Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-24-00000236-0000 Date: 2025-08-01 Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Family Court

Between: K.M., Applicant – and – G.C., Respondent

Self-Represented Litigant | Self-Represented Litigant

Heard: May 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30, and June 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, 2025 at St. Catharines

The Honourable Justice L.E. Standryk

Reasons for Judgment

Initialization

[1] While neither party requested the initialization of this decision, I have considered the appropriateness of doing so pursuant to my common law jurisdiction, which allows me to restrict the publication of names and other information that would identify the child in this case. In addition to my common law jurisdiction, authority to do so can be found in s. 70 of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (the "CLRA"). I am required to consider the sensitivity of information contained in the file and whether the publication of identifying information could cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to any person referred to in the court file.

[2] Given the reference to both medically sensitive information concerning the child and the highly sensitive nature of the parties' conduct, as well as its impact on the family, I am satisfied that without the protection of confidentiality through initializing the names of the parties and child the child could suffer emotional harm.

[3] The applicant father (the "Father") and the respondent mother (the "Mother") share one child, B.M.

[4] The parties started living together on January 1, 2012. B.M. was born on [redacted], 2014. The parties separated on March 1, 2018. Throughout their relationship, the parties and their extended family lived in Hamilton, Ontario.

[5] The parties entered into a separation agreement dated September 18, 2020 (the "Agreement"), which resolved all matters arising from their separation and contained detailed terms regarding decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support.

[6] The Father initiated this application in January 2024 with the objective of increasing parenting time with B.M. On July 11, 2024, an altercation involving the parties occurred in B.M.'s presence (the "July 2024 incident"). While the Father saw B.M a few times following the incident, he has not seen B.M. since September 2024.

Issues for Trial

[7] The Father asserts that the Mother has alienated him from their son. He seeks an order for sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence to assist with having B.M. attend school in his catchment area, and a shared parenting schedule to occur on a week-about basis.

[8] The Mother opposes the orders sought and requests an order for sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and a suspension of the Father's parenting time until he can demonstrate that his parenting time would be safe and beneficial for B.M.

[9] The parties were never married, and therefore these issues are determined under the CLRA.

[10] The Mother also seeks an order for the payment of child support arrears fixed in the sum of $6,250 together with s. 7 expenses of $3,801.52. Each party requests that ongoing child support be ordered consistent with the court's determination of parenting time.

History of Parenting

[11] Both parties describe being actively involved in the child's daily routine prior to their separation. Depending on their respective schedules and availability, the parties shared childcare responsibilities, including pickup and drop off at daycare, as well as attending to any necessary appointments.

[12] B.M. was three years old when the parties separated in 2018. Both parties testified that following separation they enjoyed a level of cooperative co-parenting. The parties coordinated their schedules with B.M. largely based on their work schedules and availability. This worked for a period of time, however, eventually the parties retained counsel and negotiated the Agreement. The terms of the Agreement demonstrated an intention to continue to co-parent with one another: B.M. would reside primarily with the Mother; they would share joint custody (now decision-making responsibility); and the Father would have parenting time with B.M. on a four-week rotation.

[13] In addition to the regular parenting time schedule, the parties established a detailed holiday schedule: B.M. would spend time with the Father on Father's Day and two non-consecutive weeks of summer vacation; B.M. would celebrate his birthday with the parent he resided with under the regular parenting schedule, etcetera.

[14] It was agreed that pickup and drop off for parenting exchanges would occur at B.M.'s school; when he was not in school, they would occur at the Mother's residence. The parties agreed that when either of them could not care for B.M. for more than 16 hours, the other parent would have the opportunity to spend that time with him.

[15] In 2021, the Mother decided to move to St. Catharines, Ontario, notwithstanding a term in the Agreement that prevented a change in B.M.'s ordinary residence of more than 30 km from the city of Hamilton without consent. While the Father disagreed with the move, he did not litigate the issue. Both parties testified that he was often at the Mother's house in St. Catharines, helped out around the house, and occasionally stayed for dinner.

[16] Since moving to St. Catharines, B.M. has continued to attend his regular school in Hamilton and participate in extracurricular activities there, staying close to his circle of friends and family.

[17] Both of the parties acknowledge that up until the end of 2023 and into 2024 "everything was fine" and they were able to effectively co-parent. The Mother asserts that the change in their relationship and the increase in conflict were due to the Father's re-partnering. The Father asserts that the increase in conflict was because he asserted an interest in increasing his parenting time with B.M. Regardless of the cause, an increase in conflict is clearly evident in the manner in which the parties communicated and interacted with one another.

[18] After the Father filed his application in January 2024, the conflict continued to escalate. Following one of B.M.'s soccer games, the July 2024 incident occurred involving the Father, his partner, the Mother, the maternal grandmother, and the maternal step-grandfather. The incident involved physical violence, in B.M.'s presence, ending in the Father facing criminal charges of assault.

[19] On July 26, 2024, shortly after the July 2024 incident, the parties consented to the order of Donohue J. providing the Father with parenting time on alternating weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 7:00 p.m. with exchanges to take place at the Stoney Creek Police Station. The Father's uncle agreed to do the exchanges. However, due to personal circumstances unrelated to the parties, the Father's uncle was unable to continue facilitating exchanges beyond September 2024. As a result, the Father proposed that exchanges occur at B.M.'s school. The Mother declined. The Father has had no parenting time with B.M. since.

[20] On January 9, 2025, during a settlement conference before Bingham J., the parties agreed that parenting time exchanges could occur at B.M.'s school. Parenting time was to take place from Friday after school until Monday morning when the Father returned B.M. to school. On non-school days, exchanges would occur at the Stoney Creek Police Station. No adult participating in the exchange would exit their vehicle. Since the consent order, B.M. has missed school each Friday when exchanges are scheduled to occur.

[21] With respect to the issue of child support, the terms of the Agreement require the Father to pay the Mother $1,000 per month. The Agreement contains the standard annual financial disclosure obligations required by the Ontario Child Support Guidelines (the "OCSG"). The Father has not paid child support since January 2025 and has not contributed to the majority of the child's s. 7 extraordinary expenses since 2021.

[22] Following the July 2024 incident, the criminal charges against the Father were withdrawn in exchange for his agreement to a peace bond. Pursuant to that peace bond, the Father was prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly with the Mother except pursuant to a court order or in the presence of or through legal counsel or through written communication to facilitate parental decision making, access, or custody exchanges, through telephone contact for emergency medical situations regarding B.M., or through family litigation/court proceedings. The Father was also restricted from being within three meters of the Mother except pursuant to a family court order, in the presence of or through legal counsel or during court proceedings.

[23] In May 2025, the Mother alleged that the Father breached the peace bond, and he was charged and taken into custody. The Father was released on terms that he not communicate directly or indirectly with the Mother, nor come within 100 meters of her. To allow the parties to participate fully in the trial, the Mother agreed to a variation of the release conditions, permitting both parties to be present and participate in the trial.

