SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY COURT
ANTONY CHOMBA
Applicant
- and -
FLORENCE BASHITSI
Respondent
R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P. ROGER
on December 5, 2025, at OTTAWA, Ontario
APPEARANCES :
A. Chomba
Applicant, In Person
V. Akujobi
Counsel for the Respondent
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY COURT
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
ENTERED ON PAGE
Reasons for Decision
1
Transcript Ordered:
December 5, 2025
Transcript Completed:
December 10, 2025
Ordering Party Notified:
December 10, 2025
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2025
R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N ROGER, J. (Orally):
The parties were married in June 2017 and separated
5
in December 2022. They had previously separated for a few months from November 2019 to January 2020 and for about one year from April 2020 to May 2021.
They lived in Kenya at the start of their marriage
10 and in March 2019 moved to Canada.
The parties have two children, a seven-year-old boy that I will refer to as A, born in 2018, and a three-year-old girl that I will refer to as E, born in 2022. A is autistic. His diagnosis has been
described as not mild but not severe. He has
15
difficulty transitioning and requires soft transitions.
The parties agree that child support arrears owing by the Applicant to the Respondent as of
September 1, 2025 are to be fixed at $3,000 all
20
inclusive. They agree that as of that date, there are no arrears of Section 7 expenses, only $3,000 of table child support owing. This will require the Family Responsibility Office to correct their
25 statement of arrears to reflect that $3,000 is what is owing for child support as of September 1, 2025.
The parties also agree that the Applicant's annual income is currently $50,000. I find that the Applicant could have earned that amount of annual
30 income even before he started his new employment as
a delivery driver, such that child support based on that income shall start as of September 1, 2025.
The Applicant has demonstrated an ability to earn at least that amount of annual income, see for example what he earned while he worked in the Province of British Columbia and what he earned in
Ottawa working construction, such that had he not
5
started his new employment, such an amount of income could have been imputed to him.
Outstanding issues include parenting time and decision-making responsibility. The Applicant seeks
10 equal decision-making responsibility and increased parenting time. During week one, the Applicant
seeks parenting time with A from Tuesday after school to Sunday evening and with E from Friday evening to Sunday evening. On week two, the
Applicant seeks parenting time with both children
15
from Thursday evening to Friday morning. The Applicant indicated that if parenting time with E on week two is limited to an evening, he prefers not to have any because he indicated that an
evening is not workable nor in the best interests
20
of E. The parties agree with a Sunday evening return, rather than a return at school or on Monday mornings. Subject to a brief period of transition for E, the Respondent argues that the Applicant's
25 parenting time should be on one week from Friday after school or at five to Sunday at five, and on the other week on Thursday from five to 7:00 p.m.
Exchanges at a police station have occurred for some time and neither party objected to this
30 continuing, at least for the moment.
Since the birth of the children, the Respondent has been the children's primary parent. She is the
one who has made most of the decisions for the children. The Applicant also played an important part, but one that was secondary to that of the Respondent. This is apparent from the evidence and
from the role that each parent played in the
5
children's lives.
About October 2022, the Applicant started to work in the Province of British Columbia, spending about half the time away from his family. The
10 parties separated in December 2022, and I find that the Applicant agreed to the Respondent and their
children travelling to Rwanda to be with her family until about April 2023. His agreement to this is apparent from the evidence, including from the
consent that the Applicant signed, which
15
contradicts his evidence that he wanted to prevent the trip in January 2023. In March 2023, for a number of reasons, including to attend her brother's wedding, the Respondent decided to extend
her stay in Rwanda with the children until December
20
- The Applicant did not agree with this extension, but did not insist that the Respondent return. The Applicant hired a lawyer in Kenya, but I accept that the Respondent was not aware that
25 this was occurring because she did not receive the lawyer's correspondence, and the Applicant never informed her that this was going on. As well,
although he disagreed, the Applicant did not insist that the Respondent return to Canada. The parties
30 communicated and continued to communicate while the
Respondent was in Rwanda with the children and these communications indicate that the Applicant
acquiesced to the Respondent and their children staying longer.
During his cross-examination, the Applicant
agreed that although he was disappointed, he accepted the Respondent's decision to stay longer.
5
Moreover, in July 2023, the Applicant moved to Seattle, in the State of Washington, to be with his mother and two brothers. It is not clear what the Applicant did for work while in Seattle, but I do
10 not accept his evidence that he did not work while in Seattle because that evidence is contradicted by
the many unexplained deposits into his bank accounts and his explanations about this, including of being paid for running errands for his family,
are not believable.
