ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: FS-23-0249-00
DATE: 2025-12-17
B E T W E E N:
N.K.
Self-Represented
Applicant
- and -
M.K.
Self-Represented
Respondent
HEARD: August 27, 28 & 29, 2025 at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Regional Senior Justice W. D. Newton
Reasons on Trial
Overview
[ 1 ] The applicant father [^1] and the respondent mother are unrepresented.
[ 2 ] The father seeks equal shared parenting, credit for occupation rent, and a restraining order against the mother.
[ 3 ] The mother seeks that the current parenting schedule continue.
[ 4 ] Both parties claim for child support.
[ 5 ] Property issues were settled during the trial.
The Facts
Biographical Information
[ 6 ] The mother and father married in June 2008 and separated on July 22, 2022.
[ 7 ] The father is 42. He is employed as a lecturer at a college and has self-employment income from a business.
[ 8 ] The mother is 41. She is employed in health care.
[ 9 ] They have three children: an older son, born in 2013 (aged 12, almost 13) and twins, a boy and a girl, born in 2014 (aged 11).
[ 10 ] Since separation, the father had parenting time with the children for one- and one-half days one week (Thursday at 9 a.m. to Friday at 8 p.m.) and two-and one-half days the next week (Thursday at 9 a.m. to Sunday at 8 p.m.)
[ 11 ] The mother has remained in the matrimonial home with the children.
Procedural History to Date
A. Case Conference
[ 12 ] At an urgent case conference in February 2024, Nieckarz J. observed that there “appears to be a complete breakdown in the relationship of the parents that is impacting parenting decisions and impacting the children’s well-being”. Nieckarz J. suggested that the parents should “seriously consider counselling geared to parents in high conflict separations/divorce” and the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL). It was noted that the daughter often refused to go with the father to have parenting time, that the mother would attend unannounced to retrieve the daughter from the husband, and that the father refused to allow the daughter to contact the mother during his parenting time.
B. Motions
July 2024
[ 13 ] Five months later, in July 2024, the mother brought an application to request the involvement of the OCL, [^2] but that motion did not proceed due to filing issues and was adjourned. It was agreed that the father would have vacation with the children from August 17 – 25 th , 2024.
[ 14 ] On the return of the motion on July 29, 2024, the father sought equal parenting time with exchanges occurring on Fridays at 3 p.m. and the sale of the matrimonial home. The mother had filed her material for an order requesting the involvement of the OCL. Fitzpatrick J. observed that this was a “high conflict” matter and that the “affidavits are filled with vitriol, bitterness, irrelevant accusations, hearsay and display an overwhelming focus on the needs of the individual parents as opposed to the best interest of the Children”.
[ 15 ] He noted that both parents “acknowledge the Children are doing well in school, have good friends and are actively and productively enjoying numerous extra-curricular activities”. However, he described the evidence “such as it was on these motions was unhelpful to allow the Court to determine on any reasonable basis” whether a change in parenting time from the existing status quo was in the best interests of the children. He described the allegations and counter allegations as “impossible to reconcile in a motion context” and stated that he was hesitant to order any significant changes to the status quo parenting time “absent some involvement from the OCL”. Accordingly, he declined to order any additional parenting time for the father. However, Fitzpatrick J. extended the father’s summer parenting time from August 16 th to August 26, 2024, to allow the father to fly the children to southern Ontario to visit the father’s extended family. He noted that the daughter had issues with flying as her ears had “popped” on a prior flight.
[ 16 ] Fitzpatrick J. also adjourned the father’s motion for an order for immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home pending the involvement of the OCL.
[ 17 ] He made an order requesting the involvement of the OCL despite the father’s opposition. He opined that a quick and easy end to the parent’s dispute was unrealistic. He observed that the mother had “unduly involved” the children in this dispute and that the children were not going to be the ultimate arbiters of where they were going to live.
[ 18 ] Fitzpatrick J. also made an order preventing the parties from bringing further motions without leave of the court.
October 2024
[ 19 ] Unfortunately, the OCL declined to become involved and, therefore, Fitzpatrick J. dealt with the father’s motion for immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home. The mother expressed interest in purchasing the home, but Fitzpatrick J. noted that “no reliable valuation evidence” was filed. He dismissed the father’s motion for sale of the home and left that issue for trial. He also directed that the father may claim for expenses “thrown away” for an aborted trip in August.
