Sheedy v. Shackelton, 2025 ONSC 606

COURT FILE NO.: FC1270/24
DATE: January 28, 2025
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO FAMILY COURT

RE: Jason Kyle Sheedy, Applicant
AND: Karen Nadine Shackelton, Respondent

BEFORE:
TOBIN J.

COUNSEL:
Jordan McKie, for the Applicant
Jacqueline Murphy as agent for Mark Simpson, for the Respondent

HEARD: January 22, 2025

Endorsement

[1] There are two motions before the court, one brought by each party. Both motions deal with requests for parenting orders and school registration, as well as other issues arising from the separation of the parties. The only issues argued and to be determined by this court are the child's residence, parenting time, and school registration.

Facts

[2] The parties cohabited from September 2015 until August 29, 2024.

[3] The parties are the parents of one child, Ariella Tristan Leona Sheedy, born May 26, 2016 ("child").

[4] The Applicant ("father") is also the parent of two older children, Audria, age 15, and Jaelyn, age 13. The two children lived with the parties and child on a parenting schedule that saw them in the parties' care 5 to 6 nights over a 14-day period.

[5] The maternal grandmother, Judith Barrett, also lived with the parties on an “on and off” basis.

[6] While living together, the parties, their children, and Ms. Barrett resided in Iona Station.

[7] On August 29, 2024, the father told the Respondent ("mother") that their relationship was "over." His evidence is that he did this because of disclosures made to him by his older children about the mother's behaviour. The mother did not explain the circumstances of the separation. Her evidence is that, on separation, the father promised to "front money for the first and last months' rent" for the child and her to find other accommodations, "but he never did that." She also described the father as having a "history of a temper, and has been confrontational, argumentative and engaged in extensive name-calling, insults, and put-downs to me."

[8] On September 5, 2024, the father asked the mother to move out of his house. He then went to the paternal grandmother’s home; the mother, maternal grandmother and child remained in the home.

[9] When school started in September 2024, the child was enrolled and attended at the Dunwich-Dutton Public School. This is where she had attended the year before.

[10] On September 9, 2024, the father learned that the mother and child were at the home of the maternal aunt, Naomi Shackelton, and that they would not be back.

[11] In September 2024, the father was charged with assaulting the mother based on allegations made by her. This charge was withdrawn on December 23, 2024. While the charge was outstanding, the father was not able to communicate with the mother.

[12] Following the separation, the mother moved to Mount Brydges, where her sister resided.

[13] Some time after the separation, the father sold the house the parties had lived in while together, and he moved to Dorchester.

[14] In October 2024, the father attempted to enroll the child in River Heights Public School, in Dorchester. According to the mother, he attempted to do so without her consent or knowledge. He intended this enrollment to begin on November 11, 2024. This enrollment did not occur, according to the mother, because she was not part of the registration process. She found out about the father's intention in this regard when she received a letter from his prior lawyer. The father's evidence is that, after the letter was sent, he did not hear back from the mother regarding this issue, so he assumed that she would consent.

[15] Following the separation, the child was in the care of each parent on a week about basis.

[16] In October 2024, the mother was charged with an offence – harassing communication – which involved the father as complainant. This case resolved, with the mother entering into a peace bond on January 3, 2025, for a period of 12 months.

[17] On October 7 and 23, 2024, the father's prior counsel wrote to mother's counsel about matters arising from the parties' separation. Mother's counsel responded by letter dated November 5, 2024. The parties had differing views about plans for parenting time and school registration.

[18] On October 31, 2024, the father agreed to let the child spend Halloween with her maternal cousins even though the day fell during his week of care.

[19] The child was not returned to the care of the father the next day, as he expected.

[20] It is the mother's evidence that following Halloween, the parties did not have a third party who would facilitate exchanges of the child. The third party who had helped was the mother's sister. According to the mother, the father was no longer willing to work with the sister because she helped the mother post-separation. The father's evidence is that the sister responded to his text message by saying "she was sick of this, and she and her husband were done with being the 3rd party."

[21] It was in the context of all these events that the mother did not send the child to her school beginning November 7, 2024.

[22] Instead, the mother sought and was given permission by the school board to withdraw the child from school attendance because she was going to be homeschooled by the mother.

