Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 4654/20 Date: 2025-12-02 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

JASMINE KRISTA BINKLEY, Applicant

– and –

TYLER MARK BINKLEY, Respondent

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Heard: October 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, 2025

Rasaiah J.

Reasons for Trial Decision

OVERVIEW

[1] The case involves an application, and an answer with claim.

[2] The parties started living together between July and September of 2010. They were married July 13, 2013, and separated on June 6, 2019, the applicant stating there was a reconciliation thereafter that ended February of 2020; approximately a 9-year relationship. At the date of separation, the applicant was 31 years of age; the respondent was also 31 years of age.

[3] Unquestionably this is a high conflict case.

[4] The application is dated October 30, 2020, noted filed November 18, 2020. The answer with claim is dated January 11, 2021, noted filed on January 26, 2021. Five years have passed since the application was brought.

[5] The children subject to this proceeding are Tyler Thomas Binkley, born March 14, 2012, and Abigail Marie Binkley, born April 2, 2015. They live with the respondent and have been since on or about January of 2022, close to four years. The applicant has a 16-year-old daughter in her care from a previous relationship. That child is not subject to these proceedings, nor is any relief claimed in the pleadings with respect to that child.

[6] The trial issues for this case are parenting time, child support (ongoing and retroactive Table amount), spousal support (ongoing and retroactive), equalization, costs and division of remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home currently held in trust by a law firm with set off claims for amounts owed for equalization/retroactive support with respect to same.

[7] A final order was already made on decision-making responsibility, on consent by Varpio J. on May 16, 2025, read together with his endorsement of the same date (that was the only issue determined on a final basis with that said order, although it is marked "final"). Six months have not passed. That order was not appealed. Even if this issue could have been raised, I would not have changed the said order at this time. It is in the best interests of the children that the respondent continues to have decision-making responsibility for the children. I state this based on all the facts I outline under the Parenting Time and Restraining Order sections herein.

[8] Because the parties were married and sought a divorce (which was granted prior to trial), accordingly, I have considered the following:

a. The Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3(2nd Supp.);

b. The Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F3;

c. The Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43;

d. The Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, under the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43;

e. The Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175;

f. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines;

g. Set-off (legal and equitable);

h. All other authorities and submissions submitted.

[9] Of note, unquestionably, the applicant's mental health issues have been a significant issue in this case since the proceedings were commenced.

[10] Both parties represented themselves at trial. An adjournment request of the applicant of the trial was made at the start of trial and denied; dealt with by separate endorsement. Of note, contrary to the submissions of the applicant, although there were times the applicant was very emotional at trial, overall, she presented as understanding the process and what was required. Further, as self-represented parties, both parties were given all opportunities and leeway/accommodations to provide their positions and evidence to the court that was relevant and material; and to ask follow-up questions to any questions posed by the court.

[11] The Office of the Children's Lawyer ("OCL") was involved in this proceeding at one point. A report dated January 27, 2023, was provided and filed. The court heard from the writer of the OCL report, called as the court's witness, as directed by Varpio J.

[12] The court received testimony/evidence from the applicant, her aunt, and her sister for the applicant's case.

[13] The court received testimony/evidence from the respondent for the respondent's case.

[14] There were several exhibits filed.

[15] For reasons that will be set out herein, I will be deciding all issues on a final basis herein, except for parenting time.

ANALYSIS (CONSIDERATIONS AND REASONS)

Summary of Specific Relief Sought

[16] At the hearing, the respondent was seeking that the applicant have limited parenting time supervised by the Algoma Family Services Supervised Access Centre in Sault Ste. Marie; child support for the children, ongoing and retroactive to February 1, 2022; payment of child support arrears owed by the applicant from her share of the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home; equalization of net family property; directions on the payout of the proceeds from the sale of the home (what is paid out to whom), dismissal of the spousal support claims, a restraining order against the applicant, and costs.

[17] The applicant was seeking to have equal parenting time unsupervised; that there be no restraining order made against her; that she not be ordered to pay any child support going forward or retroactively; that she not be ordered to pay any costs; spousal support; equalization; and that the remaining proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home be divided and paid out equally.

Credibility (General Comments)

[18] I had serious concerns with the credibility of the applicant. Throughout the trial, it would become evident that the applicant was not being forthright with the court on several topics including but not limited to her living situation(s), her income, the time she spent with the children, and/or compliance with the temporary parenting time order. I do not accept that over five years and with four lawyers that the applicant does not understand the process or the issues or documents, which was often her explanation for inconsistencies or outright misleading or contradictory evidence. In my view, the applicant also presented as focussed on alleged injustices she has suffered, blaming the respondent and others (his wife and/or lawyers), and/or alleged stigma she felt was being attached to her, than appreciating the actual choices she has made to date, including choosing not to be forthright, and not just at trial, with the respondent, in making arrangements to see their son outside of the parameter of the order, knowing this was contravening the order. The applicant also presented as focussed on the respondent having had legal help in the past to explain her missteps, however of note, so has she, from four lawyers over the course of these proceedings. On the issue of production of or "not having documents", I noted there was repeated blame by the applicant on "lawyers having them" and not giving them to her, when the reality is that she herself had them in her possession which she provided to her lawyers in the first place, or alternatively that many of them are available in the continuing record from previous filings. Of note, I observed that she certainly had no difficulty getting me documents the same day or within a day for trial when I requested that she do so. The applicant also stated that she has a learning disability, that she can read but cannot comprehend. This may be the case, however, I noted that she demonstrated no difficulty reading the OCL report and formulating relevant questions for that over the course of having had one hour to review it. Further, of note, in the recording of her parenting time call with the children in May of 2025, she herself stated she had overcome her said learning disability when talking about it. Overall, the applicant presented as understanding all documents and what was going on, and the issues; and this mention presented as an excuse to either explain away or distract from her inconsistencies and contradictions, and outright failures to be forthright at trial.

[19] With respect to the applicant's aunt, she presented with very good intentions, and I had no issues with her credibility. The applicant's aunt did not gloss over the historical issues that the applicant had with mental health after the separation, agreeing that the separation and what followed affected the applicant very negatively. Her knowledge however was limited, with respect to reliability and usefulness of her evidence, on the applicant's current state of health, her relationship with the children, and/or the current needs of the children, not having had contact with them for some time.

[20] The applicant's sister presented as well intentioned, however, as stated below herein, I had some concerns about the depth of the applicant's sister's knowledge of events that occurred and the true state of affairs with respect to the applicant's actions since the separation, including contravention of the parenting time order. Her knowledge, like the applicant's aunt, was also limited, with respect to reliability and usefulness of her evidence regarding the applicant, her current state of health, her relationship with the children, and/or the current needs of the children, having had very limited contact with them for some time. I also had concerns that the applicant was not forthright with her sister; her sister would describe the applicant as "private"; either way, her knowledge is impacted.

[21] Overall, while the court had some concerns with respect to the respondent's behaviours, namely, for example, involving the children in adult matters, his credibility remained intact for me, and as to reliability, many of his submissions were support by the documents he tendered.

Parenting Time

[22] The children are now ages 13 and 10.

[23] The respondent has had primary care of the children and has been making all decisions for them since January of 2022. An order was made by Gareau J. on January 26, 2022, placing them in his care. As stated, pursuant to order of Varpio J., the respondent has decision-making responsibility for the children, on consent.

[24] The applicant agreed that the children have been in the respondent's care by court order since January 26, 2022, although she disagrees with it, and states it arose due to her health at the time. The applicant highlighted that from the date of separation, prior to this said date, the children were in her primary care.