[ 20 ] The parties were directed to schedule a trial management conference.
C. Trial Management Conferences
December 30, 2024
[ 21 ] At that time, I concluded that this matter was not ready for trial. An updated appraisal on the value of the matrimonial home was required and I directed that the witness summaries and a list of documents to be relied upon at trial was to be exchanged.
January 31, 2025
[ 22 ] Once the appraisal was received, the mother offered to buy out the father for more than the appraised amount, but the father wished to have the home sold.
[ 23 ] A final settlement conference was arranged before Nieckarz J.
February 5, 2025
[ 24 ] At this settlement conference, Nieckarz J. noted that there was no prospect of resolution between the parties on any issue. She advised the parties that she was concerned that the level of conflict between the parties pervaded all aspects of the children’s lives and expressed her concern with the impact of the parental conflict on the children’s mental health.
[ 25 ] She directed that the parties review the court’s Trial Primer for Self-Represented Parties and set that primer out in full for the parties in her endorsement.
February 20, 2025
[ 26 ] I noted that the trial issues were equalization of net family property, sale of the matrimonial home, parenting time, and child support.
[ 27 ] However, net family property statements or comparison of net family property statements had not been filed and I directed the parties to serve and file those documents within 20 days.
[ 28 ] I also directed the parties to exchange and file income tax returns and notices of assessment from 2021 to 2024.
[ 29 ] The mother stated her intention to call two witnesses who had provided witness statements. I directed that the time for direct and cross-examination was limited to fifteen minutes for each witness.
[ 30 ] I ordered that no other witness could be called.
[ 31 ] I reminded the parties that decisions regarding decision-making and parenting time would be decided on the basis of the best interests of the children and set out s. 16 of the Divorce Act [^3] in my endorsement. I advised the parties that the evidence on decision making and parenting time would be restricted to matters set out in that section.
[ 32 ] I further directed that two and one-half days would be reserved for trial with each party having one day to present their evidence and the final half day for submissions.
April 30, 2025
[ 33 ] The trial dates were set for August 27, 28 and 29.
[ 34 ] Final directions were given with respect to disclosure of mortgage payments and balances and calculations as to child support payable.
August 14, 2025
[ 35 ] At the final trial management conference, the parties were directed to provide a list of orders requested and the procedure for introducing documents at trial was reviewed.
Trial – August 27 to 29, 2025
Settlement of Property Issues
[ 36 ] On the second day of trial a resolution was reached with respect to the sale of the matrimonial home and equalization of net family property.
[ 37 ] It was agreed that the father owed the mother an equalization payment of $100,735.82 and that the mother would purchase the father’s interest in the matrimonial home based on a value of $495,000 [^4] with credit given for the equalization payment owing on closing.
[ 38 ] An order reflecting this agreement was made on August 29, 2025.
Evidence at Trial
A. The Father
[ 39 ] The father provided a document book consisting of 375 pages and testified.
i. Parenting Time and Decision Making
[ 40 ] The father began by stating that the mother has been uncooperative and delayed settling matters amicably.
[ 41 ] He said that the mother directly involved the children to remove the father from the children’s lives and that the mother has been enriched at his expense by having additional parenting time without merit.
[ 42 ] He sought equal parenting time with a week on/week off rotation. He stated that this schedule would benefit the children as there will be less transitions and, therefore, less conflict. This schedule would also facilitate visits with his extended family, including the children’s paternal grandparents, in southern Ontario. The father also testified that the current parenting schedule interferes with his work as he is required to teach at fixed times and, since the parenting order was put in place, the mother has not accommodated his work schedule. He said it was not in children’s best interests to have their father worried about his employment. He said it is difficult to travel for trades shows for his business as these occur from Tuesday to Thursdays.
[ 43 ] Unfortunately, the father’s testimony focused on conflict with his spouse rather than on the best interests of the children.
ii. Police and CAS Involvement
[ 44 ] The father alleged that the mother assaulted him with a hockey stick in front of the children in October 2023. He relied upon a photograph showing a small abrasion to his leg. In a text to the mother, the father said that the mother hit him with a hockey stick on October 6 th at 7:50 p.m. The mother replied “you are joking right. You called the police. Like really?”
