Bah v. Diallo, 2026 ONSC 2355

CITATION: Bah v. Diallo, 2026 ONSC 2355

COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-43056

DATE: 20260421

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Fatoumata Diaraye Bah

Applicant

– and –

Mamadou Diouma Diallo

Respondent

self-represented

Kat Kumka and Julie David for the Respondent

HEARD: January 5-14, 2026

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WASSENAAR J:

1Ms. Fatoumata Diaraye Bah and Mr. Mamadou Diouma Diallo share two wonderful children. Both parents love their children and want the best for them. Ms. Bah, the applicant, wants the children to live with her in Winnipeg, the city where she was raised and where many of her family members and friends reside. Mr. Diallo, the respondent, wants to raise them in Toronto, where they were born and – until very recently – have lived their entire lives. Thus, the main issue in this case is relocation.

2In Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 517 the Supreme Court of Canada outlined a framework and factors that apply to relocation cases. The court also acknowledged, at para. 8, the difficulties that this issue presents:

Determining the best interests of the child is a heavy responsibility, with profound impacts on children, families and society. In many cases, the answer is difficult — the court must choose between competing and often compelling visions of how to best advance the needs and interests of the child. The challenge is even greater in mobility cases. Geographic distance reduces flexibility, disrupts established patterns, and inevitably impacts the relationship between a parent and a child. The forward-looking nature of relocation cases requires judges to craft a disposition at a fixed point in time that is both sensitive to that child’s present circumstances and can withstand the test of time and adversity.

3These are my reasons on relocation and the financial issues raised by the parties.

Background and Overview

4Ms. Bah, the applicant mother, and Mr. Diallo, the respondent father, were married on March 18, 2017. Their son, B, was born on April 21, 2017. Their daughter, M, was born on November 29, 2021. The parents separated on September 1, 2023. The applicant remained in the family home and the respondent saw the children regularly and frequently – often daily, despite the lengthy trip on public transit. Sometimes he picked them up after school or daycare, but there was no formal schedule. The applicant wanted to move back to Winnipeg with the children. A temporary order on October 3, 2024 regularized the respondent’s parenting time and ordered the respondent to pay interim child support. The parenting time included a provision for overnights if the respondent obtained suitable housing. The order also stated that the applicant could not relocate without a court order.

5In November of 2024, the applicant brought a motion seeking a temporary relocation order, so that she could move with the children to Winnipeg pending trial. The motion was adjourned to February 2025. In early 2025, the respondent moved into a new home that he had purchased, and was able to start overnight parenting time. On February 24, 2025, Justice Shin Doi authorized the move. Justice Shin Doi’s order was stayed multiple times, as leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was sought and granted. On May 14, 2025, the Divisional Court upheld Justice Shin Doi’s order. The children moved to Winnipeg in June of 2025.

6The trial took place January 5 to 14, 2026. While the main issue was relocation, the other issues for me to address were: parenting time, decision making responsibility, equalization, child support, s. 7 expenses, child support arrears, s. 7 arrears, costs arrears, and divorce.

Positions of the Parties

7The applicant argues that the interim relocation to Winnipeg has significantly improved the children’s quality of life, and that they should remain there. The children are surrounded by friends and family. They have a better home than what the applicant was able to afford in Toronto. They each have their own bedroom and there is a park in front of the house. The children are settled into daycare, school, and extra-curricular activities. The applicant has been their primary caregiver, and being in Winnipeg has improved her ability to care for the children. The applicant also relies on evidence of emotional abuse and controlling behaviour by the respondent.

8The respondent says that the children should stay with him in Toronto. The children are young and need time with their father. The children share strong bonds with their paternal aunt and cousin, who visited regularly from Ottawa prior to the temporary relocation. The respondent questions the applicant’s willingness to promote the father’s relationship with his children, and the financial feasibility of a permanent move to Winnipeg given the travel costs. The respondent asserts that the allegations of family violence are not substantially relevant, particularly given that the parties are now physically separated. The respondent argues that the mother’s financial difficulties that lead to an inability to comply with the interim order should make the court question her judgement and trustworthiness.

Evidence

9In addition to the voluminous materials that were filed, the court heard from the following witnesses:

• The applicant mother.
• Ms. Alabi Bah, the applicant’s older sister, who lives in Winnipeg.
• Ms. Willermine Kamaka, the applicant’s high school friend, who lives in Winnipeg.
• Ms. Nene Bah, the applicant’s mother, who lives in Winnipeg.
• Ms. Marcia Torres, the applicant’s longtime friend, who lives just outside of Winnipeg.
• Ms. Lois Parker, the applicant’s longtime friend, who lives in Toronto.
• Ms. Aminata Bah, a relative who recently moved to Winnipeg with her child.
• The respondent father.
• Mr. Iswar Kissoon, the father of one of B’s Toronto classmates.
• Ms. Samira Jaouad, the principal at B’s Toronto school.
• Ms. Jennifer Mangaliman, the step-mother of one of B’s Toronto schoolmates.
• Mr. Danian Lyttle, B’s Toronto soccer coach.
• Mr. Moussa Sidibe, the respondent’s longtime friend, who lives in Philadelphia.
• Ms. Mariama Diallo, the respondent’s sister, who lives in Ottawa.

Analysis

Relocation

10The burden of proof in a relocation is governed by s. 16.93 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.):

(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.

(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.

(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.

11Each party asserts that the other has the onus to demonstrate that relocation on a final basis is in the best interests of the children. Significantly, s. 16.94 states that “A court may decide not to apply subsections 16.93(1) and (2) if the order referred to in those subsections is an interim order.” The children are currently in Winnipeg pursuant to an interim order. They moved there on June 19, after the Divisional Court appeal was dismissed. They spent August with their father in Toronto and started school in Winnipeg in September. I take the view that this case should be governed by s. 16.93 (3) wherein each party has the burden of proving whether the relocation is in the best interests of the children.

12I will structure my analysis around the statutory provisions in the Divorce Act on the best interests of the child. The primary consideration is the children’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security, and well-being. I will turn back to the primary consideration at the end of my analysis.

13Before I consider the various statutory factors that are relevant in this case, I will discuss what is not relevant to my analysis. Section 16.92(2) of the Divorce Act precludes me from considering whether the applicant would return to Toronto if the relocation were denied. The Supreme Court directs that the same reasoning applies to the respondent’s intentions. “[I]n all cases, the court should not consider how the outcome of an application would affect the parties’ relocation plans”: Barendregt v. Grebliunas, at para. 140.

14I will now consider the best interests factors in s. 16(4), followed by the additional factors specifically relevant to relocation in s. 16.92(1).