15
The Respondent and the children returned to Ottawa on January 16, 2024, and the Applicant returned from Seattle shortly thereafter. In February 2024 the Applicant started this
Application. His parenting time since is outlined
20
in the without prejudice temporary court orders of this Court. Although fairly comparable to what was ordered in April 2024, since October 2024 the Applicant's parenting time is as follows.
25 During week one, the Applicant has parenting time with A from Thursday at five to Monday at school, and with E on Thursday from five to seven and on Saturday from ten to four. During week two, the Applicant has parenting time with A from
30 Thursday at five to Friday at school, and with E on
Thursday from five to seven.
Subject to a brief period of transition, the
Respondent agrees to starting overnight access for
E. Essentially, what is in dispute is whether the Applicant should have extended overnight parenting time with the children during the week or whether
his parenting time with the children should be
5
every other weekend plus a weeknight and, whether decision-making responsibility should be joint or whether the Respondent should have final say.
Sarting with decision-making responsibility,
10 what is in the best interests of the children is for decisions to be made following consultations but, but for the Respondent to have final say. I arrive at this conclusion for a number of reasons.
The Applicant is frequently late responding to
the Respondent. Sometimes he does not respond,
15
sometimes he responds only later. Joint decisions would be unworkable. As well, the Respondent is usually the parent who takes the initiative on whatever is required for the children. The evidence
indicates that she takes the lead on most issues
20
and that she consults with the Applicant. She has demonstrated a willingness and an ability to communicate relevant information about the children to the Applicant and to seek his input. The
25 Applicant, on the other hand, has demonstrated that he is frequently late responding, frequently not available to attend required appointments, and
occasionally unwilling to compromise. For example, when the Applicant unilaterally insisted that their
30 son, A, no longer attend at a summer camp, or when
the Applicant insisted that A not return to school for a longer period following A's recent eye
surgery. The Applicant has also demonstrated an occasional inability to appreciate the Respondent's opinions. For all those reasons, joint decision making would be unworkable for these parties and
what is in the children's best interests is for
5
decisions to be made after consultations but for the Respondent to have final say.
Turning next to the issue of parenting time. The children are young, A is autistic, and both
10 require stability. The time in bed for the children is later at the Applicant than at the Respondent
and the Applicant's new employment will not facilitate an earlier bedtime for the children. This would impact the children more so during the
week.
15
The Applicant lives at least 35 minutes away from the children's school and daycare. By comparison, the Respondent lives in close proximity. This distance and longer travel time
would also impact the children more so during the
20
week.
Both parties have a strong relationship with their children and both play an important role in their children's life. It was apparent from the
25 evidence that the children love both parents and that both parents do their best for their children. As well, it was readily apparent that both parents
have a strong history of care for the children. The Respondent, because of how their separation
30 occurred, has been more involved, but both care
deeply for their children.
Both spouses show a willingness to support the
development and maintenance of the children's relationship with the other spouse. However, on occasion, it is difficult to determine whether the Respondent is genuinely concerned for the
children's well-being while at the Applicant or
5
whether she is trying to limit the Applicant's parenting time. I say this in part because some of the recordings made by the Respondent appear suspect and self-serving. Her explanations about
10 why she made some of these recordings are difficult to accept. As well, the Respondent raised the
Applicant's drinking in the context of the Application to limit the Applicant's parenting time, but the Soberlink testing ordered on consent
of the parties does not support her recordings and
15
stated concerns. It is not disputed that the Applicant drinks beer and wine, but the evidence does not support that this impacts the best interests of the children. The Applicant must take
steps to ensure that his drinking does not affect
20
the children.
On the other hand, this creates ambiguity about the Respondent's motives. I say ambiguity because most of the Respondent's testimony during this
25 trial and most of her written communications with the Applicant show a willingness to consult and involve the applicant in the lives of the children.
However, she occasionally used this to stop or limit the Applicant's parenting time, which gives
30 me pause for concern.
Similarly, it is difficult to assess what happened in Rwanda and why the Respondent stayed
months longer than was initially expected. As indicated earlier in my reasons, the Applicant initially consented to a three-to-four-month stay, and then acquiesced to what became a year-long
absence of the children. However, the Respondent's
5
explanation of a cancelled flight rings hollow. It is apparent that she used this as an initial excuse and then looked for any other excuses to stay longer. Her insistence that the Applicant could
10 have visited also rings hollow, given the distance and their separation. While it is difficult to
assess whether the Respondent would have returned, as she now says, if the Applicant had insisted, the fact remains that she did not return in April as
initially agreed, and used excuses to stay much
15
longer, none of which goes to prove a willingness to support the development and maintenance of the children's relationship with the Applicant, at least not at that time. Remember that both children
were then quite young, a crucial time in their
20
development and relation-forming abilities.
