in determining the reasonableness of the Mother’s choice to work night shifts. I therefore did not give this issue significant weight when deciding the appropriate parenting schedule for the children.

Issue #4 - Is the Mother permitted to travel with the children outside of the country without the Father’s consent?

The Mother was born in Ghana. She seeks an order permitting her to travel outside of Canada for up to three weeks annually with the children without the Father’s consent.

I accept the Mother’s evidence that in the past she has had difficulty obtaining the Father’s consent to allow her to travel to Ghana with the children. The Mother has been employed on a full-time basis in Mississauga for many years. There is no evidence before me that the Mother is a flight risk.

The Mother is not required to secure the Father’s consent to travel with the children internationally. The Mother shall make efforts to avoid the children missing school when they travel.

Should the Mother chose to travel without the children, the Father shall be offered the opportunity to care for the children in the Mother’s absence, prior to the Mother making any alternate childcare arrangements, provided that the Father is committed to providing Omari with his medication.

Issue #5 - Is the Mother permitted to obtain government documentation for the children without the Father’s consent?

I accept the Mother’s evidence that in the past she had difficulty obtaining the Father’s co-operation to allow her to obtain passports and travel visas for the children.

If the Father does not cooperate within seven days of receiving a written request from the Mother to obtain, apply or renew the children's official documentation or travel visas, the Mother may apply for, renew and obtain the children's official government documentation and travel visas without the Father’s consent.

Issue #6 - Is the Father required to carry a life insurance policy to provide child support for the children in the event of his death?

Section 34(1)(i) of the Family Law Act states that the Court may make a final order requiring that a spouse who has a policy of life insurance as defined under the Insurance Act designate the other spouse or a child as the beneficiary irrevocably.

The Divorce Act provides the same power to a Court to order that a spouse obtain insurance to secure payment of support payments that are binding on the payor’s estate: Katz v. Katz, 2014 ONCA 606, para 73.

In this case, the Father already has a personal life insurance policy, as well as a life insurance policy provided by his employer.

The Mother submits that based on the Father’s 2024 income of $80,590.68, the DivorceMate calculations establish that a lump sum of $170,559 is required to provide for the Father’s future child support obligations for the next fifteen to twenty years. This amount does not include contributions to special expenses and post-secondary education expenses for the children. The Mother further submits that $50,000 per child for special expenses should be added to the amount required for the policy to secure child support obligations.

The Mother states that the Father’s total life insurance policy value is $500,000. She asks that the children should be named as the irrevocable beneficiaries of $250,000 of his Canada Life insurance policy, with the Mother named as a beneficiary in trust.

The Father’s closing submissions are silent regarding the Mother’s request that he maintain a life insurance policy to ensure payment of his support obligations for the children. At trial, the Father testified that the children are already named as beneficiaries for the full value of the policy.

It is appropriate that the Father maintain life insurance in the minimum amount of $250,000 to provide for his children in the event of his death. The Father is to provide documentation to the Mother confirming that the children are the irrevocable beneficiaries of his life insurance policy within thirty days of the date of this order, as well as an authorization form permitting the Mother to communicate directly with the insurer to ensure that the policy remains in effect each year that the Father is obligated to pay child support for the children.

Issue #7 – Retroactive child support and s.7 Payments to be paid by the Father to the Mother

On the first day of the trial the parties informed me that they had resolved the issue of child support and s.7 expenses to be paid by the Father to the Mother retroactively to the order of Justice Barnes in 2022. Unfortunately, in their written closing submissions it became apparent that the agreement between the parties had dissolved, with both parties providing different calculations for the retroactive payments owed.

The Father did not provide a sworn Financial Statement as required. However, during cross-examination at the trial he confirmed his income for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024. The Father had previously not disclosed his income for the last three years.