Prior Court Orders

[24] As already alluded to, since the July 2024 incident, the parties consented to the terms contained in two court orders:

a. An order dated July 26, 2024 by Donohue J.: requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer ("OCL") to provide a voice of the child report; parenting time between the Father and B.M. alternate weekends commencing at 5:00 p.m. Friday until Sunday at 7:00 p.m., exchanges to occur at the Stoney Creek Police Station and facilitated by the Father's uncle; on alternate non-parenting weekends, the Mother was to encourage B.M. to call the Father on Sunday at 7:00 p.m.

b. An order dated January 9, 2025 by Bingham J.: varying the location of exchanges to occur at B.M.'s school with the exception that on non-school days exchanges were to occur at the Stoney Creek Police Station; no adult participating in the exchange was to exit their vehicle; and no adult communication was to occur during the exchange.

[25] Notwithstanding the consent orders, no parenting time has occurred since September 2024.

Credibility and Reliability of the Witnesses

[26] The Father, throughout his evidence, was calm, reflective and, at times, emotional. He was not as articulate as the Mother, nor was he as organized. He spoke from the heart about his relationship with B.M. and spoke with joy about how a relationship between B.M., his new partner, and her children had started to develop.

[27] The Father's description of his relationship with B.M. was confirmed by his uncle. The Father's uncle described a strong bond between father and son and the connection that B.M. had to extended family. He explained that B.M. was safe and happy while in his father's care and he expressed no concerns about the Father's parenting skills.

[28] The Father's new partner described the strength of the Father's relationship with B.M. and the activities that they enjoyed together. She described a trusting relationship that she and B.M. had developed over the last two years. She resisted the temptation during cross-examination to minimize moments when B.M. and his father disagreed about things, and she focused on telling the court about the advice she offered B.M. to work through those disagreements. She explained her relationship with the Mother, and why she declined the Mother's request of her to assist in facilitating parenting time. While her text exchange with the Mother in response to the request was blunt, I do not view her reasons for declining as unreasonable. Overall, I found she was a credible witness who, despite obvious tension with the Mother, testified in a calm and straightforward manner.

[29] The Father acknowledged that, in the past, he had lost his temper with the Mother, but he submitted that his hostility toward the Mother, although unacceptable in retrospect, was understandable given what he described as a one-way street of decision making.

[30] Neither he nor his new partner downplayed the events of the July 2024 incident. In fact, the description of the events was strikingly similar from both parties' accounts.

[31] The Father's evidence was relevant and credible, although from time to time lacking in detail; it refuted the Mother's assertion that she always and consistently acted in good faith and in B.M.'s best interest.

[32] The Mother was extremely organized and demonstrated a good memory. Much but not all of her evidence was supported by documentation as well as the witnesses called on her behalf. The testimony of both the maternal grandmother and step-grandfather corroborated her testimony regarding the July 2024 incident. This evidence differed slightly from the Father's evidence regarding who instigated the physical conflict.

[33] The Mother was visibly upset throughout the trial and, from time to time, had emotional outbursts, displaying clear contempt for the Father. However, generally, she answered questions candidly – particularly those questions posed by the court – even though the answers did not place her in a positive light. For example, she admitted having written an email to the Father wherein she said, "You think going to court is going to solve anything? Go right ahead and waste more money only to not see the kid ever? They will side with me the mother every time asshole. You will be paying me more than we agreed… Enjoy your weekend with B.M. lol he knows everything I told him how you are harassing me and now taking me to court for something he doesn't want. Good luck…"

[34] I found her evidence to be credible and, for the most part, reliable.

[35] Despite the obvious friction between the parties, the court appreciated the efforts to be prepared and to tell their story to the court, displaying a measure of respect toward one another in doing so. What became abundantly apparent is that both parties continue to experience hurt from the July 2024 incident, the difficult position that it has created for B.M., and the loss of what was, for the most part, an amiable parenting relationship.

Law and Analysis

Alienation - Has the Father been alienated from B.M. by the Mother?

[36] The Father asserts that the Mother has alienated B.M. from him by consistently ignoring court orders, raising false accusations against him, and engaging in a consistent pattern of obstruction that paints him as an unfit father.

[37] The Mother denies that she has alienated B.M. from the Father. She states that the Father is responsible for the breakdown in his relationship with B.M. She states B.M. has expressed fear of his Father's temper and is visibly anxious before and after interactions with him. She asserts that this was evidenced before the July 2024 incident. The Mother asserts that B.M. has been diagnosed with general anxiety disorder as a result of having witnessed the violence between the parties in July 2024 and simply refuses to interact with his father on any level.

[38] The OCL was engaged in July 2024, however, was not requested to consider the issue of parental alienation.

[39] A child's rejection of one parent can often happen because the other parent has negative feelings towards that parent. This can happen when the other parent intentionally or unintentionally tries to damage the relationship between the child and the targeted parent.

[40] Alienating behaviour can be direct or indirect. Parental alienation occurs when a child shows strong resistance or rejection of a parent without any reasonably objective justification.

[41] Estrangement occurs when a child understandably refuses contact with a parent because of that parent's behaviour, and there is a logical and rational reason for the child's rejection: Williamson v. Williamson, 2016 BCCA 87, 395 D.L.R. (4th) 510.

[42] Parental alienation may be present if: there was a prior positive relationship between the targeted parent and the child; there is an absence of abuse by the targeted parent; there is evidence of many of the alienating strategies; and the child exhibits most of the alienated child behaviours: Fielding v. Fielding, 2013 ONSC 5102, 39 R.F.L. (7th) 59, at paras. 131-136.

[43] Alienating strategies may include: badmouthing, limiting contact, interfering with communications, forcing the child to choose, creating the impression that the targeted parent is dangerous, confiding in the child personal adult and litigation information, withholding medical, social, and academic information from the targeted parent and keeping his or her name off the records, cultivating dependency on self/undermining the authority of the targeted parent, permitting or insisting that the child make decisions about contact, setting few limits or being rigid about routines, rules and expectations, and expressing no concern for missed visits with the targeted parent: Fielding; A.M. v. C.H., 2019 ONCA 764.

[44] Alienating behaviours in a child may include a view of the parents that is one sided, all good or all bad; idealizing one parent and devaluing the other; a stronger but not necessarily healthy psychological bond with the alienating parent than with the rejected parent; vilification of the targeted parent and a campaign of hatred against them; and reactions and perceptions that are disproportionate to the targeted parent's behaviour, etcetera: Fielding; A.M.

[45] Not all alienating strategies or alienating behaviours in a child will be present in each case.

[46] The Father did not present evidence or make closing submissions regarding alienation in an organized manner. While this is the case, it is generally not uncommon among self-represented individuals who are trying to navigate the complex procedural and evidentiary rules of a family law trial, which often occurs in the backdrop of deeply personal and emotional circumstances. Recognizing this, I will highlight the evidence of strategies and child-alienating behaviour that appears in the evidence before me.

[47] Both parties presented evidence of a previously close father-son relationship. Testimony from the parties, as well as the Father's new partner, his uncle, the maternal grandmother, and the maternal step-grandfather, described the relationship in positive terms. The Father and son were said to be "two peas in a pod," highlighting and reinforcing an overall favourable perception of their bond.

[48] There is no evidence to suggest that the Father has engaged in abusive behaviour toward B.M. The Mother stated concerns she has with the Father's parenting skills: he makes B.M. sit on the couch for hours to talk about things he does not want to; he takes away B.M.'s iPad as a disciplinary measure; B.M. was left unattended at a pool during a family vacation in the Dominican Republic; B.M. was left alone in line with a ride attendant during a trip to Darien Lake; and the Father's new partner drove a golf cart into a tree during the same trip to Darien Lake while riding with B.M.

