CITATION: E.L. v. V.L., 2026 ONSC 1859

COURT FILE NO.: 5244/23

DATE: 2026-03-16

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

E.L.

Applicant

– and –

V.L.

Respondent

Self Represented

HEARD: March 09-10, 2026

VARPIO J.

OVERVIEW

1The applicant mother (the “Mother”) and the respondent father (the “Father”) were married on October 16, 2010. They had been dating for a few years prior to their marriage. The parties settled in Wawa, Ontario, where the Father has roots. The marriage was turbulent and the Father suffered from mental issues that included stays in psychiatric wards, drug usage, drinking and driving arrests, and other issues that bubbled up during the course of the marriage.

2They had a daughter who was born on March 5, 2017.

3The marriage ended on June 22, 2022, when the Mother left the marriage.

4She ultimately moved to Elora, Ontario, where her family resides. She lives with her parents in what all parties (including the Father), concede is a stable and good environment.

5The Mother seeks an order permitting her to relocate with the child on a permanent basis, full decision-making authority, support, and a division of property.

6The Father seeks to have more parenting time, whether by having the Mother move back to Wawa with their daughter, or by having the summers with their daughter.

7For the reasons that follow, I hereby allow the Mother to move the daughter to Elora, Ontario on a full-time basis. The Mother shall have full decision-making authority. The Father shall enjoy regular telephone parenting time (with some stipulations), and supervised access every two months. Child support and the division of property is also dealt within reasons. The divorce shall proceed in an uncontested basis.

THE EVIDENCE

The Mother’s Evidence

The Mother

Examination-in-Chief

8The Mother testified that she met the Father in 2008. They dated for a couple of years and were married on October 16, 2010. They moved to Cambridge, and then to Wawa in 2018.

9She has worked as a full-time aesthetician, and at Shopper’s Drugmart, and the like.

10In 2016, the Father was hospitalized for pancreatitis caused by drinking.

11Their daughter was born on March 5, 2017.

12They purchased a home in Wawa in 2018, and the Father renovated it.

13In 2018, the Father was diagnosed as having borderline personality disorder, anxiety, and had issues with addictions to alcohol, opioids and prescription misuse. The Mother also testified that the Father suffers from ADHD.

14During this time, the Father’s drinking, marijuana use and opioid use continued, and the Mother moved in with her parents for a time when the daughter was two years old. She moved back a while later.

15In November 2019, the Father ended up in the psychiatric ward of the Sault Ste. Marie hospital in regards to his mental health issues, addiction issues, and his behaviour.

16The Father’s erratic behaviour continued throughout the marriage. This caused the Mother considerable difficulty and, on June 22, 2022, she moved out of the house, and separated from the Father. She moved in with her parents in Elora, although she went back to Wawa to try to work out a better solution with the Father. Leading up to the separation, the Father’s behaviour had been problematic. The Mother would find the Father passed out on the floor or the bed, having urinated himself, and having engaged in other problematic behaviour. The Father would be irate. Ultimately, the Mother had had enough.

17On June 22, 2022, the Mother got a phone call from a friend who told her to run to the house because the Father was home alone with the daughter. He was under the influence. She and a friend attended at the house to get the daughter and, at this point, the Father was threatening the Mother. The Father stated that he wished to “gut [the Mother] like a fish”. The Mother made a police report and the Father was incarcerated. The Father was ultimately found guilty of improperly storing firearms, and was subject to a probation order that included terms that he stay away from the Mother.

18Post-separation, things were complicated because the Father remained very angry. He would use their daughter as a “go between”, telling her adult things, behaving erratically, and the like. The Father would speak badly of the Mother in front of the child. The Mother filed a number of publicly available social media posts as exhibits wherein the Father engaged in what can only be described as abusive behaviour, being derogatory towards the Mother, questioning the legal system, and the like. The Father would regularly attend the daughter’s school and the school had to deal with the Father’s behaviour. The school secured trespass order against the Father. As for his parenting, Father would not properly treat the daughter’s thyroid problem via medication and diet.

19The Town of Wawa’s social services (police, CAS, etc.) have regular meetings about issues of concern and, during the separation period, the Father became one of the subjects of these meetings.