[ 45 ] The father had the mother charged for assault with a weapon for this incident and also for forcible entry on November 8, 2024. The forcible entry was the mother putting her foot in the doorway of his house. The release order was made December 5, 2024. There was a release order for both charges which suggest that the assault with a weapon charge was not pressed until over a year after the alleged occurrence. These charges were disposed of by way of a common law peace bond on July 24, 2025.
[ 46 ] The father testified that he had to call the police and that the police became involved in front of the children. He said that “this is where it seriously started to jeopardise my relationship with the children”.
[ 47 ] He testified that the Children’s Aid Society has been involved on three occasions, all three times, he said, as a result of initiation by the mother.
[ 48 ] Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) investigated and assessed the level of risk to the children being exposed to partner violence as “unverified” by report dated February 2, 2024. The father also relied upon a letter from the CAS to him dated March 25, 2024, which reiterated that the child protection assessment is “closed” and recommended that he research co-parenting skills.
[ 49 ] In January 2025, he reported to the CAS that the mother had attempted to forcibly enter his home. The CAS closed their file as a no contact order was in place but recommended the involvement of the OCL and counselling for the children. The CAS protection worker noted that she had “discussed and cautioned you both, on the negative impact high post separation conflict is having on your children”.
iii. Other Conflict
[ 50 ] From his perspective, these incidents always occurred on what he described as on “my time” and resulted in the alienation of his daughter who told him that she was never coming back to his house and that he was “mean”.
[ 51 ] The father accused the mother of trespassing at his house and texted her that she was not allowed in his house “ever”.
[ 52 ] The father testified that he refused to allow the mother to attend events involving the children, like hockey games, when it was his parenting time because of the conflict between him and the mother.
[ 53 ] He filed videos which he described as the mother’s “attempted abduction” during his parenting time. He says he recorded these interactions because it was on “my time”. Sometimes it was apparent that the mother was also recording the interactions.
[ 54 ] He testified that the mother was interfering with his parenting time and his ability to have family visits with the children in southern Ontario during the holidays. He filed a text message in which the mother was objecting to the children being away for ten days in the summer of 2023. She said that the children did not want to go to Toronto. She said that the father was “an awful person” and that “ten days away from their mom is a lifetime”. She said, “I will hate you for eternity and your kids will be well aware of your shortcomings when the time comes”. She said that she was “going for all the custody I can get”.
[ 55 ] In May 2024, the mother had an opportunity to take their son to Toronto for a hockey game and asked the father if she could take him on the father’s time. The father denied that request and stated that if the son wanted to go to the game that badly, then the mother could buy plane tickets for the three children and the father so he could take the son to the hockey game. The mother’s response was “I’ve never hated you more”.
[ 56 ] The father filed a letter from a school principal. Staff had observed an argument between the parents at school. The father had picked up the daughter who was refusing to get in his vehicle. The principal told the parents that it was inappropriate to argue in front of the children. She recorded that the father said it was “illegal” for the mother to be at the school as it was his day with the children. The daughter was quite upset and said she wanted to go with her mother. She had called her mother to pick her up as she did not want to go to her father’s.
[ 57 ] The father has recorded his daughter saying that she “can’t wait to talk to the children’s lawyer”. When he asked her why she said that, the daughter responded, “because I hate it here and I hate you”.
iv. August 2024 Airport Incident with Daughter
[ 58 ] The father had planned to take the children to southern Ontario to visit his children for an extended holiday. This holiday time had been approved by Fitzpatrick J. in his July 29, 2024 endorsement. The father said that the daughter was locking herself in the bathroom at the airport and asking strangers to use their phone to call her mother. He eventually allowed her to use his phone to call her mother, who told her that her aunts were coming to the airport. The police were called by airport security.
[ 59 ] The police attended at the airport and the father relied upon the occurrence report. The officers recorded that the father stated that he was having issues with his daughter not wanting to board the plane and that she had a fear of flying. When the officers spoke to the daughter, she told them that she was afraid to fly, did not want to go with her father, and did not want to stay with her grandparents. They noted that she refused to board the plane.
[ 60 ] After the airport incident, the daughter wrote a three page note in which she said that she locked herself in the bathroom and that her father threatened to call the police to put her on the plane. She wrote that after the flight left, she was thrown on the floor of her room where the father told her that he was “embarrassed and disgusted by her”.
