Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-22-1103 Date: 2025/12/31 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Abhay Pawar, Applicant And: Swati Pawar, Respondent

Counsel: Diana Aoun, for the Applicant Self-represented Respondent

Heard: June 5 – 13, 2025 and July 28 – 30, 2025

Reasons for Decision

ENGELKING. J.

[1] Mr. Pawar brings an amended application as per the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form dated April 16, 2025, seeking an order for divorce, sole decision-making responsibility for the children of the marriage after consultation with Ms. Pawar, a shared parenting schedule, incidentals of decision-making responsibility, set-off child support and section 7 expense contributions on an imputed income to Ms. Pawar, sale of jointly held properties and incidental relief related thereto, including post-separation adjustments or alternatively occupation rent, equalization and costs.

[2] Ms. Pawar seeks an order for primary residence of the children, table child support payable by Mr. Pawar, spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, sale of the other jointly owned properties, equalization of the parties' net family properties and costs.

[3] For the reasons that follow, there will be a final order for joint decision-making responsibility, a shared parenting schedule, retroactive and on-going child and spousal support, an equalization payment owed by the Respondent to the Applicant and post-separation adjustments.

Background Facts

[4] Mr. Pawar came to Canada in 1996 as a student. He completed his MBA at the University of Calgary in 1998.

[5] The parties married in Mumbai, India on February 27, 2000. Mr. Pawar returned to Canada and sponsored Ms. Pawar; she joined him in Canada on December 5, 2000. The parties lived in Calgary until they moved to Ottawa, Ontario in November of 2003.

[6] Two children were born of the marriage, twin daughter and son, Shaarvi Abhay Pawar and Aarohan Abhay Pawar, born on September 6, 2019, after many years of trying and engaging in IVF treatments.

[7] The parties separated on December 17, 2021, when Mr. Pawar left a letter from his counsel for Ms. Pawar on her computer in the matrimonial home. There is no prospect for reconciliation.

[8] The parties lived separate and apart in the matrimonial home which they jointly own at 304 Dunlin Ridge, Ottawa, until May 8, 2022, when Mr. Pawar left to reside another property owned by the parties at 606 Pamplona Private.

[9] The parties also jointly owned two other properties, a condo at 179 Metcalfe Street and a house at 28 Stoneleigh Street. The Metcalfe condo was sold in August of 2023, and the net proceeds were ultimately divided equally between the parties.

[10] On October 30, 2024, Justice MacEachern granted an order requiring that the jointly owned properties at 304 Dunlin Ridge and 606 Pamplona Private be listed for sale by December 15, 2024, and that the jointly owned property at 28 Stoneleigh Street be listed for sale upon the eviction of the current tenant.

[11] On January 14, 2025, Justice MacEachern further ordered that Ms. Pawar's real estate agent, Mr. Bhaumikkumar (Right at Home Reality) and Mr. Pawar's agent, Michael Mah (Sutton Group-Ottawa Reality) were to be the listing agents on the matrimonial home and to work together on its sale. Justice MacEachern also remained seized of the issues of the sale of the properties.

[12] On February 5, 2025, Justice MacEachern made a further order clarifying that her January 14, 2025, order was for Mr. Bhaumikkumar and Mr. Mah to be the listing agents for all three properties (304 Dunlin Ridge, 606 Pamplona Private and 28 Stoneleigh Street) and not only the matrimonial home.

[13] Subsequently, Mr. Pawar brought a motion before Justice MacEachern seeking an order dispensing with Ms. Pawar's consent to the sale of the properties and related orders so he can sell them without her involvement. At the time of the trial, Justice MacEachern's decision remained outstanding, but she continued to be seized of the matter.

[14] To the date of the trial, none of the three properties were listed for sale or sold, due to Ms. Pawar failing to appropriately instruct her agent, Mr. Bhaumikkumar, to act for her on the sales, or to her objection to Mr. Mah representing Mr. Pawar. Ms. Pawar continued to reside in the matrimonial home and Mr. Pawar continued to reside at Pamplona Private.

[15] This court reminded the parties that there is a final order regarding the sale of the properties from Justice MacEachern dated October 3, 2024, and that Justice MacEachern remained ceased of any issues emanating therefrom. The sale of the jointly owned properties was not, therefore, a matter for the trial.

[16] On October 30, 2024, Justice MacEachern also ordered that Mr. Pawar's regular parenting time with the children was to be every Sunday from 9:00 a.m.to Tuesday before school or 9:00 a.m. if not in school, and every Wednesday from after school or 4:00 p.m. if not in school to Thursday before school or 9:00 a.m. if not in school. This schedule remained in place to the time of the trial.

[17] Justice MacEachern also ordered that the Christmas break was to be divided equally between the parents "optimally in 3-day blocks", and that the parents could appear before her if they could not agree on the schedule. Justice MacEachern also divided the March Break and ordered that each parent would have one extended uninterrupted week from Sunday to Sunday during the summer. The parties did not agree on the Christmas holidays and Justice MacEachern imposed a holiday schedule on them by order dated December 20, 2024. The parties also had not agreed to the uninterrupted week in the summer prior to the trial, and upon reserving this decision, this court also imposed a schedule upon them.

[18] Prior to the physical separation of the parties, both parents were involved in providing care to the children. However, Ms. Pawar was clearly the primary care provider, as she did not work outside of the home and Mr. Pawar did.

[19] Mr. Pawar had a bachelor's degree in electronic engineering and one year of experience as an electronic engineer in India. He came to Canada as a student and completed an MBA in 1998. He obtained permanent residency and later Canadian citizenship. As indicated, he sponsored Ms. Pawar, who joined him in Calgary in December of 2000. In approximately 2001, Mr. Pawar studied software programming and obtained employment with an IT company. In 2003, Mr. Pawar was offered a job in Ottawa at "Accenture" (now Anderson Consulting), for which he worked until 2007 when he incorporated his own company, 1727998 Ontario Inc., to provide IT consulting. Since that time, Mr. Pawar has been self-employed. His time is flexible in that so long as his work gets done, he can choose when to do it.

[20] Ms. Pawar has several diplomas as follows: a) in computer science from India in 1993; b) in electronic telecommunications from India in 1996; and c) advanced diploma in computer data communication and networking from India in 1999. She also studied for one year in a Bachelor of Applied Information Technology at SAIT in Calgary in 2002-2003, and she recently obtained an advanced certificate in Information and Cyber Security Management from the University of Ottawa in 2024.[^1] Ms. Pawar was a computer and electronics technology instructor in Mumbai from 1996 to 2001. She then worked in retail sales at the Hudson's Bay in Calgary for a couple of years. After the parties' move to Ottawa, Ms. Pawar worked at the Indian High Commission for 10 months in 2005 and as a Technical Help Customer Service Representative for Sitel Corporation in Kanata from 2005 to 2008.

[21] Nevertheless, since 2008, Ms. Pawar has not worked outside of the home. The parties were long attempting to have children; they did several rounds of IV fertilization over the years, and Ms. Pawar suffered several miscarriages. After the children were born in 2019, Ms. Pawar remained a stay-at-home mother and provided most of the care for the children while Mr. Pawar worked and supported the family.