The children’s needs, given their age and stage of development, such as the children’s need for stability

15B is now 8 years old and M is 4 years old. At this young age, ongoing and meaningful contact with both parents is of the utmost importance. While communication using technology is obviously not the ideal, B is at an age where he is able to use technology to maintain contact with the non-resident parent. M is approaching the age where she will also be able to do so, although it may take somewhat longer given the development of her speech. The children are fortunate to be part of supportive communities in both Toronto and Winnipeg. This is important to their current development, and will become increasingly important as they grow toward independence. The family network in Winnipeg is more significant than the family network in Toronto. Having said that, I was impressed with the evidence of the respondent’s sister. It is apparent that, although they live in Ottawa, she and her daughter have close relationships with B and M. Their visits from Ottawa to the Toronto area have increased in frequency in recent years, solidifying the bonds that developed when B and M were very young. If a permanent relocation were granted, Ms. Diallo’s visits to Winnipeg would unfortunately be infrequent, given the time and expense involved in travelling from Ottawa.

16In June 2025, the children moved to Winnipeg pursuant to the interim relocation order. They spent August and a portion of the winter holidays in Toronto with their father, and he visited them in Winnipeg throughout this time period. While this trial was expedited, they have now been attending school and daycare in Winnipeg for several months. Given their ages, this is a significant amount of time. Denying their permanent relocation to Winnipeg would involve further disruption for the children: Sobeck v. Rawlinson, 2023 ONSC 7266, 100 R.F.L. (8th) 244, at para. 15; D’Silva v. Ilia, 2025 ONSC 6880, 23 R.F.L. (9th) 81, at para. 55; Diallo v. Bah, 2025 ONSC 2106, 18 R.F.L. (9th) 206, at para. 47. While the disruption of a move back to Toronto is undesirable, this consideration is tempered somewhat by the fact that they have longstanding roots in Toronto and their father has had ongoing contact with them throughout their time in Winnipeg. The father has also facilitated contact with friends in their community in Toronto, when the children were with him in Toronto after the relocation.

The nature and strength of the children’s relationship with each spouse, each of the children’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the children’s life

17The applicant was the primary caregiver when the children were very young. However, the respondent was actively involved in their upbringing. Now that the children are school aged, or almost school aged, the respondent has had the opportunity to be actively involved in their activities, including extra-curricular activities, helping with homework, cultural development and unstructured play. The children appear to have positive relationships with both parents. They also have positive relationships with their extended families on both sides. As noted, they have more relatives in Winnipeg, where they regularly see their aunt, cousins and grandmother. Another aunt is expected to be moving to Winnipeg in the future.

Each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the children’s relationship with the other spouse

18The parents have had considerable conflict between them, discussed further below. However, I anticipate that the physical separation and eventual regularization of their life as co-parents will necessarily reduce that conflict, as will the passage of time. Both parents have recognized that the other is a good parent, and understand the importance of maintaining both parental relationships. A final order that provides additional clarity and minimizes points of conflict will also assist in improving their relationship. I am confident that both parents would support the development and maintenance of the children’s relationship with the other spouse. The basis for this confidence is found in parts of the record such as the applicant’s various efforts to communicate with the respondent to increase his parenting time in Winnipeg if the children had an extra day off of school. The applicant also testified about the children’s regular video contact with the respondent when the children were in Winnipeg. The respondent understood the children’s need for stability at the time of separation, given their young ages. Multiple times at trial he acknowledged the applicant’s important role as a mother. He left the family car with the applicant to facilitate her ability to care for the children, despite the significant inconvenience this caused him.

The history of care of the children

19As noted, the applicant was the primary caregiver when the children were young, but the respondent was actively involved in their upbringing. The applicant took a one year maternity leave. She also took a more flexible job in order to facilitate the care of the children. When the parties separated, the applicant stayed in their home, and the respondent had regular contact with the children. He initially moved somewhere that was not suitable for overnights with the children.

20On October 3, 2024 Justice Horkins made a temporary order. The respondent was given parenting time during the days on alternating weekends, and two weekdays from after school until 7 pm. That order provided that when the father had a place to live that could accommodate overnight parenting time, they should discuss increased parenting time for the father and bring a motion if they could not agree. In January 2025, about a year and half after separation, the respondent bought a four-bedroom home in Whitby. The mother’s motion for temporary relocation was granted in February, but the respondent appealed. The appeal was dismissed in May. The applicant had moved to Winnipeg in early March because she could no longer delay attending in person at her new job in Winnipeg; the children stayed in Toronto with the respondent. The applicant visited the children in March, April, and May. The children moved to Winnipeg near the end of June. They spent August with their father in Toronto and started school in Winnipeg in September. They visited with their father over the winter break.

The children’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the children’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained

21During the litigation, there was some discussion of producing a Voice of the Child report but that option was abandoned prior to trial. I saw many videos and heard evidence indicating, not surprisingly, that both of the children love both of their parents and are sad when they are separated. Given their ages, it is not clear to me that any direct inquiry would produce reliable information that would assist in assessing the children’s best interests.

The children’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage

22The parties’ families are French speaking, from Guinea, West Africa. The parties both wish to share that heritage with their children. The parties have prioritized French in the home, and have also tried to teach them Pulaar.

23The parties have structured the children’s lives in both Toronto and Winnipeg to promote the French language and West African culture. While there are differences in what the two locations can offer, either location would be an extremely positive environment for the children to learn and grow. For example, in Winnipeg the presence of extended family would assist in the children’s cultural development, as would access to the St. Boniface neighbourhood, a vibrant francophone community. In Toronto, they would attend an excellent French school, their father has a more formal religious practice, and their father is better able to teach them Pulaar.

Any plans for the children’s care

24Both parents were able to present concrete care plans for the children, as they have lived in both cities. Both parents have created environments in which they are able to competently care for the children. The applicant has considerable flexibility with her work hours, and benefits from the support of family and friends. The respondent has sufficient flexibility with his work hours that he can facilitate pick up and drop off. He also has some support from parents in his community, should he need assistance. The children would be well cared for in both locations.

25Although there are differences in what each location has to offer in terms of education and extra-curriculars, both locations would allow the children to flourish.

26Highlights of the Toronto situation include the following:

• B was thriving at the French school he attended. The testimony of the principal demonstrated that this would be a dynamic and supportive environment for both children.
• There is speech therapy available for M at the children’s school.
• There are Early Childhood Educators at the Toronto school.
• B’s Toronto soccer program was highly competitive and would build his skills and offer considerable opportunity if he maintains his keen interest in the sport.

27Highlights of the Winnipeg situation include the following:

• The francophone school is new and the classes are smaller.
• The children would attend school with their cousins.
• M has a bilingual dance teacher and has started speech therapy.
• B has also been involved with soccer in Winnipeg.

