CITATION: King v. King, 2026 ONSC 2547

COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-0124-01

DATE: 2026-04-29

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

David Ryan King

Self-Represented

Applicant

• and -

Shauna Anne Nevina King

Self-Represented

Respondent

HEARD: November 24, 25 & 26, 2025 at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski

Reasons for Judgment

Introduction

1The applicant, David Ryan King (“David”), began living with the respondent, Shauna Anne Nevina King (“Shauna”), on or about July 1, 2011. They married on April 1, 2015, and on November 20, 2019, the couple separated.

2As a result of their marriage, two children were born, namely Maxwell Bodhi James King on March 11, 2016, and Ivy Anne King on October 17, 2013 (“Max” and “Ivy” respectively, or collectively, “the Children”). A third child was part of the relationship, this being Casey Gismondi (“Casey”) who was born on March 28, 2004 to Shauna when she was in a relationship previous to David.

3At the time of the trial, Casey was an adult living with Shauna, and no relief was being sought with respect to Casey by either party in this trial.

4The issues brought forward in this trial include parenting time and decision-making responsibility for Max and Ivy, child support, spousal support, division of net family property, and a divorce.

Background to the Litigation

5It may not always be important to review and recite the steps taken by the parties prior to trial, but in this case, the parties’ conduct throughout the litigation process bears relevance to the outcome of this matter.

6An Application seeking various relief pursuant to the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3, and the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F. 3, was commenced on June 28, 2022, and amended on December 19, 2023.

7The Answer of Shauna was not filed until July 10, 2025 – the context of which is explained further in these reasons – and in addition to a divorce, the Answer sought child support, joint decision-making, and a week about parenting schedule.

8While Shauna made submissions during the trial with respect to her request for spousal support, no claims for spousal support were made in the Application nor the Answer.

9As of the December 2023 Amended Application, recognizing the status quo at that time, the position of David was that joint decision-making responsibility and a shared parenting schedule would be appropriate with respect to Max and Ivy. David also recognized that he was ill from January 2022 to August 2023, during which time the parenting schedule was flexible such that Shauna exercised a greater proportion of parenting duties. The nature of the illness also resulted in David being off work from January 2022 to November 2023. But once he had recovered, the shared and joint arrangements with respect to the Children continued.

10By the late Fall of 2024, the situation had changed, such that David brought an urgent motion seeking to limit the decision-making ability and the parenting time exercised by Shauna.

11Before the urgent motion was brought, the parties were exercising a week about schedule with the Children, such that on Mondays at 5:00 p.m. David would pick up Ivy and Max from daycare, and then return them to the residence of Shauna on Sunday at 5:00 p.m.

12The basis for the urgent motion included the following concerns of the Respondent David:

a. while Ivy and Max were in the care of the Applicant Shauna, she was using drugs and had become involved in illicit drug trade activities,

b. Shauna was experiencing intimate partner violence at the hands of her boyfriend in the presence of the Children,

c. instances of neglect were reflected on one occasion when Shauna failed to pick up Ivy and Max from school and then did not contact David for more than 24 hours after he stepped in to care for the Children, and

d. an increase in the Children’s absences from school.

13The urgent motion was eventually heard on January 24, 2025 by Justice Pierce, who ordered that parenting time with Shauna, on a without prejudice basis, be limited to weekends only from 8:30 a.m. on Saturdays to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. In addition, the Children were not to be in the presence of Shauna’s boyfriend, nor any individuals who were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Shauna was ordered to refrain from consuming alcohol or drugs during those times when the Children were in her presence. Financial disclosure was ordered in order to provide an evidentiary background to arguments relating to child support. Finally, Shauna was ordered to serve her Answer by February 7, 2025.

14On March 5, 2025, after no Answer had been filed, Shauna was effectively noted in default.

15On March 27, 2025, Shauna was found by Justice Fitzpatrick to be in contempt of the order of Justice Pierce with respect to providing disclosure and an Answer. The Court also determined that the Children were to reside with David, that Shauna could have parenting time every weekend as previously ordered, and that David shall have temporary primary decision-making authority for the Children.

16The same order of March 27, 2025 indicated that if Shauna wished to oppose or vary the terms of the order, a case conference needed to be scheduled and heard before June 13, 2025, failing which David could proceed to an uncontested trial.

17I was assigned to hear the trial in this matter, and on June 11, 2025, I conducted a Trial Management Conference via Zoom.

18The Trial Management Conference (“TMC”) commenced on time at 10:00 a.m. with only David in attendance, during which the process of proceeding through a trial with supporting affidavit evidence was discussed.

19At approximately 10:20 a.m., Ms. T. Millard was noted to be in the waiting room, and on account of her being the lawyer who represented Shauna in the past, she was admitted. Upon joining the TMC, Ms. Millard advised that her client had filed a Notice of Change in Representation that morning, indicating the intention of Shauna to represent herself. In addition, Ms. Millard told the court that her former client was in the process of securing a retainer with Ms. S. Burkinshaw, but due to illness Ms. Burkinshaw could not attend the TMC.

20In order to give Ms. Burkinshaw an opportunity to confirm her retainer, and in order to hear submissions on behalf of Shauna, the TMC was adjourned to June 20, 2025 and made peremptory upon Shauna.

21I also made an endorsement noting the lack of attention to this matter by Shauna over the previous six months, and that it was incumbent upon her to attend the June 20, 2025 TMC with a clear plan for going forward which was sufficient to satisfy the court that she intended to fully participate in the trial process without further delay.

22On June 20, 2025, the TMC continued in the presence of David, Shauna, and counsel for Shauna, Ms. Burkinshaw. During this TMC, David agreed to set aside the default which had been noted against Shauna. In light of this, it was ordered that an Answer and Form 35.1 Financial Statement, plus a Response to the Request to Admit of David dated January 22, 2025, be served and filed on or before July 11, 2025.

23Parenting issues were also discussed at the TMC, focussing on the allegations of David that Shauna was not consistently exercising her parenting time with the Children commencing at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday. Another case conference was then set up for Thursday, June 26, 2025 so as to avoid the need for a further motion.

24At the case conference of June 26, 2025, the parties agreed to amend the temporary order of March 27, 2025 by adding a without prejudice term confirming that overnight parenting by Shauna would occur at her home located at 981 Holt Place, Thunder Bay. If parenting did not occur at this location, then Shauna agreed she would forfeit her right to have overnight parenting with the Children, and instead would only exercise parenting from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays.

25In addition, Shauna agreed to provide David with 24 hours’ notice if she had to cancel parenting time with the Children, and that if she was more than 30 minutes late picking up the Children on a Saturday or a Sunday, that day’s parenting time would be forfeited.

26Shortly following the case conference of June 26, 2025, Shauna exercised overnight parenting outside of 981 Holt Place, and lost the privilege of overnight parenting with the Children.