[49] Each of these concerns and others raised by the Mother have been relayed to her by B.M., and are hearsay and inadmissible. Nonetheless, the Mother led no evidence of having discussed her concerns with the Father.

[50] Each of the incidents was put to either the Father or his new partner. In considering their explanations, it is my view that the incidents raised demonstrate a reality that most families experience: parents often have different parenting styles. Children sometimes do not like to talk about things with their parents, but that does not mean that requiring them to sit and engage in the discussion (depending on the topic) is abusive. Parents, including the Mother in this case, often take electronic devices away from children as a means of discipline or to limit screen time. Children are frequently upset as a result of these disciplinary measures, but that does not mean the parenting style is abusive. All of these examples demonstrate a difference in parenting style. However, this does not imply that the Father's parenting style is wrong or bad.

[51] The balance of the concerns identified by the Mother do not rise to the level of abusive or neglectful behaviour. They demonstrate the further reality that parents can and will make mistakes. Often, parents are just trying to do their best, and sometimes in hindsight they recognize an error in judgment, particularly when the decision involves their child. No parent is perfect.

[52] This said, the July 2024 incident is a form of family violence. The parties' recollections, as well as those of the witnesses involved in the incident, differ slightly, but these differences are minor and of no consequence to my findings. Regardless of who instigated the physical violence, the incident has had a profound effect on all individuals involved. B.M. was present, and he was the center of the conflict involving physical violence and profanities exchanged between the very people a child should reasonably expect to shield him from such chaos.

[53] The July 2024 incident marked a significant turning point for everyone, but most notably B.M. and his Father, resulting in some justified estrangement. However, before the July 2024 incident, evidence of alienating strategies employed by the Mother are also evident.

[54] The Agreement requires each parent to consult each other regularly about important issues such as B.M.'s education, health care, and religious upbringing; each parent is entitled to make inquiries and be given information by B.M.'s school officials, doctors, dentists, health care providers, etcetera.

[55] The Mother does not dispute that she stopped informing the Father of B.M.'s medical appointments and social activities in or about 2023. The Father has not been made aware of B.M.'s appointments with Dr. Mack at the Halton Pediatric Allergy clinic, the family physician Dr. Profetto, or other health care providers.

[56] There is further evidence that the Mother failed to communicate B.M.'s social activities, including a trip to the Americana water park. While the Mother asserts that B.M. was to inform his father about his extracurricular events, I view communication through a child of B.M.'s age as inappropriate – it is not an acceptable substitute for a parent's responsibility to communicate with the other.

[57] The Mother has shared unnecessary details and spoken negatively about the Father to third parties. While respecting her feelings toward the Father, the Mother's comments to third parties portray him negatively and are unnecessary. For example, in communication with a counsellor engaged by the Father for the benefit of the child, the Mother said that the parties were in court due to the Father's verbal abuse and her wish to obtain a no-contact order. She stated further that one of the reasons she needed to reschedule the appointment was that B.M. and his father would be on vacation; the father's new partner, whom she dislikes, would likely be present; and it was unlikely that B.M. would be available for the appointment.

[58] The details regarding her feelings about the Father and his new partner are neither necessary nor relevant to reschedule the appointment.

[59] In an email to the Father on June 7, 2024, referring to this court proceeding, the Mother indicated that she has "told B.M. everything." To advise a child at this age about adult conflict and the family law proceeding is inappropriate.

[60] The Father asserts that the Mother refuses to consider B.M.'s wishes and best interests as required by the Agreement. Her refusals and decisions are premised on what is best for her rather than what was best for B.M. She completely ignores the terms of the Agreement, preferring to think that she is the most appropriate parent to make all decisions, which undermines his parental role. There are a few examples of the Father's theory.

[61] The Father disagreed with the need for after school care because he and/or extended family were available for the child. The Mother maintained that the Father's plan did not provide stability, and having different people, even family members with whom he had regular contact, picking B.M. up after school would be confusing and unsettling for him. In my view, her position overlooks a longstanding societal perspective on the importance and benefits of contact between a child and extended family members. Moreover, the Mother herself relies on the maternal grandmother, maternal step-grandfather, and friends, including a friend who lives out of province and stays with her from time to time, to pick B.M. up after school and assist with childcare.

[62] The Mother denied the Father additional parenting time before the start of this proceeding because she believed that B.M., who was nine years old at the time, was not old enough to decide how much time he should spend with his father. However, after the beginning of this proceeding, approximately one year later, she asserts that he is old enough to refuse parenting time with his father. In my opinion, age can provide a general framework for evaluating a child's ability to express views about parenting, however, courts have consistently maintained that a child at this age and developmental stage should not be left to make decisions on their own. The Mother appears to highlight his age in a way that aligns with her perspective, using it to reinforce her stance when appropriate.

[63] In July 2024, when the Father arranged counselling for B.M. through his benefits, the Mother insisted that the counsellor schedule all calls with her and at times when B.M. was in her care.

[64] On July 11, 2024, just hours before B.M.'s soccer game in Brantford, Ontario and the incident involving family violence, the Mother insisted that the parenting exchange take place at the police station in Stoney Creek. Her insistence seemed unreasonable, considering that both parents planned to attend the game. Meeting at the police station required both parties to travel south of Hamilton for the exchange before heading north to Brantford for the game. Meeting in Brantford beforehand would have addressed her concern that B.M. did not have his soccer shirt and the Father's concern of the risk of being late.

[65] The Mother testified that she tells B.M. to call or respond to his father's texts. However, there is no evidence that she actively encourages him to do so or presents possible consequences for failure to do so, such as suspending his iPad use as she does in other instances.

[66] I find that the distance in the father-son relationship has also increased due to the Mother's behaviour, including disclosing to B.M. that his father had previously agreed, through legal counsel, to provide travel consent for a planned trip to Disney but later reneged on that agreement in the weeks leading up to the trip. The Father's behaviour was inappropriate and understandably angered the Mother; however, it was unnecessary to share this information with B.M., especially since the trip took place without the Father's consent, as planned.

[67] Before the July 2024 incident, there is no evidence that B.M. demonstrated alienating behaviour. Since then, however, B.M. has consistently refused to attend school on exchange days and has gone for months without responding to his father's messages. There is no question that B.M.'s behaviour has been significantly influenced by the July 2024 incident and most likely by the impact of the event on his mother. Furthermore, B.M. has refused to engage in ongoing counselling to address the July 2024 incident and his relationship with his father.

[68] There is also evidence from the limited occasions that B.M. responds to his Father's messages that he loves him, misses him, and is working on communicating his feelings to him. This demonstrates that B.M. is not completely ambivalent toward his Father, nor closed off to a relationship with him.

[69] It is strikingly apparent to me that B.M. has been caught in the middle of an escalating conflict between his parents and his extended family. The parties were able to co-parent until late 2023, at which time semi-cooperative communication broke down and was replaced by hurled criticism, name-calling, and the frequent use of profanity. Their default was to communicate through B.M. rather than with each other. B.M. was required to inform each parent of changes to the parenting schedule and other issues that adults in the relationship should have discussed. This is a heavy burden for a young child, to navigate through adult disagreement and experience firsthand his parents' distrust for one another.

