CITATION: Cote v. Adam, 2026 ONSC 2447
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JULINE NICOLE COTE
Applicant
– and –
MICHAEL ADAM
Respondent
COUNSEL:
K. Whitfield, Counsel for the Applicant
Self Represented, Respondent
HEARD: March 30, 2026
VARPIO J.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OVERVIEW
1This was a family law trial wherein the applicant mother (the “Mother”) and the respondent father (the “Father”) began a relationship in 2012 and they separated on August 17, 2021. They have two daughters (ages 13 and 9). Since separation, the Father has had difficulties that have resulted in him being homeless at times and being unable to support himself.
2For the reasons that follow, I hereby give the Mother primary residence, sole decision-making authority and award child support. I will, however, require further submissions on the constructive trust issue.
EVIDENCE
3The Father was self-represented, and the matter was extensively conferenced by my colleague, Rasaiah J., who made a number of trial management orders that governed the filing of affidavits, the filing of documents and other such things.
4Leading up to the conferences, the Father failed to file materials on a number of occasions. Despite Rasaiah J.’s efforts, the Father did not file any materials for this trial including his financial materials, his examination-in-chief affidavit, and the like.
5When I asked whether the Mother sought any relief as a result, the Mother’s counsel did not ask to have the Father’s answer and corresponding materials struck.
6Rather, the Mother’s counsel submitted that the matter needed to proceed, but that she could not respond to any materials that were filed on short notice.
7Given the foregoing, I agreed with the Mother’s counsel that the Father could not file materials. In keeping with my parens patriae duty, I allowed the Father to cross-examine the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s (“OCL”) clinician and to give evidence about his parenting. I did not allow the Father to give evidence about financial matters as that would have been unfair to the Mother.
Ms. Kim Hein – OCL Clinician
8Ms. Hein testified and filed an affidavit that contained her fulsome report. In order to assist the parties (especially the Father given his lack of legal representation), I called Ms. Hein as a witness and allowed both sides to cross-examine her.
9Ms. Hein presented as a dispassionate witness who did not have an emotional stake in the matters before the court. She testified that she has worked as a clinician/therapist for several years and has undertaken numerous investigations and written numerous reports for the OCL.
10Ms. Hein testified that the children of the relationship currently reside with the Mother. Ms. Hein stated in her report that it was clear to her that both girls are loved by both parents and that it is obvious that both youngsters would benefit from pro-social relationships with both parents.
11Ms. Hein testified that the Mother’s home appears to be loving and nurturing. There were no red flags regarding her parenting that caused concern.
12On the other hand, Ms. Hein identified a number of issues that were of concern as regards the Father’s personal situation. First, the Father told Ms. Hein that he was homeless (the report was dated August 5, 2025) sometimes living in a tent or a motel.
13Ms. Hein identified concerns regarding the Father’s mental health. Specifically, she stated that:
There are several issues concerning the Father. Professionals, including the psychiatrist who prepared a report for Group Health Care, and police, identified issues related to the Father’s mental health. His friend and previous landlady, Ms. Plaunt, described the Father’s mental health and substance use as significant concerns when he lived in her home earlier this summer. She expressed concern about the Father’s “conspiracy theories”, which have also been evident in his interactions with this clinician, when he has detailed his beliefs, which include the Mother and the police colluding with one another, and a conspiracy between police, the Society, the Crown Attorney, and the Court. The transcript from the Father’s bail hearing indicates that the friend who was a surety for the Father’s told the court that the Father had a “good heart” but has “got problems”, and “has a wire crossed or something”. He said that he had seen the Father under the influence of substances. Unfortunately, the Father has not admitted to this clinician that he is using substances, and he refuses to consider that he requires assistance with his mental health. Ms. Pearson, the Father’s probation officer, indicates that the Father is participating in the Partner Abuse Response Program; however, she states that he has not admitted to her that he uses substances and he has not yet participated in mental health counselling.
14As for the Mother, Ms. Hein’s report stated that:
The Mother has demonstrated the ability to meet the daughter’s needs. She states that she has always been the parent who arranges appointments for the daughters and has ensured their attendance. Ms. Cote has appropriate housing and employment, and she and the Mother’s boyfriend have had a long-term relationship of approximately four years.
During the observation, the laughter and body language of the children, and the Mother, demonstrated that they were comfortable with one another and enjoyed the time together. The children did not seem to be surprised that Ms. Cote joined in all the activities, suggesting that they are used to her doing so.