27After dates for trial were set for November 24, 25 and 26, 2025, I conducted a second Trial Management Conference on October 3, 2025 in order to discuss what the parties were required to do in order to be prepared for the trial. By that time, with the assistance of her lawyer, Shauna had filed an Answer, a Form 13 Financial Statement, a Form 13A Certificate of Financial Disclosure, and a Form 35.1 Affidavit, all of which were dated July 10, 2025. On the same day, July 10, 2025, Shauna also filed a Notice of Change in Representation which effectively discharged Ms. Burkinshaw due to Shauna’s decision to act in person.

28Despite being provided notice of same, Shauna did not attend the October 3, 2025 TMC. Notwithstanding, a number of directions were made which provided the parties with steps they needed to take in order to participate in the trial, including:

1. Both parties were provided with the opportunity to file affidavit evidence in lieu of introducing oral evidence from themselves or their witnesses.

2. David was to file his affidavit evidence with attached exhibits by October 24, 2025, and if Shauna wished to cross examine on the affidavits at trial, she was to advise David in writing by October 31, 2025.

3. Shauna was to file her affidavit evidence by October 31, 2025, and David was to let her know by November 7, 2025 if cross examinations were necessary.

4. If Shauna decided to only introduce oral evidence, then she was to provide to David the names and phone numbers of her witnesses, plus a detailed summary of their evidence by October 31, 2025.

5. If equalization of net family property or support were issues to be determined at the Trial, then up-to-date Financial Statements and Net Family Property Statements were to be exchanged by October 31, 2025.

6. The opening statement of David, and draft order detailing the relief he was seeking, was to be served by November 14, 2025.

7. The opening statement of Shauna, and draft order, was to be served on or before November 18, 2025.

8. All documents to be relied upon by the parties were to be uploaded to Case Center, with two hard copies of each document brought to the Trial.

9. With respect to documents requested by David and which Shauna did not produce, an adverse inference could be drawn against Shauna if these documents were not produced before Trial and determined relevant during the Trial, with the same consequences applicable to any documents David did not produce but were requested.

29David complied with the trial management directions.

30Shauna did not comply with nor respond to any of the trial management directions.

The Trial

31The trial commenced at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 24, 2025 with David attending in person. Given that no documents had been uploaded to Case Center by Shauna, nor any documents nor evidence served upon David, it was assumed that Shauna would not be participating in the trial.

32The trial commenced with the introduction of various documents as exhibits, including the affidavit evidence which had been prepared by David. Once that was done, David was provided the opportunity to make opening submissions and an explanation of the relief he was seeking.

33At 10:35 a.m., during David’s presentation, Shauna entered the courtroom. Once recognized, Shauna was directed to explain why she was late and to provide a summary of her position in the trial.

34There was no explanation provided for not attending court at 10:00 a.m. aside from not being able to secure timely transportation, stating that she did not think it would take a taxi so long to get from her residence to the courthouse. She then advised the court that she was requesting an opportunity to cross examine David on his evidence, and that she would like to introduce oral evidence from a witness if permitted. Finally, Shauna requested to introduce documentary evidence in the form of emails exchanged between her and David, as well as medical records which she advised she was still in the process of obtaining from the hospital.

35When asked if she was aware of the trial management directions dated October 3, 2025, Shauna admitted that while not present in court on that date, a copy of the trial management endorsement was sent to her and was received.

36Over the objections of David, Shauna was granted the right to cross examine David on his evidence, despite not providing him with notice of her intention to do so. However, in the absence of compliance with the trial management directions with respect to the calling of witnesses, Shauna was not permitted to call any witnesses.

37At approximately 10:54 a.m., the trial was stood down until 2:00 p.m. so that Shauna could provide David with a copy of the opening statement she told the court she had prepared, along with a copy of her draft order. Shauna advised that she had both of these documents with her, but had not made copies for David nor the court, so she was asked to exchange and file the documents. Shauna was also directed to send whatever documents she wanted to introduce as exhibits to David, so that he could review these documents and provide me with his position.

38Upon resuming the trial on November 24, 2025 at 2:00 p.m., Shauna did not show up, and court was stood down for 15 minutes. Upon resuming court at 2:15 p.m., an email which had been sent to the Registrar at 2:09 p.m. was read into the record, which stated:

Toy [sic] whom it may concern,

I am beside myself, I have had nothing but problems with technical difficulties filling [sic] documents that were due long before 2pm.

To nake [sic] matters worse I am now late to court because of a late taxi and I am on the verge of a really bad anxiety attack. I am headed to the hospital right now and that’s all I have right now. I am embarrassed by this but I am under so much stress. I will get anything needed from the hospital.

39David confirmed, when asked, that no documents had been emailed to him.

40The trial was therefore stood down to 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 25, 2025. At that time, the endorsement which was emailed to Shauna directed her to email David with her opening statement, her draft order, and any documents she intended to rely upon in the trial. In addition, she was directed to produce a copy of her hospital admittance and chart for November 24, 2025 confirming her attendance as per the email which was sent to the Registrar, along with a receipt for the “late taxi” which she took to the hospital

41The trial then commenced for its second day on November 25, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Both David and Shauna were present, but upon opening court, David confirmed that he had not received anything from Shauna.

42Shauna also advised that instead of going to the hospital as indicated in her email sent to the Registrar the previous day, she went to see a counsellor, took some medication, and stayed home.

43At approximately 10:15 a.m., the documents were again emailed by Shauna to David, who was asked to review the documents and return to court at 10:30 a.m., in order to provide his submissions with respect to same.

44Court resumed at 11:00 a.m. based on requests from the parties, but at that time David had not yet received anything due to alleged technical difficulties. In order to address the technical difficulties, during open court, Shauna sent 5 pages of documents to the Registrar who forwarded them to David.

45At 11:10 a.m., court was stood down until noon for the purposes of getting documents printed and delivered to David. Court resumed at 12:00 p.m., and two minutes afterwards Shauna attended court with 16 double sided copies of emails. Discussions then resulted in David requesting time to review the documents, and to consider introducing “100 pages of emails” of his own.

46At 12:26 p.m., the trial was stood down until 2:00 p.m. to provide David with enough time to review the emails, consider his position, and get some lunch. David was also advised that if he thought it necessary to respond with emails of his own, then the trial would have to be stood down again in order to provide Shauna with time to review those documents.

47Upon resuming court at 2:00 p.m., Shauna was not in attendance, sending an email to the Registrar stating that she was utilizing Uride transportation services which should be arriving at the courthouse in 10 minutes. As such, the trial was stood down until 2:20 p.m.

48When the trial recommenced at 2:20 p.m., time was spent by the court discussing the conduct of Shauna with her in an attempt to impress upon her the seriousness of the proceeding which involved issues relating to the Children and their future. In addition, financial issues were to be resolved which would directly impact the parties. As such, I made it clear that the disrespect demonstrated by the conduct of Shauna to the Court and to David – both during the time period leading to the trial as well as during the trial – would not be tolerated going forward.