The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the children

28Both parties are bright, educated, and competent. Both are able to care for the children, and have presented thoughtful care plans that focus on the children’s best interests. Both have secured housing that meets the children’s needs. Both parties have sufficient flexibility at work to facilitate pick ups and drop offs. The respondent’s work is less flexible now than at the time of the motion, as he is a manager and there is a movement requiring employees to spend more time in the office. The applicant must be in the office two days a week at a minimum. The respondent argues that the applicant’s significant flexibility means that it would be easier for her to travel to Toronto twice a month to exercise her parenting time.

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 children

29As noted, the parents have experienced considerable conflict. When at their best, they have each shown the ability to focus on the best interests of their children. The discussion of family violence, below, indicates that communication has not always been productive. However, the more troubling communication is very dated. Since relocation, communication has been better, although it still needs considerable improvement.

30The applicant highlighted numerous occasions when she tried to communicate for the purpose of extending the respondent’s parenting time in Winnipeg and provided text messages in support. She also provided evidence of her efforts to coordinate about parenting time prior to the move, and various issues involving the children. The applicant also informed the respondent about M’s health card and medical appointments before the move to Winnipeg, and provided the respondent with information about the dentist in Winnipeg accompanied by photographs of the dentist appointment. Both parties provide the other with photos and videos of the children.

Family Violence

31There was evidence of conflict in the relationship over a considerable period of time. The applicant asserts that she endured emotional abuse during the relationship, the respondent has anger management issues, and the respondent demonstrated a pattern of volatility and controlling behaviour. The respondent denies perpetrating any abuse, and notes that the applicant was charged with assault. In his affidavit, the respondent said that he has “never been abusive towards the Mother”. He asserted that the applicant “attempted to paint a false narrative that I was abusive and posed a risk to the children.” In his testimony at trial, the respondent said that he was always supporting the applicant, and even before marriage, he was there for her.

32I heard evidence from both parties about these issues. I was also provided with CAS and police records, that I considered for the limited purpose of confirming the timeline of events. Ms. Lois Parker, the applicant’s close friend in Toronto, provided support for the applicant’s version of events in relation to some of the incidents. There was also documentation that supported the applicant’s version of an event that led to damage to a door in their residence. One incident had video evidence that assisted me. This part of my analysis requires me to address credibility. The applicant stated that she was not perfect. She gave her evidence in a clear, measured and straightforward manner. The respondent appeared evasive in discussing some of these incidents, and some of his testimony was inconsistent or improbable when compared to other evidence at trial. Where there was a conflict between the parties, I generally preferred the evidence of the applicant, particularly since it was supported by other evidence.

33The incidents in evidence prior to separation included the following:

• In a 2016 email exchange prior to marriage, the applicant summarized some things that the respondent had said to her that upset her. That included him telling the applicant to kill herself and saying he used her like trash, thought of her as worthless, lied to her and fucked countless women. In subsequent emails, the respondent apologized to the applicant. The respondent was somewhat evasive when addressing these emails during his testimony. I had understood that he ultimately agreed that he had written those things. In closing submissions his counsel did not take the position that he had admitted writing those things and said he was not evasive in his evidence but was merely seeking further context. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the more important point was that the emails were very dated and did not establish a pattern of conduct.
• Ms. Lois Parker testified that her husband texted the applicant from time to time to see how she was doing. At some point the respondent texted Ms. Parker to ask her husband not to text the applicant because it made him and the applicant uncomfortable.
• In March of 2019 there was an altercation between the parties and the applicant called the police. The respondent damaged a door during the altercation.
• In early November of 2019 the applicant reached out for assistance after conflict with the respondent and he went to stay at a hotel.
• On November 29, 2019, the respondent was trying to feed B cake. The applicant did not think it was necessary for B to eat the cake if he did not want to. The applicant testified that she started recording on her cell phone, and the respondent hit her arm and knocked the phone out of her hand. Exhibit 5 is the video from this occasion. The respondent is visible, as is B. The applicant can be heard saying that she was going to film him. The respondent said go ahead. Shortly afterwards, he approached her, a noise can be heard, and the recording stops. The respondent testified that he did not hit the applicant, he flicked the cell phone out of her hand. He said he did that because he was upset when he realized that he was being filmed by the applicant. In my view, the respondent’s evidence about the cake incident conflicts with what can be seen in the video.
• There was another incident on December 2, 2019, and the applicant was charged with assault. That charge was later withdrawn. The applicant said she pushed the respondent.

34After the parties separated, the applicant tried to set up a structured parenting time; the respondent appeared resistant. The applicant provided text messages of her efforts in October, November and December of 2023. It is possible that the respondent’s actions were motivated by a hope of reconciliation or desire for connection, or were an effort to maximize the time with his children. However, the impact of his refusal to regularize parenting time also had the effect of exerting control over the applicant. The lack of structure also increased conflict between the parties. In one text exchange, the respondent was somewhat aggressive: “Just FYI, warning you as the mother of my kids, we’re most likely gonna go to court. Especially if you want to fight over things. So buckle up.”

35The Divorce Act defines family violence in s. 2(1) to include any violent or threatening conduct, ranging from physical abuse to psychological and financial abuse: Barendregt v. Grebliunas, at para. 146. As the Supreme Court noted Barendregt v. Grebliunas, at para. 144, domestic violence allegations are notoriously difficult to prove.

36There is no suggestion that the respondent ever physically abused the children. The applicant does not argue that that is a concern. Sadly, B was present for some incidents of high conflict between the parties. The applicant acknowledged at trial that she is not perfect and was charged with assault. However, I find that the respondent’s behaviour in 2019 was part of a pattern of controlling behaviour during the relationship that goes back to the belittling emails from 2016. That pattern continued after separation, as is evidenced by the respondent’s refusal to communicate productively when the applicant made repeated efforts to regularize the parenting time schedule after separation.

37A finding of family has an impact on relocation, specifically because s.16(3)(j) of the Divorce Act requires me to consider the impact of family violence “on, among other things,”

The ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child;

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.

38Section 16(4) goes on to state:

In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall take the following into account:

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor.

39In Barendregt v. Grebliunas, at paras. 141-147, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed how family violence is relevant to the best interests of the child in the context of relocation:

• Children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives. Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath, or hearing about it: at para. 143.
• The Divorce Act recognizes that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis: at para. 146.
• Because family violence may be a reason for the relocation and given the grave implications that any form of family violence poses for the positive development of children, this is an important factor in mobility cases: at para. 147.

40The main relevance of the finding of family violence to the issue of relocation in this case is that it contextualizes the applicant’s decision to relocate to Winnipeg. I also draw a negative inference about the respondent’s judgement and parenting as some of the incidents occurred in B’s presence.

Any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the children

41This does not apply.