[70] In cases of alienation versus estrangement, one parent may bear more responsibility for the strained parent-child relationship. Alienation can arise in the context of family violence, which may be a mitigating factor when assessing the culpability of the alienating behaviour. In some cases, such as this one, both alienating behaviour and estrangement may result from the actions of both parents.

[71] I understand that reaching a clear statement of conclusion on this issue is important to both parties; however, in my view, this is unproductive. A competition over who is more to blame is detrimental to everyone involved, especially the child. Both parties have played an essential role in shaping their current reality. By recognizing this, there is a valuable opportunity for them to reflect on their behaviours and actively seek counselling, not only for B.M. but also individually, to assist them in moving forward to create a life where B.M. can benefit from the involvement of both parents in his life.

Decision Making and Parenting Time

Which decision-making framework best serves the interests of the child?

[72] The overriding consideration in making any decision regarding parenting issues under the CLRA is the child's best interests. Section 24 requires me to give primary consideration to a child's physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. Section 24(3) outlines several factors that I must consider when determining the child's best interests.

[73] The terms of the Agreement provide for joint decision-making responsibility. While the terms of the Agreement may reflect the parents' intentions at the time the terms were negotiated, s. 56(1) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (the "FLA"), allows me to disregard any provision of the Agreement where I find that the best interests of the child require me to do so.

[74] During the parties' relationship and for a period following their separation, while the Mother took primary responsibility for arranging appointments, I find that both parents were involved in attending appointments and caring for B.M. I find that each of the parties is fit and able to meet B.M.'s needs.

[75] There is no evidence that the parties can communicate effectively for the sake of the child. Each party has hurled unpleasant insults at the other in text messages, showing a lack of self-awareness regarding the difficulties and unpleasantness that such hostility creates for co-parenting a child.

[76] A peace bond, ordered on May 12, 2025, permitted communication between the parties for limited purposes, including parental decision making, access exchanges, or telephone communication for emergency medical situations. The Father has since been charged with violating the May 12, 2025 order and is currently prohibited from directly or indirectly contacting the Mother.

[77] The Mother's actions, even prior to the July 2024 incident, have occasionally undermined the Father's role as a partner in joint decision making.

[78] Both parties blame each other for their inability to communicate effectively. They have accused one another of harassment and personal attacks. While I do not believe that either party has engaged in legally harassing the other, there are several examples of personal attacks and animosity contained in their communications with one another. This indicates that they cannot cooperate on matters affecting B.M.

[79] Before the escalation of conflict, B.M. had a strong relationship and frequent contact with both parents' extended families. He continues to maintain contact and has a positive relationship with his maternal grandmother and step-grandfather. B.M. shared an attachment to the Father's extended family, the Father's new partner, and in particular, the Father's uncle, who appears to be well-respected and trusted by B.M. and both parties. All of these individuals appear to have been positive figures in B.M.'s life.

[80] The Mother has a strong relationship with B.M. Prior to July 2024, the Father too shared a strong bond with B.M. Before the escalation of the conflict, neither party articulated substantial concerns regarding the parenting capabilities of the other. The Mother's ongoing consent to parenting time during this proceeding suggests that she recognizes the importance of fostering a father-son relationship. This also minimizes the validity of her concerns for B.M.'s safety while in his father's care.

[81] Both parties have shown an ability to make suitable decisions for the child. They agree that counselling is essential for B.M., regular school attendance is crucial, and family connection is a vital aspect of a child's life.

[82] I am satisfied that, since separation, the Mother has been primarily responsible for arranging medical and dental appointments and communicating with B.M.'s school. I view this mainly as a consequence of B.M.'s primary residence. I find that the Mother has made appropriate decisions regarding B.M.'s health, education, and development. She sought counselling for B.M. immediately following the July 2024 incident and has continued to pursue counselling notwithstanding B.M.'s view that it is no longer required.

[83] Although she has moved to St. Catharines, the Mother commutes daily to Hamilton not only for work but also for B.M.'s school and extracurricular activities. This demonstrates an understanding of the importance of the relationships B.M. has developed both with friends and his teachers in Hamilton and the stability those relationships can provide to a child.

[84] The parties share a common mindset regarding decision making. For example, both see the importance of counselling for B.M.; they are aligned in the decision that B.M. continue his education in the catholic school system; and they are aligned in the decision that he continue to be enrolled in extracurricular activities in the Hamilton community. Despite this, since 2023, the Mother has demonstrated an unwillingness to keep the Father informed and cooperate on matters affecting B.M. As I have already mentioned, the Mother failed to inform the Father of B.M.'s medical appointments with Dr. Mack at the Halton Pediatric Allergy clinic, as well as his appointments with the family doctor.

[85] The Mother alleges a history of family violence. She testified that one of the reasons that she decided to leave the relationship was because of the Father's substance dependency and emotionally abusive behaviour. The Father denies a history of family violence. Aside from the details regarding the July 2024 incident, there is no evidence or particulars to support the Mother's broad assertions.

[86] A voice of the child report was ordered by Donohue J. and prepared by Mary Polgar. The parties agreed that it was appropriate for the court to consider the contents of the report reflective of B.M.'s views and preferences. Neither party disputed the findings made by Ms. Polgar. Ms. Polgar did not testify at the trial. Ms. Polgar interviewed B.M. two times after the July 2024 incident. Both of the interviews were conducted while B.M. was at his maternal grandmother's home.

[87] The report identifies a strong connection between B.M. and both of his parents. His preference is that his parents make decisions about him together, but if they cannot agree, he prefers his mother to have the final say.

[88] Considering the time that the Father has been absent from B.M.'s life, regardless of the reason, I do not believe granting him sole decision-making authority is in B.M.'s best interests.

[89] However, B.M. is still young, and there will be many more important decisions that need to be made in a child-focused manner. In light of the positive history of the Father's involvement in B.M.'s life, the significance of B.M.'s relationships with the Father's extended family, and the alignment of both parents on matters related to education and counselling for B.M.'s well-being, it is imperative that B.M. receives input from both parents regarding decisions that affect him. Consequently, while I find that it is in B.M.'s best interests that the Mother have sole decision-making responsibility, I also find that it is in his best interests for the Father to have the opportunity to contribute his perspective, gain access to service providers involved in B.M.'s care, and be notified of all decisions made concerning B.M. This too is consistent with B.M.'s stated views and preferences.

[90] The final order will establish the framework for communication and necessitate ongoing information sharing between the parents to support them in behaving in a manner consistent with B.M.'s best interests.

What parenting time schedule is in the child's best interest?

[91] Despite the January 9, 2025 consent order, the Father has not had parenting time with B.M. since September 2024. The Father requests a week-about parenting schedule with pickups and drop offs to occur either Monday or Friday at B.M.'s school or a location in the community other than the police station.

[92] The Mother requests a suspension of parenting time until the Father can demonstrate that his parenting is both safe and beneficial for the child.

[93] The Father testified that he currently works shift work; however, he has arranged his work schedule to ensure his availability for childcare both before and after school. He testified that he is also being considered for a new position at work that would have him working from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, with the opportunity to work two days from home. There is no evidence from the employer to verify the employment opportunity.