49After having reviewed the documents provided, David indicated that he was ready to proceed without the need to file additional responding documents of his own. He then took the stand, and more than a day and a half into the trial, he was cross examined by Shauna King.

Evidence of David

50The evidence in chief of David was introduced through two affidavits, both of which were sworn on October 22, 2025. One was from David, while the other was from Shauna’s mother, Debbie Robillard.

51The impetus behind the emergency motion which was brought in December 2024 were calls to David from friends and family expressing concern about the escalation of Shauna’s behaviour in relation to her alleged addictions, drug gang connections and unsafe environment for the Children. In part, these concerns stemmed from her relationship with Jason Forbes whom was believed to be immersed in the Thunder Bay drug culture and who had been physically violent with Shauna.

52David stated in his affidavit that the contact with family and friends was through texts, Facebook Messenger, and phone calls, providing details of drug deals and gang members in the household of Shauna, as well as domestic violence events and drug-induced incapacitation.

53One source of information in this regard was Debbie Robillard, the mother of Shauna. From her affidavit which was filed, Debbie Robillard’s evidence can be summarized as follows:

• over the past several years, due to the use of non-prescription drugs,¹ Shauna’s physical and emotional health had declined;

• she became increasingly concerned for the safety of the Children, these concerns peaking in November 2024;

• close friends of Shauna reached out to Debbie Robillard with their concerns for Shauna and the Children;²

• Jason Forbes was involved with Shauna during a multi-year relationship and brought drugs and drug deals into her home, and which involved several incidents of domestic violence, including one in October 2024 when the police were called;

• Shauna showed her mother bruises on Shauna’s body from being grabbed and choked by Jason Forbes, as well as “disgusting texts” from him;

• at times the Children have gone most of a day without being fed, and Debbie Robillard contacted the CAS to share her safety concerns; and

• in contrast, David is a loving and attentive father who is involved in every aspect of the Children’s lives emotionally, financially and socially.

54David provided evidence that Shauna “goes dark” for days, weeks and/or months, unable to be reached by friends or family during those times. He also stated that her participation in the Children’s school, daycare, extra curricular sports and family activities was lacking, and that following weekend parenting times, the Children displayed anxiety due to their negative experiences with Shauna.

55With reference to a two week communication blackout, David asked Shauna for proof that this was caused by a blood infection as she maintained, and not a suspected drug overdose situation. While he was promised medical documents to support the position of Shauna, no such documents were ever provided.

56In referencing an affidavit of Shauna sworn January 21, 2025, David presented evidence, including:

a) the relationship with Jason Forbes did include physical abuse;

b) Shauna had used recreational drugs in the past;

c) the Children were left alone overnight with Casey, Shauna’s child from a previous relationship, on several occasions after Shauna put them to bed and then left her residence, not returning until the morning;

d) an admission that Shauna struggles with mental health, including PTSD, depression and anxiety;

e) at times the Children were not sent to school because she did not have lunch food for them;

f) making ends meet was challenging and exacerbating to her mental and physical health; and

g) an admission that Shauna was not in the best mental and emotional head space, requiring extra support.

57Other evidence cited as facts by David regarding Shauna included:

• she has refused support from her mother and sister because they reached out to CAS and reported concern for the Children’s safety;

• following an incident of intimate partner violence, Shauna admitted in a text to David that she was overwhelmed and broke, and that the Children’s best interests were served by being in his care;

• monthly government assistance monies are spent to support the addictions of Shauna;

• on March 15, 2025, Shauna showed up to pick up the Children pale with a black eye, suggesting continued contact with Jason Forbes; and

• on May 10, 2025, Shauna showed up to pick up the Children with a friend carrying a paper bag and a handful of cash, which appeared to be evidence of a drug transaction according to David.

58Issues regarding the Children’s schooling were also described in David’s affidavit, including:

• a letter dated January 4, 2023 from the Children’s principal expressing concern about their attendance, citing 26 days absence and 30 days late for Max, and 23 days absent and 38 days late for Ivy;

• Shauna failed to pick up the Children at after-school care on November 29, 2024 because she fell asleep, and this required David to step in;

• the admission by Shauna that due to Ivy’s anxiety, she does not always force her to go to school;

• a January 5, 2025 text from Ivy’s teacher suggesting that regular attendance would help her thrive;

• from September 2022 to June 2025, Ivy and Max missed 132 days while in the care of Shauna, and only 44 days while in the care of David; and

• since David exercised primary care of the Children as of January 2025, the attendance at school was “normalized”.

59While exercising weekend parenting since January 2025, David maintained that Shauna was unable to get Max to his Saturday soccer league games. She also did not participate in Ivy’s school trip to Kingfisher and Family Day activities. A Daycare event on June 10, 2025 was not attended by Shauna. On June 21, 2025, David had to step in during the Respondent’s Shauna’s parenting and transport Max to and from a friend’s birthday party as well as purchasing a gift. Shauna did not attend counselling sessions for the Children in 2025.

60Shauna has either entirely missed weekend parenting times, or consistently shown up late for morning pick up times.

61With respect to Shauna’s alleged drug use, the evidence of David was the following:

a) Shauna admitted to illicit drug use;

b) while she agreed to submit herself to random drug testing, this never happened;

c) while agreeing to stay away from Jason Forbes, an alleged drug dealer, the van of Shauna was seen at his apartment overnight on December 20, 2024, and she admitted seeing him in January 2025;

d) the van of Shauna was seen parked in “known drug user parking lots” by neighbours who told David;

e) David refused parenting time to Shauna due to a drug hangover;

f) Shauna walks around in a daze, not knowing the day or time, and looks extremely unwell; and

g) a friend, Paige Johnson, put an affidavit together dated January 10, 2025 outlining her concerns for the safety of the Children due to drug dealers and gang-affiliated individuals being around the Children.³

62Another incident described by David involved the Children’s paediatrician attempting to make arrangements through Shauna to have the Children genetically tested in response to a rare blood clot issue found in David. Attempts to contact Shauna for this purpose were made on November 19, 26, December 3, 10, 2024 and January 24, 2025, all of which were unsuccessful. Eventually, David had to reactivate the Children’s status on the specialist list, and the Children were tested solely due to his efforts.

63Following the Court’s decision in January 2025 to designate David’s home as the primary residence, as well as granting him decision-making authority, improvements have been made with respect to the Children’s school marks, sports, social time with friends, and mental health. Some comments from counsellors and educators include:

• since the change of homes, educators have observed a positive change in Ivy’s demeanor and confidence;

• Max appears well rested, less fatigued, more resilient to distractions, less prone to immediate anger;

• Ivy’s attendance from September 2024 to June 2025 is almost perfect;

• Ivy’s grades went from Good to Excellent; and

• Max’s grades went from Satisfactory to Good, with the teacher noting progress and focus.