20The Mother left for Toronto with the daughter in November 2024. In April 2025, Rasaiah J. issued on order allowing the Mother to move the daughter to Toronto on a temporary basis.

21The Father moved into the matrimonial home. It has not been kept well. The Mother filed pictures of the home with painting of “[Mother’s First Name] Suck It” written on the wall. The home appears dishevelled and in need of repair.

22The Father has also posted their “whole life” on social media, with lawyers’ documents being posted, descriptions of how the Mother is a bad person, and the like.

23The Mother is concerned that this behaviour is causing psychological damage to the daughter.

24The Mother has tried to ensure that the daughter has phone calls with the Father, but the phone calls end with the daughter crying and/or refusing to speak to the Father. He has been speaking about adult things with the daughter like the Mother’s new circumstances, any relationships she’s in, and the like. The last few months, the daughter has become headstrong such that she no longer wishes to have phone calls with the Father. The Mother filed transcripts from her WhatsApp messages that show Father making abusive statements to the Mother. In fact, the Father has told the Mother that he is making a folder of the Mother’s bad conduct so that he can show the folder to the daughter, with the view that the daughter will see the truth in the end.

25In January 2026, the Mother moved into her parents’ house in Elora, Ontario. She was no longer able to afford to live in Toronto. This is a county home with 4 bedrooms. The Mother has five siblings, so the daughter is surrounded by relatives. The daughter is enrolled in a French school in Fergus, Ontario and has become more involved on all levels since moving.

26The Mother would like to sell the matrimonial home and would like to be involved in the mechanics of sale. The parties did not have a lot of property when they separated. The Mother filed an NFP statement wherein she made mistakes, attributing shared values for certain household goods, even though the Mother retained those goods (i.e. the washer and dryer, etc.). The Mother has a home estimate indicating that the home is worth $249,000 with no mortgage.

27In total, the Father has sent the Mother $1,600 for child support since separation.

Cross-Examination

28The Father would get agitated when he asked questions and he gave evidence during the course of his questioning. As a self-represented person, this is understandable, and I directed him to pursue appropriate lines of questioning and to ask appropriate questions.

29The Mother was asked if she accumulated $20,000 in debt early in the marriage. She disagreed that the money was spent on herself.

30The Mother confirmed that the Father was in a car accident in 2015.

31She testified that the Father was a bad father because he was not sufficiently attuned to his daughter’s mental well-being.

32The Mother was asked about the Father’s admittance to the psychiatric ward. She indicated that she believed it was for withdrawals from suboxin symptoms.

33She was asked about getting a friend to install a deck in the house, and whether that deck met code. The Mother testified that she did not know enough about building codes to comment.

Ms. N.D.

34Ms. N.D. is the Mother’s sister. She was asked some questions that were either immaterial to my decision-making or contravened the rules of evidence. Again, and given that the parties are self-represented, I am not concerned about this issue.

35Of note, however, Ms. N.D. testified that the daughter’s mental health has improved significantly since moving to Elora. She is happier, more engaged, and otherwise succeeding more.

36Ms. N.D. has observed phone calls with the Father wherein the Father shares inappropriate information with the daughter. Ms. N.D. intervened and asked to Father to change subjects.

37Ms. N.D. also confirmed in cross-examination that the Father has never threatened the daughter, and has never hurt anyone physically.

Ms. Ana-Liisa Klockars

38Ms. Klockars lives in Wawa and she works for the Algoma District Social Services Administration Board. She is the mother’s friend. She was aware of the meeting had by Wawa’s social agencies regarding the Father. However, since Ms. Klockars’ testimony in this matter is as the Mother’s friend (and not in her professional capacity), of much Ms. Klockars’ evidence must be seen as being either opinion evidence, or hearsay evidence, save and except where she is testifying as to matters she observed. Her opinion and/or hearsay evidence is thus not admissible.

39On April 13, 2024, Ms. Klockars had care of the daughter as the Mother was out for the day. The Father came to Ms. Klockars’ house and began asking for the daughter. Ms. Klockars allowed the daughter to see the Father but, when the Father tried to bring the daughter home with him, Ms. Klockars would not allow that to happen.