[94] The Mother is employed as a registered practical nurse and currently works two jobs, both within the city of Hamilton. She typically works weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and then from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Due to her work schedule, B.M. attends after school care and then stays with his maternal grandmother and step-grandfather until his mother finishes work.

[95] The Mother expressed several concerns with the Father's parenting skills. I have addressed those concerns above. While there are allegations that the Father suffers from substance abuse and drinks excessively in the child's presence, I accept his evidence, supported by his uncle, that he does not drink excessively in the presence of the child.

[96] The Mother's main concern is that parenting time should be suspended due to the Father's tendency toward violence and erratic behaviour. Aside from the July 2024 event, there is no evidence to support the Mother's concerns.

[97] The Father has accepted responsibility for his actions; he acknowledges that his communications with the Mother were not appropriate and regrets the use of profanity. With respect to the July 2024 incident, he recognizes it never should have happened, is sorry for his part in the altercation, and acknowledges that he could and should have done things differently. I believe that he understands the negative impact of his behaviour on B.M. His character and ability to parent deserve to be viewed in a broader context and not judged solely by a single moment in time.

[98] The Father expressed concern that the Mother is not always available to care for the child during her parenting time, particularly after school each day. She lives in St. Catharines, B.M. attends school in Hamilton, and all of B.M.'s extracurricular activities are in Hamilton. Consequently, B.M. spends a lot of time in the car commuting.

[99] The Father suggests that a week-about schedule will minimize exchanges and interactions between the parties. Additionally, B.M. will have a consistent schedule that allows him the opportunity to be closer to his daily activities and spend less time commuting. The Father testified that while he currently works shift work, he can and has arranged his schedule so that he is on vacation while B.M. is in his care for the remainder of the summer. Additional assistance would be available through the paternal grandfather and uncle. Moreover, this schedule is in keeping with B.M.'s wishes expressed to him before the beginning of this proceeding.

[100] Ms. Polgar reported that B.M. enjoys spending time with both of his parents; however, he is not fond of waking up early for the commute from St. Catharines to school in Hamilton. His views regarding parenting were relatively consistent between the two interviews conducted: the first interview indicated that parenting time with his father was just about right, and the second interview indicated that he wanted two additional overnights with his father every two weeks.

[101] Since the voice of the child report, B.M. has expressed that he no longer wants to go to his father's house every other weekend. Sylvia Colamartini is a certified physician's assistant who works with B.M.'s family physician. She authored a letter dated January 21, 2025. She testified at trial that B.M. has symptoms consistent with general anxiety disorder, which become more apparent in B.M. leading up to parenting time exchanges.

[102] While the comments attributed to B.M. are hearsay and inadmissible for their truth, they are admissible as evidence of the child's most recent state of mind, of which I give considerable weight. His wishes regarding parenting time with his father have changed considerably between September 2024 and January 2025. In my view, his frame of mind is shaped by the July 2024 incident. He messaged his father in October 2024, indicating that he is afraid of how his father will act during parenting exchanges and that his father will not bring him back home. B.M. expressed on another occasion that he felt safe when the Father's uncle was involved in exchanges.

[103] Being placed in the middle of adult conflict has no doubt exacerbated his anxiety and has not been conducive to his physical, mental, or emotional well-being.

[104] I find that changing B.M.'s primary residence to the Father's home and ordering a shared parenting schedule is not currently in B.M.'s best interest or consistent with his expressed views and preferences.

[105] Given evidence of his increased anxiety, it is not in his best interest to force him to participate in parenting time alone with his father. However, an incremental reintroduction to parenting time with the assistance of the Father's uncle is in B.M.'s best interest. The paternal uncle advised the court that he is prepared to assist the parties in any way possible to help reestablish the father-son relationship. He is a trusted adult who has demonstrated calm and stability and is not only respected by B.M. and the parties but also promotes a sense of safety for B.M.

[106] Contemporaneous with the reintroduction of parenting time, reconciliation counselling should be arranged. Once there has been a reintroduction of parenting time and reconciliation counselling is in place, parenting time should follow the terms that are similar to those set out in the January 9, 2025 order of Bingham J., in addition to holiday time as negotiated and as outlined in the Agreement.

[107] Given that B.M. has expressed concerns about the commute to and from school, once the regular parenting schedule resumes and reconciliation counselling has taken place, by the time B.M. is ready for high school, the parties could discuss a shared parenting schedule. Failing any agreement on a shared parenting schedule, the Father may seek a review of parenting time.

[108] Finally, with respect to the location of parenting time exchanges, the Mother has requested that, if parenting time is ordered, exchanges take place at the police station in Stoney Creek. While I appreciate the rationale for the Mother's request, there are several concerns with her suggestion. Requiring exchanges to take place at the police station conveys a message to the child that their environment is not safe, their world is not safe, they still need to worry, the trouble is not over, something bad could happen every time their parents meet, and officers with weapons might have to intervene. Police station exchanges may intimidate the child and can continue to perpetuate painful memories triggered by the dramatic and hyper-stimulating stationhouse environment. As a result, transitions can become a source of anxiety. Overall, the focus tends to be on diffusing the conflict between the adults rather than the needs of the children: K.M. v. J.R., 2022 ONSC 111, a decision by Pazaratz J.

[109] Despite these concerns, the foundational element in all decisions regarding parenting arrangements is the child's best interest, as well as their physical and emotional safety: K.K.H. v. A.A.B., 2024 ONCJ 113. It is also in a child's best interest that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe: Armstrong v. Coupland, 2023 ONSC 5451.

[110] In my opinion, having the paternal uncle present, along with a court directive stating that those involved in parenting exchanges should remain in their vehicles, can help reduce and prevent any escalating behaviour that may require police intervention. Additionally, individual counselling to address the underlying conflict between the father and the mother will further assist in diffusing tensions.

Child Support

[111] The Agreement requires the Father to pay child support in the amount of $1,000 per month to the Mother. The parties were required to reassess child support following annual financial disclosure. This was never done nor did either party request financial disclosure from the other.

[112] The parties agreed to share s. 7 expenses, and despite a disparity in their incomes, each would contribute 50 percent toward the net expenses, taking into consideration available subsidies and tax credits/deductions available to the Mother. At the time, the parties agreed that s. 7 expenses included before and after school care and school uniforms. Any additional extraordinary expenses require the prior consent of the parties.

What arrears of child support are owed by the Father?

[113] The Mother seeks payment of child support arrears from January 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025, in the amount of $6,250, as per the terms of the Agreement. She requests an order for ongoing table child support in the amount required by the OCSG, based on the Father's annual income for child support purposes.

[114] The Father acknowledges that he stopped paying child support on January 1, 2025. He does not dispute the amount of arrears calculated by the Mother. He testified that, even though he stopped paying support, he has set aside money to satisfy the arrears obligation.

[115] I am satisfied that the Father owes the Mother arrears in table child support from January 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025, in the amount of $6,250.

What is the Father's income for the purpose of calculating ongoing child support?

[116] The Mother seeks to impute income to the Father on the basis that he maintains a rental unit in the basement of his home. The Mother has the onus to provide evidence of the amount of income she seeks to impute to the Father. She offered two rental listings for the Father's home: one for October 10, 2022 at $1,550 per month, and another for June 20, 2024 at $1,600 per month.