[25] After hearing all the evidence, I have decided that I require more to decide this issue on a final basis. As such, I will be making temporary orders on the issue of parenting time, at this time, with a goal to receive further relevant and material evidence to decide same on a final basis.

[26] The respondent's belief is that the applicant suffers undiagnosed mental health issues that prevent her from caring for the children unsupervised. This has been the primary issue concerning the applicant since the children were placed in the respondent's care in 2022.

[27] Unquestionably, the applicant has been aware of the respondent's said position for years and has had an opportunity to provide information to contradict same. She has not. At trial, she indicated that she was willing to submit to and obtain a report from a qualified physician as to her current state of mental health; she would agree to an order for that, to satisfy the respondent and the court that she does not suffer from any mental health issues that would prevent her from having the children unsupervised and/or would support making the order she is seeking, namely that the parties have equal shared parenting time.

[28] I find that the behaviour disclosed at trial objectively establishes that the applicant presents as having issues with self-control and the best interests of the children.

[29] Given that the applicant is willing to submit to an assessment and provide a report, I have decided that I will decide this issue on a temporary basis and make appropriate orders to permit this issue to be determined on a final basis at a later date. I do so because, I am of the view that the trial evidence discloses that the supervised access was intended to be temporary, that at the very least Tyler wants to see the applicant on an unsupervised basis, and there is insufficient information for the court to decide this issue on a final basis because the applicant has failed to provide medical evidence to this court regarding her health.

[30] The applicant's health is a prominent issue in this case, and in my view, medical evidence is necessary given the trial evidence in this case, including but not limited to the applicant testifying herself that she suffered mental health issues for a prolonged period of time following the children going into the respondent's primary care.

[31] Of note, the applicant's aunt testified that the applicant was crying all the time, after the children went into the respondent's care, and was depressed by her observation which the applicant admitted to her. While I appreciate, she testified that she has observed a positive change in the applicant, and the applicant's mental health, she described that as meaning she has observed the applicant to be less depressed and crying much less. Of note, the applicant's aunt has not been involved in any mental health steps that the applicant has taken for her health since the separation. Additionally, at the same time, the impression I was left with was that the aunt's observations were limited to family and special events that she would see the applicant at, which did not present as often over the years, or at least not a regular steady interval, or involved any observations of the applicant with the children. The applicant's aunt could not provide any updated information regarding observations of the applicant with the children because she has not seen the children for some time. I appreciate that the aunt's historical observations did not contradict Ms. Coletti's evidence that the applicant does have a good bond with the children and has demonstrated good care of them in the past; however, that is not the issue. It is the present that is of concern, and evidence of change. The trial record, as I will discuss below, does not demonstrate positive changes, in fact, it demonstrates continued issues of concern for the applicant's appreciation of the best interests of the children.

[32] The applicant's sister testified that she is very close to the applicant and sees her every day. She provided her observations of the applicant's parenting of the children as good in the past, and that she is a loving mother. Again, I accept this. Again, the past is not the issue. On the present, the applicant's sister testified that the applicant is doing much better, in terms of her mental health, and is now very happy go lucky. However, as much as the applicant's sister believes that she is very close to the applicant, it was concerning to me that she presented as not knowing very many details about what has gone on with the applicant over the course of the separation. On counselling, the applicant's sister stated that she believes that the last time she was aware the applicant went to counselling was early this year. Ms. Jones did not seem to know much either about the charges or number of charges the applicant has faced over the course of the separation. She believed it was only one time that the applicant's behaviour resulted in police assistance being required and/or charges being laid. To try to explain lack of knowledge on police involvement with the applicant and/or counselling, she left me with the impression that the applicant was "very private" about those topics, which I interpreted as that the applicant did not share details with her sister. The bottom line is that she did not present as having much knowledge of the applicant's actual health status including counselling or the police involvement has occurred. Further, the applicant's sister did not know that the applicant was not presently not seeing her children at the supervised access center ("AFS") by her own choice. She also testified that she was told by the applicant that she, meaning herself, was not allowed to see the children at AFS this year. This information she stated came to her directly from the applicant. There is no evidence of this being true, nor any prohibition made by this court, in the court file. Overall, it was clear to me that the applicant was not being honest with her sister that she states she is very close to. This takes away my ability to rely on the evidence of her sister. Additionally, of note, with respect to the applicant's sister's evidence, since the children have been with the respondent, Ms. Jones has only seen the children twice at AFS over almost 4 years. As to other direct contact with the children, she testified it was very limited, simply saying "hello" and "I love you" on occasion over PlayStation when either one or the other child was on it playing games with her children. As for ability to assist the applicant with the children for parenting time, I accept that Ms. Jones would kindly and willingly make herself available to assist. However, I find some concerns. Ms. Jones currently has zero relationship with the respondent and very limited relationship with the children. Further, she currently is in a temporary residential situation from her own recent separation and is living with her two children at her father's home. In her father's home there are 4 bedrooms. In that home in addition to Ms. Jones and her two children, their father resides there, along with their grandmother. She testified that she currently has lots on her plate. Ms. Jones works daily, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Ms. Jones did not present as knowing that the applicant's work schedule will change if she goes back to work, namely to 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and that it could be up to 7 days a week, depending on the weather, even though she stated she would or could still help. Ms. Jones also testified that in addition to work and her own child responsibilities, she has activities outside of her work. I noted that Ms. Jones plays, and still plays in the same hockey league as the applicant. With respect to her own child responsibilities, she also has parenting time with her middle child, who does not currently reside with her. Overall, I was left with the impression that the applicant's sister has a very busy life of her own at this present time, as genuine as her offer to help was.

[33] It is acknowledged by me that the applicant stated and feels that she has suffered several injustices, including but not limited to, with police agencies, the court, and the supervised access program. While she is entitled to her views and feelings, the concern for me is that she presents as letting these views and feelings interfere with making decisions in the best interests of the children, poor choices, and letting them lead her to take matters into her own hands, even surreptitiously, which not only undermines the respondent's role with the children, but also involves them in doing so. The court would hear about more than one instance when the applicant, knowing there was a parenting time order, would arrange to see the parties' son in the community, in her vehicle, and even her home, keeping it secret from the respondent, and involving the child in keeping that secret. The applicant presented as oblivious to the fact that she was undermining the respondent and teaching their son it was ok to do so and to lie about it; not to mention she was willingly and knowingly contravening the parenting time order. She has even involved her 16-year-old daughter in same.

[34] While I accept there were times that the applicant was in situations of being in a dark place based on what was going on, as she put it, "the divorce pulled the devil out of her", there were ample opportunities for her over the years and even recently to be seeing the children where she could prove she has changed, and has a handle on her health and emotions, which was a primary concern noted by OCL, Ms. Colletti. The applicant further agreed that she made the choice not to see the children at AFS, and/or instruct counsel to bring motions to change the access, stating she was following the advice of her previous lawyers. Of note, there would be times she admittedly did not see the children by choice, that did not overlap with her being of ill health as she indicated, meaning she testified that she has been better for some time. Of note, the applicant has worked full-time during many of these time periods and participated in her own activities, such as baseball and hockey, all while not seeing the children at AFS when it was available to her.