The reasons for the relocation

42The reasons for relocation are relevant only to the extent that they bear upon the best interests of the children: Barendregt v. Grebliunas, at paras. 9 and 130. However, I must avoid casting judgment on a parent’s reason for moving: Barendregt v. Grebliunas at para. 129. As the Supreme Court stated, at para. 129:

A moving parent need not prove the move is justified. And a lack of a compelling reason for the move, in and of itself, should not count against a parent, unless it reflects adversely on a parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child. [Citations omitted.]

43In this case, the applicant stated her reasons for wanting to relocate as:

• A job opportunity that is a higher-level position offering better compensation and career growth;
• The lower cost of living in Winnipeg;
• The ongoing and harmful conflict created by Mr. Diallo; and
• The opportunity to be close to her family and support network.

44The applicant’s need for emotional support is a relevant consideration in the best interests analysis. The Supreme Court of Canada stated in Barendregt v. Grebliunas at paras. 169, 172, and 173:

A move that can improve a parent’s emotional and psychological state can enrich a parent’s ability to cultivate a healthy, supportive, and positive environment for their child. Courts have frequently recognized that a child’s best interests are furthered by a well-functioning and happy parent. [Citations omitted.]

Similarly, the additional support of family and community at the new location can enhance the parent’s ability to care for the children. Extended family, for example, can provide additional support to children while their parents begin to navigate the new terrain of post-separation life. [Citations omitted.]

It is often difficult to disentangle the interests of a parent from the interests of a child. Indeed, “the reality that the nurture of children is inextricably intertwined with the well-being of the nurturing parent” is far from novel. A child’s welfare is often advanced in tandem with improvements in the parent’s financial, social, and emotional circumstances. The trial judge found this to be the case here. [Citations omitted.]

45I will consider the applicant’s reasons for relocation from the perspective of the best interests of the children.

46The job opportunity: The applicant obtained a higher-level position in Winnipeg that offered better compensation and career growth. However, as addressed below, it does not appear that the increased income can, at this time, offset the ongoing travel costs necessitated by the move.

47The lower cost of living in Winnipeg: The applicant’s residence in Winnipeg is larger and nicer than what she was able to afford in Toronto; each child has their own room and they live next to a park. The housing situation is better for the children than what the applicant could afford in Toronto. The applicant gave evidence, supported by text messages of conversations between the parties in 2022, that they had discussed a possible move to Edmonton, Calgary or possibly Ottawa. The main motivation seemed to be lower housing costs. I also note that when the applicant started the legal process of relocation, she was working at the lower paying job she had taken in order to be able to care for the children; an interim child support order was not made until October 3, 2024; she was living in a small apartment with pest issues; and the respondent was not able to have the children overnight at his residence – nor could he until he moved into a new home in early 2025.

48The ongoing conflict: As noted previously, there was considerable conflict between the parties, some of which occurred in front of B.

49The opportunity to be close to her family and support network: While this benefits the applicant, it also indirectly benefits the children as their mother is in a better situation. There is also a direct benefit to the children to being around extended family. Of course, the presence of relatives cannot compensate for time missed with a parent.

The impact of the relocation on the child

50There are many benefits to moving to Winnipeg. The children are surrounded by family and friends. Their cousins will be at the same school. The applicant has considerable support from her sister and mother, as well as others she can call on as needed.

51However, in Winnipeg, the children are not able to see their father. The respondent testified about the time spent with his children and the activities they enjoy. He spoke about sharing his love of sport with B. He testified that his background in engineering and physics has allowed him to encourage the children to participate in STEM. In Winnipeg, B and M are deprived of having their father involved in the daily routines of life. Taking B to soccer practice. Reading M a bedtime story. Sharing a meal. This is particularly devastating given their young ages, and the relationship that they have already established with their father. This is the most significant factor against allowing the relocation to Winnipeg.

The amount of time spent with the children by each person who has parenting time or a pending application for a parenting order and the level of involvement in the children’s life of each of those persons

52As noted in the discussion of the history of the children’s care, the applicant was the primary caregiver. The respondent was actively involved in their care both before and after separation. The respondent only obtained suitable accommodations for the children in early 2025. However, the respondent was with the children in Toronto after the applicant moved to Winnipeg in March of 2025, until the children relocated to Winnipeg with the applicant in June 2025. Thus, both parties have had experience acting as the sole parent.

Whether the person who intends to relocate the child complied with any applicable notice requirement under [section 16.9](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html?resultId=3edc9982fea3436eb5307866d166b0a6&searchId=2026-01-12T09:38:47:592/0be5bcd444c04c33bd46da049b46df95#sec16.9_smooth), provincial family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement

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

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

53I will deal with these three factors together. The respondent suggests that the applicant behaved improperly in relation to relocation. He states in his affidavit: “It has since become apparent that, unbeknownst to me, the Mother had been seemingly working behind the scenes to plan her attempts to relocate with the children to Winnipeg on a permanent basis”. He goes on as follows:

On or around June 28, 2024, the Mother had removed [B] and [M] from Ontario to Winnipeg without my consent and ignored all my compromises. I had written a letter to the Mother and her counsel dated June 19, 2024, but I received no reply until July 3, 2024, after the Mother and the children left Ontario.

I believe that if I had not advised the Mother that I would be seeking judicial intervention, she intended to stay in Winnipeg with the children indefinitely. This is supported by the fact that she had attempted to terminate the lease for the family residence without advising me; she had been selling household belongings without my knowledge or consent; and she was refusing to permit the children to engage in extracurriculars and services in the GTA. Additionally, the abrupt about face in her plans for the children and the lack of return date and clear indication that she intended to return within a specific timeframe caused me to believe that she initially intended to engage in self-help measures to force the relocation.

When the Mother’s plans to undertake the relocation surreptitiously failed, she attempted to paint a false narrative that I was abusive and posed a risk to the children.

54The applicant was also cross-examined on her failure to follow the process for scheduling the interim relocation motion, as was set out by Justice Horkins in the October 2024 endorsement. In an endorsement the following month, Justice Sharma found that the applicant had not followed the process set out by Justice Horkins. In cross-examination, the applicant said that her lawyer had been confused about the direction in the October endorsement.

55The applicant filed an Application for Relocation, dated June 5, 2024. In a June 15, 2024 email exchange, the applicant explained to the respondent that before getting legal advice she did not understand the relocation process and how long it might take. The applicant then stated: “me and the kids will be living here until the court decides whether we can move or not”. She provided the address in Winnipeg where she would be staying with the children while visiting Winnipeg later in the month. The applicant also explained that her sister, who had serious ongoing health issues, was not doing well. The applicant returned with the children after the visit to Winnipeg.

56The respondent’s suggestion that the applicant was acting surreptiously is inconsistent with the fact that she filed a Relocation Application, told the respondent that she would remain in Toronto until there was a court order, and provided him with the address in Winnipeg for their visit. It is difficult to rely on aspects of the respondent’s affidavit that were extremely argumentative instead of factual.