[ 61 ] The father also said that the mother contacted the Durham Regional Police to do a wellness check on the children while they were on this vacation with their father in southern Ontario.
v. Best Interests of Children
[ 62 ] I interrupted the father and told him that he had spent the morning telling me about the mother interfering with his parenting time and that I had not heard anything about the children.
[ 63 ] He then testified that he takes his children to their activities but never when it is not his parenting time. He runs, skis, and swims with the children. His youngest son struggles with reading, so he is working with him on that along with his new partner who is a special education teacher. He said that the other children are doing well in the school.
[ 64 ] He said that he takes very good care of the children, including the youngest son who has skincare issues.
B. The Mother’s Evidence
i. Mother’s Sister
[ 65 ] The mother called her sister to testify about the airport incident with the daughter.
[ 66 ] She had received a text from the mother that said that the daughter had called the mother from a stranger’s phone in the airport bathroom and that the daughter told her mother that she did not want to get on the airplane. The mother asked her sister to attend and check on the daughter because the mother did not want to upset her daughter. She was not told by the mother to take the daughter from her father and did not do so.
[ 67 ] When she arrived at the airport, she observed the father and the daughter in the secure area. She thought that the father was preventing the daughter from going into the washroom and saw him pick up and restrain the daughter. When the daughter came through security she saw her aunt. The police had told her that the airline had offered to change the tickets so the family could fly out the next day.
[ 68 ] In cross-examination, she said that daughter was upset because her ear drums had burst on a prior flight. She said that the sons did not appear in distress.
ii. Testimony of the Mother
[ 69 ] The mother testified and provided a document brief containing 25 documents. At page 207 to 221 of the father’s trial brief was a summary of issues prepared by the mother.
[ 70 ] She said that it was important that children remain in the matrimonial home for stability and that is why she resisted the father’s attempts to have the home sold and wanted to purchase the home at an appraised value. The home was close to a play area with sports fields and the children could walk to school. She paid the full mortgage and property taxes since the father left in 2022.
[ 71 ] She has re-partnered, and her new partner has lived with her and the children since 2023. Her new partner works part-time with the city.
[ 72 ] She said that her daughter has a fear of flying and that she has not had any success in getting her daughter to fly on any trips, including with her, since her ear drums burst. Her daughter has had counselling for her fear of buses because of the death of a schoolmate and the mother also hopes to continue with counselling for the fear of flying.
[ 73 ] The mother takes the children to all their medical and dental appointments. She makes sure that her sons both have their epi-pens for their allergies she had enrolled her daughter in counselling, but that ended once the father attended the clinic and demanded access to her charts. She said that her daughter was nervous about having what she told the therapist shared with her father.
[ 74 ] She pays for and enrols the children in all their activities: basketball for the oldest son, hockey for the youngest son, and figure skating for their daughter. She has not asked for reimbursement and she is not seeking reimbursement for these expenses which total over $17,000 since separation. She has also paid all school activity expenses.
[ 75 ] She said the father has refused to cooperate on several parenting issues such as refusing counselling at school for their daughter, failing to register for a supervised access program, and failing to agree to use the Our Family Wizard application as suggested by the court for communication between the parents.
[ 76 ] She testified that the father is not flexible when it comes to the children’s activities during his parenting time. For example, he would not allow the younger son to attend hockey during school time even though his teacher said it would be “totally fine” for the son to attend his hockey game as he would not be missing any significant schoolwork. On another occasion, the father would not allow the younger son to stay in Thunder Bay with his mother for a hockey tournament when another’s son had an out-of-town basketball trip. As a goalie, the younger son did not want to let his teammates down and wrote a note stating that he wanted to stay in Thunder Bay as his team was counting on him. The mother also said that on other occasions the father would not take his son to his hockey games and did not notify the team.
[ 77 ] The mother addresses the younger son’s reading challenges by doing workbooks in the evening.
[ 78 ] She testified that the oldest son did not want to show his most recent report card to his father because he had a “B” on one subject, and he was afraid that his father would not allow him to go to his basketball games because of the “B”.
[ 79 ] With respect to exchanges, she said that she always drops off and picks up the children at the father’s home and had to arrange a third party to do the exchanges when the father had her charged. She had offered to have exchanges through the Children’s Centre, as suggested by the CAS, but the father never registered for intake.