[35] The fact of the matter is that the applicant, even though parenting time was available, did not exercise it from December 2022 to May of 2023, at all. The applicant stated it was because she was not well, had no lawyer and was thrown in jail; she was making her mental health a priority. She had limited contact with the parties' son over TikTok or PlayStation. The applicant, even though parenting time was available, did not exercise it from March of 2024 to May of 2025. The applicant stated this was a "misunderstanding", and she was waiting to get visits on her own, but acknowledged this was her choice. After not having parenting time from March of 2024 to May of 2025, when it resumed, on the very first visit, which was only four to five months prior to trial, the applicant walked out for reason that she had brought gifts, and she was not allowed to give them to the children. The emphasis of her explanation was either to blame the respondent for not allowing it or the rules of the AFS, presenting as not having any appreciation for her choice or the effect of her walking out on the children. The applicant even though parenting time was available at the centre, did not exercise it from June 28, 2025, to present at AFS; she stopped. The applicant stated that this was because she knew they were going to court but again acknowledged that this was her choice; again, demonstrating concern to me that she would choose not to see her children because she did not like the terms. The court as stated (and the respondent) however would learn for the very first time at trial that the applicant was choosing to involve the parties' son in seeing or making arrangements to see her outside of the court order and outside of AFS, surreptitiously and unremorsefully.

[36] Over the time frame since separation, although not seeing her children for various time periods, the applicant on her own evidence was very active in sports, playing hockey every year since separation except for 2021 and Spring of last year; and baseball every year, including league and tournaments. She has also participated in family golf tournaments and other tournaments for fun. She has engaged in cultural events or activities, including Little NHL, 2 to 3 times a year. She will not be playing hockey this year because she has been notified that she will be on night shift. However, the point is that she has put effort into her own personal life making time for such activities, but not to see the children at AFS.

[37] With her current employment, the applicant confirmed, if she does go back to work, her shifts will be 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and she will be on call every day. As long as it is snowing, she will have to go out to work, and it could be more than 5 days a week; meaning, if it snows for 7 days, she will have to go out for the 7 days. This is concerning because a plan must be in place for the children when they are in her care during the times she is working. She did not at all present at any time a concrete plan, only to suggest that she has family who can help. When her sister was questioned, while stating she could help, she presented as not knowing about this shift change. With the history of this case, coupled with the trial evidence (which also included leaving her 16-year-old daughter alone at an apartment with her teenage boyfriend overnight while she stayed with her own boyfriend at his residence), not coming to court for a trial on parenting time with a concrete plan concerned me; it was concerning that she did not seem to appreciate the importance of that.

[38] While getting dated, the court cannot ignore that the applicant assaulted the respondent and/or his partner in June of 2022 and her behaviour on this said day. This assault of June of 2022 occurred in the presence of the children, which demonstrates that she had no regard for their emotional health or failed to when she ought to have had regard for same before or when it was occurring, demonstrating inability to control her behaviour and/or act in a manner in the best interests of the children. This would not be an isolated incident, namely the applicant engaging in poor behaviour directed at the respondent. There would be several incidents of breach and/or harassing behaviour that continued over the course of a year. The respondent provided the applicant's criminal record which the applicant did not dispute.

[39] The applicant is currently on an unpaid six-week stress leave of absence that commenced September 18, 2025. She left the impression that it was related to the court case. She expressed a current condition of feeling mentally drained and not having enough gas in the tank, so work would be a dangerous place to be (she works she states in a dangerous sector); it would be hard to be at work. Accordingly, contrary to her submissions and evidence, she is undergoing at present some health issues, including mental health, so much so that she has taken a stress leave. It was she who described herself as being mentally drained, tired and not having enough "gas in [her] tank". She stated, as to returning to work in December, that it will depend on her doctor's opinion and what happens with this case. She filed a note from her doctor that simply read that she was not fit for work and requires 6 weeks rest. The note provides me with very little information to assess the applicant, and as stated, she may plan to extend her leave. She stated she is borrowing money from relatives to meet her expenses, which in itself raises another concern for parenting time, and meeting the children's physical needs when in her care. I acknowledge that she may return to work as she stated because she needs money to pay expenses even if her doctor decides to extend her leave, but as stated, she has presented no concrete plan was provided to the court regarding the care of the children, if this happens.

[40] The applicant stated that she is currently not on any medication. The applicant testified that no medication has been suggested to her for her health. The applicant testified that her current health does not interfere with her ability to parent, she is able to be a mom and do normal things. She has the care of her 16-year-old daughter, who is turning 17 in December. Again, I have no evidence of this. As for her daughter, she is older than the other two children, and quite frankly, the trial evidence presents as the applicant leaving her 16-year-old to fend for herself at various times, including allowing her to stay alone in her apartment with her boyfriend, while she is staying at her own boyfriend's home.

[41] The applicant states the only mental health diagnosis she has ever been made aware of is that she had severe depression. No medication was prescribed in relation to that diagnosis, apparently either. The applicant indicated more than once that she is willing to attend before a qualified professional and obtain a report for the court regarding her health and ability to parent unsupervised. In my view, this is necessary.

[42] Of note, the applicant has a history of suicidal ideation and an incident of "going missing" as she termed it, for 48 hours, in 2022, explaining she needed a break and could not handle the stress from this anymore, not informing family members of what she was doing or where she was going or the reason; leaving them worried and concerned; even her sister was not in contact with her during this time.

[43] I recognize the applicant has taken the Par Program and finished it in 2024; taken an anger management program completed this year that was asked of by her Parole Officer; and has taken counselling through Katherine Iezzi of CMHC from June 2022 to 2024, approximately two years, starting as once weekly going to once biweekly. The court did not receive any counselling records of Ms. Iezzi or hear from Ms. Iezzi at trial. I offered the opportunity to the applicant to attempt to see if she could provide a witness on the counselling, but she did not take that opportunity. The applicant stated that she also started counselling at A.F.S. in December of 2024, starting with once weekly going to once biweekly. None of those records were provided either. The applicant has not been attending this said counselling at AFS since Spring of this year. She decided to stop going, explaining she was mostly crying on the phone and having to revisit the issues regarding the divorce as the reason, when the topic first came up. She also went on to state that she did not feel like she had the time. She later in cross-examination would state that she did not feel that her counsellor was "hearing what she was saying" and felt she was on the verge of being in a better place. Accordingly, this evidence, coupled with the other trial evidence regarding her behaviour, did not leave me with confidence that the applicant is "as better" as she states. The lack of records or report on her health is also a concern.

[44] The applicant first stated she currently lives in a one-bedroom apartment. Her 16-year-old daughter has the bedroom, and she sleeps on the couch. She agreed when asked by the respondent that she does not have space for the children at this location if she was to be awarded 50/50 parenting time and would have to find accommodations. Again, she had no concrete plan to address this, only a "wait and see" plan, meaning what the court orders. The court would later learn in her evidence that she was also residing elsewhere; the applicant was not forthright with her living arrangements.

[45] Stability is an issue, in addition to not being forthright. The whole of the evidence establishes that the applicant has not maintained stable and/or suitable accommodations for the children. After the separation, the applicant lived in the matrimonial home until it was sold. After the matrimonial home she stayed with her father for five months. At the time the OCL report was prepared, the applicant was living with her father at his home in Garden River. After that she stayed with her sister for a few months, followed by jail for 2 to 3 weeks. After that she stayed with her mother for approximately a year. She had a fight with her mother, explaining her mother was feeling the applicant was being sneaky related to wrapping Christmas gifts and asked her to leave. She took all her belongings and went out west to Alberta and BC (December of 2024) which was only for two weeks or so, agreeing however, it was with the intention to live out there and not come back. The applicant then returned to reside at her father's home for a few weeks, followed by the apartment she initially stated she was now in since February 1, of this year. The court however would learn that the applicant was in fact living with her boyfriend at his residence, not the apartment.