The children are young, such that they were not interviewed to ascertain their views and preferences. Nonetheless, the evidence indicates
25 that both enjoy their time with both parents. Both parents can equally contribute to the children's linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing.
Similarly, subject to a caveat, both parents are willing and able to care for and meet the needs of
30 the children.
The caveat relates to the Applicant's employment and its added impact on his ability to
meet the children's needs and on his ability to regularly execute on an acceptable plan for the children's care. The Respondent is more stable at home and at work and her plan for the children's
care is more easily assessed to be in the
5
children's best interests. The Applicant now has suitable accommodations for the children, but the frequency of his residential moves makes it slightly more uncertain. The same is true for his
10 employment. Both his prior occupation as a handy person and even more so his new job as a delivery
person make it difficult to assess his plan and his availability for the children.
The Applicant recently started a new job that
could require him to work 9.5 hours per day for 4
15
to 5 days per week. He has provided no document describing his work obligations and terms of employment. Although there might be some flexibility, including an ability to accept lighter
delivery loads and to work less hours on some days,
20
all of this is new and completely untested as he was to start the new job after the trial finished. When asked how he would accommodate the children's schedules of daycare and school hours, the
25 Applicant's answers were vague and optimistic. The Applicant previously occasionally experienced difficulty with the morning school schedule; this
new job will not make this easier for him and for the children. This uncertainty relating to the
30 children's daily schedule is greater for E who is
still in daycare. Although there might be some flexibility as to when E arrives, there should be
consistency, which could be difficult considering the parents' different work schedule and the distance to travel while with the Applicant. The Applicant indicated, during his reply submissions,
that an early drop off for E would be difficult. He
5
preferred to move her drop-off to be closer to 9:00
a.m. which might not be possible and, in any event, would probably disrupt the regularity of the children's schedule during the week.
10 With regards to the parties' ability and willingness to communicate and cooperate, both at
times have experienced difficulty, but the Respondent has shown a better ability to do so on matters affecting the children. Both parties have
somewhat of a temper, but, as indicated in my
15
analysis of decision-making responsibility, the Respondent is better at communicating and cooperating with the Applicant on matters that relate to the children. The Applicant often delays
and occasionally insists on having his way no
20
matter the circumstances. This brings us to the topic of family violence and criminal proceedings.
Criminal charges are outstanding against the Applicant for the events surrounding the diaper bag
25 alleged assault. Both parties have conflicting versions of events and the photograph of an alleged bruise on the Respondent's forehead is not
determinative as I do not know what I see on that photo, nor what probably caused the alleged bruise.
30 When I consider the evidence, I cannot find, on a
balance of probability, that the alleged assaults occurred. Similarly, I cannot find that the
Respondent assaulted the Applicant, as he alleges.
However, I do find that the Applicant occasionally tries to intimidate the Respondent by occasionally using inappropriate and bullying
language in his written communications, which is a
5
form of violence and equally unacceptable.
For example, writing to a coparent, former spouse, that, "You'll start doing things willingly, I can guarantee you that. Watch what you say around
10 me" and, "Oh I'm not threatening you. Not one but. But you will do what you are supposed to do. Mark
my words." Such words attempt to coerce and control the behaviour of a former spouse. Such examples are not frequent, but nonetheless show a pattern of
occasional coercive control. None is directed to a
15
child. While I do not find, as indicated above, that the safety of the Respondent was compromised, such words could compromise her safety. It is therefore important for the parties to accept that
such words and behaviour must not be repeated. I
20
have decided not to order any education re family violence because this was not asked and submissions were not made but certainly if the parties have ongoing difficulty, they should consider such
25 programs.
Considering the best interests of the children, the factors outlined at Section 16(3) of the Divorce Act , and how these factors in the circumstances of this case impact the children's
30 physical, emotional and psychological safety,
security and well-being, the following is ordered regarding parenting time and related issues.
The primary residence of the children shall be with the Respondent mother.