The Father’s Evidence

The Father

Examination-in-Chief

40The Father agreed with many of the facts identified by the Mother, but he disagreed with some pertinent issues. Often, during his evidence, the Father appeared physically agitated, and he shook visibly.

41The Father claimed that the Mother had been physically violent with him, by throwing a can of tomato soup at him at one point during the marriage.

42When the couple moved to Wawa, the Father invested $30,000 that he had received from the car accident settlement into their house. They were debt-free.

43At sometime while the couple were in Wawa, the Father had an emotional breakdown at his company.

44He was in the Sault Ste. Marie hospital in 2019 due to a personality disorder diagnosis. This medical diagnosis stems from abandonment issues.

45He went on Suboxin in 2022 and ended up in the Wawa hospital as a result of suicidal ideations.

46Since separation, the Father has made multiple phone calls to the Wawa OPP station, asking for more parenting time. The police charged him with harassment as a result.

47The Father is doing his best to curb his anger towards the Mother. He is on the waiting list to go into the Ken Brown Recovery Home, so as to improve his mental health. He has purchased a phone app that measures his blood alcohol levels. He has been consistently at zero, although he admitted to having drinks here and there.

48The Father testified that he had a mental breakdown in September of 2025. He started drinking heavily and made bad comments on the internet. He has since deleted all of them because he does not want his daughter to see them.

49He has not taken Suboxin since 2022. He takes medication for depression, anxiety, panic attacks and sleeping, as well as for his dual personality disorder. The medication is difficult to take as it has side effects.

50He has not had a phone call with his daughter in three months.

Cross-Examination

51The Father admitted that he went to the Cambridge hospital because he combined Percocet and drinking which caused pancreatic failure.

52He is not employed, and lives off of ODSP and rental income.

53His main vehicle is a 4-wheeler, which has a 2-up that allows him to travel with his daughter.

54If his daughter were to live with him in Wawa, she could attend medical appointments in Hamilton via the Northern Travel Grant, and other such funding.

55If the daughter were allowed to stay in Elora, the Father would like to have summers with her.

56The Father admitted that he has been hospitalized for suicidal thoughts.

57He has been charged with drinking and driving on two separate occasions.

58He has a tattoo on his leg that tallies the number of times that he alleges that the Mother called the police. He got the tattoo to show his daughter. When asked to explain these facts, the Father said that he made some bad choices in September.

59The Father admitted that he asked the daughter to take pictures of the inside of the Mother’s new house so that she could send them to the Father.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

60The Mother submits that I should make the following order:

The Mother should have decision-making authority for her daughter;
The daughter should be allowed to live in Elora permanently;
The daughter should reside with the Mother;
The Father should only have access to the daughter every two months in a supervised access centre, such as the by Algoma Family Services;
The Father should pay table support;
The matrimonial home should be sold; and
The parties should split the proceeds of same.

61For his part, the Father wishes the following order to be made:

His daughter should be returned to Wawa;
Failing which, the Father should have the summer to spend with his daughter;
He should not have to sell the matrimonial home;
But if he has to sell the home, he is fine with a 50/50 split of assets.

ANALYSIS

The Daughter

Best Interests of the Child

62 Sections 16(1) and (2) of the Divorce Act mandate that only the “best interests of the child” are relevant to parenting orders:

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.

63 Section 16(3) of the Divorce Act codified the factors to be considered when determining the “best interests of the child”:

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.

64 Section 16(5) of the Divorce Act states that past conduct is not relevant to the determination except in limited circumstances:

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.

65 Section 16(6) of the Divorce Act states that the “best interests of the child” often accords with the principle that children ought to have maximum contact with both parents, all else being equal:

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.

Mobility

66 Section 16.92 of the Divorce Act describes the factors to be considered when a court must determine whether to permit the relocation of a child:

Best interests of child — additional factors to be considered

16.92 (1) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of a child of the marriage, the court shall, in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child, take into consideration, in addition to the factors referred to in section 16,

(a) the reasons for the relocation;

(b) the impact of the relocation on the child;

(c) the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or a pending application for a parenting order and the level of involvement in the child’s life of each of those persons;

(d) whether the person who intends to relocate the child complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 16.9, provincial family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement;

(e) the existence of an order, arbitral award, or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside;

(f) the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new place of residence and the travel expenses; and

(g) whether each person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility or a pending application for a parenting order has complied with their obligations under family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance.