[22] After separation, Ms. Pawar found that she required some time away from the children to attend to the legal issues, including to retain and instruct counsel. With the assistance of some family friends, Suraj and Gauri, Ujwala and Aparna (by phone), the parties met on January 18, 2022, to discuss a schedule for parenting the children which would afford Ms. Pawar that time. The schedule discussed, written down[^2] and implemented was as follows:

For 19, 20 and 21st January – Abhay & Suraj will take care of the kids during the day (9-6)

Swati will handle kids after 6 pm.

From next week onwards

Monday & Thursday Swati will take charge for 24 hours

Tuesday & Wednesday Abhay will manage for 24 hours.

Friday 8-1 Abhay will work

1-7 Swati will go out

After 7 both of them work together

Saturday – Swati gets a break

Sunday – Abhay gets break

[23] Although Ms. Pawar insisted in her testimony that she did not agree to this schedule, it was for the most part followed, with some adjustments, usually requested by Ms. Pawar and agreed to by Mr. Pawar, until Mr. Pawar left the home on May 8, 2022. During his parenting time, Mr. Pawar cared fully for the children, who were 2.5 years of age at the time, and met all their needs. Ms. Pawar voiced no concerns about his parenting, nor did she make allegations against Mr. Pawar during this time, either to him or anyone else.

[24] Initially, Mr. Pawar expected to leave the home as of April 1, 2022, as it was his intention to move into 28 Stoneleigh Street. He provided notice to Ms. Pawar of this intention, and by email dated January 31, 2022, Ms. Pawar's counsel provided her consent to Mr. Pawar giving the tenant the requisite notice.[^3] However, a dispute arose with the tenant who refused to vacate the home, and indeed, had not done so by the time of the trial. Mr. and Ms. Pawar were in fact engaged in a Tenant/Landlord hearing with him in this regard. Fortuitously, the parties' tenant at 606 Pamplona Private then gave notice, and Mr. Pawar changed his plans to move to that property, which he did on May 8, 2022. Mr. Pawar's current intention is to move to 28 Stoneleigh Street for one year once the tenant has vacated it, and to thereafter sell the property. Regardless of to which home he moved, Mr. Pawar expected that the shared parenting regime would continue, with whatever adjustments might be needed to account for them being in different homes.

[25] Ms. Pawar then unilaterally prevented Mr. Pawar from seeing the children until he brought an urgent motion, which was resolved on consent on July 28, 2022. Via a letter from her then counsel, S. Moorti, dated May 16, 2022, Ms. Pawar made numerous allegations against Mr. Pawar, including that he was physically violent towards the children, that the children lacked supervision in his care, and that he was unwilling to put the children to bed.[^4] This was the first that Mr. Pawar had heard of any concerns Ms. Pawar had, notwithstanding that Mr. Pawar had been parenting them on a shared schedule since January. By responding letter from his counsel dated June 10, 2022, Mr. Pawar specifically denied all Ms. Pawar's allegations.

[26] On August 4, 2022, Justice MacEachern granted a temporary consent order providing that Mr. Pawar was to have parenting time with Shaarvi and Aarohan on Sundays from 9 a.m. to 2.p.m. in the presences of a mutually agreeable person. Mr. Pawar was to take a parenting course and after two weeks, his parenting time was to be five hours on Sundays and three hours on Wednesdays with pop-ins only by a third party. After another two weeks, parenting time was to increase to Sunday to Monday and alternate Wednesdays, increasing to every Wednesday, with pop-ins no longer required. Mr. Pawar agreed to this order, which was proposed by Ms. Pawar, and which he found to be humiliating and unnecessary, only because he wanted to see the children.

[27] Mr. Pawar completed the "Triple P Online Positive Parenting Program" on August 5, 2022.[^5] He also completed the six-week "Parenting Through High Conflict Separation and Divorce" with Family Service Ottawa on November 1, 2022.[^6]

[28] At a case conference on November 1, 2022, Justice Bramwell made an order on consent requesting the involvement of the OCL, which did, in fact, accept the file and conduct a clinical investigation pursuant to s.112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, the report for which was completed by Ms. Melissa Saumur on June 7, 2024.

[29] Notwithstanding that Mr. Pawar has been requesting a shared parenting schedule since he left the matrimonial home on May 8, 2022, his parenting time remained as per the consent order of Justice MacEachern dated August 4, 2022. After receipt of the report of the OCL's clinical investigation, Mr. Pawar brought a motion seeking an expansion of his parenting time, which was heard on June 27, 2024, and for which Justice MacEachern gave reasons on October 30, 2024. As indicated in paragraph 14 above, Justice MacEachern granted an order explaining Mr. Pawar's parenting time as set out therein.

[30] The parents were, in the meantime, able to make certain decisions for the children jointly. First, they agreed that the children would attend the "Kids & Company Daycare", initially in Kanata and to be moved to Barrhaven when spots became available. Second, they agreed that the children would attend the Wazoson Public School in Barrhaven, in which they were enrolled in Junior Kindergarten in September of 2023. Third, they agreed to maintain the children with Dr. Joanna Jablonska as their family doctor. Fourth, they agreed to have Aarohan assessed at CHEO in October of 2023, at which he was diagnosed by Dr. Priyanka Dixit with "Autism Spectrum Disorder – Level 3, Global Developmental Delay, and Language Skills; Delayed".[^7]

[31] Aaronhan is primarily non-verbal, has difficulty regulating, gets upset and has incidents which happen at school. He is not fully potty-trained, and he needs a lot of attention, care and support; he requires a great deal of structure and routine. Aaronhan is sensitive to certain sensations and needs to be fed certain foods. On Mondays, on Mr. Pawar's parenting time, Aarohan attends occupational therapy in the mornings and remains home in the afternoons until Shaarvi, who has no special needs, returns from school.

OCL Report dated June 7, 2024

[32] OCL clinician, Ms. Melissa Saumur, conducted an investigation of this family and provided a report of her findings dated June 7, 2024.[^8] Ms. Saumur also testified in the trial; she was qualified as an expert in conducting s.112 Courts of Justice Act assessments. The file was assigned to Ms. Saumur in February 2023; it took some time for her to complete the report, in part due to Ms. Pawar's frequent changes of counsel, in part to personal reasons and in part because it was disrupted by a Children's Aid Society of Ottawa investigation in November of 2023.

[33] Notwithstanding Ms. Pawar's various allegations of abuse against Mr. Pawar, in the discussion section of her report, Ms. Saumur noted:

The Ottawa Children's Aid Society (CAS) had no involvement other than the November 2023 incident. The investigation summary indicated concerns that Ms. Pawar withheld information and was misleading the investigation regarding the scratches on Shaarvi's face. The summary also noted that Shaarvi expressed love for both parents and appeared "very happy and comfortable" in Mr. Pawar's home.

No abuse or neglect concerns were reported by the children's pediatrician, daycare, or school. The constant accusations between the parents are concerning. Aarohan's aggressive behaviour, due to the Level 3 autism diagnosis, needs acknowledgment that occasional unsupervised moments or minor injuries are inevitable. Questioning the children about every injury could lead to false disclosures and emotion harm, potentially damaging their relationship with either parent.