64In addition, it is David’s assessment that the Children have flourished since residing with him, and are less stressed, more successful in school and have more friends. Counselling was arranged which resulted in significant improvements. While in his primary care, the Children have also learned to downhill ski, roller blade, swim at the Complex pool, and paddle board.

65David also provided a list of dates when Shauna was to exercise parenting, but issues arose complicating this scheduled time with the Children:

1. On February 22, 2025, Shauna was two hours late without any explanation.

2. On March 1, 2025, she was two hours late.

3. On March 8, 2025, she was 35 minutes late without any reason.

4. On March 22, 2025, without any explanation, Shauna showed up at the home of David 8.5 hours after the scheduled pick up time without any explanation.

5. On April 5, 2025, she was 21 minutes late.

6. On April 12, 2025, the Children were picked up 2 hours late.

7. On April 20, 2025, the Children were not brought to the home of David, citing the lack of money for the gas required to get the Children home, forcing David to drive to a McDonald’s and pick up the Children.

8. On April 26, 2025, she was 24 minutes late without any reason.

9. On April 27, 2025, she was 1 hour and 7 minutes late for the 5:00 p.m. return.

10. On May 3, 2025, she was 1 hour and 6 minutes late picking up the Children, stating that she was getting groceries.

11. On May 10, 2025, she was 23 minutes late without providing a reason.

12. On May 17, 2025, she was 32 hours late, stating she was sick, that she lost her phone, and without notice cancelled parenting.

13. On May 23, 2025, she was 2 hours and 5 minutes late, citing the fact that she was sick, her phone died, and that she fell asleep.

14. On May 25, 2025, she was not home overnight and the Children were watched by Casey, the daughter of Shauna.

15. On May 31, 2025, she was 3 hours late because her van was not working.

16. On June 7, 2025, she was 8 hours late because her van broke down on the other side of town, so she borrowed a bicycle from a friend but then that broke down as well.

17. On June 14, 2025, she was 30 hours late, and stated that her phone was not working, nor was her van, and claimed that the buses were not running. While the Children were at Shauna’s mother’s house, she showed up and wanted to take the Children, but did not have transportation. Issues arose such that the police were called to diffuse the situation.

66In summary, David’s evidence was that over the past year, since the beginning of 2025 when the Children were under his primary care, during which the parenting time of Shauna was limited, the Children have flourished. In addition, instead of Shauna taking the time to improve upon her situation, things have gotten worse and no improvement has been made.

67Shauna then cross-examined David, challenging his evidence by questioning the basis for his negative assessment of her parenting skills.

68During her cross examination, David admitted the following:

• while very rare, there were times when he did not answer the door when Shauna attended to pick up the Children for weekend parenting;

• there were times when David advised her that the Children did not want to come for weekend parenting;

• some messages, emails, texts, or communications to Shauna were harsh and/or critical;

• when David moved to another residence, he did not tell Shauna until the day before she was scheduled to pick up the Children for a parenting weekend;

• while making the statement that Shauna owes Jason Forbes $30,000 as a drug debt, the only proof which David had in this regard is what he was told by family members and friends of Shauna;

• David had no proof that Shauna went through a drug overdose scenario when she missed a parenting weekend;

• there is a fluctuating estrangement in the relationship between Shauna and her sister and mother, and approximately a year before the trial her mother moved out of Shauna’s residence;

• David believed that Shauna was spending her monthly government assistance to support her addictions without any proof other than she never seemed to have any money;

• the allegation that Shauna attended to pick up the Children with a paper bag full of cash from a drug transaction was based on hearsay evidence from a process server, and when asked if there was any evidence of a paper bag and a wad of cash, David stated “I wouldn’t know. You’d have to ask the process server”;

• in terms of Jason Forbes being a drug dealer, David did not have any proof except that it’s well known, in addition to this fact being set out in a Request to Admit to which Shauna did not respond and, therefore, admitted;

• with respect to the evidence of David that Shauna’s van was parked in known drug use parking lots, this was entirely based on what others had told him;

• insofar as Shauna refusing parenting over a May long weekend due to a drug hangover, David admitted that there was no proof that this was the actual reason, and his evidence was based on a safe assumption because she did not show up; and

• when David stated a CAS worker was unable to arrange a visit with Shauna, this was because the worker wanted to visit Shauna with the Children during the worker’s weekday working hours, and when David was asked to accommodate a visit with the Children outside of the weekend parenting time, he refused.

Property Claims of David

69During the trial, aside from filing a financial statement and a net family property statement, no evidence was introduced by affidavit or orally by David with respect to any financial circumstances.

70No evidence was led addressing the values of properties or debts, neither at the date of marriage nor the date of separation. Aside from that contained within the sworn financial statement of David, no evidence was led relating to the incomes of the parties, nor any details of expenses associated with the parenting of the Children.

71The absence of evidence in this regard was not raised nor addressed during the trial. After both parties had introduced their evidence, and during the closing arguments of David, submissions were made with respect to an equalization of net family property. At that time, the absence of an evidentiary foundation was raised, and David was asked to reference the evidence he was relying upon to support his claims.

72David stated that it was his understanding that all that was required for him to make a claim for an equalization payment from Shauna was the filing of a financial statement and a net family property statement. He pointed to the trial management endorsement in support of this position, which provided the following:

If either Mr. King or Ms. King decide to claim any relief involving the financial circumstances of the parties, such as support or an equalization of net family property, an updated and current Financial Statement and Net Family Property Statement shall be prepared, served and filed on or before October 31, 2025.

73The purpose of this portion of the endorsement was to provide notice to the opposing party of the claims being advanced. It would also set the framework for any evidence to be presented in support of the figures provided in those documents.

74The trial management endorsement also provided:

It has been agreed that [David] can file affidavit evidence in lieu of calling viva voce testimony from himself or witnesses at trial. Of course, this does not mean that there will be no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses should that be deemed necessary. As such, Mr. King will prepare, serve and file all of his affidavit evidence, with all relevant documents attached as exhibits, on or before October 24, 2025.

75Similar language is found in the endorsement directed to Shauna.

76It was always the intention of the endorsement to encourage the parties to focus before trial in order to identify and produce the evidence they thought relevant to their positions. It was not the point of the endorsement to advise the parties that in order to make a claim for financial relief, all that had to be introduced into court was a sworn financial statement and an unsworn net family property statement.

77During closing submissions, this was discussed in detail with David. I also explained the process of making a motion to request that the trial be re-opened so that additional evidence could be introduced. After a fulsome discussion with respect to this option, David advised the court that he was abandoning his claim for an equalization of net family property – notwithstanding his assessment it was worth approximately $60,000 to him – due to the fact that he did not want to cause any further delay to the trial process and instead wanted the trial to be over.

78Since these issues arose on the third and last day which had been booked for the trial, it was clear that advancing a motion to re-open the trial would have required sufficient notice to Shauna so that she could respond. As well, if the motion was successful, David had referred to a box of documents he had with him which supported his financial claims, and these would have to be provided to Shauna for review. Additional time would also be required to introduce the documents, and to allow for cross examination.