Until E starts school in September 2026, during
week one the Applicant shall have parenting time with their son, A, from Thursday at school or at
5
five to Friday at school or at 9:00 a.m. During week two, the Applicant father shall have parenting time with A from end of school or at five on Thursday until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. and with E from
10 Friday at five to Sunday at 5:00 p.m.
I see no reason to order a brief adjustment period during week two for E considering her age and the consistency and quality of her parenting time with the Applicant. I do not, at this time,
order parenting time on week one for E with the
15
Applicant because the Applicant indicated that evening parenting time was not workable or not in E's best interests, and because I find that the Applicant returning E to her daycare Friday morning
would be difficult and not in E's best interests at
20
the moment. By September 2026, E will probably be in school and, in any event, will be older. As well, by September 2026 the Applicant will have acquired experience managing his work schedule and
25 managing both children attending overnights. This will allow parenting time with E to be increased to be identical to that of her brother. Consequently,
starting September 2026, the Applicant shall also have during week one the same parenting time with
30 E, that is from Thursday at school or at 5:00 p.m.
to Friday at school or at 9:00 a.m. and also the same parenting time during week two, starting on
Thursdays, not Fridays, as of that time.
Non-school and non-daycare exchanges occurring at the police station are not opposed, and these shall continue until the parties agree otherwise in
writing or until further order of this Court.
5
The parent with the children shall be responsible for transporting the children to any extracurricular activities that fall on their time and both parents may attend such activities.
10 During the summer, each parent shall have one uninterrupted week with the children. Birthdays and
special holiday time shall be as outlined in the order.
Communication between the parties has usually
been good but occasionally been not acceptable, as
15
outlined above. Consequently, despite the applicant's stated difficulties, communications shall continue to be exclusively with OurFamilyWizard. In time, if appropriate, the
parties may agree otherwise, provided such
20
agreement be in writing.
The parties may travel in Canada without the consent of the other but must exchange particulars of such travel. Any travel outside of Canada with a
25 child or the children shall require written consent of the other parent or an order of this Court. This should be sufficient and not allowing any travel
until the children are of legal age, as sought by the Applicant, is not required.
30 If all goes well, by December 2026 the parties
should be well positioned to determine whether parenting time should be further reviewed.
I have corrected the order for parenting time for A to start on Thursday, as this was a typo. I have also added, as discussed, that Section 7 expenses are payable after deducting any amounts
received for such expenses from any other sources.
5
With regards to the costs of this Application, the Respondent seeks her costs on a substantial indemnity basis. Her actual costs total approximately $45,000. The Applicant argues that
10 there should be no costs payable, relying primarily on the impact of the Respondent overstaying her
stay in Africa being the principal cause of this litigation and the requirement to litigate parenting time.
This was not a complicated Application. It
15
involved issues of income, child support, parenting time, and decision-making responsibility. I appreciate and understand that a losing party would not expect to pay costs in the range of about
$40,000 for such an Application. However, costs are
20
also an important part of our rules of practice aimed at discouraging litigation when this can be avoided. This was a multi-day trial, and the fees incurred by the Respondent to proceed with this
25 Application are not unreasonable. Nonetheless, I will reduce the costs to a more reasonable amount, taking into account the reasonable expectation of a
losing party, to what would be a more reasonable amount, and will also take into account the impact
30 on this litigation of the Respondent overstaying in
Africa. Considering all of this, I will reduce actual costs to $30,000 all-inclusive. This also,
to some extent, reflects the fact that to a very limited extent, success was divided on some issues.
The Respondent did obtain a better result at
trial than what she offered at a pre-trial in July 2025 when at least $10,000 worth of costs had
5
already been incurred.
Considering everything, what is fair and reasonable is for costs to follow the result and be payable by the Applicant to the Respondent, who was
10 the successful party. Considering the offer that she made at the settlement conference of July 2025,
costs will be ordered at 60% of $10,000 which was reasonably incurred before the settlement conference and at 90% of $20,000 which was
reasonably incurred thereafter.
15
Consequently, costs of $24,000 are payable by the Applicant to the Respondent for the costs of this Application. Of that amount, about a third relates to child support, as some time was spent
during this trial dealing with the Applicant's
20
income which ultimately was not a productive exercise, but which was reasonable at the time. Consequently, I will order a third of the amount ordered for costs to be enforceable by the Family
25 Responsibility Office. The Order will reflect this. E N D O F R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N
30
FORM 3
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5 (2))
Evidence Act
I,
(Name of Authorized Person)
certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of
Chomba v. Bashitsi
in the
Superior Court of Justice
(Name of Case)
(Name of Court)
held at
161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario
(Court Address)
taken from Recording This certification does not apply to
0411_CR35_20251205_0838 55 10_ROGERP.dcr the Reasons for Decision which was judic
, which has been certified in Form 1. ially edited.
(Date)
(Signature of Authorized Person(s))
(Authorized court transcriptionist’s identification number)
Ontario
(Province of signing)
A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.