67 Section 16.92(2) of the Divorce Act describes prohibited factors that may not be considered in determining the application:

Factor not to be considered

(2) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of the child, the court shall not consider, if the child’s relocation was prohibited, whether the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child or not relocate.

68Finally, section 16.93 of the Divorce Act describes the burden of proof in relocation cases:

Burden of proof — person who intends to relocate child

16.93 (1) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, arbitral award, or agreement that provides that a child of the marriage spend substantially equal time in the care of each party, the party who intends to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child.

Burden of proof — person who objects to relocation

(2) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, arbitral award or agreement that provides that a child of the marriage spends the vast majority of their time in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child, the party opposing the relocation has the burden of proving that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child.

Burden of proof — other cases

(3) In any other case, the parties to the proceeding have the burden of proving whether the relocation is in the best interests of the child.

69The legislation largely reflects the principles established by Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 191 (SCC), [1996] S.C.J. No. 52. Ultimately, the analysis contained in this jurisprudence and legislation is largely fact-driven, and the nuances of any given familial situation are such that little, if any, weight can be given to precedent when it comes to the application of the “best interests of the child” test.

Application

70I begin with the burden of proof. Given Rasaiah J.’s order, it would appear that the Father has the burden of proving that the relocation to Elora is not in the daughter’s best interests. With that being stated, and given the facts of this case, the burden of proof makes no difference in my analysis in that the appropriate outcome is obvious.

71It is clear that the Father loves his daughter and that his actions are motivated by his love for her. Unfortunately, his addictions and mental health issues do not seem to be such that he can adequately provide for her. He has serious mental health issues that require him to take medication. These issues then cause the Father to engage in conduct that clearly damages the daughter’s mental wellness. For example, the leg tattoo, the posting of abusive internet rants, the “Suck It” paint in the matrimonial home and other displays of anger towards the Mother undoubtedly have serious and negative effects on the child. The Father’s outbursts in this regard by themselves demand that the daughter should not live with the Father until he gets the help he needs to get better.

72He cannot take care of his daughter if he cannot take care of himself.

73Now, the Father is to be commended for taking steps to check into the Ken Brown Recovery Home. The first step in any recovery is the realization that one needs help. The Father has done the right thing and has taken the first step down a good road. If he wants to be in the daughter’s life in a meaningful way, he needs to keep going down that road and to work on treatment that stops his anger, and permits him to view his actions from his daughter’s perspective. For example, he should not involve the daughter in adult affairs – she is the parties’ daughter, not their referee. The Father’s evidence does not suggest that he sees importance of this fact.

74There is no question that it is in the daughter’s best interests to live in Elora with the Mother because the alternative is an existence rooted in untreated mental health issues, addiction, and suffering. The Father’s erratic and explosive behaviour is such that were the daughter to move back to Wawa, she would undoubtedly suffer tremendous psychological harm.

75The same logic holds true for summertime visits. Simply put, until the Father attends the Ken Brown Recovery Home and has meaningful improvements in his behaviour, it would dangerous to have the daughter spend time with the Father on an unsupervised basis. He is too erratic to be trusted. Although I am not a medical doctor, I do not see how anything other than full sobriety and compliance with medication will help the Father get to the point where he can parent the daughter in any real way. He needs to achieve that level of self-control in order to ensure that he can see his daughter in an unsupervised setting.

76As for phone access, it needs to continue (and/or restart) but the Father must ensure that he only asks appropriate questions and has appropriate conversations. The Father cannot ask questions designed to pry into the Mother’s life and/or in any way attempt to vent anger towards her. Rather, the Father needs to ensure that his conversations are positive and build towards a better relationship with his daughter. If he concentrates on this aspect of the phone calls, rather than inappropriate ones, he will have a better relationship with his daughter.