There is no evidence to suggest that either parent was abusive. There had been no prior CAS involvement before the incident in November 2023, nor ay police involvement before the referenced incident. The CAS did not verify the allegations against Mr. Pawar and indicted in their summary that Ms. Pawar had misled the investigation. The school and daycare also reported no concerns of abuse and stated that they would be obligated to report any such concerns if they had them.[^9]

[34] Regarding Ms. Pawar and decision-making responsibility, Ms. Saumur noted:

Since the OCL involvement, Ms. Pawar has had approximately six lawyers, raising concerns about potential delays in addressing conflictual matters. Ms. Pawar's pattern of blaming others, including lawyers, daycare staff, and Mr. Pawar, is concerning. It appears that Mr. Pawar would not minimize Ms. Pawar['s] role or input in making decisions for the children therefore, Mr. Pawar should be granted sole decision making in consultation with Ms. Pawar and using a parenting coordinator in the event that they are not able to come to an agreement. Mr. Pawar had ensured a flexible schedule to attend the children's appointments, has a working relationship with professionals involved, submitted his documentation when requested, etc. The is no information to suggest that he would not continue to make decisions with Ms. Pawar.[^10]

[35] Regarding the parenting schedule, Ms. Saumur indicated at pages 22 and 23:

Ms. Pawar expresses feeling overwhelmed with responsibilities. She mentioned frustration when the children were sick and contacting Mr. Pawar who did not respond to her early morning calls. Considering the allegations made, it would not have been wise for Mr. Pawar to attend her home. Respite care is important, especially when caring for twins, especially with one having special needs. Mr. Pawar is willing to have a more active caregiving role. There is no information suggesting he poses a risk to the children. His observations visit was positive, showing active engagement and encouragement in the children's activities.

Specialized services for the children should be available in both homes. Consistency and a shared parenting schedule would allow for predictability and scheduled extracurricular activities. A parenting coordinator could help establish a structured routine in both home.

It is important to note that the child protection worker observed Shaarvi to be comfortable in Mr. Pawar's home during the investigation.[^11]

[36] Regarding Mr. Pawar, Ms. Saumur noted:

Currently, Mr. Pawar has 32 hours a week with the children. Both parents identified the 8:00 p.m. exchange as problematic. There have been no concerns reported by professionals regarding Mr. Pawar's care. His observation visit was child-focused and nurturing. He has attended all medical appointments and completed Parenting though High Conflict Separation and Divorce through Family Services of Ottawa.[^12]

[37] Ms. Saumur ultimately made the following recommendations:

Decision-Making Responsibility:

It is recommended that Mr. Pawar have sole decision-making with stipulations on health and educational decisions to be mutually agreed upon between both Mr. and Ms. Pawar. When decisions are not mutually agreed upon, it is recommended that Mr. and Ms. Pawar consult with a medical/educational professional or a mediator/parenting coach to make final decisions.

Parenting Time:

1. It is recommended that the children reside equally with both Mr. and Ms. Pawar with a 2-2-5 split. (Monday and Tuesday with parent A and Wednesday and Thursday with parent B. The weekends alternate between both parents from Friday after school to Monday morning with a drop off at school.

2. It is recommended that should the school van no longer provide transportation so that the parent who is scheduled for that day is responsible to pick up and drop off the children at school unless agreed upon in writing by both parties.

3. It is recommended that Mr. and Ms. Pawar are free to schedule extracurricular activities on the days the children are with them unless agreed upon in writing by both parties.

4. It is recommended that the FaceTime contacts be cancelled unless agreed upon in writing by both parties.

Additional Recommendations:

5. It is recommended that Mr. and Ms. Pawar receive all information from the community and professional collaterals directly.

6. It is recommended that Shaarvi and Aarohan be in separate classes as recommended by school staff in consultation with the ASD consultant for the upcoming 2023-2024 school year.

7. It is recommended that the parents use Our Family Wizard for all communication, scheduling, and all appointments medical or otherwise. It is further recommended that that Mr. and Ms. Pawar update the app within 24 hours of new information regarding the children.

8. It is recommended that that the parents do not speak ill of the other parent while they have care of the children and deter others from doing so.

9. It is further recommended that the children are not relocated from their current environments, city or province unless previously agreed upon in writing between both parties.

10. It is recommended that during the summer months that each parent has one week each to schedule a holiday. It is recommended that Mr. and Ms. Pawar notify the other by April 01 of that year for the week they are requesting. The week cannot occur the week prior to the start of school year. Furthermore, it is recommended that if the parent plans to take the children out of the country, they need to provide an itinerary and contact numbers.

11. It is recommended that Ms. Pawar complete Parenting through High Conflict Separation and Divorce through Family Services of Ottawa at 613-725-3601. It is further recommended that she registers now to be on the waitlist for the parenting coach to be completed in conjunction with the High Conflict Parenting course set to begin in the fall 2023. The parenting coach could help Ms. Pawar in setting routines, establishing reasonable limits, with positive discipline techniques, reducing anxiety, understanding reasons for behaviour, child development, co- parenting, effective communication, etc.

12. It is recommended that Mr. Pawar also registers on the Family Services Ottawa waitlist at 613-725-3601 for a parenting coach to help navigate the high conflict and allegations made against him in order not to directly or indirectly negatively impact the children and their relationship with Ms. Pawar.

13. It is recommended that both Mr. and Ms. Pawar attend a different car seat clinic appointment from one another with Seats for Kids to ensure they receive the same information but limit contact. Seats for Kids offers two trainings per month and request donations as opposed to other agencies who are fee for service. The technicians are fully qualified Child Passenger Safety Technicians with certification through the Child Passenger Safety Association of Canada (cpsac.org). Included is the link for their website: https://seatsforkids.ca/clinics/ottawa

14. It is recommended that should either child require emergency medical care or hospitalization that the other parent be notified as soon as possible but no later than two hours.

15. It is recommended that no bruises or scratches are reported to CAS if school staff are able to give a proper explanation for the bruise.

16. It is recommended that the children are not questioned after parenting time.

Recommendations regarding holidays should be shared as follows:

17. It is recommended that Mr. Pawar celebrates Holi with the children on odd years while Ms. Pawar celebrates on even years unless agreed upon in writing by both parties.

18. It is recommended that Mr. Pawar celebrates Gudi Padwa, their new year with the children on even years while Ms. Pawar celebrates on odd years unless agreed upon in writing by both parties.

19. It is recommended that Mr. Pawar celebrate Diwali with the children on even years while Ms. Pawar celebrates on odd years unless agreed upon in writing by both parties.

In addition, the Canadian holidays shall be shared as follows:

20. It is recommended that the March break alternate from the last day of school until the return to school with Mr. Pawar during even years and Ms. Pawar during uneven years unless agreed upon in writing by both parties.

21. It is recommended that the Easter holiday also alternate between even and odd years with an exchange from the last day of school until the first day back to school. It is recommended that Ms. Pawar have the even years and Mr. Pawar the odd years unless agreed upon in writing between the parties.

22. It is recommended that the winter holidays also be shared with even and odd years between Mr. and Ms. Pawar. It is recommended that the first week of the winter holidays be spent with Ms. Pawar during even years and the second week with Mr. Pawar. It is recommended that the exchange occur as previously recommended. It is further recommended that Mr. Pawar have the first week of the winter break during odd years.

23. It is recommended that all other long weekends be absorbed into the current 2-2-5 schedule unless agreed upon in writing by both parties.[^13]

Financial Circumstances of the Parties

[38] As indicated, Mr. Pawar is the sole director and only shareholder of his corporation, 1727998 Ontario Inc.[^14] Through his corporation, Mr. Pawar contracts his skills as an IT consultant to vendors' clients. After submission and approval of his timesheets, Mr. Pawar is paid via his corporate bank account by the vendor who has contracted him. Mr. Pawar indicated that there can be time lags between when his time sheets are submitted and when his corporation is paid, which vary from vendor to vendor. He, therefore, needs to always keep some funds in his corporation to ensure stability.