79All of this meant that in order to proceed with the claim for an equalization of net family properties, the trial would have had to been adjourned and new dates scheduled, likely taking several months, if not more, to set up.

80David was not willing to wait this long, underlying his decision to abandon his property claims.

Evidence of Shauna

81As already addressed in this decision, Shauna ignored the trial management directions provided, and she did not file any affidavit materials in advance of the commencement of trial.

82Shauna also did not provide David with any documents before the trial commenced. Nor did Shauna identify any witnesses – names, addresses and contact information – whom she intended to present to provide evidence in support of her position.

83After trial commenced, Shauna did have the opportunity to provide David with some documents, and that process was addressed at the outset of this decision.

84Shauna also requested an opportunity to lead evidence through her daughter, Casey. However, due to the failure to comply with the trial management directions – no notice, no will say, and no contact information provided to David – including the fact that she only made her request after the trial had commenced without providing any notice to David, I exercised my discretion and denied her request in this regard.

85Shauna was accordingly invited to take the stand, and after she was affirmed, to provide her evidence with respect to the relevant issues before the court.

Evidence in Chief

86As already noted, Shauna did not file an affidavit in advance of the trial. Instead, she presented her evidence orally, and then was cross examined by David.

87In addressing allegations that she refused in the past to cooperate with the Children’s Aid Society, Shauna said that she was always willing to subject herself to an interview with the children in the presence of a CAS worker. But Shauna said that no such assessment occurred because she was unable to secure David’s agreement that the interview occur with the Children during a weekday. Because the CAS worker was not available on a Saturday or a Sunday, and due to the fact that Shauna only had parenting time with the Children on weekends, unless David agreed to vary the parenting schedule, then no meeting could occur with the CAS worker.

88Shauna indicated that she had a great rapport with the CAS worker, Kara, and admitted that she was a great resource who directed her to a lot of things that were helpful insofar as the Children were concerned.

89In terms of her willingness to act in the best interests of the Children, Shauna cited an example, supported by copies of text messages, in which she agreed to forego some parenting time when advised, at the last minute, of plans which David had made with the Children which they wished to attend.

I was given last-minute notice that I – that the plan was changing. And it was so that my daughter could spend some time with her friend. The only time I have with my children is on the weekend, and the only time that they have for themselves is also the weekend.

So I, I wanted to accommodate that, and you see at the very bottom “It wasn’t set in stone, but if [Ivy] was looking forward to this, how do I say no? I want what she wants.”

90Shauna testified that on one occasion in September 2025, she was provided with approximately 24 hours’ notice that David had moved his residence to another location, one which did not have access to bus service on the weekends. Shauna maintained that she should have been provided with at least 60 days’ notice of the move, and that advising her on such short notice made it difficult for her to make arrangements to exercise her weekend parenting.

91Shauna stated that there had been times when she was 10 minutes late in attending at David’s to pick up the Children for weekend parenting, and on that basis was refused parenting time. On one occasion, while in David’s driveway, she tried to phone or text, but got no answer. Then, while pulling out of the driveway, she noted her daughter in the window watching her leave.

92Shauna’s financial situation is challenging. She is currently waiting for geared-to-income housing, but in the interim pays $1,700 per month in rent while only receiving $2,200 in monthly social benefits.

93Without bus service, she has to make arrangements with friends, or a taxi or Uride, spending money that she cannot afford to spend. She described it as “disheartening” to show up and not be permitted parenting time with the Children because she was five minutes late.

94On some occasions when Shauna was not able to get to David’s on time – which is at 8:30 a.m. on both Saturday and Sunday – Shauna has not been allowed by David to pick up the Children where they were dropped off on his way to work.

95In response to the breach of the court order requiring parenting to occur at Shauna’s residence and not elsewhere, Shauna explained that due to a power outage, she took the Children to a friend’s backyard for a campout and stayed overnight. Because of that breach, Shauna lost overnight parenting.

96With respect to not attending some events involving the Children, Shauna said that she preferred not to be in the company of David because she finds him intimidating, condescending and insulting. In that she has little energy to deal with those things, Shauna chose to avoid David to preserve her energy.

97While she admitted her relationship with Jason Forbes was very abusive, the abuse was directed to Shauna and not the Children. Shauna stated the Children were never placed in a violent situation, that she has always kept the Children safe, and that she would never use drugs in front of the Children.

98Her relationship with Jason Forbes was completely cut off in January of 2025.

99She admitted that she suffered from mental health issues, and that based upon a diagnosis of PTSD, major depressive disorder, and anxiety, she is in receipt of Ontario Disability Benefits.

100This has resulted in Shauna seeing a counsellor for years, starting before she and David were married. While this was paused during her relationship with Jason Forbes, over the past six months she has returned to counselling. Depending on the circumstance, this can either be biweekly, or monthly. In addition, Shauna’s evidence was that she benefited greatly from exercise, and when faced with an anxiety attack, going for a run or a walk, yoga or meditation, can help her snap out of it.

101Shauna’s admission was accompanied with the acknowledgement that she sent text messages to David about her depression and how this has caused her to fail the Children.

My depression is so bad. Once again, I slept in, so the kids will be late to school today, and I’m sick of failing them in this way.

I’m failing at the one thing that means the most to me, being a great mom.

102Shauna also stated that if she could afford it, she would pay for private therapy, something of top quality, to get herself to a better place.

103In terms of what Shauna was hoping to get out of this trial process, she wanted to be able to spend some meaningful time with the Children. This means returning to the schedule which existed before the January 2025 court order was issued, which was a week about schedule.

104In fact, when the parties first separated, Shauna described the situation as a nesting arrangement, where both David and her lived in the matrimonial home and took on the care of the Children on a week about schedule. After less than a year, the house sold and David and Shauna secured their own residences, exercising a variable parenting schedule at first. Then, following the period of David’s illness and recuperation, the parties moved to a firm week about schedule until December 2024.

105In addressing the future parenting schedule, Shauna’s evidence included the following:

I’ve had some pretty serious allegations made against me. Slanderous. Relentless. With no evidence of anything. There’s been no concern from any professionals. No evidence, nothing to do with any impairment during my parenting time. No safety concerns. I would like that to be of note. And that there have been multiple occasions where the attempt has been to alienate me from my kids, and that this is time that I will not ever be able to get back.

I feel robbed. I’m not a bad person. And I love my children. I’m only asking for a meaningful and fair time with them. Because there’s, there’s a lot to repair here. I am – I may always be working on my mental health, but I don’t think that that’s a detriment to my parenting. And I want to focus on the present real evidence and not claims in documents from a year ago.

I am stable and I have been cooperative. I’m committed to anything that the court orders with respect to counselling or treatment, testing. I feel like my disability is being used as a weapon, which is discriminatory.