[23] A child protection worker from the Children's Aid Society of London & Middlesex signed a letter dated December 11, 2024, regarding the child. The letter indicated that a file had been opened to assess the "risk of post-separation conflict and exposure to adult conflict on [the child's] mental/emotional wellbeing." The letter also advised that the Society had no concerns with either parent having parenting time with the child.

[24] With the intervention of counsel, the father was finally able to see the child on December 26, 2024. She spent several nights with the father and his family during the holidays. Counsel were able to have the parties agree on a holiday schedule and that the father would have alternate weekend parenting time with the child pending further order of the court.

Issues

[25] The two issues to be decided on the motions as argued are:

• What parenting schedule should be put in place on an interim basis?
• At which school should the child be enrolled?

Legal Considerations

[26] The determination of these issues must be made having regard only to the child's best interests.

[27] On motions such as are before the court, making this determination is a challenge. The evidence on these motions is contradictory. In this case, the parties do not agree about who had care of the child while they lived together. Also, the evidence is untested by cross-examination and is self-serving.

[28] The court must focus on the short-term interests of the child, which require continuity of care and security of environment.

[29] The court must also consider that even though the order made is intended to be a short-term one, to deal with the immediate issues of where the child should live and go to school, a trial and potential resolution is months away.

[30] In coming to a decision on this case, Mr. McKie urges the court "to do no harm," recognizing there is no perfect solution.

Position of the Parties

[31] The father submits that his is the better plan of care. He has been an active parent and has a supportive family. The mother is a problem drinker. The mother has engaged in criminal behaviour and has taken steps to alienate the child from him.

[32] The mother submits that her plan is the better one because she has always been the primary caregiver. She is the parent who has addressed and met the child's needs. Like the father, she too has a supportive family.

Discussion

[33] This child needs stability and certainty in her life while the parties advance their respective claims through this litigation.

[34] There is no suggestion that the child has other than a positive relationship with the mother.

[35] The father claims in his evidence that the mother is trying to alienate the child from him through comments the mother is alleged to whisper to the child while the child is on the phone with him. Whatever the case may be regarding that evidence, there is no evidence that the child is reluctant or unwilling to be with the father. It is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the court that the child has a positive relationship with the father.

[36] The parties did not deny that the child has a positive relationship with extended family, including her maternal cousins with whom she spent Halloween evening.

[37] It is difficult to assess, on the evidence, the ability and willingness of each party to support the child's relationship with each parent. The mother has not hesitated to describe the father as "a good father." The father was not so generous in his assessment of the mother's parenting abilities. However, the mother withheld the child from the father for a number of weeks. She explains this as an action taken in the context of both parties trying to gain the upper hand with respect to the care of the child in the early stages of their separation and before legal counsel were able to assist the parties.

[38] While the parties lived together, the mother claims she was the primary caregiver of the child. The father was the breadwinner who, according to the mother, worked long hours. The mother's evidence is that the father was disengaged as a parent. She wished that he were more involved. She claims that it was she, as the stay-at-home parent, who was most involved in meeting the child's needs.

[39] The father claims that the mother was drunk most of the time, so others took care of the children, including the maternal grandmother. And when he was home in the evenings, he cared for and met the child's needs. This was denied by the mother. However, the mother did tacitly acknowledge that she drank. In her evidence, she states she stopped drinking alcohol as of July 2024. The father disputes this evidence by stating that he observed the mother drinking on two occasions in early September 2024.

[40] During her submissions, mother's counsel stated that the mother did drink non-alcoholic beverages socially. I will accept the mother's evidence that she is abstaining from the use of alcohol at this time. It is imperative that she continue in this regard.

[41] Both parties have reasonable plans for the day-to-day care of the child. Both want the child to attend school in their respective catchment areas. Both will have the support of extended family. The father in particular will need the assistance of his extended family members while he is on the job.

[42] The father wants the mother's parenting time to be supervised. The mother proposes that the father have parenting time on alternate weekends.

[43] A factor that gives the court concern is the mother's ability or willingness to respect any court order. When the matter was before this court on January 15, 2025, it was ordered that the child continue to be homeschooled by the mother. It was the judge deciding the motion who would determine what school the child should attend. Despite this order, the mother continued to send the child to school. The mother explained she did so because she had already started the child at school, that is, before the court order was made, and the child had already been introduced to her classmates. The parties must be reminded that court orders are not suggestions. They are not requests. They are directives that must be followed until they are changed on appeal or by a further order.