[39] Mr. Pawar's declared income for the years since separation are as follows:

• 2022 - $86,278.55 as per his 2022 Income Tax Return[^15], consisting of $85,000 in income and $1,278.55 of net rental income
• 2023 - $119,456.22 as per his 2023 Income Tax Return[^16], consisting of $85,000 in income, less (-1,211.53) in net rental income, plus $35,667.75 in taxable capital gains relating to the sale of the Metcalfe property
• 2024 - $83,240.05 as per his 2024 Income Tax Return[^17], consisting of $85,000 in income, less (-$1,759) of net rental income

[40] Mr. Pawar testified that he follows the advice of his account in relation to how he should be paid for optimal tax treatment in accordance with CRA rules. Mr. Pawar indicated that prior to 2019, he did engage in some income splitting with Ms. Pawar, paying her a salary from the corporation. However, the CRA rules changed at the end of 2018, and since that time he did not do so, except in some small, permitted amounts.

[41] Mr. Pawar pays himself $85,000 per year to minimize his tax liability by not falling into a higher tax bracket. Nevertheless, Mr. Pawar recognizes that his income for support purposes is higher than is his income for tax purposes.

[42] According to his corporate Income Tax Returns, the income of 1727998 Ontario Inc. over the same years has been as follows:

• 2022 – total revenue of $207,405, less total expenses of $177,162, the latter of which includes operating expenses as well as $160,000 in management and administration fees[^18]
• 2023 – total revenue of $201,069, less total expenses of $102,452, the latter of which includes operating expenses as well as $85,000 in management and administration fees[^19]
• 2024 – total revenue of $171,488, less total expenses of $110,446, the latter of which consists of operating expenses as well as $85,000 in management and administration fees, and a reported TD Waterhouse stock loss from 2021, discovered in 2024, of (-30,289)

[43] The "management and administration fees" referenced is essentially what Mr. Pawar is paid by his corporation in income each year. CRA rules permit a deferred payment into the first three months of the following year, so in 2022, Mr. Pawar deferred payment of $75,000 of the $160,000 of management and administration fees to the following year. His personal income is therefore reported at $85,000 for 2022, though an additional $75,000 in corporate income is available for support purposes for that year.

[44] Mr. Pawar has calculated his income for support purposes since separation as follows:

• 2022 - $85,000 of employment income, plus $1,279 of net rental income, plus $75,000 of available corporate income, plus $5,295 of expenses for meals and entertainment unreasonable deducted, and $186 for amortization unreasonably deducted, for a total income of $171,892
• 2023 - $85,000 of employment income, plus $35,668 of capital gains, less (-$1,211) of net rental income, plus $66,711 of available corporate income, plus $6,827 of expenses for meals and entertainment unreasonable deducted, and $87 for amortization unreasonably deducted, for a total income of $235,264
• 2024 - $85,000 of employment income, less (-$1,759) of net rental income, plus $27,016 of available corporate income, plus $8331 of expenses for meals and entertainment unreasonable deducted, and $37 for amortization unreasonably deducted, for a total income of $124,823

[45] Ms. Pawar's reported CRA income for the year 2022 was $19,692.[^20] Her 2023 income is noted to be $24,821.84 in her T1 Summary for that year.[^21] Notwithstanding requests made by Mr. Pawar's counsel, Ms. Pawar did not provide further financial disclosure. In an unsworn Financial Statement contained in the Trial Record purporting to be from March 24, 2025[^22], Ms. Pawar's income was noted to be zero, but for $461.83 she receives per month as Child Tax Benefits.

[46] Mr. Pawar made no child or spousal support payments from the date of separation in December of 2021 to the end of April of 2022 as he continued to live separate and apart from Ms. Pawar in the matrimonial home, and he continued to carry all expenses. Commencing in May of 2022 through to the commencement of the trial, Mr. Pawar paid both child support and spousal support to Ms. Pawar. From May to July of 2022, Mr. Pawar paid Ms. Pawar $4,092 per month for both child support and spousal support. From August of 2022, he paid Ms. Pawar $2,225 per month in combined child and spousal support. In April of 2023, Mr. Pawar sought confirmation from Ms. Pawar of the amount of spousal support she was receiving so that he could claim a deduction on his income tax, but she did not respond to this request. He, therefore, reduced the amount of spousal support he was paying to account for tax. Commencing in May of 2023, Mr. Pawar began paying Ms. Pawar $1,702 per month in child and spousal support.

[47] Mr. Pawar also continued to pay 100% of the cost of the children's daycare, the Line of Credit on the matrimonial home and the Condor Mortgage Accelerated payment from May to July of 2022. Between May of 2022 and May of 2025, Mr. Pawar paid Ms. Pawar child and spousal support of $76,157. He also paid a total of $21,937.46 for the children's daycare, $31,696.55 towards the Line of Credit on the matrimonial home and $376.41 on the Condo mortgage accelerated payment.[^23] Mr. Pawar presented documentary evidence to support every single payment made by him towards these expenses. I can only presume that Mr. Pawar continued past the date of the trial to make the same payments.

[48] In relation to the equalization of the parties' net family properties, Mr. Pawar has produced a comparative NFP statement using the limited information he was provided by Ms. Pawar, which reflects that Ms. Pawar owes Mr. Pawar $35,704.70[^24], due largely to the number of debts he had at the date of separation. Again, Mr. Pawar has been very forthright and provided evidence for every value he has included in the comparative NFP. However, missing from the calculation is any value given to the jewellery Ms. Pawar owned on the date of separation. In her Financial Statement sworn on July 21, 2022, Ms. Pawar put "TBD" next to the category of "Jewellery, art, electronics, tools, sports & hobby equipment". At the November 1, 2022, case conference in this matter, Justice Bramwell ordered that: "Counsel are to exchange letters requesting further financial disclosure within the next 15 days and subject to proper objections the parties shall use best efforts to answer those requests within 30 days", and "Each party shall produce the supporting documents for the values set out in their financial statements and net family property statements" Mr. Pawar's counsel specifically requested from Ms. Pawar, inter alia, a detailed list and photos of all her jewellery, as well as an appraised value for same as of the date od separation, on November 17, 2022 and again on March 1, 2024. Ms. Pawar has never provided any list or photos to Mr. Pawar, nor has she provided any such appraisal. In her unsigned and unsworn Financial Statement provided to Mr. Pawar in March of 2025, Ms. Pawar attributed the values of $14,000, $7500 and $2000 to her jewellery owned at the date of separation. Ms. Pawar's evidence was that she attempted to price out her jewellery based on an internet search. She indicated that she did not agree to doing an appraisal because she did not want to pay for it. Ms. Pawar also referenced jewellery and gold coins held in a "bank box". Mr. Pawar's evidence is that he and Ms. Pawar are the owners of a safety deposit box to which only she has access, as he does not have a key to it. One key is held by the bank, and the other is held by Ms. Pawar. Mr. Pawar estimates that Ms. Pawar's jewelry is worth approximately $175,000. He has requested an order requiring an appraisal of the jewelry, failing which he seeks for this court to draw a negative inference against Ms. Pawar for her failure to have the jewelry appraised and to impose a value of $175,000 to it.