[ 80 ] She described her neighbourhood as strong and says that she and the children are a significant part of their faith community. The oldest son is a reader at church and the other children participate. She said that she and the children have a very extensive network of supports that have assisted them over the past few years.
[ 81 ] She also filed “mental health literacy” exercises that the twins completed at school. In response to the question “Who can we go to when we feel stressed?” the son answered “mom, friends, dog” and the daughter answered “mom, siblings, aunties and uncles, teacher”. The father was not listed.
iii. Cross-examination
[ 82 ] The father asked the mother about why it took her two years to make him an offer to purchase the matrimonial home. The mother said that her mother was ill and then died in 2024. She received some legal advice then. She said that she was unable to retain counsel because she did not have any more funds for legal fees.
[ 83 ] When asked why she did not allow the father more parenting time, she replied that the “pushback” for additional parenting time came from the children who said that they had no interest in going one more night earlier. She affirmed that she wanted the children to have a relationship with her father. She also said that she thought that the children were old enough to determine what feels good for them. She did not believe that an equal shared parenting schedule would work for the children.
[ 84 ] When questioned about activities, the mother said that the parenting schedule should not get in the way of any of the children participating in any activities and that the parents should be working together to make it work.
[ 85 ] When asked about the criminal charges and why she entered into a peace bond, she said that the children were present for both incidents and could have been called as witnesses to testify against their father. She decided that it would create undue harm to the children’s relationship with their father if they testified so she entered into a peace bond. She denied assaulting the father with a hockey stick.
[ 86 ] When asked whether the father was in a two-parent household, the mother acknowledged that the father was living with his partner and her three children, but said that the father did not consult with the children before moving in with this other family.
Issues
A. Financial Issues
With equalization resolved, the only outstanding financial issues are the father’s claim for occupational rent and child support. No claim for section 7 expenses is being made.
B. Child Support
[ 87 ] the following chart summarizes the income for the parties since separation:
Year Father Mother
2022 149,278 75,813
2023 160,426 105,153
2024 163,606 123,535
[ 88 ] The father has paid child support in the amount of $825 per month since separation.
C. Occupational Rent
[ 89 ] Based on assumed rent of $2500 [^5] per month and after deducting expenses paid by the mother, the father claims occupational rent of $13,470.72 from September 23, 2022 to date of trial. [^6]
[ 90 ] The mother filed documents as evidence that she has made the mortgage payments in the amount of $47,755.98 and paid the property taxes in the amount of $9,580 for a total payment of $57,226.49.
Positions of the Parties
A. The Father
[ 91 ] The father seeks joint decision making. He says that he has never denied the mother a voice in the children’s lives and asks for the same.
[ 92 ] He seeks equal shared parenting but concedes that this needs to happen on a gradual basis. He asks that holidays be shared with each parent getting two consecutive weeks each summer.
[ 93 ] He seeks occupational rent.
[ 94 ] He seeks a restraining order against the mother “to protect the children from seeing their Mother commit crimes”. He asks that all communication restricted to Our Family Wizard.
[ 95 ] He has calculated child support on the basis that he has a 40/60 split on parenting time, [^7] but concedes that he is obliged to pay on the basis that he has the children less than 40% of the time. He submits that any parent seeking reimbursement of extraordinary expenses must secure the consent of the other parent to incur that expense first.
[ 96 ] He also seeks costs.
B. The Mother
[ 97 ] With respect to decision making, the mother seeks the “lead” in booking medical and dental appointments” and that the parents use Our Family Wizard to communicate with respect to the children. She said that, practically, it is better that the children’s documents stay with her, rather than being sent to school with the children each at exchange as the father wants.
[ 98 ] The mother wants the current parenting schedule to continue “until the children are able to decide on their own about where they want to be”. She asks that the parents prioritize the children’s activities and co-operate about getting the children to their activities. She seeks 10 days of uninterrupted parenting time for each parent during summer vacation with the dates to be agreed by April 1st of each year. Family Day and Thanksgiving are to be shared on alternate years. For Christmas, the holiday would be shared on alternate years with one parent having the children on Christmas Eve until 9 p.m. and the other parent having Christmas Day.
[ 99 ] The mother seeks to have child support reviewed annually. [^8]
The Law
The Divorce Act provides as follows:
Best interests of child
16 (1) The court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or a contact order.
Primary consideration
(2) When considering the factors referred to in subsection (3), the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.