106With respect to the evidence of Debbie Robillard, Shauna stated:

And my mother and I have really never seen eye to eye. I’ve tried to make things right with her. As David had stated in court, that it has been up and down. It really has. I didn’t speak to my mother for three years, and as a result, she didn’t get to attend my wedding because of our differences, which is very unfortunate. But that’s an attestation to the credibility of what she has to say with respect to my parenting.

107Shauna made the following comments with respect to David:

Dave is actually a, a really good dad, I will say that. He is not very fair or kind to me, but he’s, he’s a really good dad. I just think, in the best interests of the children, that they would benefit from time with us both. I think that’s fair. We both love them very much.

A lot of times where it would appear that I’m not present is largely in part due to anxiety or, or a fear of having to deal with David. The anticipation of, of there being conflict, it, it – the conflict didn’t get worse, but my anticipation of it made things exacerbated for me. My anxiety would ramp up. And it’s, it’s very debilitating.

And that, that is why, in part, I would like to ask that our communication is limited and that we use a third party for the exchange.

108Finally, with respect to the Children:

. . . I want the opportunity to have the quality time with them. I love spending time with them. That’s a huge part of my identity, is that – at the risk of sounding – like, I won’t, I won’t compliment myself a whole lot, but I’m, I’m a really good mom. I’m proud of my, my parenting. I mean, I was, I was meant to be a mom. I’m not perfect. And I, I can be scattered and disorganized. But with respect to love and safety, I’m, I’m a really good mom.

David’s Cross Examination of Shauna

109When asked about the various lawyers which Shauna had retained, she explained that the first one did not communicate well with her and she let him go. The second counsel, Theodora Millward, was “amazing”, but she ended her retainer after an encounter with David which left Ms. Millward feeling unsafe. The final lawyer, Ms. Burkinshaw, discharged herself after Shauna was not getting back to her on a timely basis because Shauna was exhausted and was avoiding the situation.

110When asked why she did not attend the Trial Management Conference in June 2025, Shauna indicated that she suffered an anxiety attack.

111When asked about what happened on the first day of the trial when she did not return, Shauna indicated that she was suffering from a mental health crisis, and it did not occur to her at the time to correct her email to the court stating she was heading to the hospital after she decided to speak to her counsellor instead and take some medication.

112Shauna acknowledged that she missed periods of parenting and, at times, showed up late to pick up the Children.

113While she previously owned a van which she used for transportation, it broke down and, without money for a tow or repairs, it sat in Big Ed’s Pawn Shop’s parking lot for quite some time before it disappeared and, presumably, was stolen. This was not reported to the police, and the van has not been recovered.

114While there were requests to produce medical records which supported Shauna’s positions on not being a drug user and having a blood infection which interfered with parenting time, Shauna admitted she could provide these documents but had not because no court had ordered her to do so.

115In reviewing Requests to Admit, Shauna admitted sending the following in messages to David:

My depression is so bad. Once again, I slept in, so the kids will be late to school today, and I’m sick of failing them in this way. I’m failing at the one thing that means the most to me, being a great mom.

I’ll be honest with you, my depression is getting worse. I can’t seem to get myself to a better place. I want to pay for some actual private therapy, something that will be top quality, even if it means I have to go away to a mental health treatment centre.

My depression is so bad your help means a lot to me.

It is correct, I have – I had difficulty getting the children to school on time.

116In another Request to Admit to which Shauna only partially responded, the items for which she admitted or no reply was provided – and therefore are deemed admissions – include:

• she has been 15 to 30 minutes late in picking up the Children, and on occasion not picking them up at all;

• she left the Children overnight in her home without her being there;

• for parenting on June 14 and 15, 2025, she was 30 hours late to pick up the Children;

• that when she showed up at the residence of David on March 15, 2025, Shauna had a black eye;

• that she was invited but failed to attend a family windup celebration at the Children’s daycare on June 20, 2025;

• that she spends the vast majority of her time in Port Arthur doing illicit activities; and

• Shauna has refused to attend drug testing, therapy or counselling to treat her addictions.

117With respect to the last two points, Shauna did not explain why she failed to respond to these assertions of fact. However, evidence given in chief and cross did not support any illicit activities which she was committing. And with respect to addictions, no evidence was led which supported any addictions, with the evidence of Shauna being she never admitted to using illegal or illicit drugs.

118When asked if she had the financial resources to meet the daily needs of the Children more than a few hours a week, Shauna stated that with her no longer receiving the child tax benefit, she did not. This is why she could not afford birthday gifts for the children in 2025, and she thanked David for purchasing a gift under her name for Max’s birthday.

119When asked what is prohibiting her from being employed, she repeated her diagnosis of PTSD, anxiety and depression, and the fact that she is on ODSP which limits her ability to work.

120In terms of the black eye which Shauna had on one occasion, in answering questions she stated it was the result of a woman hitting her in the eye during a party. It was not caused by Jason Forbes.

121When eliciting evidence on cross about her mother, Shauna admitted that Debbie Robillard has taken an active role in assisting to raise the Children from time to time, and that she has probably spent more time with the Children than Shauna in 2025. While she did not believe her mother to be trustworthy or reliable, Shauna admitted that Debbie Robillard has the best interests of the Children at heart. Finally, Shauna acknowledged that Debbie Robillard said that David was a loving, caring and attentive father to the Children, and that she agreed with that assessment.

122When asked questions about her proportionate share of the expenses associated with the Children over the past three years, Shauna agreed that she did not contribute because she could not afford to.

123David put school records to Shauna which discussed the progress of the Children during 2025 when they were in the primary care of David. Shauna agreed that she had received this information from the Children’s school, and acknowledged the school’s comments.

124When shown a picture of girl holding a bag on her lap, Shauna denied that the bag was full of money.

125When shown a picture of a vehicle driven by Shauna with a woman in the passenger seat, Shauna denied the passenger was “passed out” under the influence of drugs, and instead said she was sleeping and under the influence of lack of sleep.

Decision

126Based upon the pleadings, in addition to the arguments and submissions of the parties, with reference to the draft orders prepared and submitted by both David and Shauna, I have been asked to decide the following issues:

1. With respect to the Children,

(a) who should have primary decision making authority,

(b) what is the primary residence of the Children,

(c) what is the parenting schedule for the Children, and

(d) who should be paying child support and in what amount.

2. Equalization of Net Family Property.

3. Spousal Support.

4. Costs.

5. Best Interests of the Children

127Section 16 of the Divorce Act provides the following considerations which must be taken into account when determining parenting time:

16(1) The court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or a contact order.

(2) When considering the factors referred to in subsection (3), the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h) and other relevant factor.

(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.

(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

(7) In this section, a parenting order includes an interim parenting order and a variation order in respect of a parenting order, and a contact order includes an interim contact order and a variation order in respect of a contact order.

128Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the Divorce Act also require a consideration of the best interests of the child:

7.1 A person to whom parenting time or decision-making responsibility has been allocated in respect of a child of the marriage or who has contact with that child under a contact order shall exercise that time, responsibility or contact in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the child.