[46] A recording of a conversation between the applicant and the children was filed. The recording filed, in my view clearly shows that as of June of this year, the applicant was still involving the children in in appropriate conversations or making inappropriate statements to them, including but not limited to asking their daughter about Tyler's behaviour, talking about her bills, talking about her legal fees, talking about changing their school, talking about her finances, talking about her hopes for settlement, talking about her hopes for the respondent to have a good heart (essentially casting blame on him), and talking about "no call from them" discussed with her family (thinking they were not going to call) and how she is going to inform all the family members about their call. Further when dealing with whether to accept the recording as evidence, I viewed the applicant as exaggerating the content of the conversation, namely, that it was sacred or abusive to her, or that she felt the purpose of tendering it was to embarrass her. A significant portion of the conversation centered on everyday activities and what was going on in the children's life, and other conversations the applicant was having that were not appropriate, with the addition of the applicant speaking of the cultural belief on warding off negative energy related to their indigenous background, only a small portion. At the same time, I viewed the respondent as exaggerating the applicant's behaviour with respect to her speaking to the children about cultural beliefs. It presents to me that the respondent is not familiar with traditional beliefs and teachings regarding methods to address curses, hexes and witchcraft. It is a teaching according to the applicant. It appeared from the recording that their daughter is aware of it and has learned about it in school. That being said, while not sounding scared to me as the respondent suggested, the children in my view, presented as not that interested, and were wanting to talk to the applicant about other things going on in their lives. Additionally, with respect to the parties' son, the applicant also demonstrated during the recording that she knew that he did not like to talk about the teachings; she says it. This is not to be taken as me stating the applicant should not teach but being in tune to the children and their views and preferences as they age, is relevant. Next, providing a teaching and pressuring a child to engage is also something to be mindful of. She did not present as appreciating that consideration. The conversation demonstrated some pressure being exerted by the applicant on him, and disinterest that was ignored by the applicant. As to the act itself, I viewed the respondent's suggestion that the applicant was inciting the children to rub "corrosive" material on them as exaggerated as well. I did not appreciate the ritual as being unsafe in any way. Equally, I did not find the children to be scared to talk on the phone if the respondent is in fact there when they are talking, as the applicant suggested. The children presented as at ease when talking about their day and their activities and in my view, it was the applicant who was steering the conversation in negative ways which presented as making the children uncomfortable, with notable changes in their voices and/or their participation in response; there being a marked change, from when she was asking them and they were talking about their days or activities.

[47] The applicant disclosed at trial, the respondent hearing same for the first time, that the applicant has had parenting time with their son, outside of AFS, without his knowledge or input or consent. I raise this again because, the applicant testified that she wants to get along and find ways to get along and does not want to put the children in the middle. The applicant has done that very thing however with such actions and has once again severely damaged the trust the respondent has with her after learning about the foregoing. For the applicant to expect progress to occur or be achievable at this stage, as a result, is delusional. The applicant further expressed belief that the respondent's wife is to blame; that the respondent is under her influence; that his wife does not like her. However, given the assault of her in her front yard in front of the children, it would be understandable that his wife "liking her" would be difficult to achieve but again, the applicant presented as lacking appreciation for what she was doing and what she was involving their son in doing; taking matters into her own hands.

[48] The applicant's disrespect and anger towards the respondent remains. It was evident in the manner in which she gave evidence and answered his questions. Additionally, the applicant was laughing audibly and disrespectfully as the respondent was giving his evidence and interrupting. Multiple times, I had to ask her not to do so, assuring her that she would have her opportunity to cross-examine. She did not demonstrate to me the significant growth she presented she has made. There were multiple demonstrations of disrespect/anger, and inability to control her emotions.

[49] As to siblings and other family members on the applicant's side, the respondent states he has facilitated the children's relationship with their half sibling as much as possible and is willing to continue to do so as long as it is safe. I accept that he means this. He demonstrated this by not objecting to the grandmother having lunch with their son at school, once he was properly informed.

[50] On the children's sibling, I accept on the evidence of the applicant, albeit the explanation provided was that the child feels that she was treated poorly on an occasion she was invited to the respondent's home, the reality is that her 16-year-old, sibling of the children has spent limited time at the AFS parenting time, and not attempted other contact. The applicant had a mechanism of providing her time with her siblings, and have time herself, that she chose not to utilize. Other contact has only been by electronics or times the applicant has gone outside of the order. It seems that the 16-year-old is being involved like an "informant" for the applicant, which is unhealthy, with respect to messages she may receive from her brother. I heard nothing from the applicant to suggest that she was discouraging this. Further, the respondent denies the applicant's explanation when it comes to this sibling, she is welcome. Additionally, whether there was an incident or not, the evidence is clear and at the end of the day, the respondent has not stopped the sibling from contacting him or her from attending AFS. Again, the record indicates that this sibling chooses to text message at the very least her brother, and only see him, when the applicant "arranged" parenting time outside of AFS, unbeknownst to the respondent. I do not accept the applicant's odd suggestion that the respondent's wife, was jealous of her 16-year-old daughter; that there was a "jealousy thing"; that it was a female thing.

[51] As for culture and heritage, the respondent states he ensures the children participate in the Indigenous culture and learns same at school. The applicant does not deny that the children learn same at school. I do accept that the children would benefit from learning more from the applicant and/or her side of the family. Putting aside the respondent's complaints about the salt cleansing teaching captured in the recording filed of the applicant's call with the children, the respondent did not seem to appreciate the teachings the applicant was speaking to the children about, or to have researched it. At the same time however, I cannot ignore that the applicant testified to very limited actual activities she herself gets involved with, attending events 2 to 3 times a year (her own evidence). Of note, again, there has been nothing stopping the applicant from seeing the children at AFS, and she has, by her own choice, lost out on several opportunities to educate and/or share/teach culture and heritage. She has essentially demonstrated that it has not been the priority for her that she states. Additionally, the respondent presents as willing to permit the children to spend time with their grandmother or certain other family members with his consent, meaning, he is not proposing to keep them from the applicant's family or culture when they are safe. The issue of the children not attending their grandfather's funeral was reasonably explained by the respondent, meaning his lack of trust of the applicant's judgment and exposing the children to that at the time; it is well founded on the record. It is very clear from the recording filed that in as recent as May/June of this year, the applicant was still engaging in inappropriate conversations with the children and storming out of parenting time at AFS. This is not outlined to suggest that the respondent is perfect (he is not; example being telling their son that the applicant was crying at court), but to acknowledge his explanation for the funeral as a reasonable at the time. As a side note, as made very clear at trial, the court does not approve of the respondent's discussion with the parties' son about the applicant crying at the trial of this matter, and I will be ordering that neither party engage in such behaviour or disparage the other, balancing the whole of the trial evidence and what is in the best interests of the children in this high conflict case.

[52] I also note that the OCL report sets out a number of concerns with respect to both the applicant and respondent, meaning that neither has always historically always acted in the best interests of the children and/or are innocent in terms of the conflict between them. That being said, there have been no significant issues with the children being in the primary care of the respondent of a degree at this time on the trial record, to alter that. I appreciate there was a very short-lived argument between the respondent and his now wife that caused him to take the children and stay at a hotel for one night, but the record reflects that this issue is resolved.

[53] Most importantly, as stated, and confirmed by OCL, the recommendations made on pages 16 and 17 of the OCL report were intended to be temporary with the hope the applicant would demonstrate growth and self-control. She has not done this to a degree to give confidence to the court to permit parenting time that is not supervised, nor has she satisfied the court that her current health is such that parenting time should be unsupervised, without medical evidence. The court is of the view that in addition to the applicant's agreement to obtain and provide a report to this court, it would be of assistance given the time that has passed, to also seek an updated report from the OCL. I do not need the consent of the parties to order this. I appreciate that the children have already been subjected to OCL involvement, but in this case, I am of the view that their further involvement would be of great benefit.

[54] For now, for all these reasons, I will be making a temporary order related to parenting time that addresses all of the concerns I have outlined herein.