15Ms. Hein testified that she believed that the Father ought to have supervised access with his daughters because of his mental health issues and his homelessness. She takes this view because it is her belief that the Father’s behaviour is impacting his daughters’ emotional health. She also indicated that the Father’s homelessness and his inconsistent record with respect to providing food for the children were areas of concern. Indeed, she noted as follows:
The Mother has demonstrated stability of residence, employment, and partner, since separating from the Father. It is the view of this clinician that it is in children’s best interest to continue to have supervised parenting time with the Father until he addresses the issues identified in this report. This clinician is satisfied, based on the Mother’s support of the Father’s post-separation parenting time, and the discussions that the Mother had with this clinician, that she will support unsupervised parenting time for the Father in the future if he achieves stability, improved mental health, and compliance with the direction of the Court and professionals who work with him.
This clinician does not believe that the Father can make rational and appropriate decisions in the children’s best interests at this time, and it is recommended that the Mother have sole decision-making responsibility for children.
Cross-Examination by the Father
16The Father cross-examined Ms. Hein. Ms. Hein denied seeing any evidence of child alienation in the family whereby the Mother was alienating the children from the Father.
17During cross-examination, the Father indicated to Ms. Hein that he suffered from PTSD and from cocaine use.
The Mother
Examination-in-Chief
18In keeping with Rasaiah J.’s trial management order, the Mother gave her evidence in examination-in-chief via affidavit.
19The Mother deposed that she and the Father are the biological parents of the children. She and the Father began a relationship in 2012 and moved in together shortly thereafter. They separated on August 17, 2021.
20On June 16, 2021, the Father was removed from the home and was charged with assault cause bodily harm. The matter was resolved via a peace bond.
21On August 22, 2022, he was charged with two counts of breaching a peace bond and was found guilty of the offences.
22The Father reported a number of allegations to police in March of 2022. The Mother was charged. These charges were withdrawn on December 7, 2022.
23The Mother set up counselling for the children but the Father did not take the children to counselling on a variety of occasions, even though the Mother believed that the counselling helped them.
24The Mother deposed that there were incidents where the Father yelled inappropriately at the children while they were in his care and that the children’s behaviour was not acceptable after they spent time with the Father.
25On November 12, 2022, the police contacted the Mother to advise her that the Father was having “some sort of mental breakdown or psychotic episode”. The Mother picked up the children. She also gave evidence in her affidavit regarding what the officer had stated about the Father. That evidence is hearsay and I do not consider that evidence for the truth of its contents.
26Over the course of several pages, the Mother listed a number of instances where the children came back from the Father’s residence whereby their needs had not been met.
27The Mother became aware that the Father was suffering from financial issues and, on August 17 2023, she began receiving letters from banks about the Father’s overdraft. On August 29, 2023, a Senior Bailiff from Recovery Services visited the Mother asking her about the Father’s whereabouts as the bailiff was looking to repossess the Father’s truck.
28On October 15, 2023, the Father’s step-mother contacted the Mother to advise that the Father was abusing alcohol and drugs and that he should not have the children at this time.
29On February 15, 2024, I made an interim order giving the Mother primary residence and limited the Father’s parenting time to a few phone calls per week. Supervised access was to commence through the Algoma Family Services (“AFS”) Supervised Access Centre but, on July 29, 2024, the AFS sent out a notice of possible suspension due to missed visits. The Father then commenced attending supervised access.
30The Mother deposed that the Father’s telephone communication has been erratic in that he would change times and/or miss calls. She deposed that the Father “ceased responding to the children [sic] attempts to call on or about November 18, 2025, and commenced calling again on January 8, 2026”.
31The Mother deposed that she is aware that the Father “has no fixed address, telephone, vehicle, employment and has not presented any plan to move forward with his parenting time. What is occurring is the Respondent constantly changing his phone and emails stating that he has been hacked. He has had inconsistent parenting time and very inconsistent telephone parenting time”.
32Prior to the February 15, 2024 supervised parenting order, the Mother and Father did not pay child support since they shared parenting time and they both worked at Algoma Steel at approximately the same wage.
33On October 30, 2024, the Father resigned from Algoma Steel.
34As for financial issues, the Mother and Father own a home together at in Sault Ste. Marie. The Mother has been residing in this home since June 16, 2021.
35The Mother deposed that she paid the majority of the $46,088.82 downpayment, which came from the sale of her previous home. The Father contributed $1,000 to that downpayment.