[117] The Father maintains that his sole source of income is from his employment. He acknowledges that a friend posted both rental listings. He received a few inquiries but decided not to rent the basement apartment. He admitted that a friend who had recently separated had stayed with him for a short period in the basement of his home; however, he did not collect any rent. Instead, in exchange for a place to stay, his friend assisted with tasks around the home.

[118] The decision to impute income as part of the support calculation is discretionary. The only limit to that discretion is that there must be some evidentiary basis for the amount of income imputed: Monahan-Joudrey v. Joudrey, 2012 ONSC 5984, as referenced in Kohli v. Thom, 2025 ONCA 200, at paras. 108-109. Aside from two advertisements presented as evidence, I am not satisfied that there is an objective evidentiary basis to impute income to the Father.

[119] The Father provided copies of his notices of assessment for the years 2022 to 2024 and T4 statements for 2023 and 2024. His reported income from 2022 to 2024 is as follows:

Year	Notice of Assessment	T4 Statement of Earnings
2022	$155,445
2023	$159,137	$146,211.45
2024	$104,934	$103,589.38

[120] The difference between the Father's 2023 T4 and his line 15000 income is explained by a one-time inheritance received from his mother's estate. He testified that in 2024 his income was less because he took a leave from employment for medical reasons. The Father was requested to produce a year-to-date statement of earnings from his employer during the trial, but he was unable to obtain a timely response from his employer. The Father acknowledges that he is on track to earn the same amount of income in 2025 as he did in those years prior to 2024.

[121] In these circumstances, to calculate the amount of ongoing child support based on the Father's 2024 line 15000 income would not be the fairest determination of his ongoing support obligation in the circumstances before me. Accordingly, ongoing child support commencing July 1, 2025 shall be based on the Father's 2023 T4 income in the amount of $146,211.45. Commencing July 1, 2026 and thereafter, the Father's child support obligation shall be based on his line 15000 income as assessed in the immediate prior year (i.e., 2025 line 15000 income in 2026, 2026 line 15000 income in 2027, etcetera).

Section 7 expenses

[122] The Mother does not seek a proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses. Rather, she is content to maintain the parties' 50/50 contribution despite the disparity in their respective incomes.

[123] The Mother's income to determine her proportionate share of s. 7 expenses is as follows:

Year	Notice of Assessment	T4 Statement of Earnings
2022	$106,261	$100,510.01
2023	$94,115	$93,470.60
2024	$90,731	$82,715.04

[124] Her projected income from employment for 2025 is approximately $135,000. Taking into consideration the tax benefit and credits retained by the Mother, I find that the continued 50/50 proportion sharing of s. 7 expenses is reasonable for the time being.

[125] The Mother claims payment of the Father's portion of s. 7 expense arrears in the amount of $3,801.52 from 2021 to date, comprised of the following:

Year	Type of Expense	Total Expense	Father's Proportionate Share
2021	Before and After School Program	$2,434	$1,217
2023	Before and After School Program	$1,849	$924
2024	Before and After School Program	$1,710	$855
2024	School Uniforms	$257.03	$128.52
	Total		$3,124.52

[126] In addition to foregoing s. 7 expenses, the following expenses were incurred in 2025:

1. HamOnt Sports Limited, March Break Camp - $477.99;
2. Halton Sparta Soccer Club - $876.60.

[127] The Mother claims the Father's proportionate share of these expenses in the amount of $677. The Father does not dispute the calculation of the expense; however, he argues that he should not be required to contribute to the before and after school care program on the basis that he did not agree to the expense because he and/or his extended family were available to provide care.

[128] The Father's objection to contribution toward before and after school care does not carry much weight. These expenses are clearly recognized as extraordinary expenses in s. 7(1)(a) of the OCSG. The Father's agreement to the expense was not required because childcare before and after school was an agreed upon expense in the Agreement.

[129] Accordingly, I find that outstanding s. 7 expenses are owed to the Mother by the Father in the amount of $3,801.52.

[130] The Mother requests an order that varies a term of the Agreement that requires the parties to agree on a s. 7 expense before it is incurred. She requested that the court consider establishing a monthly contribution amount toward those expenses to be paid by the Father through the Family Responsibility Office (the "FRO").

[131] The Mother testified that s. 7 expenses in the foreseeable future will include soccer and school uniforms for the remainder of the elementary school year. Both parties acknowledged that B.M. will attend a Catholic secondary school and will be required to continue wearing school uniforms for another four years.

[132] The Mother testified that the expected cost of school uniforms is approximately $250 per year for elementary school and between $250 and $280 for high school. The Father did not contest these amounts; in fact, he expressed his willingness to cover the full expense of the school uniforms, especially if he could be the one to take B.M. to purchase them.

[133] For the time being, the parties agree that school uniforms and soccer registration are considered regular extraordinary expenses. Based on the evidence before me, the anticipated expenses are calculated to be $57.37 per month. However, when parenting time between B.M. and his Father has been reestablished and he has the ability to take B.M. to purchase his school uniform, the parties are encouraged to revisit the necessity of enforcement through the FRO.

[134] Regarding the Mother's request to dispense with the Father's consent to other extraordinary expenses, I maintain that it is appropriate for the Mother to provide advance notice, and to consult and agree on s. 7 expenses with the Father in advance. These requirements are in place to permit the Father to have some input not only into the quantum of costs he is required to contribute, but also the type of expense incurred on behalf of the child for which contribution is sought. Consultation is also likely to provide the Father with a sense of continued connection to B.M. and involvement in his life, given the necessary discussion about the child's proposed extracurricular activities and expenses.

[135] Although the parties are unable to communicate directly with one another due to the current court conditions, I suspect that they will reflect on their past behaviour and dealings with one another and hopefully forge a path toward more constructive child-centric and civil communications. Moreover, the parties have demonstrated that, notwithstanding the personal conflict between them, they are almost completely aligned on several aspects involving B.M.: high school education, the importance of counselling, and current expenses.

Reconciliation and Therapeutic Counselling

[136] As a part of my decision regarding parenting time, I referenced the arrangement of reconciliation counselling. When asked, both parties agreed that reconciliation counselling is something that they would support. Notwithstanding their alignment, I am not overly confident that the parties would, at this time, be able to agree on a specific reconciliation counsellor. B.M. was involved in individual counselling with Arthur Martin at Pathstone Mental Health. The Mother testified that it was a positive relationship. Accordingly, the parties shall consult directly with Arthur Martin to obtain and follow his recommendation for a suitable reconciliation counselling professional. If Mr. Martin is unable to recommend such a counsellor and the parties cannot otherwise agree, they may return before me with a proposed counsellor or counsellors who have indicated their agreement to assist the family and evidence in support of their proposed counsellor, such as a CV and draft counselling agreement.

[137] Regarding the expense of reconciliation counselling, it shall be treated as a s. 7 expense to be shared equally by the parties. Each party shall be responsible for paying their share of the counselling directly to the professional engaged.

[138] The Mother testified that B.M. has been involved in counselling since the July 2024 incident; however, he recently indicated that he no longer believes that he needs it.

[139] Both the Mother and Father believe that B.M. would benefit from ongoing counselling.