[49] In his comparative NFP, Mr. Pawar attributed a date of separation value of $36,168 to 1727998 Ontario Inc. This value is the net adjusted retained earnings after deducting 1) due from shareholders, 2) net cost(loss) of TD Waterhouse stocks, 3) purchase cost of crypto investments, and 4) overcharged accrued management fees. Again, the sums involved were amply demonstrated by documentary evidence from Mr. Pawar.[^25] He also attributed a value of $80,224.27 to a crypto market investment held through his corporation.[^26] Although Ms. Pawar thought the value of Mr. Pawar's business interests was much higher, she did not provide any evidence in support of her claim. Mr. Pawar testified that beyond the value of the adjusted retained earnings and the crypto market investment, his corporation has no value. The corporation is only him and his skills and knowledge; without him it has is no value.

Positions of the Parties

[50] Mr. Pawar seeks an order for sole decision-making responsibility after consultation with Ms. Pawar. Mr. Pawar also seeks a shared parenting schedule on a week about basis, or alternatively on a 2-2-5 schedule, and an order for set-off child support based on an imputed income to Ms. Pawar, to gradually increase in accordance with her increased capacity to earn an income. Mr. Pawar is prepared to pay spousal support on the same imputed incomes to Ms. Pawar. In relation to his own income, Mr. Pawar's position is that it is reasonable to leave the equivalent of four months of operating expenses in the corporation as some money in required for it to remain operational, especially while awaiting payment for the invoices he submits. His further position is that the remainder of his corporate income should be used for support purposes and that any sums used for meals and entertainment be added back in as well as they are personal.

[51] Ms. Pawar seeks an order for sole decision-making responsibility over the children, as well as an order for primary care, with Mr. Pawar's parenting time to be maintained at no more than its current level. She also seeks an order table child support and spousal support based on an imputed income to Mr. Pawar, although it was unclear as to exactly what she thought that income should be.

[52] Both parties seek an equalization of their net family properties. The jointly owned real properties will ultimately be sold as per Justice MacEachern's order, with the proceeds to be divided equally. Mr. Pawar also seeks to be compensated for some post-separation adjustments because he has solely carried the jointly owed properties. In the alternative to such adjustments, Mr. Pawar also seeks an order of occupation rent relating to Ms. Pawar's continued residence in the matrimonial home.

Analysis

Decision-making Responsibility

[53] There is no question that both parents dearly love their children. Indeed, both saw Aarohan and Shaarvi as miracle children, given how hard and for how long they tried to conceive and bear children. Under the circumstances, these children are clearly treasured.

[54] Subsection 16(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) dictates that the court is to take only the best interests of the children into consideration when making a parenting order. Subsection 16(2) dictates that primary consideration should be given to the children's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. Subsection 16(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors the court is to consider in determining the children's best interests.

[55] Mr. Pawar seeks an order for sole decision-making responsibility to him largely based on Aarohan's special needs and the length of time and degree of back and forth which is required with Ms. Pawar for a decision to be made. He relies on two examples in support of this position, the first being acting on the recommendation of school staff to place Aarohan and Shaarvi in separate classes at school. Ms. Pawar hesitated in agreeing to this recommendation, even though the objective was to free Shaarvi up from "parenting" or "babying" Aarohan. The second example was of the time it took Ms. Pawar to agree to apply for a spot for Aarohan in a specialized autism program. Mr. Pawar testified that to any request, Ms. Pawar's responses are replete with verbiage and accusations not related to the issue at hand. He must "separate the wheat from the chaff", in an effort to focus on the question being asked and the answer required. Mr. Pawar finds this exercise very taxing, and indicates that, as with the case of the autism program, by the time Ms. Pawar provides her agreement, the opportunity is at risk of being missed. He seeks to avoid this situation in the future by being solely responsible for decision for the children after consultation with Ms. Pawar.

[56] Ms. Pawar testified that Mr. Pawar is overly influenced by the professionals involved with the children and does not do any of his own research on what would be best for them. She, on the other hand, takes the time to question and research what is being suggested before providing an answer. For this reason, she seeks sole decision-making responsibility for the children.

[57] As I have indicated above, however, the parents have managed to make important joint decisions for the children, perhaps not as quickly or easily as Mr. Pawar would like, but managed, nonetheless. Indeed, the court did not receive any evidence of a decision which should have been made for the children which was not due to one or the other of the parents. Where parents have demonstrated their ability to make decisions jointly, it would not be just, in my view, to deprive one or the other from doing so in the future. There will be important decisions to make for Aarohan in particular, and while Ms. Pawar may require more time than Mr. Pawar to arrive at a decision, I find that it is in the best interests of the children that both parents be involved in making decisions for them. There will, therefore, be an order for the parents to continue to have joint decision-making authority.

Parenting Time Schedule

[58] Ms. Pawar's position in respect of Mr. Pawar's parenting time with the children is unreasonable and has been for a very long time. Although Ms. Pawar has made claims of abuse or neglectful parenting by Mr. Pawar, again only post the physical separation of the parties, no other individuals or professionals involved have ever seen any evidence of anything untoward done by Mr. Pawar. This includes the OCL investigator, Ms. Saumur, the children's teachers, including Jeananne Gilchrist, who testified, the CAS investigator, Darlene Ralf, who testified, and Suraj Akolakr, the friend and neighbour of Mr. Pawar, who "supervised" his parenting time. On the contrary, all saw Mr. Pawar as caring, attentive and closely connected with the children. The only concerns about parenting were expressed by Ms. Saumur in relation to Ms. Pawar efforts to undermine Mr. Pawar's role, and Ms. Ralf regarding her November 2023 investigation and Ms. Pawar essentially falsely accusing Mr. Pawar (and/or a phantom girlfriend) of causing a scratch on Shaarvi's face when she knew that it was caused by Aarohan. Both had concerns that Ms. Pawar had the potential to emotionally harm the children by her actions. There was also evidence from Mr. Pawar about Ms. Pawar's inability to get the children ready on time for his parenting time, and her inability to get Aarohan to his occupational therapy on time, hence it being moved to one of his days with the children.

[59] Certainly, during her testimony in the trial, Ms. Pawar demonstrated her penchant for blaming others for any issues which were problematic. This included her own lawyers, of whom there were many, Ms. Saumur, Ms. Ralf, the children's teachers and Mr. Pawar. Ms. Pawar took responsibility for nothing. Her testimony, moreover, was scattered, evasive, blaming and largely unrealistic. Mr. Pawar's evidence, on the other hand, was direct, organized, straight forward and sincere. Where there are differences and/or questions of credibility, I have preferred the evidence of Mr. Pawar over that of Ms. Pawar.

[60] On the whole of the evidence, there is no question that Mr. Pawar should have equal responsibility and parenting time with Aarohan and Shaarvi. Mr. Pawar, Ms. Saumur and Ms. Gilchrist all testified to the children showing no upset or disturbance in relation to exchanges between homes. Mr. Pawar requests an order for a week on/week off parenting schedule, which would reduce the number of exchanges for the children. In the alternative, he seeks a 2-2-5 schedule for one year as a "transition" to a week about schedule thereafter. I find that an alternating week schedule is in the children's best interests, precisely to lessen the number of exchanges between the parties and to allow them to settle into each home for the full duration of each parties' parenting time. An additional holiday schedule is granted as per the draft final order submitted by Mr. Pawar.