Factors to be considered
(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including
(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
(d) the history of care of the child;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
Factors relating to family violence
(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall take the following into account:
(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;
(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;
(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;
(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;
(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;
(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;
(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
(h) any other relevant factor.
Past conduct
(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.
Parenting time consistent with best interests of child
(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
Parenting order and contact order
(7) In this section, a parenting order includes an interim parenting order and a variation order in respect of a parenting order, and a contact order includes an interim contact order and a variation order in respect of a contact order.
Analysis and Disposition [^9]
[ 100 ] This is an unfortunate situation for the parents, but particularly so for the children.
[ 101 ] This is obviously a “high conflict” family case.
[ 102 ] Despite recommendations from my judicial colleagues and CAS professionals, the parents have not engaged in counselling geared to parents and families in “high conflict” separations. Unfortunately, the OCL declined to become involved and the involvement of the OCL would have been of great assistance to the Court and to the parties in attempting to resolve the parenting issues.
[ 103 ] Neither parent is blameless in this situation. But there is no convincing evidence before me to indicate that either parent is not a capable and loving parent. The conflicts arise not from the parent’s inability to parent, but from the inability or refusal of the parents to co-operate in the children’s best interests.
[ 104 ] Unfortunately, the focus of the father was on criticism of the mother’s conduct which he perceived as interfering with his rights and not on the best interests of the children. This was despite being specially advised well in advance of trial that my decisions would be based on the factors as set out in the Divorce Act . The mother was also focused on the father’s conduct, albeit to a lessor extent. As my colleague Fitzpatrick J. observed in July 2024, the affidavits filed at that time displayed “an overwhelming focus on the needs of the individual parents as opposed to the best interests of the Children.”
[ 105 ] Examples of a lack of focus on the children’s best interest include:
the refusal of the father to consent to the early involvement of the OCL
the father’s uncompromising insistence that the matrimonial home be sold on the market rather than being sold to the mother at what appeared to be fair market value thereby resulting in the potential “uprooting” of the children;
the father pressing criminal charges for what I would describe as trivial events;
the father’s insistence that it was “illegal” for the mother to attend at school during his time;
the father’s description of the mother’s actions as “abductions” of the children;
the father’s characterization of the airport incident with the daughter as orchestrated by the mother rather than a recognition that it was, as I find, the result of the daughter’s actual fear of flying;
the father’s inflexibility with the attendance of both parents at the children’s activities;
the father’s refusal to allow his son to attend a hockey game in Toronto with his mother and his suggestion that the mother should pay for him and all the children to fly to Toronto;
the mother’s comments to the father that she has never hated him more, that she will hate him for eternity, and will tell the children of his shortcomings;
the mother calling the Durham police to do a wellness check on the children when the children were visiting the paternal grandparents with the father; and
the mother involving the children in the parental conflict by discussing the OCL and having the children write notes.
[ 106 ] The father had to be interrupted in his testimony and told to focus on the best interests of the children. Even then, it was shocking that he did not tell the Court that his new family included three other children.
[ 107 ] However, as noted by my colleague Fitzpatrick J. in July 2024, both parents “acknowledge the Children are doing well in school, have good friends and are actively and productively enjoying numerous extra-curricular activities”. From the evidence before me, that appears to continue to be the case.
[ 108 ] With respect to the Divorce Act factors, I note the importance of stability and the history of care.
[ 109 ] I note that one parent cannot benefit from a unilaterally imposed “status quo”, but the fact is that the children have continued with the current schedule for over three years. I note that the children are relatively young, and have spent, in the case of the younger children, almost one third of their life under the current parenting schedule.
[ 110 ] The children’s views and preferences were not independently verified. I note that the mother may be giving greater deference to what she perceives their preferences to be.
[ 111 ] The only mention of religious or spiritual upbringing came from the evidence of the mother about her and children’s involvement with their church.
[ 112 ] There was no evidence from the father about a plan to integrate his three children with the three children of his new family and I accept the mother’s evidence that the father did not discuss this with the children before he did so. As noted, it is shocking that the father did not consider it important to mention in his evidence that his family now consists of three other children.
[ 113 ] I am not satisfied that either parent has the ability, at present, to cooperate and communicate, although I acknowledge that the mother has expressed her belief that the parents should cooperate in making sure that the children participate and enjoy all their activities. The messages between the parents suggest that cooperation is unlikely without improvement from both parties.