Child Support

General

[55] Child support is the right of the child. I reject the applicant's arguments that she should not be ordered to pay support because the respondent does not need it; and that the respondent on his income should take care of the children when they are in his care and she when they are in her care. I also reject her argument that he did not pay support to her before he had care of the children.

[56] Further, the applicant has failed to meet any test to deviate from the Guidelines. They apply.

[57] Of note, regarding the child in the applicant's care, that child is not a subject of this proceeding. Accordingly, I have calculated child support based on responsibilities for the two children in the respondent's care only, two children.

[58] Additionally, of note, some of the applicant's income is non-taxable due to her Indigenous status and where she worked/works; accordingly, I find it should be grossed up based on that fact, and I have done so.

[59] Of note, it has been very difficult for the respondent to obtain income information from the applicant prior to trial, despite the applicant having multiple counsel in the past, and multiple requests. I noted that when I asked her to produce information for the trial, she had no difficulty accessing this information and providing it same day or next day. As such, I will be ordering yearly disclosure. It should not be made difficult, and the applicant has an obligation pursuant to the Guidelines to disclose her income in a way that permits the proper determination of child support.

[60] I will also be calculating the support retroactive to 2022 as sought. The respondent properly sought arrears. Of note, in addition to the issues with income disclosure, is that the applicant instead of paying any support for the children, when she received her Robinson Huron Treaty funds ("RHT") of $100,000, used all those funds to pay her own debts (which do not take priority in law over child support obligations); to purchase an expensive vehicle for herself ($56,000 truck); to go on what she called a health retreat; and to buy clothing for the child in her care. Although it is not clear if she received the balance yet, she stated the RHT settlement for her is $110,000 total, meaning she has or will receive a further $10,000.

[61] I considered that the applicant states she is currently not working and is on a stress leave. Very little explanation was provided. At trial, the applicant stated it was due to the stress of the trial. She provided a copy of a short doctor's note that does not provide detail. This leave commenced shortly before the first day set for trial. I appreciate that a trial for a self-represented party is stressful, however the applicant has obligations to the children. That being said, I considered that the applicant testified that it is likely she will return to work on completion of the leave in December. Of note, the respondent was not informed of this leave. I appreciate this may have arisen because of the non-contact provision of her probation, but going forward, this is information that should be shared and disclosed. The use of the online software I will be ordering be used, should be used to inform the respondent, as this is an issue relating to the parenting of the children.

[62] In this case, it makes sense to me that the arrears of support that I find herein, given how the applicant used her RHT funds, and has not paid support, despite periods of employment over the years, and court orders, that I order that the arrears be paid from the applicant's share of the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home. The support ought to have been paid. The applicant was working for many of the periods the arrears accumulated. Collection issues are present and alive for the respondent, given the applicant's income being earned on an Indigenous Reserve, and her status. It would not be fair for the respondent to order otherwise in my view.

2022 Child Support

[63] In 2022, the children came into the respondent's fulltime care, the end of January. He seeks child support commencing February 1, 2022.

[64] From the summer of 2019 to the summer of 2021, the applicant states she was working full time for Garden River Education Centre, as a coordinator, working 35 hours a week at approximately $16 to $17 per hour. The applicant broke her kneecap in the fall of 2021 playing baseball and would not return to work until 2022. During this year, the applicant had injured her knee playing baseball and did not work for a period. After she broke her kneecap, the applicant states she was doing online courses for a DZ licence at home. She could not walk for some time. In 2022, the applicant, employed with Garden River First Nation, earned $10,648.02; received social assistance in the amount $1,473.04 and $1,121 income according, source not recorded (tax return however testified it was an asphalt company), for a total of $13,242.06. I accept this evidence. Of note, the applicant was also suffering some mental health issues during this time on her own admission that interfered with her ability to work, and I accept that for 2022.

[65] Based on the income documents filed, and gross-up on the Garden River First Nation income, I find that in 2022, the applicant ought to have paid monthly support of $104. Over eleven months, the amount for 2022 would be $1,144.

2023 Child Support

[66] In 2023, the applicant, employed with Garden River First Nation, earned $41,968.03, non-taxable income.

[67] Based on the income documents filed, and gross-up, I find that in 2023, the applicant ought to have paid monthly support of $750. Over twelve months, the amount for 2023 would be $9,000.

2024 Child Support

[68] In 2024, the applicant, employed with Garden River First Nation, earned $48,482.53 (paid leave) and employed with Pioneer Construction Inc., earned $31,379.57, some income tax deducted. By way of explanation, the applicant testified that she was placed on a paid leave of absence related to a sexual harassment claim she made, at which time she worked for Pioneer Construction. She returned to work with Garden River the end of October/November of 2024.

[69] Based on the income documents filed, I find that in 2024, the applicant ought to have paid monthly support of $1,477. Over twelve months, the amount for 2024 would be $17,724.

2025 Child Support

[70] In 2025, before going on a recent stress leave, the applicant was employed full-time with Garden River First Nation, until September 18, 2025. Her job is related to summer maintenance and snow plough driver. She plans to return to her employment with Garden River First Nation in any event. I do not know what if any major difference this will make in her 2025 income. Further, she had applied for sick leave in the past, and there is no evidence, she could not have done so in this case. Full 2025 income is not yet known, and per the Guidelines, I am using income for 2024 for her Garden River First Nation employment to calculate same, and imputing same to her, as income she could be earning.

[71] In 2025, I made a temporary order for payment of child support in this proceeding. On this support order, the parties agreed the applicant paid only $4.500.

[72] Based on the 2024 income and imputing the same income to her for 2025, I find that in 2025, the applicant ought to have paid monthly support of $871. Over 11 months, the amount for 2025 would be after applying what was paid in 2025, $9,581. She owes $5,081 for 2025 still.

[73] I have prepared Divorcemate with gross up (the applicant is Indigenous and does not pay tax) to calculate the child support. The chart represents my findings on what is payable by whom to whom during the time frames set out.

[74] I attach to this decision copies of the Divorcemate calculations for the years in question as Schedule A.

[75] Accordingly, I will be ordering child support in accordance with my findings.

Summary of Findings on Child Support and Arrears

[76] This court finds that on account of child support, for the year 2022, the applicant owes the respondent the sum of $1,144.

[77] This court finds that on account of child support, for the year 2023, the applicant owes the respondent the sum of $9,000.

[78] This court finds that on account of child support, for the year 2024, the applicant owes the respondent the sum of $17,724.

[79] This court finds that on account of child support, for the year 2025, the applicant owes the respondent the sum of $5,081.

[80] The total child support arrears commencing February 1, 2022, to and including November 30, 2025, are fixed at $32,949.

[81] The ongoing amount effective December 1, 2025, will be $871 per month.

Section 7 Expenses

[82] The respondent confirmed he is no longer seeking any contribution for s.7 expenses from the applicant. I am satisfied that arrangements are in place for the children's activities and as such, am not going to deny his request for no order at this time.

Equalization

[83] Both parties completed and filed a net family property statement ("NFPS").

[84] Overall, the values used are reasonable and supported by the best evidence that was available to the respondent and applicant. I went through all available documents for confirm values. While the applicant's NFPS was completed by her previous counsel, she chose to rely on that NFPS. Additionally, of note, her former counsel had received all the supporting documents that the respondent's previous counsel had gathered and disclosed per the respondent. Looking at the documents and the numbers being almost entirely the same on the applicant's NFPS, I accept this.

[85] In Schedule "B" to this decision, I have attached an Excel Spreadsheet on which, I have outlined all the assets and liabilities on the valuation date, which was agreed to by the parties. It uses the values that were presented by the parties in their respective NFPS. Of note, many were identical. The said schedule notes reasons for the figures I accepted, and reference to the evidence filed/accepted by me, that supports the values. The said schedule forms part of my reasons.