The Parties Incomes for Support Purposes

[61] Subsection 18(1) (a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines provides that all or part of the pre-tax income of a spouse's corporation may be included in the spouse's income for support purposes.

[62] Subsection 19(1) provides that the court may impute income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

[63] Subsection 19(1) (a) provides that the court may do so where a spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed.

[64] Subsection 19(1) provides that the court may also do so where a spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income.

[65] With respect to Mr. Pawar's income, I find that his calculations as set out in paragraph 44 above are reasonable. Subsection 18(1)(a) permits for a portion of his pre-tax income from 272988 Ontario Inc. to be included in his income for support purposes. I find that it is reasonable that some of the corporation's income be held back for operational expenses. I also find it reasonable that the expenses deducted for meals, entertainment and depreciation be added back into Mr. Pawar's income for support purposes. There will, therefore, be an order that Mr. Pawar's income will be imputed to $171,892 for 2022, $235,264 for 2023 and $124,823 for 2024.

[66] With respect to Ms. Pawar's income, Mr. Pawar seeks an order imputing a fulltime, minimum wage income to her of $32,479 from May of 2022 to December of 2023, and an entry level cyber security wage to her of $58,249 from January of 2024. At the time of the trial, Ms. Pawar was not employed outside the home, notwithstanding that the children had been going to school fulltime since September of 2023, and that she had completed her advanced certificate in Information and Cyber Security Management in 2024. Ms. Pawar testified that she has been out of the work for many years, and last worked in a retail or administrative capacity. She indicated that although she was applying for jobs, she had not been to date successful in obtaining any. Ms. Pawar, however, did not provide any disclosure to Mr. Pawar in advance of trial or any specific evidence at trial as to the number of jobs she had made applications for, or the number of interviews she had attended. Ms. Pawar indicated that she would be looking ideally, or even only, for parttime work which she could do from home. There is no question that Ms. Pawar is intentionally unemployed. She is a very capable person who is, in fact, highly educated. However, I accept that she has been out of the work force for a very long time, and given her age, it may be difficult to re-enter it. I find that it is reasonable to impute a fulltime, minimum wage income to her pending Ms. Pawar obtaining employment in her field of study. Her income for 2022 shall, thus, be imputed to $32,479, which consists of a minimum wage income of $31,200 plus Ms. Pawar's net rental income of $1,279. For 2023, Ms. Pawar's imputed income is $107,495, consisting of a minimum wage income of $32,240, plus $35,668 of taxable capital gains, plus $5000 other taxable income (RRSP), both grossed up for tax, plus $130 interest and other investment income, less net rental income of (-$1,211). Ms. Pawar's 2024 imputed income is $32,655, consisting of a minimum wage income of $34,424, less net rental income of (-$1,759).

Child Support and Section 7 and Extraordinary Expense Contributions

[67] Based on the above incomes, Mr. Pawar shall pay table support for the children commencing May 1, 2022, and the children's section 7 or extraordinary expenses shall be shared proportionally as of that date as well. Mr. Pawar had to the time of trial paid 100% of the children's daycare costs in the amount of $21,937.46. Ms. Pawar will owe Mr. Pawar her proportionate share of those expenses. Commencing January 1, 2026, the parties shall pay set-off child support based on a shared parenting schedule

Spousal Support

[68] The parties were married for 21 years; two children were born of the marriage. Ms. Pawar was a stay-at-home housekeeper since 2008 and had primary care of the children from their births in September of 2019 to January of 2022, when the parties implemented a shared parenting schedule. Mr. Pawar concedes that Ms. Pawar is entitled to spousal support. Indeed, he has been paying some support since May of 2022, as well as paying for all the family's needs. Mr. Pawar's position is that Ms. Pawar is entitled to support at the mid-range of the SAAG's. He submits that he should receive a credit for support paid to date, and that post separation adjustments must be made to reflect what both he and Ms. Pawar ought to have been paying since May 1, 2022.

[69] Ms. Pawar submits that she has a strong compensatory claim for spousal support in that she was dependent on Mr. Pawar throughout the marriage and that she was the primary caregiver of the children and remained so after the separation. Ms. Pawar submits that she was required to follow Mr. Pawar to his various jobs, some in the United States and to Toronto. Mr. Pawar disputes that, indicating that he was sometimes required to work elsewhere for a particular project or contract, but that Ms. Pawar chose to accompany him, rather than stay home and have or seek employment. Ms. Pawar further chose to not work after 2009, which in Mr. Pawar's mind was not necessary, but he continued to be the breadwinner, nevertheless.

[70] I find that Ms. Pawar does have a compensatory claim to spousal support, as well as a non-compensatory one, but the compensatory element is not strong, particularly between 2008 and 2019, when the twins were born. The parties, additionally, owned several properties together, and Ms. Pawar is entitled to one-half of the proceeds of the sale of those properties. She has only been denied access to those assets by her own actions in failing to cooperate with their sale. I find that it is appropriate under the circumstances that Ms. Pawar receive mid-range spousal support for an indefinite period.

Equalization

[71] According to Mr. Pawar's comparative net family property statement, he is entitled to an equalization payment of $35,704.70. This, however, is before considering the value of Ms. Pawar's jewellery. Ms. Pawar did not provide any appropriate disclosure for the value of her jewellery. Additionally, although she referenced some of it as being gifted by her parents or belonging to the children, she did not provide any evidence in support of those claims. Ms. Pawar did not provide a net family property statement of her own, or a comparative net family property statement. She estimated that the jewellery she looked up online was worth approximately $24,000, but she did not identify which pieces those were, nor did she ever provide a list, photos or appraisals to Mr. Pawar. I am prepared to draw a negative inference from Ms. Pawar's lack of cooperation in this regard. The average between Mr. Pawar's estimate of $175,000 and Ms. Pawar's estimate of $24,000 is $99,500. A date of separation value of $99,500 will, therefore be attributed to Ms. Pawar's jewellery. This results in Ms. Pawar owing Mr. Pawar an equalization payment of $85,45.70.

Post-Separation Adjustments

[72] As indicated, since the physical separation of the parties, Mr. Pawar has continued to pay certain expenses related to their jointly owned properties. Since moving to the Pamplona Private property, Mr. Pawar has made all payments in relation to that property. He is not seeking half of those payments from Ms. Pawar because he lives there and is solely responsibly for the property. Similarly, Ms. Pawar has continued to reside in the matrimonial home, and it is Mr. Pawar's position that she should be solely responsible for the carrying costs related thereto. He has paid $31,696.55 paid towards the Line of Credit on the matrimonial home from May of 2022 to May of 2025, for which he seeks reimbursement from Ms. Pawar. In the alternative, Mr. Pawar seeks an order for Ms. Pawar to pay occupation rent for the matrimonial home. In my view, it makes sense that Ms. Pawar be responsible for the expenses related to the matrimonial home while Mr. Pawar is responsible for the expenses related to Pamplona Private. She will, therefore, owe Mr. Pawar $31,696.55 as a post-separation adjustment in this regard.

[73] Additionally, Mr. Pawar seeks an adjustment of post-separation expenses he has paid for the other properties, one half of which belong to Ms. Pawar. These include her share of for the Metcalfe condo mortgage in the amount of $188.20 and her share of the condo mortgage payments for the vacant condo in the sum of $9,660.83. These adjustments will be made and are owing to Mr. Pawar by Ms. Pawar.

