Reasons for Decision
Court File No.: FC-21-0000365-0000
Date: 2025-01-31
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
Katherine Churchill, Applicant
– and –
Christopher David Elliott, Respondent
– and –
Sandra Ward, Respondent (Self-Represented, Noted in Default)
Heard: June 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, August 12 (partial day), October 1, 2 and 3, 2024
Counsel:
- Brent Balmer, for the Applicant
- Jonathan Krashinsky, for the Respondent
- Sandra Ward, Self-Represented, Noted in Default
Justice D. Piccoli
Corrected Decision: Paragraph 176 – The amount of child support is amended to state $144 per month and paragraph 14 under Court Orders is amended to state $144 per month. Changes have been underlined. March 14, 2025
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Issues for Determination
- Background Facts / Findings of Fact
- Witnesses and Evidence
- Sealing and Anonymization
- Office of the Children’s Lawyer Investigation
- School Placement for N.E.
- Vaccination of N.E.
- Decision-Making and Parenting Schedule for N.E.
- Settled Intention and In Loco Parentis
- Child Support
- Spousal Support and the Separation Agreement
- Orders
- OCL Recommendations (Appendix)
Introduction
The court heard a 13.5-day trial involving the parties’ children, parenting, support, and related issues. The trial included 14 witnesses and 104 exhibits.
Issues for Determination
The Court was asked to decide 13 issues, including:
- Whether to initialize and/or seal the file
- The weight to be given to the OCL report
- Decision-making for N.E.
- Parenting schedule for N.E.
- School placement for N.E.
- Vaccination of N.E.
- Sibling contact
- Parenting time between Ms. Churchill and M.E.
- Whether Mr. Elliott stood in loco parentis to D.B.
- Whether Ms. Churchill stood in loco parentis to M.E.
- Child support amounts and payors
- Whether the separation agreement should be set aside and spousal support ordered
- Costs
During closing submissions, Ms. Churchill withdrew her claim for parenting time with M.E. and for sibling access, on consent and without costs.
Background Facts / Findings of Fact
Ms. Churchill and Mr. Elliott met in 2013 and cohabited from 2015. They have one child together, N.E., and each had a child from a previous relationship (D.B. and M.E., respectively). The parties separated in June 2020. The history of caregiving, living arrangements, and the children’s needs are detailed in the reasons.
Witnesses and Evidence
Ms. Churchill called 8 witnesses, including herself, professionals, and D.B.’s biological father. Mr. Elliott called 5 witnesses, including himself, family members, and a social service worker. The court considered all evidence, including the OCL report and the parties’ testimony.
Sealing and Anonymization
Ms. Churchill requested that the file be sealed and names initialized. Mr. Elliott agreed only to sealing FACS records. The court ordered that all child protection records be sealed and that the children’s names be initialized, but declined to seal the remainder of the file or initialize the parties’ names, citing the open court principle and relevant case law.
Office of the Children’s Lawyer Investigation
The OCL report was prepared by Sarah Martyn, MSW, RSW. The court found significant issues with the neutrality and methodology of the OCL’s recommendations and declined to follow them, providing detailed reasons.
School Placement for N.E.
Ms. Churchill sought to have N.E. attend the Brainery private school; Mr. Elliott sought to have him remain at Sandhills Public School. The court ordered that N.E. remain at Sandhills Public School, citing stability and best interests.
Vaccination of N.E.
Mr. Elliott requested that N.E. receive childhood vaccinations; Ms. Churchill opposed. The court ordered that Mr. Elliott have decision-making authority regarding N.E.’s vaccinations, applying the reasoning in J.N. v. C.G., 2023 ONCA 77 and related authorities.
Decision-Making and Parenting Schedule for N.E.
The court ordered parallel decision-making: Mr. Elliott for health, Ms. Churchill for dental and extracurriculars, and joint decision-making for schooling. The parenting schedule is week-about, Friday to Friday.
Settled Intention and In Loco Parentis
The court found that Mr. Elliott stood in loco parentis to D.B. and that Ms. Churchill conceded she did not stand in loco parentis to M.E. The court applied the relevant statutory and case law tests.
Child Support
The court calculated child support obligations based on the parties’ incomes, the parenting schedule, and the status of the children. Retroactive and ongoing support amounts were set, with detailed calculations.
Spousal Support and the Separation Agreement
Ms. Churchill sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support. The court found that she had not properly pleaded or proven grounds to set aside the separation agreement and dismissed her claim for spousal support.
Orders
- All child protection documents are sealed.
- Children’s names are initialized; dates of birth are removed.
- N.E. will live with his parents on a week-about basis.
- Holiday and special day parenting time is set out.
- Decision-making responsibilities are allocated as described.
- Child support and retroactive support are ordered as calculated.
- The claim for spousal support is dismissed.
- Costs submissions are to be made as directed.
OCL Recommendations (Appendix)
The OCL recommendations are attached as an appendix to the decision and include detailed proposals for decision-making, parenting time, sibling contact, and communication.
Released: January 31, 2025
Justice D. Piccoli
393 University Avenue, Toronto, ON
Office of the Children's Lawyer
Sarah Martyn, MSW, RSW, Clinician