Retroactive Child Support Owed by the Father to the Mother

The Mother submits that the Father owes her retroactive child support payments totaling $5,796 plus prejudgment interest as of December 31, 2024, retroactive to March 1, 2022 which is the date when Justice Barnes ordered that support commence. The Mother’s calculations are based on the Father’s income as follows:

a) 2022 – The Father earned $73,689.96. He paid $1,041 per month in child support, but ought to have paid $1,119 per month. His child support payments were therefore $78 per month less than they should have been. The payment he owes from March 2022 to December 2022 is therefore $78 x ten months = $780.

b) 2023 – The Father earned $84,711.30. He ought to have paid $1,280 per month, but only paid $1,041 per month. He therefore underpaid child support by $239 per month, for a total retroactive payment owing to the Mother of $239 x 12 months = $2,868.

c) 2024 – The Father earned $80,590.68. He ought to have paid $1,220 per month in child support, resulting in an underpayment each month of $179. The Father therefore owes $179 x 12 months = $2,148 for 2024.

The Father’s calculations use June 1st as the date when the quantum of the child support payments will be recalculated each year, as Justice Barnes’ order requires that the parties exchange their respective income tax returns and Notices of Assessment by that date each year. The Father’s calculations of retroactive child support owing therefore start on June 1, 2023. The Father states that he owes $936 from June 1, 2023 to June 1, 2024, which is $78 x 12 months. He also states that he owes $2,151 from June 1, 2024 to February 1, 2025, which is $239 x 9 months. The Father therefore submits that he owes the Mother $3,087 in retroactive child support.

The Mother’s calculations are correct. The order of Justice Barnes requires the parties to exchange financial information by June 1st each year to recalculate the amounts owed, to ensure that the children receive the accurate amount of child support to which they are entitled. However, at this point the Father’s actual income for 2022, 2023 and 2024 is known. It is therefore appropriate that his underpayment of child support be calculated retroactive to March 2022, using the quantum of the income that he has confirmed that he earned in each year.

The Mother is entitled to retroactive child support of $5,796 from March 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024, plus prejudgment interest of $38.57 pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act. The Father owes ongoing monthly child support starting on January 1, 2025 of $1,220 per month. This amount may be adjusted depending upon his income for 2025.

Retroactive S.7 Payments Owed by the Father to the Mother

The Father admitted during the trial that he has not yet paid any amounts towards the children’s childcare expenses, dating back to 2022. The Mother provided the receipts to establish the accuracy of the amounts claimed, in addition to bank statements that show cash withdrawals being made on a weekly basis, which the Mother testified were used to pay for Ms. Agyapong’s childcare services. The Mother also claims prejudgment interest on all outstanding amounts.

Based on the parties’ respective incomes, the Mother submits that the Father owes her a retroactive payment for s.7 expenses totaling $4,995 for past childcare expenses paid to Ms. Agyapong in 2022 and 2023, which were not subject to tax credits, and $569 for his after-tax contribution to the YMCA childcare expenses for the 2023-2024 school year. The Mother provided DivorceMate printouts to support her calculations. The Mother claims that the Father owes her $5,564 in total for retroactive s.7 expenses, with the payments broken down as follows pursuant to the parties’ respective incomes:

a) 56.3% of the childcare expenses in 2022, for a total payment owed of $2,928;
b) 61.7% of the childcare expenses in 2023, for a total payment owed of $2,067;
c) 59.2% of the after-tax contributions to the YMCA childcare expenses for both children for the 2023-2024 school year, for a total payment owed of childcare expenses in 2024, for a total payment owed of $569.

In his closing submissions, the Father calculates that he owes the Mother $5,321.88 in retroactive s.7 expenses, which is only $242.12 less than the amount claimed by the Mother. The difference in their calculations results from the Father using June of each year as the date by which the s.7 payments are adjusted, as opposed to adjusting the payments based on each parties’ income at the conclusion of each year.

The Father therefore owes the Mother retroactive s.7 expenses for childcare totaling $5,564 until the end of December 2024, plus prejudgment interest of $55.39 pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

Conclusion

I make the following orders:

1. The Mother shall have sole decision-making for the children of the marriage.

2. The Mother shall inform the Father in writing before making any major decisions for the children.

3. Each party has the right to consult with and obtain information, records, and report cards directly from the children's teachers, doctors and any other professionals involved with the children about the children's health, education, and general welfare.