36The Mother obtained an appraisal of $347,000 for the home. This appraisal was filed with the court.
37The Mother deposed that the Father has become involved in dealing with improvements of the home and that his erratic behaviour has interfered with its efficient improvement.
38During the relationship, the Father purchased properties adjacent to the family home for $80,000. The Mother deposed that it was the parties’ intention that the properties be held jointly but that, for title insurance purposes, they were advised to put the properties into the Father’s name. The Mother filed text messages from the Father indicating that the property would make them “millionaires” if a highway were to run through the properties and that “[i]t won’t be half yours if I can’t remortgage”.
39In 2015, the parties purchased a land lease and built a cottage upon same. The Father’s name is solely on title. The Mother deposed that the cottage was built using a joint line of credit that has her name on it. The parties purchased the property for $30,000.
40Since separation, the Mother has paid a number of mutual expenses:
Cross-Examination by the Father
41During cross-examination, the Father appeared to be somewhat agitated and I had to ensure that he asked relevant questions so that he could elucidate the evidence he needed to advance his case.
42The Mother testified that the Father’s behaviour made her concerned for the children’s emotional health.
43The Mother denied suffering from depression.
The Father
44The Father testified that he is currently living with an ex-coworker. There are two bedrooms in the house.
45The Father testified that he and the Mother initially got fired by Algoma Steel but that they worked out a deal whereby they got their jobs back in December of 2020.
46The Father was off work in 2023 due to mental health concerns but he denies having metal health issues.
47The Father indicated that he had self-diagnosed PTSD initiated by the court proceedings.
48The Father testified that he is a good father and admits that he has made mistakes. He is firm with the children.
49The Father claims that the Mother withheld the children from him.
50The Father admitted that the last time he did cocaine was a few months ago. He has previously come to court while high on cocaine. It numbed his emotions arising from the PTSD.
51He has been going to the PAR program, and has undertaken counselling. He feels as though he can quit cocaine on his own.
Cross-Examination
52He resigned from Algoma Steel in October 2024. The Group Health Centre was involved in his medical assessment.
53A doctor in Hamilton, Ontario assessed the Father as having a bipolar disorder with psychotic episodes. The Father denies the diagnosis and testified that the letter from Manulife was “fraudulent” in that it was based on Algoma Steel’s recommendations and nothing else.
54The Father is on social assistance.
55He received a Manulife pension in the summer of 2025 and, amongst other things, he purchased a car with the proceeds. The pension was worth approximately $64,000 gross. The trial was the first time that Father ever mentioned the existence of this pension to the Mother.
THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES
56The Mother submits that she should have primary residence of the children as well as full decision-making authority. The Father should have supervised parenting time until he gets better.
57The Mother would like to receive the properties as a result of a constructive trust, while crediting each party for the amounts paid and for the existing equity.
58The Father submits that he would like to have as much parenting time as possible and that he is a good father who should have unsupervised parenting time.
ANALYSIS
Issues Involving the Children
59Sections 20 and 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act enables to allocate parenting time and decision-making responsibility. As regards decision-making (formerly “custody”), a considerable body of law exists that suggests that where parents cannot communicate effectively and/or have incompatible priorities, shared decision-making (or “joint custody”) is inappropriate. At para. 11 of Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 1625 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 275 (Ont. C.A.), Weiler J.A. (as he then was) stated:
The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate with the other parent does not, in and of itself, mean that a joint custody order cannot be considered. On the other hand, hoping that communication between the parties will improve once the litigation is over does not provide a sufficient basis for the making of an order of joint custody. There must be some evidence before the court that, despite their differences, the parents are able to communicate effectively with one another. No matter how detailed the custody order that is made, gaps will inevitably occur, unexpected situations arise, and the changing developmental needs of a child must be addressed on an ongoing basis. When, as here, the child is so young that she can hardly communicate her developmental needs, communication is even more important. In this case there was no evidence of effective communication. The evidence was to the contrary.
60In this case, there is no doubt that both parents love their daughters. They are trying to parent them as best they can, and they both seem to want to engage their daughters in the best way possible.
61Unfortunately, the Father’s personal circumstances are such that it is clear that he is unable to do so in an adequate fashion.
62The simple reality is that I accept that the Father is suffering from mental health issues that render him unable to care for the children. There is evidence before me that this may be as a result of a bipolar diagnosis, although the Father denies same. There is evidence before me that the Father may be in the throes of narcotic addictions. The Father has tacitly admitted that narcotics are an issue in so far as he admitted to previously attending court while under the influence of cocaine. His physical appearance before me also left me with the impression that the Father was suffering from some immediate difficulties, whether emotional, psychological, pharmaceutical, or otherwise.