[44] In determining the child's placement and school registration, the fact that the child spent the last number of days in school does not in any way create a status quo or give the mother an advantage in advancing her school registration request.

[45] The court must also consider evidence of family violence and its impact on the parties' respective parenting abilities. It is clear that there has been family violence between the parties. It was engaged in by both parties. The mother is subject to a peace bond. The father acknowledged he would speak to the mother in a cruel and vile manner. However, the extent and culpability of the parties cannot be decided on the contradictory evidence that is now before the court.

[46] This is a very close case.

[47] Despite the compelling and able argument of Mr. McKie, I find that the child should be registered at Caradoc Public School.

Interim Parenting and School Order

[48] Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing and in advance:

a) The child is to reside in the father's care the first three weekends of each month, from Friday at 5 p.m. until he returns the child to school on Monday morning. If Monday morning is a statutory holiday or the child is not otherwise scheduled to be at school that day, the child shall be returned to school on Tuesday morning. The father's evidence is that he has a measure of flexibility in his work schedule. It is for that reason that the child may be returned to school.

b) The child is to reside in the mother's care the balance of the time, including during the school week.

c) During the child's summer vacation from school, she is to be in the care of the parties on a week about schedule during the months of July and August. The father shall have the child in his care the first week of the summer vacation.

d) The child is to be in the mother's care during the Mother's Day weekend of 2025. The child is to be in the father's care during the Father's Day weekend of 2025.

e) The child is to be in the mother's care during the 2025 Labour Day weekend from 6 p.m. on Sunday if it is not otherwise her weekend.

f) The parenting-time exchange shall continue to be at the carpool lot on Highway 402 at Delaware.

Reasons for the Plan

[49] I find that this plan is in the child's best interest for the following reasons:

• The mother was at home with the child and meeting her needs more than the father due to his work schedule. She remains at home.
• The child will have the comfort and security of attending the same school as her cousins.
• The mother's evidence, which is not seriously contradicted, is that she is not now drinking alcohol.
• The mother has significant family support. She is living with her sister.
• The child will be in the father's care on an almost equal amount of time as she will be with the mother.
• The extra-legal strategic steps taken subsequent to separation by both parties will no longer be needed as the court has established an interim parenting plan.
• The Children's Aid Society had no concerns about either parent's ability to care for the child.

Order

[50] For these reasons, the following order shall issue:

1. The child shall be enrolled at and attend Caradoc Public School.

2. Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing and in advance:

   a. The child is to reside in the father's care the first three weekends of each month, from Friday at 5 p.m. until he returns the child to school on Monday morning. If Monday morning is a statutory holiday or the child is not otherwise scheduled to be at school that day, the child shall be returned to school on Tuesday morning.

   b. The child is to reside in the mother's care the balance of the time, including during the school week.

   c. During the child's summer vacation from school, she is to be in the care of the parties on a week about schedule during the months of July and August. The father shall have the child in his care the first week of the summer vacation.

   d. The child is to be in the mother's care during the Mother's Day weekend of 2025. The child is to be in the father's care during the Father's Day weekend of 2025.

   e. The child is to be in the mother’s care during the 2025 Labour Day weekend, from 6 p.m. on Sunday if it is not otherwise her weekend.

   f. The parenting-time exchange shall continue to be at the carpool lot on Highway 402 at Delaware.

3. The parties shall notify the other, through counsel, of any change of address.

4. The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs of these motions. If they are not able to do so, the mother is to provide her submissions within seven days of the release of this endorsement and the father is to provide his submissions within seven days after the receipt of submissions from the mother. Cost submissions are to be limited to three pages, double-spaced with a minimum of 12-point font together with any offers to settle and bills of costs. The parties have the option of filing their costs and prejudgment interest submissions through the JSO portal or to London.courthouse@ontario.ca.

5. If cost submissions are not provided within the time prescribed in this endorsement, the issue of costs shall be deemed to be settled by the parties and no order will issue.

6. The balance of issues raised in the motions are adjourned to a date convenient to both parties and as arranged with the trial coordinator.

“Justice B. Tobin”
Justice B. Tobin
Released: January 28, 2025