4. Neither party shall expose the children to adult information or adult conflict or denigrate the other party in the presence of the children.

5. Each party shall provide the other with a current telephone number and/or email address to ensure prompt communication in the event of an emergency.

6. Neither party shall speak negatively about the other party in the children's presence. Both parties shall also make their best efforts to prevent any other person from speaking negatively about the other party in the children's presence.

7. Neither party shall discuss this court case or other adult issues involving the parties with the children.

8. The children shall continue to reside primarily with the Mother.

9. The children shall reside with the Father alternating weekends from Saturday at 10 a.m. to Monday at 6:30 p.m. The children shall be picked up and dropped off at their home in Orangeville.

10. In the weeks that the Father does not have weekend parenting time with the children, the children shall be in his care from Monday at 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm.

11. The Father must give the Mother two days’ notice if he will not be exercising his Monday afternoon parenting time. If the Father repeatedly fails to exercise his Monday afternoon parenting time, the Mother may bring a motion to change to remove this parenting time.

12. Holiday Schedule

    The holiday schedule below shall override the regular residential schedule above.

    a) March break:
    i. In odd years, the Father shall have the children in his care from the Friday preceding the week of March break until the Sunday following the week of March break, at 6:30 p.m.
    ii. In even years, the Applicant shall have the children in her care from the Friday preceding the week of March break until the Sunday of the week following March break.

    b) Summer break:
    i. Each party shall have two non-consecutive weeks with the children each summer with the other parent's parenting time to be suspended during those weeks.
    ii. The Mother shall have the first choice of her two summer weeks in odd years, with notice to be provided to the Father by April 18. The Father shall provide notice of his chosen weeks by April 15th.
    iii. The Father shall have the first choice of summer weeks in even years, with notice to be provided to the Mother by April 1st. The Mother shall provide notice of her chosen weeks by April 15th.

    c) Easter: The parent who has the children the weekend of Easter weekend shall have their parenting time commence after school on the Thursday preceding Good Friday.

    d) For the balance of holidays and statutory holidays not specified above, the party who has the children in the weekend preceding a statutory holiday shall keep the children until Monday at 6:30 p.m.

13. The Mother shall be permitted to travel with the children for up to three weeks annually without the Father’s written consent.

14. Should the Mother chose to travel without the children, the Father shall be offered the opportunity to care for the children in the Mother’s absence, prior to the Mother making any alternate childcare arrangements, provided that the Father is committed to providing Omari with his medication.

15. With the exception of the Father being involved in an emergency, if the Father does not cooperate within seven days of receiving a written request from the Mother to obtain, apply or renew the children's official documentation or travel visas, the Mother may apply for, renew and obtain the children's official government documentation and travel visas without the Father’s consent.

16. The Father shall secure his child support obligations for the children with life insurance.

    i) The Father shall name the children as the irrevocable beneficiaries of his Canada Life policy in the amount of $250,000, with the Mother named as the beneficiary in trust.
    ii) Within thirty days of the date of this order, the Father shall provide proof of the beneficiary designation to the Mother as well as an authorization form permitting the Mother to communicate directly with the insurer to ensure that the policy remains in effect each year that the Father is obligated to pay child support for the children.

17. The Father shall immediately pay the Mother $5,796 plus prejudgment interest $38.57 totaling $5,834.57 for retroactive child support, and $5,564 plus prejudgment interest $55.39 totaling $5,619.39 for retroactive s.7 expenses, for a total payment of $11,453.96 that shall be payable forthwith.

Costs

The parties are encouraged to agree upon costs. Since the Mother was predominantly successful at the trial, it is anticipated that she will be entitled to her costs. If the parties are unable to agree upon costs, the Mother may file and serve a cost submission by August 5, 2025. The Father may file and serve a responding cost submission by August 15, 2025. Each submission shall be no longer than three pages double-spaced, excluding any Bills of Costs or Offers to Settle. All cost submissions shall be uploaded to Case Center, and emailed to my attention at scj.csj.general.brampton@ontario.ca.

Released: July 22, 2025

Wilkinson