57While I in no way condone the applicant’s failure to follow the process outlined by Justice Horkins, it is not clear to me that this falls squarely on the applicant, as opposed to her then lawyer. Crucially, the applicant complied with the direction in the October temporary order directing that the applicant “shall not relocate with the children to Winnipeg or elsewhere without a court order”. The applicant did not relocate with the children to Winnipeg until after the Divisional Court denied the respondent’s appeal.

58The respondent also asserts that the applicant has not complied with the interim order in relation to paying for travel costs. The additional cost of travel is a significant concern for the court and is addressed in the next section from a forward-looking perspective. However, it is also significant to the extent that it resulted in a failure to comply with the interim order of Justice Shin Doi.

59The applicant was to cover the travel costs to facilitate parenting time after the interim relocation order. She immediately had trouble complying with the order. I do not think that the applicant was intentionally flouting a court order. I think that she underestimated the litigation expenses she would incur during these legal proceedings. However, I draw a negative inference about the applicant’s planning and judgement, as the travel costs were entirely foreseeable and, in fact, court ordered. The inference is tempered by the fact that it is understandable that she might not have fully appreciated how much the litigation would cost when she began this process. The inference is also tempered by the control issues that I discussed above, which contextualize the applicant’s motivation for moving to Winnipeg.

60I will also address the respondent’s concerns about the applicant selling furniture and making other arrangements in anticipation of relocation. He also suggests that the applicant did not make a meaningful effort to look for a job in Toronto. The applicant testified that she looked for work in Toronto and Winnipeg and found a good job in Winnipeg. It is difficult to assess the degree of effort the applicant put into the job search in each location. Having said that, it is clear that at some point, the applicant wanted to move to Winnipeg. Indeed, the parties discussed the possibility of relocation in 2022. Eventually, the applicant started making plans to relocate. The extent to which her behaviour may have been inappropriate is addressed in the two issues discussed above in relation to the respondent’s argument about the applicant’s allegedly surreptitious action and non-compliance with court orders.

61Nothing about the applicant’s conduct during this litigation, discussed above, leads me to have any concerns about future compliance with court orders, other than the severe negative financial impact of the relocation, which is addressed below.

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

62This is a significant concern for the court. Flying between Winnipeg and Toronto twice a month is extremely costly. During the trial, the applicant indicated that it is possible to get a return flight for $400, but that would be on a discount airline. Assuming a $500 return twice a month translates to a yearly cost of $12,000. That does not include costs required for accommodation, meals, taxi, or car rental. The applicant has repeatedly offered to leave her home when the respondent was in Winnipeg so that he could stay there. The applicant has also said that he could stay in a family-owned condominium. When the respondent exercised his parenting time in Winnipeg, he has stayed in a hotel. It is not entirely clear to me why he chose to do that, although it is understandable that he might want to arrange his own accommodations.

63Even without accommodations, the travel expenses will total at least $15,000 per year. This is a significant amount of money. Having said that, at this point the applicant lives in Winnipeg and the respondent lives in Toronto. As noted previously, I should not consider how the outcome of an application would affect the parties’ relocation plans: Barendregt v. Grebliunas, at para. 140. It appears that the parties will need to bear these costs, regardless of what I decide. I draw a negative inference about the applicant’s judgement as a result of the increased travel costs. Those increased costs have to be borne by the family and would necessarily have a negative impact on the family. They are not in the best interests of the children. Again, these costs were entirely foreseeable, even if partially offset by the applicant’s increased income and the lower cost of living in Winnipeg. However, the adverse inference is tempered by the fact that the applicant may not have fully appreciated the cost of the litigation, and by the control issues that contextualize the relocation.

64In addition to the costs, requiring the respondent to get on a plane to exercise his parenting time is a significant, time-consuming inconvenience. More importantly, his parenting time has been severely limited. The children have been deprived of their father’s participation in the daily tasks of parenting: eating together, dropping off the children at school, reading them a bedtime story, and taking them to activities. The children have been visiting their father every other week, in a hotel. The time together is short, as they need to check out of the hotel and the respondent needs to get to the airport to catch his flight home at a reasonable hour so that he can work the next day. The applicant proposes that the respondent only visit once a month, in order to alleviate the travel expenses. As I understand this proposal, she is perfectly agreeable to him visiting twice a month, she just does not want to pay for two visits. Reducing the respondent’s parenting time due to the applicant’s difficulty in paying his travel expenses arising from a move that she initiated strikes me as wholly inappropriate, and not in the best interests of the children.

65There was considerable discussion at trial about the applicant making her home available for the respondent’s visits, and the respondent’s potential use of a family-owned condominium in Winnipeg. Either option would reduce the costs of accommodation and give the respondent more time and flexibility, but some of the details around those proposals remain unclear.

Conclusion on Relocation

66Assessing the best interests of the children is never easy; these difficulties are magnified in the relocation context: Barendregt v. Grebliunas, at paras. 97-98. The most troubling aspect of the relocation is the impact it would have on the children’s relationship with the other parent. The Supreme Court has stated, at para. 132:

Concerns about parenting time with the child will inevitably be engaged in relocation cases: the crux of the dispute is whether it is in the child’s best interests to move notwithstanding the impact on their relationship with the other parent. In other words, this concern is folded into the central inquiry before the court.

67Similarly, s. 16(6) of the Divorce Act directs that:

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.

68“The crucial question is whether relocation is in the best interests of the children, having regard to their physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being”: Barendregt v. Grebliunas, at para. 152.

69This is an extremely difficult decision. Both parents are competent to care for their children. Both parents have close and meaningful relationships with both of their children. The children are part of communities in Toronto and Winnipeg that will allow them to thrive.

70An interim relocation order was made in February of 2025, and upheld by the Divisional Court on May 28, 2025. The children moved to Winnipeg in June and started school there in September. They have settled into a new home and new routines with the person who has historically been their primary care-giver, supported by extended family. As the Divisional Court noted, at para. 47, “relocation decisions are hard to reverse at trial without causing major disruption to the children”. The children are young, and dealing with the instability inherent in the separation of their parents. Adding to that instability by moving them back to Toronto after a school year spent in Winnipeg is not in their best interests. It is in the best interests of the children to remain in Winnipeg with the applicant. My analysis was based on each party having the burden of proving whether the relocation is in the best interests of the children. However, if I am wrong and the applicant should bear the onus, I would still find that it is in the children’s best interests to remain in Winnipeg with the applicant.

71This result may seem unfair to the respondent. As I have stated throughout my analysis, the issue for me to determine is the best interests of the children. That analysis must take place in the context of the current circumstances, with a forward-looking view. The analysis is not primarily concerned with fairness as between the parties. Significantly, the decision is also not, in any way, a negative comment on the level of commitment that the respondent has to his children. In case it is not already apparent in the above analysis, I repeat here that there is no question that the respondent loves his children deeply, and is a capable and committed father.