[140] B.M. has been recently diagnosed with anxiety with symptoms of shortness of breath, palpitations, and emotional distress. Sylvia Colamartini testified that it would be beneficial for B.M. to continue with ongoing therapy. Notwithstanding B.M.'s reluctance, given his recent diagnosis and the recommendation of those involved in his medical circle of care, ongoing counselling will form a part of my final order. Any expenses associated with B.M.'s counselling not covered by the parties' respective extended benefit plans shall be considered an extraordinary expense to be shared equally by the parties.

[141] Given the impact of the parents' behaviour on B.M., my final order will also involve counselling provisions for them.

Restraining Order

[142] The Mother seeks a continuing protection order. The court's authority to grant a restraining order is contained in s. 46 of the FLA. The principles I must consider in determining whether to grant the Mother's request have been summarized in Korie v. Korie, 2025 ONSC 2530, at para. 69:

a. Restraining orders are serious and should not be ordered unless a clear case has been made out: see Ciffolillo v. Nieweglowski, 2007 ONCJ 469.

b. Courts should not order restraining orders in borderline cases just to be cautious. That ignores the test and the onus of proof: see A.H. v. M.T., 2023 ONSC 2356.

c. A restraining order is serious, with criminal consequences if there is a breach. It will also likely appear if prospective employers conduct a criminal record search. This could adversely affect a person's ability to work. It may affect a person's immigration status. See: F.K. v. M.C., 2017 ONCJ 181.

d. Before the court can grant a restraining order, it must be satisfied that there are "reasonable grounds for the person to fear for his or her own safety or for the safety of their child": see McCall v. Res, 2013 ONCJ 254.

e. The test for a restraining order is both objective and subjective. The legislation itself makes that clear, as an entirely subjective test would have no use for the words "reasonable grounds" as a qualifier to the fear(s) expressed by the requesting party. See: A.H. v. M.T.; McGowan v. McGowan, 2018 ONSC 5950.

f. In borderline cases, the court must consider what other protections may be available if a restraining order is not granted: see D.C. v. M.T.C., 2015 ONCJ 242; M.H.S. v. M.R., 2021 ONCJ 665.

[143] Even though the July 2024 incident has had a profound impact on all involved, I am not persuaded that a restraining order is appropriate, nor are there reasonable grounds for the Mother to fear for her safety, B.M.'s safety, or the safety of other caregivers.

[144] The Father acknowledges the inappropriateness of his behaviour. There is no evidence that he has ever sought to visit the Mother's home or workplace. When the paternal uncle could no longer facilitate parenting exchanges in the fall of 2024, the Father voluntarily suspended parenting time because he was not permitted direct contact with the Mother. There is no evidence before me of a pattern of ongoing harassment or violence.

[145] The Mother's concerns can adequately be addressed by clear parameters regarding communication as detailed in my final order.

[146] Should the Father fail to comply with the conduct orders, the Mother shall be at liberty to reapply to the court for a restraining order.

Final Order

[147] For the foregoing reasons, there shall be a final order to go as follows:

Parenting

Pursuant to the Children's Law Reform Act

Decision Making

1. The Mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility for the child, B.M., born October 10, 2014.

Communication and Exchange of Information

2. Until such time as the criminal communication order has been varied or expires, the Mother will only communicate as required by this order, directly with the paternal uncle via AppClose.

3. Once the communication order has been varied or expires, the parties shall communicate with one another using the Our Family Wizard platform ("OFW"). Each party shall bear the cost of their own subscription.

4. Communication shall be child-focused and for the purpose of parenting and consultation regarding s. 7 expenses. AppClose and OFW are not a platform for either parent to debate, berate, or criticize the other.

5. Neither party shall harass, physically harm, or threaten the other.

6. In every communication, the parties shall be civil and respectful toward each other.

7. The parties shall not speak negatively or disparagingly about the other party to the child, in the child's presence, or within hearing distance of the child, nor shall they invite or encourage others to do so.

8. The Mother shall provide the Father with information prior to making important decisions for the child regarding all important issues and appointments regarding medical, dental, therapeutic, and educational care of the child, in writing, and in a timely fashion, to seek and consider his input. After consulting with the Father and considering his input, the Mother shall make the final decision and shall advise the Father of the decision she has made within 48 hours.

9. If the Father wishes to provide input with respect to an important decision, he shall be permitted to send one message to the Mother explaining what decision he believes is in the child's best interests and the reasons for it.

10. If the Father has a question regarding information shared by the Mother, he shall be permitted to send one message to the Mother with his questions. If he has no questions or input to offer the Mother, he shall, within 24 hours, send one message to the Mother acknowledging receipt of the information.

11. If the Father is required to provide information to the Mother, he shall provide information in one message. The Mother shall acknowledge receipt within 24 hours. If she has any questions, she may be permitted to send one message with her questions.

12. Both parties shall immediately notify the other of any emergency medical issue relating to the child.

13. The Father shall be entitled to ask for, subject to any applicable laws, and receive information about the child's wellbeing, including information about his health and education, from the Mother and/or any third-party provider who is likely to have such information such as doctors, dentists, counsellors, educators, coaches, etcetera. The Mother shall provide any authorization necessary to the relevant third-party provider to ensure this information is provided to the Father.

14. The Mother shall ensure that the Father remains on the general email communications list at the child's school, physician, dentist, extracurricular clubs, and therapeutic counsellor offices. The Mother shall be under no obligation to inform the Father of information communicated directly to him through these automated systems.

15. Both parties shall be listed as emergency contacts for the child.

Extracurricular Activities

16. Each parent shall bring B.M. to any extracurricular activities scheduled during their regular parenting time.

Reconciliation and Therapeutic Counselling

17. Based on the parties' consent, the parties shall, within 30 days of this order, arrange for reconciliation counselling in accordance with the recommendations of Arthur Martin of Pathstone Mental Health. If the parties are unable to consult with Arthur Martin, or he is unable to provide such a recommendation, they may request a case conference with the court.

18. Therapeutic counselling shall be arranged for B.M. within 30 days as recommended by his health care practitioner. He shall continue in therapy until he reaches 13 years of age, at which time he may continue therapy at his discretion.

19. The cost of reconciliation and therapeutic counselling for B.M. shall be shared by the parties as a s. 7 expense on an equal basis, paid directly to the reconciliation professional.

20. The Father shall attend individual counselling involving anger management and effective communication for the purpose of co-parenting. The Father shall bear the cost of this expense.

21. The Mother shall attend individual counselling to deal with the July 2024 incident, which includes effective communication for the purpose of co-parenting. The Mother shall bear the cost of this expense.

22. The parties shall each attend the Divorce and Separation – New Beginnings Workshop for Adults offered through Pathstone Mental Health at their own expense.

Regular Parenting Time

23. The Father's parenting time with the child shall begin with an incremental re-introduction facilitated by and in the presence of the paternal uncle in accordance with the following rotating two-week schedule. The first visit shall occur on the first Friday following the release of this decision as follows:

i. Week one: B.M. shall be in Father's care on Friday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.;

ii. Week two: B.M. shall be in the Father's care on Sunday from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

24. During the summer months, the paternal uncle shall pickup and drop off the child at the Tim Hortons located at 1354 South Service Road, Stoney Creek, Ontario.