[86] I rounded the applicant's share of the remaining proceeds of the sale of the home because of the uneven number up one cent and the respondent's down to $35,228.13 and $35,228.12 respectively.

[87] In this case, I have placed the household contents amount on the applicant's side of the ledger as she agreed at trial that she received the items, and they were not divided equally as placed in her NFPS.

[88] Of note, to the ultimate calculation is that the applicant, even though the respondent was the beneficial owner of 100% of the Dodge Ram, essentially forced the respondent to pay one half of the proceeds to her when it was sold, because of the joint title. As such, with the respondent being the full beneficial owner, I placed that item on his side of the ledger but noted that he was to receive credit against equalization for prepayment of equalization. She in essence forced equalization of that specific asset at the time it was sold.

[89] I am satisfied that the 22.5% tax rate on the respondent's pension was a reasonable percentage to suggest given his current employment and retirement pension.

[90] In this case, the respondent ends up with a greater net family property than the respondent in the amount of $24,564.17. One half of that is $12,282.09 (rounded up): equalization payment. However, as stated, the Dodge Ram was equalized prior to trial; the applicant was paid $13,175.83, which is greater than the equalization payment she was entitled to. Because of the prepayment made by the respondent to the applicant when the Dodge Ram was sold, and applying same, the respondent owes the applicant nothing on equalization, and in fact, the applicant owes to the respondent for the overpayment, the amount of $893.74. This amount, I find appropriate, to be taken from the applicant's share of the matrimonial home remaining sale proceeds and be paid to the respondent. It is an appropriate set-off, directly related to property division.

Division of the Proceeds Held in Trust

[91] When the matrimonial home was sold, and encumbrances and reasonable expenses of the sale were paid, the total remaining net proceeds were $70,456.25. The starting point is that each party was to receive $35,228.12.5; I rounded the applicant's share up one cent and the respondent's down to $35,228.13 and $35,228.12 respectively. However, $69,995.25 remains in trust. This is because the sum of $500 was paid from the proceeds to the respondent related to a cost order, and accordingly, of the remaining amount, the applicant's remaining share is $34,728.13, and the respondent's remains at $35,228.12. I do not account any further for the $500 as the respondent has already received same according to the trust statement filed.

[92] The remaining proceeds are currently being held by Wishart Law Firm LLP.

[93] The respondent seeks to have any equalization payment that he may owe to her taken from his share. He does not owe her anything by my calculation. Accordingly, there is no amount of his share payable to the applicant. The applicant in fact owes him, for overpayment, as set out above, the sum of $893.74.

[94] Additionally, based on non-payment and/or collection issues to date regarding child support, the respondent seeks child support arrears the court may determine as owed by the applicant be paid to him from the applicant's remaining share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home. I have addressed above that I agree that this should be done for reasons already stated. The arrears are $34,449 from February 1, 2022, to and including November 30, 2025.

[95] The following is a summary of my division of proceeds calculations/findings, accordingly.

Item	Applicant	Respondent
1. Starting Point	$34,728.13	$35,228.12
2. Overpayment of equalization owed to the respondent	- $893.74
3. Child support owed to the respondent	- $32,949
4. Total remaining share to receive of remaining proceeds to go to the applicant	885.39

[96] I will be directing payout of the remaining proceeds to be paid in its entirety to the respondent. The $885.39 will be ordered to be paid to the respondent under the issue of costs, set out below, for reasons stated in that section.

Restraining Order

[97] In addition to the evidence set out above under decision-making responsibility, the respondent continues to believe the applicant is violent and mentally unstable. He emphasizes the assault on himself and his partner in the presence of the children. He remains fearful for his safety and his wife's safety.

[98] I have considered that the incident that occurred is now dated. However, the episode was quite violent and occurred in the presence of the children, and involved the respondent's wife. The applicant in fact demonstrated the number of injuries she also sustained, with photographs.

[99] I have considered that since the applicant was made subject to the last court order in criminal court that she has complied and there has been no issue. That order while still in place, is set to expire December 17, 2025. However, of note, is that prior to that last court order, there were numerous instances of breaches by the applicant, on the record before me.

[100] While the applicant stated that she followed what her lawyer recommended, the fact remains she pleaded guilty to assault occurring June 21, 2022, and was placed on not only probation but a conditional sentence order for 6 months with amongst other terms, a term of curfew and not to contact or communicate with the respondent or his wife in any way, directly or be withing 50 metres of them (where they live, work, go to school, frequent or are known to be) indirectly except pursuant to a family court order or in the presence of or through counsel. From December 2021 to December of 2022, the applicant breached her release undertaking a number of times, and found herself arrested, charged with criminal harassment and 4 counts of failures to comply, and in jail for a period of 2 to three weeks in December of 2023, and ordered to also be placed on probation for a period of 2 years with amongst other terms, a term of curfew and not to contact or communicate with the respondent or his wife in any way, directly or be withing 50 metres of them (where they live, work, go to school, frequent or are known to be) indirectly except pursuant to a family court order or in the presence of or through counsel. The overall tone of the applicant's evidence does not leave me with comfort that even at this time, appreciates and understands her part in what led her to the foregoing.

[101] I have considered the applicant's stated fear that the respondent will use the restraining order as a weapon against her. I do not accept this. First, in each instance of the respondent contacting police regarding the applicant's breaches, she in fact was solely responsible for the breaches. I do not accept that she did not appreciate that she was not to contact the respondent. I do not believe her. The orders were not difficult to understand. Each order would have been reviewed with the applicant in court by the presiding judge with the applicant, whether she had a copy or not. Further, there was no evidence that she was or would have been precluded from getting a copy for herself, if that was an issue at all. For a period, she had a probation officer that I suspect would have been more than happy to provide her with whatever she needed to ensure compliance, as part of their role. Second, the applicant if she controls her behaviours will remove any power on the part of the respondent to use a restraining order "as a weapon" as she put it. The applicant presents to lack insight that she is responsible for her behaviours and if she controls them, there would be no concern of misuse, respectfully.

[102] Of note is that the applicant has not provided any evidence regarding her mental health and/or its status. While she is willing to provide same now, communicated at trial, of note is that this issue has been at the forefront of this case for years. This is by no means a new issue.

[103] There is no question that this is a high conflict case. Due to the parties being self represented, I was able to observe the interaction between the applicant and the respondent.

[104] At trial, the court was able, despite the applicant's many statements that all she wants to do is get along, she presented her continuing animosity towards the respondent and harbouring of blame against him and/or his spouse for her actions. While on the one hand, the applicant was willing to accept responsibility for her actions, or some of them, the reoccurring theme in her evidence was that everything was the fault of the respondent and/or his wife (then girlfriend), whether it be that that he had an affair, that they were putting her in jail or harassing/bullying her or failing to cooperatively coparent or he was deferring to his wife's influence, who allegedly has/had issues, some including jealousy of her and/or her 16-year-old daughter, explaining her view that women are territorial and she understood that. The impression I was left with was that the applicant still harbours significant resentment and continues to demonstrate lack of insight to her behaviour. She is still casting blame elsewhere and presents as not yet able to leave the past in the past, as she indicated she is willing to do. The applicant suggested that she did not have the support system that the respondent did post-separation. Her aunt seemed to suggest otherwise.

[105] The applicant also demonstrated varying concerning behaviours at trial. I have considered that representing yourself at trial is emotional and nerve racking, but for me, it was more than that. There were a number of outbursts of concern regarding the applicant's ability to control her emotions.