Parenting Time

72Given the above decision on relocation, the respondent’s parenting time must ensure his ability to maintain his relationships with both children. The respondent sought the following parenting time if the children were to remain in Winnipeg:

• The entire two weeks of Winter Break;
• The entire week of March Break;
• Seven weeks during the Summer Break, commencing the Saturday immediately following the final day of school;
• Up to twice monthly visits in Winnipeg from Friday after school until the evening before return to school;
• The parenting time during Winter Break and March Break shall be in addition to the weekend parenting time in the months of December and March. For example, should March Break occur between March 16 and March 22 in a given calendar year, and parenting time is contemplated for one of the weekends abutting the March break week, that weekend visit shall still occur;
• The respondent shall provide a proposed schedule for his weekend visits for the entire upcoming calendar year no later than November 30 each year, and the applicant shall respond with confirmation or any proposed changes no later than December 15.

73I agree with the respondent’s proposed parenting time, with the following minor alterations:

• First, I would provide for a visit by the applicant during the seven weeks the respondent has the children in the summer. The applicant will be responsible for travel costs for any summer visits. The applicant shall inform the respondent of the dates of any proposed summer visit six months in advance to permit the father to plan for activities and vacation during the summer. The father shall not reasonably refuse the mother’s request, but the father’s vacation plans will have priority. The applicant’s summer visit will take place from Friday at 4:00 p.m. or after any camp or activity that they may be enrolled in. The applicant shall return the children to the father no later than 5:00 p.m. on Sunday evening. The father will be responsible for the children’s dinner, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the mother’s summer visit is during a long weekend, the visit will be extended by that one extra day.
• Second, if any of the father’s weekends in Winnipeg fall on a long weekend, the father is entitled to parenting time on the holiday Friday and/or Monday. If the father is not going to exercise his parenting time on the Friday and/or Monday of a long weekend, he shall inform the mother at least 14 days before the visit.
• Third, if the father cannot exercise his parenting time in Winnipeg on one of his scheduled weekends, he shall inform the mother 30 days in advance.

Decision making

74The applicant asserts that the past conflict between the parties demonstrates the challenges of a shared parenting arrangement. Based on the evidence I have seen, I would agree. The applicant is awarded sole decision-making, subject to some exceptions. I take the view that the respondent should have sole decision-making in some areas, based on the parenting arrangements set out above. Therefore, the applicant is awarded sole decision-making, subject to the following:

• The party with the care of the children according to the regular parenting time schedule shall make the day-to-day decisions.
• In the event of a medical emergency, the parent with the care of the children shall first make best efforts to contact the other parent, but if they are unable to contact the other parent before a decision about treatment is required, that parent shall make the decision according to the recommendations of the treating medical practitioner. They shall promptly inform the other parent of any decisions made.
• The father shall have sole decision making over the children’s activities and programs when they are with him in Toronto. He will also be responsible for paying for those activities and programs.
• Each parent can travel with the children during their parenting time without the consent of the other parent, provided they consult on any trips longer than five (5) days, give seven (7) days’ notice for travel within North America, and 30 days’ notice for travel outside of North America. The travelling parent shall provide the other parent with a travel itinerary a week prior to departure that includes flight numbers, accommodations, and contact information.

Children’s Documents

75The applicant is permitted to apply for and renew the children’s passports and other government issued documents and the respondent shall complete any necessary documentation.

76The applicant shall retain the children’s passport and other government issued and important documents and shall provide the respondent with copies of same. If the respondent requires the original document for legitimate purposes, the applicant shall provide the original documents and the respondent shall return same immediately after use. The children’s passports will travel with the children when they are with the respondent over summer break, and during any other of the respondent’s parenting time if the respondent requests the passports from the applicant.

Financial Issues

77I will deal with each of the financial issues in turn. The applicant does not seek spousal support.

78Unfortunately, there were shortcomings in the evidence and argument on a number of disputed financial issues, as the parties were – quite understandably – focused on the relocation issue. Where necessary I have made reasonable estimates in order to reach a final determination: Oskalns v. Oskalne, 2016 ONSC 1676, at para. 64.

Child Support

79The applicant says that the respondent should pay monthly child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, based on his earlier income, in order to account for travel costs. She says the table amount child support would be $1,805 per month based on the respondent’s 2024 income of $123,031.32.

80The respondent takes the position that if the children remain in Winnipeg, he should not pay any child support, in recognition of the travel costs he will bear.

81In my view, the best approach is to calculate the child support owed based on the evidence of the most recent income, and then to consider the travel costs associated with the respondent’s parenting time.

82The respondent’s updated financial statement, dated May 15, 2025, supported by his tax return, says his gross income for 2024 was $123,031.32. The most recent information about the respondent’s income is a pay stub showing gross pay of $5,864.31 for November 16-29, 2025. That would translate to a yearly income of $152,472.06. However, the yearly income to date on that pay stub is $154, 128.19. The difference appears to be due to bonuses. I am unaware of any evidence provided that indicates whether the respondent would routinely receive a bonus. Since $154,128.19 was his income for 11 months, the respondent’s income for 12 months would be 168,139.84. Since it is not clear to me whether the respondent will always receive a bonus (which for 2025 was $17,000) I will use $160,000 as his income for the purposes of calculating child support.

83The applicant’s financial statement sworn December 24, 2025 says that her gross income for 2024 was $69,303. The most recent information about the applicant’s income is a pay stub showing gross pay of $3,059.53 for the period of November 16 to 30, 2025. Since the applicant is paid semi-monthly, that translates to a yearly income of $73,428.72.

84Based on an income for the respondent of $160,000 and an income for the applicant of $73,428.72, the guideline child support payable is $2,257.

85Putting aside for the moment the issue of travel costs, I see no basis to depart from the table amount because the respondent makes an income over $150,000: Auer v. Auer, 2024 SCC 36, at para. 91.

86Section 16.95 of the Divorce Act states:

If a court authorizes the relocation of a child of the marriage, it may provide for the apportionment of costs relating to the exercise of parenting time by a person who is not relocating between that person and the person who is relocating the child.

87There has also been a recognition in the case law that it may be appropriate to reduce a party’s child support payments due to the high cost of exercising parenting time: Raven v. Ahmed, 2018 ONSC 4756, at para. 50; Morrone v. Morrone, [2007] 44 R.F.L. (6th) 389, at paras. 45-55.

88The respondent’s travel costs for him to exercise his parenting time are high.