Order

[74] Based on the above reasons, there will be a Final Order as follows:

Pursuant to the Divorce Act

1. The divorce may proceed on an uncontested basis. The costs of any application for a divorce judgment or order will be shared equally between the parties.

Decision-Making Responsibility

2. The Applicant and the Respondent shall have joint decision-making responsibility over the children of the marriage, Shaarvi Pawar and Aarohan Pawar, born September 6, 2019, and will make joint decisions about the children's:

   a. Health, including major non-emergency health care;

   b. Education;

   c. Culture, language, religion and spirituality; and

   d. Significant extra-curricular activities.

3. The party with whom the children are scheduled to be according to the parenting time schedule will make the day-to-day decisions affecting the children during that time.

4. If a child needs emergency medical care while with one party, the other party will promptly notify the other of the emergency.

5. Health related decisions will be made in consultation with the children's doctors and other health specialists, and/or based on the doctor's/health specialists' recommendations.

6. Notification about any health-related appointments booked for the children will be promptly provided to the other party.

7. Education decisions include which school the children will attend, whether a child should be held back or skip a grade, changing teachers, and/or changing schools.

8. Neither party shall change the children's names without the other's written consent.

9. The Applicant father will hold all of the children's important documents, including but not limited to the children's Canadian passports, birth certificates, social insurance number cards, health cards, vaccination record[s], and will provide them to the Respondent mother when reasonably required. The Respondent mother will return the documents to the Applicant father promptly after use. The Respondent mother shall also be provided with copies of all such important documents.

10. Either party may apply for or renew any of the children's important documents, including but not limited to those referenced in the subparagraph immediately above, and the parties shall provide any consent necessary and complete any paperwork required to this end.

11. Both parties may make inquiries and be given information by the children's teachers, school officials, doctors, dentists, health care providers, summer camp counsellors or others involved with the children. The parties intend this paragraph to provide each of them with access to any information or documentation to which a parent of a child would otherwise have a right of access. If, for whatever reason, this paragraph itself is not sufficient, the parties will cooperate and execute any required authorization or direction necessary to enforce the intent of this paragraph.

12. Both parties shall:

    a. prefer the children's interests to their own and at all times keep the best interests of the children in mind;

    b. encourage each party's continued involvement in the children's lives;

    c. encourage the children to have a good relationship with each party, and make every effort to promote love, affection and respect between the children and the other party;

    d. refrain from making disparaging or negative remarks to the children about the other party, and discourage others from doing so in the presence of the children;

    e. refrain from doing anything that would estrange or alienate the children from the other party, or undermine the children's love, affection, opinion of, and respect for the other party;

    f. exchange information and communicate about the children, such communications to be by email, private, respectful, related solely to the children, not shared with the children or third parties without the other's consent, and no more than once per day, except in the case of an emergency;

    g. share all documents regarding the children by scanning the document and then emailing it to the other party, rather than requiring the children to transport documents between them;

    h. refrain from discussing with the children, or with a third party in the presence of the children, present or past legal proceedings, issues between the parties in any such legal proceedings, or any conflicts between the parties;

    i. ensure that all information or documentation pertaining to the parties' separation and divorce, including all personal correspondence or email communications in respect thereof, is not accessible to the children;

Parenting Schedule

13. Commencing January 2, 2026, the children will live equally with the parties in alternate weeks, from Friday after school until the start of school on the following Friday, or at 4:00 p.m. if there is no school (pick up to be at the other parties' residence).

14. Each party will be responsible for transporting the children (if the children do not have school transportation) to/from school during the party's parenting time.

15. The parent who has the children at the start of their parenting time shall be responsible to pick up the children.

16. For holidays, the parties shall equally share all holidays with the children, as agreed upon by the parties. If the partis cannot agree on a holiday schedule, a default holiday schedule noted below shall be followed.

17. This default holiday schedule is in addition to the regular parenting time above and overrides the regular parenting time in the event of conflict. (The regular parenting time above and this holiday schedule are collectively referred to as the "parenting time schedule".)

    a. Spring Break/March Break The children will stay with the Applicant during the Spring Break in odd-numbered years and with the Respondent in even-numbered years, from after school as the break starts until the start of school following the break.

    b. Easter Weekend The children will stay with the Respondent on Easter Weekend in odd-numbered years and with the Applicant in even-numbered years, from after school on the Thursday before the Easter weekend until the start of school the following Tuesday.

    c. Mother's Day: If the children are not otherwise with the Respondent on this weekend, the children will stay with her on Mother's Day from 11:00 a.m.-7:00p.m., or any other time as agreed upon by the parties.

    d. Father's Day: If the children are not otherwise with the Applicant on this weekend, the children will stay with the Applicant on Father's Day from 11:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m., or any other time as agreed upon by the parties.

    e. Winter Break: The parties will equally share the children's Winter Break. The children will stay with the Applicant for the first half of the Winter Break in odd-numbered years and the last half of the Winter Break in even-numbered years, and with the Respondent for the first half of the Winter Break in even-numbered years and the last half of the Winter Break in odd-numbered years. The first half will start after school on the last day of school in December and end at noon on the date that is the halfway point of the Winter Break. The second half will start at noon on the date that is the halfway point of the Winter Break and end at the start of school on the January return date.

    f. All other long weekends are to be absorbed into the regular parenting schedule unless agreed upon in writing by the parties.

    g. Holi: The children will stay with the Applicant on Holi in odd-numbered years and with the Respondent in even numbered years, from after school (or noon if it is not a school day) until the start of school (or noon if it is not a school day) the next day.

    h. Diwali: The children will stay with the Applicant for Diwali in even-numbered years and with the Respondent in odd numbered years, from after school (or 4:00 p.m. if it is not a school day) until the start of school (or noon if it is not a school day) the next day.

18. With respect to the parenting time schedule:

    a. Both parties will provide each other with their email addresses, current addresses and a phone number where they can be reached at all times.

    b. Where possible, the children will be picked up or dropped off directly at school. If the parenting time schedule contemplates a pickup or drop off at school, but the children are not in school that day, the transition time will be 4:00 p.m. unless otherwise specified, and the parent who has the children at the start of their parenting time shall be responsible to pick up the children.

    c. The parenting time schedule will only be altered if both parties agree.

    d. Neither party will arrange activities for the children during the other party's scheduled parenting time without the other party's consent.

    e. Both parties may attend extracurricular activities and scheduled school events as more particularly detailed below regardless of the parenting time schedule.

    f. If a child is sick, the transition from one party's care to the other party's care is to proceed according to the parenting time schedule unless the child is too sick to travel between the parties' homes according to the child's doctor.

    g. The children will be permitted to take any personal item, toy, gift, or article of clothing between the parties' homes, without restriction.

19. Neither party shall relocate with the children outside of the City of Ottawa, without the prior written consent on the other party or further to a court order, and neither party shall relocate to an address, within Ottawa, that would necessitate a change to the child(ren)'s current school.

20. Either party may travel with the children outside of Canada to a country that is a party to the Hague Convention only, with the written consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. The traveling parent shall provide at least 20 days notice of the travel arrangements, and they shall provide a detailed itinerary, address of where they are staying, and telephone contact information to the non-traveling parent. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The non-traveling party shall sign a consent letter authorizing the travel which shall be notarized at the cost of the traveling party.

Child Support

21. Commencing May 1, 2022, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent $2,340 in support of the children Shaarvi Pawar and Aarohan Pawar, born September 6, 2019, that being the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amount for two children on an annual imputed income to the Applicant of $171,892.