25. The Father's parenting time with B.M. shall increase to overnights in consultation with and at a time recommended by the reconciliation therapist as follows:

i. Week one: from Thursday after school to Monday at the return to school;

ii. Week two: from Wednesday after school until Friday morning at the return of school.

26. In the event that pickup on either Thursday or Wednesday is not a school day, the exchange shall occur at 5:00 p.m. In the event that drop off on Monday or Friday is not a school day, the exchange shall occur in week one, Sunday at 8:00 p.m., and in week two, Thursday night at 8:00 p.m. Exchanges shall occur at the Tim Hortons located at 1354 South Service Road, Stoney Creek, Ontario.

27. All communications regarding the child and any pickups and drop offs for exchanges will continue to be facilitated by the paternal uncle until such time as the criminal no-contact order is varied or expires. Thereafter, all pickups and drop offs will be by the Father. Communication between the parties shall occur in a manner consistent with the terms of this order.

Holiday Parenting Time

28. In addition to the regularly scheduled parenting time set out in paragraph 25 and in consultation with the reconciliation therapist as to the timing of implementation, the Mother and Father shall share holiday parenting time with the child as previously agreed by them and set out at paragraph 4.3 of the Agreement as follows, and which shall supersede the regular parenting time:

i. Family Day Weekend

• B.M. shall reside with the Mother or the Father on this weekend in accordance with the regular parenting time schedule.

ii. School Spring Break

• B.M. shall reside with the Mother or the Father during the school spring break in accordance with the regular parenting time schedule.

iii. Easter Weekend

• B.M. shall reside with the Mother or the Father on this weekend in accordance with the regular parenting time schedule.

iv. Mother's Day

• If B.M. is not otherwise in the care of the Mother on this weekend, the Father shall return B.M. to the care of the mother by 10:00 a.m. on Mother's Day.

v. Father's Day

• If B.M. is not otherwise in the care of the Father on this weekend, B.M. shall enjoy parenting time with the Father on Father's Day weekend on Sunday from 10:00 a.m. until 6:30 p.m.

vi. Summer Vacation

• With respect to B.M.'s summer vacation, the Mother and the Father may each spend uninterrupted parenting time with B.M. as follows:
  • a. B.M. shall remain in the care of the Father for two weeks total, but not consecutively (maximum seven consecutive days);
  • b. B.M. shall remain in the care of the Mother for two weeks, but not consecutively (maximum seven consecutive days);
  • c. The Father shall have the first choice of vacation weeks in odd-numbered years and the Mother shall have the first choice of vacation weeks in even-numbered years. The parent with the first choice shall advise the other, in writing, by April 1 of his/her chosen weeks, and the parent with second choice shall advise the other, in writing, by May 1 of his/her chosen weeks.

vii. Labour Day Weekend

• B.M. shall reside with the Mother or the Father on this weekend in accordance with the regular parenting time schedule.

viii. Thanksgiving Weekend

• B.M. shall reside with the Mother or the Father on this weekend in accordance with the regular parenting time schedule.

ix. Halloween

• B.M. shall be in the care of the Mother or the Father for Halloween in alternating years. In odd-numbered years, B.M. shall spend Halloween with the Father. In even-numbered years, B.M. shall spend Halloween with the Mother. The party who has B.M. in their care for Halloween shall be responsible for his costume.

x. Christmas Eve/Morning and Christmas Day

• B.M. shall be in the care of the Mother on Christmas Eve from 4:00 p.m. until Christmas Day at 2:00 p.m. and shall be in the care of the Father from 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 6:30 p.m. on Boxing Day in all odd-numbered years. B.M. shall be in the care of the Father on Christmas Eve from 4:00 p.m. until Christmas Day at 2:00 p.m. and shall be in the care of the Mother from 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 6:30 p.m. on Boxing Day in all even-numbered years.

xi. New Year's Eve and New Year's Day

• B.M. shall reside with the Mother or the Father in accordance with the regular parenting time schedule.

xii. B.M.'s Birthday

• B.M. shall spend his birthday with the Mother or Father in accordance with the regular parenting time schedule.

29. If the parties disagree with the child's stated views and preferences regarding an increase in the regular parenting time or holiday schedule, they shall request a brief written statement from the reconciliation therapist, communicated/emailed simultaneously to both parties, clarifying the child's position.

Review

30. The Father may request a review of the parenting order without the need to establish a material change in circumstances upon completion of a minimum of one year of regular scheduled parenting time visits and upon completion of a minimum of four individual counselling sessions regarding anger management and co-parenting communication.

Child Support

Pursuant to the Family Law Act

31. Commencing July 1, 2025, and on the first day of each month thereafter, the Father shall pay child support to the Mother on account of the child B.M. born October 10, 2014 in the amount of $1,271 per month based on his 2023 T4 income of $146,211.45 pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines.

32. By June 1 of each year, the parties shall exchange their respective income tax returns, inclusive of all schedules and attachments as filed, and notices of assessment, and reassessment if any, for the previous calendar year. The parties shall then adjust the child support payable effective July 1 based on the Father's line 15000 income from all sources.

33. Both parties shall continue to ensure that B.M. is named as beneficiary on any and all extended health benefits coverage available to them through their respective employment.

34. The Father shall pay the Mother the sum of $6,250 with respect to child support arrears calculated for the period of January 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025.

Extraordinary and Special Expenses

35. The Mother's income is $135,000 and the Father's income is $146,211.45 for the purpose of calculating extraordinary and special expenses. Extraordinary expenses shall be shared on an equal basis, taking into consideration credits and benefits available to the Mother.

36. Commencing July 1, 2025, the Father shall pay a fixed monthly sum of $57.37 per month to the Mother for his proportionate contribution to B.M.'s extracurricular activities and school uniforms.

37. The Father shall pay to the Mother the sum of $3,801.52 on account of an underpayment/contribution to B.M.'s extraordinary expenses accrued to June 30, 2025.

38. Commencing July 1, 2026, the Mother shall provide an accounting of B.M.'s extraordinary expenses for the preceding 12-month period, and any overpayment made by the Father at that time shall be reconciled and reimbursed to him. Any underpayment shall be paid by the Father to the Mother within 30 days.

Miscellaneous

39. Support deduction order to issue.

Costs

[148] The parties are strongly encouraged to engage in meaningful discussions with respect to the issue of costs. In the event they are unable to resolve the issue of costs amongst themselves, written submissions shall be provided for the court's consideration in accordance with the following:

a. The Father shall serve and file written submissions of no more than three pages, double spaced, in 12-point font, with case law hyperlinked, plus a detailed breakdown of costs and any offers to settle by August 29, 2025.

b. The Mother shall serve and file responding submissions of no more than four pages, double spaced, in 12-point font, with case law hyperlinked, plus a detailed breakdown of costs and any offers to settle by September 19, 2025.

c. The Father may serve and file reply submissions, if appropriate, of no more than two pages, double spaced, in 12-point font, by October 3, 2025.

[149] If a party does not meet these deadlines, there shall be no costs payable to that party.

[150] If no submissions are received, the parties will be deemed to have settled the issue of costs as between themselves.

[151] In addition to being filed with the court, a copy of the submissions shall be directed to my attention by email to St.Catharines.SCJJA@ontario.ca.

Justice L.E. Standryk

Date Released: August 1, 2025