89I also note that the current arrangement where the applicant arranges and pays for travel costs has led to a number of problems. In order to reduce conflict and the need for coordination in relation to travel, I order that the respondent arrange and pay for his own travel. This will also allow him to choose the times and airline that he prefers. It should also reduce costs as he will be able to plan in advance and, hopefully, collect loyalty points. By reducing the child support, the applicant will avoid uncertainty that might be involved in reimbursing travel expenses. In recognition of the costs of travel, the monthly child support is reduced by $800 per month, leaving the respondent to pay $1,457 in child support per month, instead of $2,257. The $800 reduction is intended to cover the majority of the respondent’s flights over ten months (since the respondent will have the children in the summer) but spread over 12 months. (This assumes $1,000 a month for flights, multiplied by 10 months, divided by 12 months, and rounded down given that the applicant will bear more of the s. 7 costs.) I recognize that this will not cover all of the respondent’s travel costs. However, the division of s. 7 expenses, as set out below, will lead to the applicant bearing more of the s. 7 expenses. In addition, the applicant will bear the cost of travel when the children go to Toronto to be with the respondent. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of transporting the children to Toronto for the holiday parenting time, and she shall be responsible for accompanying them on the flight to Toronto, with the respondent being responsible for accompanying them back to the airport in Toronto, where the applicant is to meet them and accompany the children on the flight returning to Winnipeg. She will also be responsible for her own travel costs if she visits the children in Toronto over the summer when they are with the respondent.

90The respondent shall be responsible for any accommodation, taxi or Uber, and food costs (except as set out below) during his parenting time in Winnipeg. However, the applicant shall make available the family condominium or her home for the respondent to exercise his parenting time. If the family condominium remains an option, the respondent can choose whether to stay there or in the applicant’s home to exercise his parenting time. If the condominium remains an option, the respondent shall inform the applicant 60 days prior to his visit whether he will stay at the condominium or the applicant’s home. The applicant will ensure that the condominium or her home is clean and stocked with basic groceries, which do not need to exceed $50 per visit. If the respondent chooses not to stay at the condominium or the applicant’s home, he will be responsible for his own accommodation costs.

Child Support Arrears

91The applicant says the respondent paid no child support from September 2023 to January 2024, and underpaid child support from February 2024 to October 2024, paying $610 per month. In her closing summary she says that the respondent owes child support arrears of $15,622 for September 2023 to October 2024; in her draft order she calculates it at $14,724. The applicant’s draft order says the respondent owes $5,422 under the current child support order.

92The parties agree that child support was not paid April to June 2025, when the children were in Toronto with the respondent and the applicant was in Winnipeg.

93The respondent agrees that he owes child support arrears. He says that “[i]t is an exercise of determining overpayments for 2025 and underpayments for 2023 and 2024 and post separation accounting”. He says that, on any calculation, he had the children for greater than 40% of the time in 2025. His draft order states that he owes the mother $3,196 in arrears: $7,540 less an overpayment of $4,344.

94The parties separated on September 1, 2023. Justice Horkins ordered table amount of child support on October 3, 2024, requiring the respondent to pay the applicant $1,508 per month.

95The respondent’s income in 2023 was $103,218.08 according to his Income Tax Return. The applicant’s income in 2023 was $64,401 according to her Financial Statement. The 2023 child support guideline amount was $1,511.

96The respondent’s income in 2024 was $123,031.35 according to his Income Tax Return. The applicant’s income in 2024 was $69,303 according to her Financial Statement. The 2024 child support guideline amount was $1,753.

97Using the respondent’s payment chart, I calculate the underpayment as follows:

Month	Child support that should have been paid	Child support that was actually paid	Underpayment
September 2023	$1,511	0	$1,511
October 2023	$1,511	0	$1,511
November 2023	$1,511	0	$1,511
December 2023	$1,511	0	$1,511
January 2024	$1,753	0	$1,753
February 2024	$1,753	$710	$1,043
March 2024	$1,753	$362	$1,391
April 2024	$1,753	$610	$1,143
May 2024	$1,753	$680	$1,073
June 2024	$1,753	$678	$1,075
July 2024	$1,753	$610	$1,143
August 2024	$1,753	$610	$1,143
September 2024	$1,753	$610	$1,143
October 2024	$1,753	$610	$1,143
November 2024	$1,753	$1,508	$245
December 2024	$1,753	$1,508	$245
total			$18,584

98I will accept the father’s overpayment calculation of $4,344 for 2025. The respondent is therefore required to pay $14,240 ($18,584-$4,344).

Section 7 Expenses

99The applicant mother suggests that she can pay s. 7 expenses, to help offset travel expenses.

100The respondent takes the position that if the children remain in Winnipeg, they should share the cost of special and extraordinary expenses equally.

101In order to reduce conflict and to allow each parent to manage their own parenting time, I order that recurring s. 7 expenses incurred during each parent’s parenting time will be paid by the parent exercising parenting time. For example, the applicant will pay for daycare, camps, dance, soccer, and other extra-curricular activities when the children are in Winnipeg and the respondent will pay for those activities when the children are in Toronto.

102One time s. 7 expenses will be shared by the parents based on income, with the applicant paying 31.5% and the respondent paying 68.5% (based on their incomes as stated above for child support). For example, if one of the children needs braces, that would be a shared expense.

103The applicant will continue to pay for benefits and use those to cover any expenses permitted by her plan.

Section 7 Arrears

104The s. 7 expenses paid by the applicant prior to the move total $2,009.95. The applicant has also paid s. 7 expenses since relocation, approximately $2,124. The total is $4,133.95, so the respondent owes $2,831.76 (68.5%).

105The s. 7 expenses paid by the respondent total $3,210. While I agree with the applicant that some of the soccer expenses are based on unilateral decisions by the respondent, these are reasonable s. 7 expenses. The applicant owes $1,011.15 (31.5%). Therefore, the respondent owes net s. 7 arrears of $1,820.61.

Equalization

106The applicant’s NFP says that she is owed equalization of $37,278.57. In her draft order, the applicant says the equalization amount owed to her is $45,635.96.

107The respondent agrees that he owes equalization. His draft order says that he owes $16,189.76, but his comparative net family property statement says he owes $9,596.45.

108Key differences between the parties include:

• The value of the Rav 4 vehicle on the valuation date;
• Who claims the car loan debt for the Rav 4;
• Amounts that the respondent says the applicant mistakenly double counted;
• Amounts that the respondent has updated (that benefit the applicant);
• Contingent tax liability;
• The value of the applicant’s date of marriage account, and the fact that the respondent has a date of marriage account.

109The first two bullet points concern the treatment of the RAV 4, which I will address shortly. The last four bullets are addressed in the combined net family property statement provided by the respondent, with explanations for the differences. There was little to no reference to these issues at trial. I am unaware of any evidence from the applicant on the issues in the last four bullets. In the circumstances, I rely on the respondent’s financial evidence brief and the explanations in the combined NFP statement filed by the respondent for the issues in the last four bullets.