[106] Further, at trial, the court heard of many very recent instances where the applicant breached the current supervised access order. The applicant demonstrates by these actions, a complete disregard for the respondent's parenting role and authority, and multiple court order provisions, namely decision-making responsibility and parenting time. Accordingly, this at the very least translates to a significant lack of respect.

[107] Moreover, as addressed already in this decision, the applicant did not present as forthright at trial. As such, the level of confidence I have in the applicant at present is low.

[108] Accordingly, at this date, concerns for the safety and well-being of the respondent and his family are not alleviated for me. As such, I am going to grant the order requested.

[109] A restraining order requires an effective date. Since the current probation order expires in December of this year, the effective date will be December 15, 2025. It will remain in effect for five years, at which date, the children will be much older and there will be less need for the parties to communicate.

[110] As far as terms, they will be that the applicant,

a. shall not communicate directly or indirectly, in any way, with the respondent and his wife, namely, Brenna Tomas ("wife"), for the effective period with the following exceptions

i. electronically to set up/communicate through with the exception of communication to set up and through an online scheduling communication tool/application pursuant to the temporary family court order of Rasaiah J. made on today's date, to be used for parenting time issues or concerns regarding the children only;

ii. pursuant to a family court order made after today's date.

b. Shall not be within 50 metres of the respondent and/or his wife's residence, place of employment, school either is enrolled in to go to, or any other place they are known to be, with the following exceptions:

i. with explicit invitation in writing provided by both the respondent and/or his wife which the applicant shall have on her person;

ii. graduations or special school events for any of the children Tyler Thomas Binkley, born March 14, 2021, and Abigail Marie Binkley, born April 2, 2015 ("children"), such as school sporting events or plays organized by their respective school(s);

iii. sporting events and/or concerts the said children are involved in organized by other organizations;

iv. at a hospital or medical treatment centre where one or more of the said children may be due to a medical emergency;

v. pursuant to a family court order made after today's date;

with the condition, for these stated exceptions, that the applicant shall not communicate directly or indirectly with the respondent and/or his wife or sit or locate herself within 10 metres of him/her/them.

[111] I am satisfied that the applicant be permitted to attend events involving the children organized by third party organizations that occur in the public on condition that she maintain her distance from the respondent and/or his wife, as the case may be. Additionally, the issue of parenting time remains to be determined on a final basis, and any breaches will be of relevance to assessing the behaviour of the applicant, and I am trusting she will take note of same.

Costs

[112] The respondent is the successful party in this proceeding.

[113] The issues were important and processing the application was required due to the applicant's failure to continue to participate.

[114] The issues were not overly complex but made more difficult by the applicant's lack of participation/cooperation including failure to disclose information required to process the case.

[115] The respondent highlighted the applicant's actions in withholding the children from him with respect to steps required in this proceeding, and that it was on more than one occasion.

[116] The respondent highlighted the applicant's refusal to consent to the sale of the matrimonial home or comply with the order made for same; her refusal to permit him to sell the jointly owned vehicle, and other behaviours.

[117] There is no evidence to the contrary or acceptable explanation for all the applicant's behaviours in the materials in respect of these proceedings. I agree that the applicant despite being represented by 4 lawyers has not cooperated in these proceedings or made them easy.

[118] The respondent reports that he has paid $85,816.98 in legal fees to his former counsel. He estimates his costs for preparing for the uncontested hearing at $10,000.

[119] However, the respondent, very generously in my view, took the position at trial that he was not asking for a cost order over and above what was left of the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home of her share. In this case, unfortunately there is only $885.39 left.

[120] While I noted the respondent expressed that he would never be able to collect on any cost order, based on the applicant's status and residence describing her basically as judgment proof; and expressing that based on the applicant's actions to date in this proceeding, it would be highly unlikely that she would voluntarily attend a judgment debtor exam and/or would tell the truth if she did, I would have ordered significantly more costs to the respondent to be clear based on the facts outlined above. He has incurred substantial costs to process this proceeding to date.

[121] I will be considering these considerations, as set out below, with respect to the applicant's claim for spousal support, as a reason for dismissing the claim, as set out thereunder.

[122] I will be ordering the $885.39 to go to the respondent on account of costs, as requested.

Spousal Support

[123] Of note, the applicant at trial stated the applicant stated she did not want or need spousal support, but was seeking it, if it meant she would pay less child support and/or to the respondent.

[124] The applicant worked during the marriage full-time and was not disadvantaged from working if she chose to.

[125] Of note, whether the correct amount in law or not, the applicant testified that she agreed that the deal with the respondent when they separated was that he would pay after the date of separation the mortgage until the home was sold, and the van payment (until February 2020). The mortgage was $444.43 biweekly and the van $372.68 biweekly. He made all these payments and met his end of the bargain. The applicant agreed at trial that after separation the respondent continued to pay the mortgage, and despite the number of times she accused him of not paying support, eventually agreed she understood he paid some of the mortgage payments "in lieu of support", she used those words, and her understanding, that was the situation/agreement. She had counsel at that time and that was the agreement. I am not going to go behind that agreement and see no reason to do so; made 5 years ago.

[126] In 2022, the applicant's inability to work was not related to the marriage, but a baseball injury.

[127] Of note, is that the applicant did nothing to pursue spousal support over 6 years beyond the stated agreement. She has been represented by 4 lawyers since separation.

[128] The applicant further has not demonstrated a current need for spousal support, her own evidence indicating she does not need it or want it, and only pursues it now to lessen what she may have to pay in child support. Again, she entered into the previously outlined agreement.

[129] The trial record also discloses that the applicant has not living on her own for most of the period in question. The applicant had very minimal expenses and was living with other income earners. She gave no evidence that she contributed to expenses at all.

[130] Of note, at present, the applicant is currently residing with her boyfriend who works full time. Further, the applicant indicated at trial that even though she is on a short stress leave, it is her intention to return to work.

[131] Of note, the respondent has full-time care of the children without support from the applicant, financially, and physically, the applicant has seen the children, very little, and has for close to four years.

[132] Further, the respondent has lived his life for the last six years after fulfilling the agreement with the applicant taking no further steps to pursue same. He has himself, the children, his wife and his wife's child living with him. His wife does not work.

[133] Six years is significant delay. Again, the applicant has had 4 lawyers over the course of this proceeding. There was nothing stopping her from pursuing support.

[134] The respondent on the other hand has never indicated that he was not pursuing child support and has been diligently pursuing it. He has been met with delay in seeking relief because of the many changes in counsel by the applicant and many requests by her for adjournments, some granted over his opposition to them.

[135] Of note, the applicant's needs regarding her daughter from a previous relationship are not the subject of these proceedings and an obligation of the biological father of that child. The applicant is not precluded from seeking support for that child. Additionally, the applicant's 16-year-old daughter is graduating high school in 2026 and plans to go to Sault College. There are funds available through Garden River First Nation to cover all her education costs.

[136] While not income, I find it is relevant in assessing the situation that in October of 2024, the applicant received one payment related to the RHT settlement, in the amount of $100,000 and one, $10,000 (although I was not clear if she received this yet). With that she paid bills, paid her lawyer's bill, purchased a $56,000 vehicle, purchased clothing and other items for her 16-year-old daughter, and went on a retreat.

[137] Additionally, I considered that the respondent very generously amended his cost relief he was seeking, at the trial. As stated, I would have awarded him appropriate costs, that likely would have been well over any spousal support that the applicant may otherwise have been entitled to, and well over the costs ordered. I have outlined herein, in the costs section, the significant amount of costs the respondent has incurred processing this proceeding to date.

[138] For all these reasons, I am not granting the claim for spousal support; the respondent's request for dismissal of the applicant's claims for spousal support is granted.