7.2 A party to a proceeding under this Act shall, to the best of their ability, protect any child of the marriage from conflict arising from the proceeding.

129It is with these considerations in mind that I determine the issues relating to the Children.

Primary Residence and Primary Decision Making

130Since the order of Justice Pierce dated January 24, 2025, David has effectively had primary decision making responsibility with respect to the Children. The Children have resided primarily with him, with Shauna having weekend parenting.

131Commencing Saturday, January 25, 2025, Shauna was granted parenting time each weekend from Saturdays at 8:30 a.m. until Sundays at 5:00 p.m.

132However, after noting Shauna in contempt for her failure to provide financial disclosure and an Answer to the proceeding commenced by David, on March 27, 2025, Justice Fitzpatrick granted temporary primary decision making to David, with the Children to be primarily resident with him.

133The order of March 27, 2025 was then amended, on consent of David and Shauna, on June 26, 2025 such that any of Shauna’s overnight parenting time during the weekend would occur at her residence. In addition, the parties agreed that should overnight parenting not occur at Shauna’s residence, then she would forfeit overnight parenting and only exercise parenting on Saturdays from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Sundays from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

134Finally, Shauna’s parenting would be exercised by her picking up the Children from David’s house, and if she was more than 30 minutes late, parenting for that day would be forfeited.

135Shortly following the June 26, 2025 consent order, Shauna and the Children spent a night outside of her residence. Accordingly, by July 2025, Shauna’s parenting was limited to spending time with the Children during the day on Saturdays and Sundays.

136Evidence has also been led, as discussed earlier in these reasons, when Shauna did not attend David’s residence in time on a number of occasions to exercise parenting time for a particular day or weekend.

Assessment of the Current Situation

137Based upon the evidence presented during the trial, including documents from the Children’s school attesting to the improvement in their academic performance and overall well-being, the Children have responded positively to the decision limiting Shauna’s parenting time.

138This is reflected in the evidence provided by David from Courtney Gascon of the Children and Family Centre detailing positive assessments for Max and Ivy. In addition, school attendance records from École Elsie MacGill Public School support David’s position that the Ivy’s and Max’s marks improved following the changes to primary residence and parenting.

139This is contrasted with the evidence presented that during the week about schedule in place during the Fall of 2024, issues arose with respect to Shauna getting the Children to school on time, or at all, stemming from her mental health – sleeping in due to the depression – and financial challenges such as not being able to provide lunch for the Children to bring to school.

140Concerns with respect to the ability of Shauna to meet the best interests of the Children while in her care were exemplified over the course of 2025 and her participation in this litigation process. Obviously Shauna was aware that her parenting time was significantly reduced as of January 2025 due to allegations of her drug use and involvement in an unhealthy relationship with her boyfriend, Jason Forbes, as well as an unstable mental health situation.

141Despite losing the week about schedule, instead of responding to the allegations with evidence in support of her position that she is a good mother to the Children, and that alleged mental health issues or drug use issues were unfounded, Shauna ignored the litigation. While initially represented by counsel, and after being ordered to file financial disclosure and an Answer, she failed to do so and was found to be in contempt of the court order.

142After her lawyer decided to terminate Shauna’s retainer, a second lawyer was appointed, but whose retainer also terminated within a very short time period. Court dates were set up within 2025 at which Shauna did not attend, and the directions which were provided to her aimed at trial preparation were disregarded.

143At one point following a decision to note her in default and allow David to seek an uncontested trial, Shauna attended a conference late and requested time to file her paperwork. David agreed, providing her with an opportunity to address the issues being raised in an effort to supply the court with all the available and relevant evidence to make decisions with respect to the issues raised during this trial. While documents were then filed, thereafter trial management conferences were ignored and Shauna was no longer engaged with the process until the first day of trial.

144As already noted, on the first day of trial – which initially appeared to be proceeding on an uncontested basis – Shauna showed up a half hour late without being prepared to file any documents in support of her position, also requesting the opportunity to lead evidence through witnesses.

145After providing time for Shauna to get her paperwork in order – her request to call witnesses was denied as explained earlier in these reasons – she failed to return to court until the following day, again showing up late and still not prepared to share any documents she wished to introduce into evidence.

146While the rough start to the beginning of this trial was explained by Shauna as resulting from her mental health and anxiety, no medical evidence was presented to support her position or perhaps explain why she had failed to engage in the very process which was going to be determinative of her relationship with her Children. Given the importance of Shauna’s relationship with the Children, as was described during her evidence in chief, the fact that she failed to provide third party medical explanations for her past conduct on this significant issue is inexplicable.

147What is also concerning is the evidence presented by David as to the long list of dates which Shauna either showed up late to exercise parenting, or not at all. These were not disputed by Shauna, and while she pointed out the challenges of getting transportation between her residence and David’s, in many cases it was not a question getting to David’s residence. Shauna arrived, but later than was provided by her parenting schedule. Again, referring to the long list of dates, how important was the parenting time that Shauna failed to make timely arrangements or wake up earlier in order to pick up at the agreed upon time?

148In addition, while provided with overnight parenting each and every weekend, she intentionally breached the court order which facilitated overnight parenting and thereby forfeited valuable weekend parenting time.

149I accept the evidence of Shauna that she genuinely loves Ivy and Max, and that there were times in the past when she was a great mom to the Children. Obviously if it was not so, David would not have participated in a week about parenting schedule. I also find that based upon her evidence, she has insight into her situation by the admissions of her diagnoses of PTSD, anxiety and depression, and the fact that financially she is struggling. She also acknowledged that while David may not have been kind to her recently, he is a good dad and is doing a good job with the Children.

150Despite all of this, and her expressed desire to return to the week about schedule, for some reason she ignored the very court system which is charged with deciding the parenting issue.

151If spending time with the Children was so important to Shauna, why would she not show up on time on the weekends to pick them up? In some cases, she simply did not attend David’s house at all. But other times, she showed up late, knowing the terms of the court order meant in those circumstances parenting would be forfeited.

152If spending time with the Children was so important to Shauna, why would she breach a consent order within days of its issue date and forfeit overnight parenting with Ivy and Max?

153If spending time with the Children was so important to Shauna, why would she fail to file documents in support of her position, and also fail to attend court hearings designed to assess and determine the nature of the best interests of the Children?

154It could be in part due to her financial situation that she was unable to adequately participate in this litigation. Having said that, during 2025 she had secured two retainers with legal counsel, suggesting that opportunities to present a cogent response to the claims of David were not lost due to Shauna’s inability to access legal advice and support.

155There were allegations made by David that her boyfriend, Jason Forbes, was a bad influence on Shauna and the Children on account of his alleged involvement in the local drug trade. However, the evidence is clear that this relationship could have been a factor in 2024, but not after it ended in early 2025.

156Allegations were also made by David that Shauna herself is immersed in the local drug culture and this has impacted her physical health. However, the evidence presented in support of these allegations was pure hearsay without anything concrete to suggest Shauna has been impacted by the alleged use of street drugs.