110The RAV 4 was addressed at trial. I will first discuss the general approach to this asset and then deal with some of the detailed calculations.

111In their NFP statements, the parties put the car in the applicant’s assets. The car was purchased in 2020. The applicant testified that the loan was under both of their names, and the purchase agreement was under both of their names. On cross-examination, the respondent’s counsel put the statement of account for the vehicle to the applicant; it was in the respondent’s name only. It showed a “contract amount” of $38,497.39, on July 13, 2020. The applicant did not understand why she was not on the statement of account.

112Equalization requires the parties to:

• List and value the parties’ assets and debts on the separation/valuation date, and subtract debts from assets;
• List and value the parties’ assets and debts on the date of marriage, and subtract debts from assets;
• Subtract the date of marriage amount from the separation/valuation date amount, to get net family property (“NFP”).

113The spouse with the higher NFP pays the other spouse half of the difference.

114My understanding is that the respondent included the car as an asset for the applicant on the separation date because the applicant retained possession and use of the car. However, the respondent owned the car on the separation/valuation date. Therefore, the car should be included as the respondent’s asset on the separation/valuation date.

115In their NFP statements, the applicant included a car loan of $5,746 in her debt, and the respondent included a car loan of $14,471.05 in his debt, on valuation date. The respondent’s explanation is that the applicant retained possession and use of the car, while the respondent continued to make loan payments from September 2023 through to February 2024, and for payments from February 2025 until the loan was paid off in June. The respondent says that he paid off the loan in June 2025, which was about $4,000.

116The debt of $14,471.05 should be included as the respondent’s debt on the valuation date. No car debt should be included in the applicant’s debt on the valuation date.

117The parties also disputed the value of the car on the valuation date. The respondent valued it at $37,763, and the applicant valued it at $30,230. Keeping proportionality in mind given the relatively nominal difference in the parties’ positions, this court finds that it is fair and reasonable to take the mid-range of the two values. I will therefore use a valuation amount for the car of $33,996.50.

118I have recalculated the equalization amount as follows:

• I have used the respondent’s numbers in the combined net family property statement for the disputed issues in the last four bullets;
• I have included the car as an asset for the respondent on the valuation date;
• I have included car debt of $14,471.05 for the respondent on the valuation date;
• I have not included any car debt for the applicant on the valuation date.

119This results in an equalization payment of $45,381.46, from the respondent to the applicant.

Post Separation Adjustments

120The applicant now has possession of the car, and the respondent paid some of the loan payments post separation. The respondent seeks credit for post separation loan payments, as a post separation adjustment. The respondent says he continued to make loan payments from September 2023 through to February 2024, and payments from February 2025 until the loan was paid off in June 2025. The respondent says that the June payment was about $4,000. The applicant says that if the loan stays on the respondent’s side of the equalization, she is entitled to a credit of $8,820 for vehicle payments made post-separation from February 2024 to March 2025 at $630 per month.

121There was some sharing of the car post-separation, although it was primarily driven by the applicant. The parties initially agreed that the applicant would keep the car as she was doing the majority of drop-offs, pick-ups, and appointments for the children. The respondent says that the applicant paid $6,575.67 in car payments. The applicant says that she paid $8,820 on the car loan.

122Post-separation both parties used the car to some degree, and both parties paid amounts on the car loan. The respondent did not intend to gift the car to the applicant; the applicant now has the car. Evidence at trial from the respondent indicated that the approximate current value of the car is $30,000. I order that the applicant must pay the respondent $30,000 as a post separation adjustment for the car.

123The applicant says she owes the respondent $1,221.60 for flights purchased to exercise parenting time. The respondent agrees that he is owed $1,221.60 for flights but also claims additional travel expenses for a total of $1,756.46. I find there is support that the applicant owes $1,368.74 in travel expenses incurred by the respondent.

124The applicant must also pay the respondent $1,240.65 for car insurance and $359.28 for internet.

125Thus, the applicant owes the respondent $33,356.39 for post separation adjustments:

item	amount
Car	$30,000.00
Travel costs to exercise parenting time	$1,756.46
Car insurance	$1,240.65
Internet	$359.28
TOTAL	$33,356.39

126At the time of trial, the car was in Winnipeg. The parties shall ensure that all paperwork is complete to transfer the car ownership to the applicant. The applicant is responsible for arranging and paying for car insurance.

Costs Arrears

127The applicant is seeking immediate enforcement for the Long Motion costs of $15,000.

128The applicant is seeking immediate enforcement for the Appeal costs of $2,288.25.

129I order that the respondent must pay $17,288.25 in costs arrears to the applicant.

Costs

130The applicant is not seeking costs of the trial. No costs will be awarded.

131If any arithmetic errors are identified by either party, they may address them, in writing, with submissions made though my judicial assistant, after consultation with the other party.

Enforcement

132SDO to issue.

Divorce

133The applicant’s claim for a divorce is not in dispute. Documents for the divorce have been filed and reviewed. The requirements for a divorce have been met.

134A divorce order may be issued.

Orders

135I make the following orders:

• The children shall remain in Winnipeg with the applicant.
• The respondent shall have parenting time for two weeks during Winter Break, the entire week of March Break, and seven weeks for Summer break, as set out above.
• The applicant is awarded sole decision-making of the children, subject to the exceptions set out above for day-to-day decisions, medical emergencies, the children’s extracurricular activities, and travel when they are with the respondent during his parenting time.
• The applicant is permitted to apply for and renew the children’s passports and other government issued documents and the respondent shall complete any necessary documentation. The applicant shall retain the children’s passport and other government issued and important documents, subject to the conditions set out above.
• The respondent shall pay $1,457 in child support per month.
• The respondent shall make his own travel arrangements and pay for his own travel costs, as set out above.
• The respondent shall pay $14,240 in child support arrears.
• Recurring s. 7 expenses incurred during each parent’s parenting time will be paid by the parent exercising parenting time. One time s. 7 expenses will be shared by the parents based on income, with the applicant paying 31.5% and the respondent paying 68.5%. The applicant will continue to pay for benefits and use those to cover any expenses permitted by her plan.
• The respondent shall pay the applicant s. 7 arrears of $1,820.61.
• The respondent shall pay the applicant $45,381.46 in equalization.
• The applicant shall pay the respondent $33,356.39 for post separation adjustments.
• The respondent shall pay $17,288.25 in costs arrears.
• No costs are payable for this trial.
• Unless the support Order is withdrawn from the Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director and amounts owing under the Order shall be paid to the Director, who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed.
• A divorce order may be issued.

The Honourable Justice B. Wassenaar

Released: April 21, 2026

CITATION: Bah v. Diallo, 2026 ONSC 2355