CONCLUSION/ORDERS

[139] For reasons stated herein, I make THREE orders, two temporary/interlocutory, and one final:

Temporary Order/Interlocutory

One: A temporary order shall issue providing:

1. Based on the consent of the applicant, at her sole expense and cost, for the purpose of determining the issue of parenting time, the applicant shall attend upon and obtain a report from a qualified psychiatrist ("assessor"):

a. That sets out that the assessor has assessed the mental health of the applicant;

b. That sets out the method(s) of assessment used, including interview dates, tests administered, the history presented by the applicant, and/or any other collateral sources/records consulted/reviewed for purposes of completing the assessment;

c. That sets out all diagnoses, if any, of any mental health condition(s) the applicant may have, and if she has any, the recommended treatment and prognosis;

d. That sets out concerns, if any, of the applicant having unsupervised care of children, that includes overnight care, in relation to her current health status as assessed;

e. That set outs recommendations for management of involving children in adult matters, such as counselling or programs, if any are known and recommended by the assessor;

f. That sets out a confirmation that the applicant cooperated, if she did, and executed all consents, if any, if she did, that were requested, for release of information required to conduct the assessment;

g. That sets out a confirmation that the assessor has received and reviewed a copy of the OCL report filed at this trial, a complete copy of which the applicant will provide to the assessor; and

h. That sets out a confirmation that the assessor has received and reviewed a complete copy of the parenting section of my reasons on the trial on which this order was based, a copy of which the applicant will provide to the assessor, paragraphs 21 through to and including 53.

2. Once the said report, referred to in paragraph 1 herein is received by the applicant, the applicant shall provide a complete unredacted copy to the respondent and file a complete unredacted copy with the court.

3. The issue of parenting time is adjourned to the trial coordinator to set a date for continuation of hearing of that issue before me once and after the report is filed.

4. The applicant shall have supervised access to the children Tyler Thomas Binkley, born March 14, 2012, and Abigail Marie Binkley, born April 2, 2015, at the Algoma Family Services Supervised Access Center every second Saturday commencing December 6, 2025, until further order of this court.

5. Additionally, this court orders that the applicant may have further interim parenting time as the parties agree, and any other parenting time to the children, that the applicant seeks, it shall be in the sole discretion of the respondent on terms as he directs, in writing, using an online scheduling communication tool/application such as Our Family Wizard, Talking Parents, or Co-Parently. The respondent will choose the application; see paragraph 6 herein.

6. The parties shall purchase an online scheduling communication tool/application for use for parenting, such as Our Family Wizard, Talking Parents or Co-Parently, as stated. Each party shall pay for their portion of the fee for the application. The respondent shall initiate obtaining the application and providing the details to the applicant, in writing, forthwith. The respondent shall file an affidavit indicating he has complied with this provision and attach proof. If the applicant does not follow through, the respondent can provide information about this at a later date when this proceeding resumes.

7. For clarity, the applicant shall not be with the children at any time unsupervised without the explicit written consent of the respondent, and any occasion or attempt to do so will be considered contempt of this court order.

8. Neither party shall speak to the children or in their presence about the other, in any negative manner whatsoever or about any matter that does not involve parenting time or this court proceeding.

OCL Order

Two: An order shall issue in prescribed form requesting that the Office of the Children's Lawyer provide services for the children, Tyler Thomas Binkley, born March 14, 2012, and Abigail Marie Binkley, born April 2, 2015, as the Children's Lawyer deems appropriate, and specifically, if deemed appropriate, to provide an updated report. The parties shall within the time frames required, prepare and forward to OCL all required documents, including intake forms. The Court Filing Office will prepare the order in draft and send same to me for signature. In the section for judge's comments, the Court Filing Office is hereby directed to include the following excerpt:

An updated report would be greatly appreciated. This is a high conflict case. The court has outlined in a decision of today's date many concerns. The court notes that the OCL report writer testified that her recommendations were only meant to be temporary. Unfortunately, more than 2 years have passed since the report was prepared and other events have transpired, including programs and counselling the applicant has undertaken, change in the applicant's residence, but also continued behaviour the applicant has engaged in that causes concern. However, the record does present that at the very least, the parties' son who is currently age 13, wishes to spend time with the applicant outside of supervised parenting time. The applicant states that the child has reached out to her on many electronic platforms. The applicant alleges that the children are fearful of the respondent and Tyler gets grounded for speaking to her. Both parties are self-represented, which makes it even more difficult to assess the case. OCL would, if they choose to provide an update, be of great assistance in being able to obtain and review collateral sources of relevance, such as probation and parole and health records of the applicant. All issues on the application have been decided on a final basis except for parenting time. It will be the only ongoing issue in this proceeding to determine on a final basis, and I set this out, as a factor for consideration in your assessment and of my request for an updated report. Finally, I would ask that the portion of my decision made this date related to parenting time be reviewed, which outlines concerns of the court.

Final Order

Three: A final order shall issue providing:

2. The respondent shall be paid/receive the entirety of the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, namely the sum of $69,995.25 currently held in trust by Wishart Law Firm LLP, and I hereby direct that Wishart Law Firm LLP, release same forthwith to the respondent.

3. This court orders that there shall be no further equalization of net family property, including pensions and/or any other asset of either party owned on the date of separation.

4. This court orders that a restraining order shall issue in prescribed form, effective December 15, 2025, to remain in effect to December 14, 2030, with terms to be included that the applicant,

a. shall not communicate directly or indirectly, in any way, with the respondent and his wife, namely, Brenna Tomas ("wife"), for the effective period with the following exceptions

i. electronically to set up/communicate through with the exception of communication to set up and through an online scheduling communication tool/application pursuant to the temporary family court order of Rasaiah J. made December 2, 2025, to be used for parenting time issues or concerns regarding the children only;

ii. pursuant to a family court order made after today's date.

b. Shall not be within 50 metres of the respondent and/or his wife's residence, place of employment, school either is enrolled in to go to, or any other place they are known to be, with the following exceptions:

i. with explicit invitation in writing provided by both the respondent and/or his wife which the applicant shall have on her person;

ii. graduations or special school events for any of the children Tyler Thomas Binkley, born March 14, 2021, and Abigail Marie Binkley, born April 2, 2015 ("children"), such as school sporting events or plays organized by their respective school(s);

iii. sporting events and/or concerts the said children are involved in organized by other organizations;

iv. at a hospital or medical treatment centre where one or more of the said children may be due to a medical emergency;

v. pursuant to a family court order made after today's date;

with the condition, for these stated exceptions, that the applicant shall not communicate directly or indirectly with the respondent and/or his wife or sit or locate herself within 10 metres of him/her/them.

5. Commencing December 1, 2025, until further order of this court, the applicant based on non-taxable income of $48,483 shall pay to the respondent for table child support for the children, Tyler Thomas Binkley, born March 14, 2012, and Abigail Marie Binkley, born April 2, 2015, the sum of $871 each month.

6. This court orders that any arrears of child support for the children from February 1, 2022, to and including November 30, 2025 (because they are accounted for by payment in full, from her share of the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home in the amount to the respondent), shall be fixed at zero.

7. Costs to the respondent are fixed at $885.39 which shall be considered paid when the respondent receives the applicant's share of the remaining proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home as set out in paragraph 2 herein.

8. Except for parenting time to the children and further future costs associated with same, this court orders that the balance of all claims of either the applicant or the respondent, including the applicant's claim for spousal support are dismissed.

[140] Since the parties both represent themselves, the Court Filing Office is hereby directed to prepare and enter the said THREE orders made by me herein.

Rasaiah J.

Released: December 2, 2025