[ 114 ] I am also not satisfied that either parent has a genuine willingness to support the development and maintenance of the children’s relationship with the other parent.
[ 115 ] I have considered the history of family violence, and I find that none of the allegations of family violence are relevant to the exercise of parenting time, decision making responsibility, or contact with the children.
[ 116 ] I acknowledge that I must give effect to the principle that a child should have as much parenting time with each parent as consistent with the best interests of the child.
A. Decision Making
[ 117 ] Despite their challenges in communicating, I am satisfied that this is a case for joint decision making. There appears to be no issues between the parents as to medical care, education, religious upbringing, and recreational activities. I trust that these decisions can be made jointly going forward. If major issues arise, the parties are to consult and defer to the opinion of medical or educational professionals.
[ 118 ] Going forward, all child related communication should be through the Our Family Wizard application.
[ 119 ] Original documents will remain in the possession of the mother rather than travel with the children to school on exchange days, and are to be made available to the father as needed.
[ 120 ] Each parent is to maintain extended health care coverage for the children available through employment and co-operate in the submission of any claims for expenses.
B. Parenting Time
[ 121 ] As stated, no parent should benefit from a “status quo” imposed by the other.
[ 122 ] It is not disputed that the children are doing well. One child has some issues with language, but I am satisfied that both parents are addressing his needs appropriately. The daughter has what I accept are legitimate issues with flying and needs counselling to assist with this. It is disappointing that the counselling has not continued. It is hoped that counselling will be sought for this issue.
[ 123 ] All three children appear to have active and fulfilling recreational activities that they enjoy. The parents are to be commended for their efforts in managing three children, in three different activities, along with the other recreational pursuits.
[ 124 ] The mother asserts that the children do not wish to spend more time with their father. I have no way of verifying this assertion. Based on the evidence, it appears that the daughter is the most resistant to spending more time with the father, But as noted, the parents and the children have not had counselling to address “high conflict” parenting despite recommendations from the court and other professionals. In my view, the entire family would benefit from counselling, but that advice has been consistently ignored to date.
[ 125 ] The evidence at trial does not satisfy me that it is in the children’s best interest to change the parenting schedule which has been in place for over three years. Therefore, I order that the existing parenting time continue subject to changes agreed to by the parents.
[ 126 ] While in the care of one parent, each child shall be permitted to telephone or FaceTime the other parent at least once every 24 hours.
[ 127 ] If a parent intends to take the children out of the City of Thunder Bay overnight or longer, that parent must notify the other at least 24 hours in advance, and 7 days in advance for travel out of the country.
[ 128 ] With respect to holidays and special events, I have considered the submissions of each parent and order the following:
a. Summer holidays - each parent will be entitled to 14 days continuous parenting time with the children during the school summer holidays. The father shall have first choice of the holiday period for 2026, and the first choice will alternate each year. The dates are to be confirmed no later than April 1st of each year;
b. Mother’s Day and Father’s Day – if the children are not otherwise with the mother or father on the respective holiday, the children shall be in the care of the mother or father on their day from at least 9:00 a.m. on that day to 8:00 p.m. that day;
c. Christmas Eve and Day – the regular parenting schedule will continue for Christmas Eve and Day except that the parents will alternate parenting time for Christmas Eve and Day each year. For 2025, the children will be with the mother Christmas Eve from 9:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. Christmas Day and then continue in the father’s care to at least 9:30 p.m. or on the regular schedule. For 2026, the father shall have children in his care for the same times on Christmas Eve and the mother the same times on Christmas Day;
d. All Other Holidays – will follow the current parenting schedule subject to the agreement of the parents.
C. Restraining Order
[ 129 ] The father’s request that the mother not contact him directly or indirectly is contrary to his request that the parents use Our Family Wizard to communicate. The request for a restraining order is denied. Except in emergency situations all communication between the parties shall be by Our Family Wizard and each parent must check for messages on Our Family Wizard at least once each morning and evening.
D. Financial issues
i. Occupation Rent
[ 130 ] The father’s calculations set out deductions that the mother did not seek as a credit. The mother did not present any other evidence as to what an appropriate rental rate would be. Accordingly, I accept the claim for occupation rent as $13,470.72.
ii. Child Support
[ 131 ] The Federal Child Support Guidelines provides that if each spouse exercises not less than 40% of parenting time with the child over the course of the year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account the amount set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses, the increased costs of shared parenting time arrangements, and the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought. The onus of proving that the parent exercises not less than 40% parenting time is on the parent selecting the “offset”.