77Equally, the Mother and her family need to be patient with the Father and ensure that the daughter has regular calls with the Father. This is certainly in the daughter’s best interest, and the Mother and her family need to ensure that they do not overreact if the Father asks questions about how the daughter is doing.

78Bridges need to be built.

Money Issues

79With respect to the NFP issues, the parties’ relative impecuniosity makes this case easy. The largest asset by far is the house which should be sold at the highest reasonable price. The Mother believes that this should be for an approximate sum of $249,000. There is currently an order requiring that the home be listed for at least $295,000 with Mr. Lee Baker. I agree that the home should be sold at the highest price possible, but the market may have changed. As such, I am content to allow the parties to list the property at a price as agreed upon by Mr. Baker. Given the Father’s personal issues, the Mother shall be in charge of the sale of the home and will not be required to get the Father’s signature on any documentation needed to effectuate same.

80The Father will ensure that the property is in the best possible sale condition at all times. If he does not do so, the Mother is hereby authorized to take such steps as is necessary to sell the house for maximum value.

81Once the sale is completed, the parties will split the proceeds of the home 50/50 (which the parties accept), with the following caveats. The items that were listed in the Mother’s NFP statement were not particularly well described, nor were their values seemingly large. The Father’s NFP statement was also not helpful. With that being said, it would appear that the Mother retained items that were worth a little more than the items held by the Father. Ergo, the Father will receive a $5,000 credit from the proceeds of the home to equalize the NFP.

82As for support, the daughter has lived with the Mother in Southern Ontario since November 2024. In that time, the Father’s annual income was $12,347 in 2023, and $13,823 in 2024. Ergo, the Father ought to have been paying child support in the amount of $16/month in November and December of 2024, and $57/month in 2025 and 2026. There is also rental income, the full particulars of which are uncertain to me. Nonetheless, it appears that the Father has split rental income with the Mother. The total support arrears are therefore $887.00

83This leaves a total net credit of $4,113 to the Father ($5,000 - $887 = $4,113). Therefore, if the house sells with net proceeds $250,000, the Mother shall receive $122,943.50 and the Father shall receive $127,056.50.

84Given his income filed, the Father will pay $57/month in child support on an ongoing basis effective April 01, 2026.

85Section 7 expenses will be paid on a pro rata basis.

86The parties will exchange Notices of Assessment every July 31 in order to allow for the determination of support.

CONCLUSION

87Given these reasons, I hereby order the following:

The daughter shall relocate to Elora, Ontario;
Her primary residence shall be with the Mother;
The Mother shall have exclusive decision-making authority;
The Father shall have supervised parenting time in person, every two months, with the daughter at Algoma Family Services in Sault Ste. Marie. Both parties shall cooperate in arranging immediately. The applicant shall be solely responsible for bringing the child to Sault Ste. Marie for that parenting-time at her cost until further court order.
The Father shall have phone calls every Tuesday at 6:00 P.M. and Saturdays at 2:00 P.M. (or as otherwise arranged by the parents). These calls will be supervised by the Mother or one of her designates to ensure that the Father abides by the conditions as described in paragraphs 76 and 77 of these reasons;
The Father shall pay $57 per month in child support effective April 1, 2026;
There shall be no spousal support payable;
The matrimonial home shall be sold and the proceeds split evenly, with the Father taking an extra $4,113 net credit in satisfaction of NFP division and support obligation as described in paragraph 83 of these reasons. The Father shall keep the home in saleable condition. If he does not do so, the Mother may take any necessary steps to prepare the house for sale and/or sell the home without the Father’s input;
The divorce shall proceed on an uncontested basis.
The court staff shall prepare the final order. They will name the parties and the daughter in the order.
This order may be reviewed upon a material change in circumstances, but no earlier than nine months from the date of these reasons.

88This order may be reviewable in nine months. At that time, I would hope that the Father has progressed along the road to recovery and that he can have more meaningful involvement with his daughter. However, and until he has learned to control his anger, his mental health and his addictions issues, expanding the Father’s involvement would cause undue risk to the daughter’s mental health.

COSTS

89The parties shall file cost submissions of 3 pages within 30 days of the release of the reasons.

Varpio J.

Released: March 26, 2026