63The Father’s now-ceased employment, his financial issues, his recent homelessness, and the suggestion that he engages in conspiracy theories all buttress the view that the Father is in the midst of serious personal issues such that I would be surprised if he could adequately take care of himself, let alone his daughters.
64That is not to say that the Father could not get to a point where he could have meaningful involvement in the children’s lives. Indeed, many people who suffer from such issues get help for themselves and they become able to play serious and meaningful roles in their children’s lives. Unfortunately, it is clear that the Father is unable to perform such a role at the current time because of his demons.
65As such, I hereby order that:
The Mother shall have decision-making authority for the children;
The Father shall have access to third-party records involving said children, including but not limited to educators, doctors, dentists, counsellors, coaches and the like. The Mother shall identify all third parties involved with the children and shall sign any consents that may be required by third parties;
The children’s primary residence shall be with the Mother;
The Father shall have supervised parenting time as follows:
a. The Father and Mother shall arrange for two phone calls per week – Mondays and Thursdays at 8:00 P.M.; and
b. The Father shall have supervised access through AFS at the access centre subject to availability.
Both the Mother and Father may attend special activities, including school events and sports competitions, provided that same is not prohibited by court order or terms of release.
The Mother and Father shall communicate via FamilyWizard, or some other family communications app, unless prohibited by court orders, or release terms. The parties will adhere to the following terms:
a. Non-urgent messages will be responded to within 48 hours;
b. The parenting app shall be used for discussion of the children only;
c. The parenting app shall include review of the children’s activities and appointments on a weekly basis, as well as other pertinent and timely updates with respect to the children’s lives.
d. The parties will take advantage of features like the shared calendar and the document bank.
The parties will advise one another regarding any significant illness or injury requiring medical attention immediately via telephone or text message.
Emergency situations shall be communicated to the other parent as soon as is practicable, in person, via the telephone, or via text.
66Should the Father get the help he needs, I am confident that this order can be revisited. However, in the absence of the Father getting the medical attention that he requires, any other course of action would be unsafe to the children and therefore not in their best interests.
Financial Issues
Support
Imputing Income to the Father
67The Mother asks me to impute income to the Father because he quit his job. She asks me to order child support on that basis, as per the section 29 and 30 of the Family Law Act.
68At this stage, I am unwilling to do so.
69While the Father quit working at Algoma Steel, I am uncertain as to whether the recent mass layoff at the steel plant would have affected the Father’s employ. I have no evidence in that regard before me.
70Even if I had such evidence, I would be unwilling to impute income to the Father because of his obvious personal issues. It is clear to me that his psychiatric and/or addiction issues prevent him from having meaningful involvement with his children at the current time. It also stands to reason that the same issues would prevent him from maintaining meaningful employment. As such, I am unwilling to impute income to the Father beyond ODSP and/or Ontario Works levels, which I understand to be about $13,000/annum.
71This support adds up to $41/month.
72Given that the Father did not file any materials, it is difficult to determine when he started on Ontario Works. However, he indicated that he was done spending his “Manulife pension” in or around January of 2026. Accordingly, I hereby order that child support commences on February 1, 2026.
73I will deal with the impact of the Manulife “pension” subsequently.
74If the Father gets employment, he will notify the Mother forthwith and this will constitute a material change of circumstances.
Property
75Since the parties were never married, the provisions of the Divorce Act do not apply.
76The Mother submits, and I accept, that the home in which she is currently living is the matrimonial home. She wishes to have sole possession and legal ownership of same.
77The Mother provided me with a draft order with the relief she is seeking. In that order, she seeks the following:
Pursuant to the Partition Act that the jointly owned property municipally described as…. be transferred into the sole name of the Applicant.
78I received only perfunctory submissions on the issue of constructive trust and require more fulsome submissions on this point. Counsel will schedule two hours before me in the near future to entertain further submissions on financial issues. I would like counsel to forward the governing jurisprudence on this issue since the Partition Act, standing alone, does not allow for this relief. Counsel may also file written submissions if she prefers.
Varpio J.
Released: April 30, 2026
CITATION: Cote v. Adam, 2026 ONSC 2447
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JULINE NICOLE COTE
- and –
MICHAEL ADAM
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Varpio J.
Released: April 30, 2026