[ 132 ] Based on my calculations, the father does not meet the 40% “threshold”. Although there are various ways to calculate this, the father’s percentage of parenting time ranges between 35% and 38%.
[ 133 ] Based on his reported income, the father’s obligation for monthly child support would be:
a. $2770 for 2022 based on income of $149,288;
b. $2942 for 2023 based on income of $160,426; and
c. $2991 for 2024 based on income of $163,606.
[ 134 ] Earnings for 2025 are not available but support would be, therefore, based on the 2024 income.
[ 135 ] The father has paid child support of $825 per month since October 2022. I note that the parents were under the mistaken assumption that “set off” applied.
[ 136 ] The father should have paid child support in the amount of $115,398 to the end of 2025 but has only paid, assuming he has continued to make payments since trial, $32,175. Therefore, retroactive child support is $83,225 as of December 31, 2025.
[ 137 ] I have noted the parties’ “understanding” as to child support and “set off”. The father stated in his Application that the “schedule was close to 40% for me and 60% for the Respondent Mother.” The mother in her Answer stated that they had a 60/40 shared parenting schedule.
[ 138 ] When asked about child support and occupational rent during her submissions, the mother said:
I am not interested in any retroactive child support from the individual. It comes with bullying and comments. Whatever he wants and occupation rent, I don’t care, I just want the kids to be okay.
[ 139 ] I am concerned that this concession from the mother was not informed in that she may have not appreciated the significance of the child support shortfall.
[ 140 ] Therefore, I am directing that the mother confirm to me that she is abandoning the claim for retroactive child support by January 9, 2026 by email to thunderbay.scj@ontario.ca with a copy to the father.
[ 141 ] If not abandoned, then I will hear in person oral submissions from both parties with respect to retroactive child support on a date to be set by the trial coordinator.
[ 142 ] Regardless of the mother’s decision with respect to retroactive child support, ongoing child support shall be $2991 per month commencing January 1, 2026.
[ 143 ] Child support will be reviewable on June 30th of each year based on the parent’s income from all sources for the prior year as shown on their income tax returns. Parents are to exchange income tax returns and notices of assessments by June 1st each year.
[ 144 ] With respect to s. 7 expenses, any parent who seeks reimbursement for a s. 7 expense must first obtain the consent of the other parent before incurring the expense. If not consented to, then the expense is to be borne by the parent incurring the expense.
iii. Expenses For Missed Air Travel in 2024
[ 145 ] There was a suggestion that the father would be claiming these expenses. Any expense was not attributable to any conduct on the part of the mother but the daughter’s fear of flying. As such, there is no compensation awarded.
iv. Summary – Financial Issues
[ 146 ] The father is entitled to a credit for occupational rent claimed against child support for a net amount owing for child support of $69,754, if the claim for retroactive child support is not waived. If the claim for retroactive child support is waived, the claim for occupation is dismissed as the father underpaid child support.
v. Divorce
[ 147 ] The divorce may proceed on an uncontested basis by either party filing the required documents.
Costs
[ 148 ] Each parent is to bear their own costs.
The Hon. Mr. Justice W. D. Newton, R.S.J.
Released: December 17, 2025
COURT FILE NO.: FS-23-0249-00
DATE: 2025-12-17
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: N.K.. Applicant - and - M.K. Respondent REASONS ON TRIAL Newton R.S.J.
Released: December 17, 2025
[^1]: Non-specific identifiers are used to protect the privacy of the parties and the children. [^2]: This was a claim that the mother made in her Answer. [^3]: R.S.C. 1985, c. 3. [^4]: The appraised value as of December 20, 2024 was $442,000. [^5]: Based on what the father had to pay to rent similar accommodation. [^6]: The father’s spreadsheet showing his calculations is set out at pages 170 to 172 of his document book. [^7]: In his Application, the father states that the parenting “schedule was close to 40% for me and 60% for the respondent mother”. [^8]: In her Answer, the mother stated that they currently have 60/40 shared parenting schedule. [^9]: While this decision was under reserve, the Court received emails from the parties. These emails will not be reviewed until this decision is released.