22. Commencing January 1, 2023, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent $3,100 per month in support of the children Shaarvi Pawar and Aarohan Pawar, born September 6, 2019, that being the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amount for two children on an annual imputed income to the Applicant of $235,264.

23. Commencing January 1, 2024, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent $1,775 per month in support of the children Shaarvi Pawar and Aarohan Pawar, born September 6, 2019, that being the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amount for two children on an annual imputed income to the Applicant of $124,823.

24. Commencing October 1, 2025, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent $1,827 per month in support of the children Shaarvi Pawar and Aarohan Pawar, born September 6, 2019, that being the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amount for two children on an annual imputed income to the Applicant of $124,823.

25. Commencing January 1, 2026, the Applicant shall pay set-off child support to the Respondent based on his available income for support calculated as per paragraph 44 above for 2025 (employment income + available pre-tax corporate income (all but four months worth) + unreasonably deducted expenses + net rental income), and the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant table support based on the higher of her annual imputed income of $32,655 or her actual income for 2025 as reported on Line 15000 of her income tax return.

Section 7 Expense Contributions

26. Commencing May 1, 2022, the Applicant and the Respondent shall share the children's section 7 or extraordinary expenses proportionate to their incomes. From May 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022, the Applicant shall pay 84.1%and the Respondent shall pay 15.9% based on the Applicant's annual imputed income of $235,264 and the Respondent's annual imputed income of $107,495.

27. Commencing January 1, 2023, the Applicant shall pay 68.64% and the Respondent shall pay 31.36% based on the Applicant's annual imputed income of $171,892 and the Respondent's annual imputed income of $32,479.

28. Commencing January 1, 2024, the Applicant shall pay 79.26% and the Respondent shall pay 20.74% based on the Applicant's annual imputed income of $124,823 and the Respondent's annual imputed income of $32,655.

29. Commencing January 1, 2026, the Applicant shall pay his proportionate share based on his available income for support for 2025 calculated as per paragraph 44 above, and the Respondent shall pay her proportionate share based on the higher of her annual imputed income of $32,655 or her actual income for 2025 as reported on Line 15000 of her income tax return.

Spousal Support

30. Commencing May 1, 2022, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent mid-range of the SSAG's support of $2,036 per month based on his imputed annual income of $171,892 and the Respondent's imputed annual income of $32,479.

31. Commencing January 1, 2023, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent mid-range of the SSAG's support of $817 per month based on his imputed annual income of $235,264 and the Respondent's imputed annual income of $107,495.

32. Commencing January 1, 2024, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent mid-range of the SSAG's support of $390 per month based on his imputed annual income of $124,823 and the Respondent's imputed annual income of $32,655.

33. Commencing January 1, 2026, the Applicant shall pay mid-range of the SSAG's spousal support to the Respondent based on his available income for support for 2025 calculated as per paragraph 44 above, and the higher of the Respondent's annual imputed income of $32,655 or her actual income for 2025 as reported on Line 15000 of her income tax return.

34. Spousal support shall be payable for an indefinite duration, subject to a variation based on a material change of circumstances.

35. In calculating any child or spousal support owing, the Applicant shall receive credit for $76,157 he paid in support from May 1, 2022, to May 31, 2025, as well as for any payments made from June 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025.

Pursuant to the Family Law Act

Equalization

36. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $85,45.70 as an equalization of the parties' net family properties.

Post-Separation Adjustments

37. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $31,696.55 as reimbursement for the payments he made on the Line of Credit on the matrimonial home from May of 2022 to May of 2025, as well as any payments he has made from June 1, 2025, to December of 2025.

38. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant her one-half share of $188.20 and $9,660.83 for the expenses on the jointly owned properties which were paid by the Applicant between May 1, 2022, and May 31, 2025, as well as her one-half share of any further payments made towards the properties by the Applicant between June 1, 2025, and December 31, 2025.

39. If, after the calculations have been made in accordance with this order, the Respondent owes the Applicant money, he may be paid what is owing to him from the Respondent's share of the net proceeds of the sale of 304 Dunlin Ridge, 606 Pamplona Private and 28 Stoneleigh Street, once sold. This order shall be sufficient authority for any such disbursements.

Costs

[75] If the parties are unable to agree on costs for the trial, they shall provide written submissions as per Rule 24(19) of the Family Law Rules.

Engelking J.

Date: December 31, 2025

[^1]: Trial Exhibit #111, CV of Swati Pawar, Case Centre A1185, Tab 53 [^2]: Trial Exhibit #2, Note of January 18, 2022 meeting at the matrimonial home [^3]: Trial Exhibit #1, email from Ms. Francis to Ms. Aoun dated January 31, 2022, Case Centre A1182, Tab 14 [^4]: Trial Exhibit #4, letter from S. Moorti to D. Aoun dated May 16, 2022, Case Centre A1182, Tab 13 [^5]: Trial Exhibit #7, Triple P Online Certificate dated August 5, 2022, Case Centre A1182, Tab 1 [^6]: Trial Exhibit #8, Letter from FSO to Mr. Pawar dated November 15, 2022, Case Centre A1182, Tab 2 [^7]: Trial Exhibit #10, CHEO Summary of Diagnostic Assessment dated October 23, 2023, Case Centre A1183, Tab10 [^8]: Trial Record, Tab 13, Report of the OCL dated June 7, 2024 [^9]: Ibid., page 20 [^10]: Ibid., page 22 [^11]: Ibid., pages 22 and 23 [^12]: Ibid., page 23 [^13]: Ibid.., pages 25 to 27 [^14]: Trial Exhibit #18. Articles of Incorporation for 1727998 Ontario Incorporated dated June 28, 2007 [^15]: Trial Exhibit #21, 2022 Income Tax Return of Abhay Pawar [^16]: Trial Exhibit #25, 2023 Income Tax Return of Abhay Pawar [^17]: Trial Exhibit #29, 2024 Income Tax Return for Abhay Pawar [^18]: Trial Exhibit #23, 2022 Corporate Income Tax Return for 1727998 Ontario Inc. [^19]: Trial Exhibit #27, 2023 Corporate Income Tax Return for 1727998 Ontario Inc. [^20]: Trial Exhibit #109, 2022 Notice of Assessment of Swati Pawar [^21]: Trial Exhibit #110, 2023 T1 Summary of Swati Pawar [^22]: Trial Record, Tab 9, 35.1 Financial Statement of Swati Pawar, undated [^23]: Trial Exhibit #45, Summary of Payments and Expenses Spreadsheet of Abhay Pawar [^24]: Trial Exhibit #81, Abhay Pawar's Comparative Net Family Property Statement dated September 9, 2025 [^25]: Trial Exhibit #61, 2021 Company Valuation Spreadsheet; Trial Exhibit #62, Corporation Investment Account Ledger for 2021; Trial Exhibit #63, Due from Shareholders Spreadsheet extracted from Corporate books; Trial Exhibit #64, TD investment account M38 November 1 – December 31, 2021; Trial Exhibit #65 Crypto Withdrawal Spreadsheet [^26]: Trial Exhibit #66, TD Bank Business Account for 2021; Exhibit #67, bit buy yearend report for 2021; Trial Exhibit #68, Crypto Folio prepared by Abhay Pawar for December 2021; Trial Exhibit #69, TD Business Account 8645 November 30 – December 31, 2021