157Putting these allegations involving Jason Forbes and illicit drug use aside, what is left is the admitted mental health issues impacting Shauna.

158She stated it was these very mental health issues which resulted in an anxiety attack and left her unable to return to court on the afternoon of the first day of trial.

159She admitted to attending counselling, once or twice a month, which has helped. Her main coping mechanism is exercise, which she relies on during periods of anxiety and which she explains is the reason for her recent weight loss.

160All this being said, David requested evidence in support of her physical and mental health, both in writing and in his attempts to prepare for the trial. Shauna’s response was that no court has ordered these documents to be produced. However, in directions provided at the trial management conferences, it was clear that adverse inferences could be drawn from the failure to respond to these requests for information which is relevant to the ability of Shauna to parent.

161It is also clear that the breakdown of the relationship between her and David has caused Shauna additional stress and anxiety, which means that the less David and Shauna have to interact face to face, the better.

162Again, knowing that these were ongoing issues impacting Shauna’s mental health, why would Shauna not want to provide evidence which supported her current situation with prognoses which could assist the court in determining how to best ensure the best interests of the Children were met?

163It therefore appears that the reason for Shauna’s situation – and perhaps the main reason – is the state of her mental health and any challenges she has had to address her PTSD and anxiety. Unfortunately, Shauna did not file any documents from her health care providers, including her counsellors, which would provide some insight into her well being. It would have been extremely helpful to the court if health care information was provided so as to support a go forward scheme of parenting in which the best interests of the Children could be assessed.

164In light of all these factors, I am not prepared to stray too far from the current parenting arrangement.

165This is not to say that Shauna does not have it in her to become the mother to the Children she used to be. Shauna’s insight to her personal situation supported a possible future where a week about schedule could be successfully implemented. Just not today.

166Considering the factors listed in s. 16 of the Divorce Act, I find that it is in the best interests of the Children that the parenting schedule with their mother be increased marginally to slowly re-introduce overnight parenting. This will serve to strengthen the relationship between the Children and Shauna, and also reduce the frequency of interactions between Shauna and David thus reducing the number of opportunities for conflict.

167Currently Shauna exercises parenting such that she picks up the Children each day of the weekend at 8:30 a.m., and drops them off at 5:00 p.m.

168In order to start the process of increasing parenting time for Shauna, commencing the second weekend following the release of this decision, Shauna shall be entitled to parenting each weekend commencing at 8:30 a.m. Saturday to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, which will include one overnight time period.

169After six weeks of this parenting schedule, in order to reduce the opportunity for contact and conflict between Shauna and David, Shauna shall be entitled to exercise parenting from after school on Fridays to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays, which will include two overnight periods of parenting.

170Once this parenting schedule has been successfully exercised by Shauna for six weeks, and if this twelve week parenting schedule is exercised by Shauna without incident, then it may be that the Children’s best interests are served by further expanding the parenting schedule. Should the parties not be able to agree to an expanded parenting schedule in appropriate circumstances supporting same, then if Shauna is able to provide sufficient health care evidence supporting her ability to manage a parenting schedule which is more than every weekend, this shall be deemed to be a material change in circumstances and a change to the parenting schedule can be sought.

171Notwithstanding the situation where a more expansive parenting schedule is or is not sought by Shauna, following the twelve week parenting schedule provided by this decision, David shall be entitled to have one weekend a month with the Children such that Shauna’s weekend overnight parenting schedule is suspended. Unless David and Shauna agree otherwise, David’s weekend parenting shall be scheduled every third weekend of each month, and will commence after school on Fridays and continue until the following Friday when Shauna’s parenting time begins.

Child Support and Arrears

172David claims child support to be payable by Shauna for the period of time during which the Children have been primarily resident with him commencing at the end of January 2025.

173The evidence filed by Shauna is that she earns $27,500 per year in ODSP benefits.

174The Federal Child Support Guidelines provide child support be paid for two children by a parent earning $27,500 annually in a monthly amount of $419.00.

175There being no reason for this child support to not be payable pursuant to the Guidelines, child support for the Children shall be payable by Shauna in the amount of $419.00 commencing February 1, 2025.

176With respect to special or extraordinary expenses contemplated by s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, including those related to extracurricular activities, those shall be payable by both parties in proportion to their incomes as established in the year previous to the expenses being incurred.

177For the purposes of this decision, s. 7 expenses in 2025 would be payable based upon David’s income in 2024 being $130,729.00 and Shauna’s 2024 income being $27,500, which proportionally means David pays 83% and Shauna pays 17%.

178This proportional sharing of s. 7 expenses, however, will not apply in 2025 on account of Shauna’s financial circumstances and the obligation to pay arrears of child support which this decision will impose upon Shauna. On an ability and means test basis, I am suspending Shauna’s obligation to pay s. 7 expenses for 2025.

179Shauna shall commence paying s. 7 expenses in 2026, in a proportional amount determined by Shauna and David’s 2025 income. This income information shall be exchanged between the parties as soon as their 2025 income tax forms have been filed with CRA.

180In terms of determining the appropriateness of s. 7 expenses, with the income disparity between David and Shauna, both will have a say in which s. 7 expenses are reasonable in relation to the best interests of the Children, and only those s. 7 expenses which are agreed upon as being reasonably incurred for the benefit of the Children shall be proportionally shared.

2. Equalization of Net Family Property

181Shauna did not advance a claim for an equalization payment from David.

182David did claim that Shauna owed him an equalization payment. However, as already discussed earlier in these reasons, David abandoned this claim during the trial.

183Accordingly, there are no findings made which support an order equalizing net family property, and that claim is dismissed.

3. Spousal Support

184David did not advance a claim for spousal support against Shauna, and Shauna did not file a claim for spousal support to be payable by David.

185Notwithstanding, Shauna asked the court in her opening and in her closing submissions for an order for spousal support.

186As already noted earlier in these reasons, notice of any position that Shauna was entitled to spousal support came halfway through the second day of trial when she finally provided her opening arguments to the court.

187She also made a general request for spousal support in her closing submissions, without any specific amount requested nor any reliance on the income situation of David, and no basis for entitlement – compensatory or non-compensatory – was argued by Shauna.

188The pleadings were finalized by Shauna at times when she had legal representation, yet she failed to make any request for spousal support in those pleadings.

189There being no claims for spousal support advanced, and insufficient evidence being led to support a claim for spousal support, no order for spousal support is considered nor made.

190To be clear, the claim of Shauna for spousal support is not being dismissed. This claim was never properly advanced within the context of this litigation such that it could be dismissed. As such, this decision is without prejudice to the rights of Shauna to advance such a claim in the future.

4. Divorce

191David and Shauna are seeking an order for divorce in addition to the other relief set out in their pleadings.

192I am satisfied that the evidence filed supports the issuing of a divorce order.

193Accordingly, an order shall issue such that David King and Shauna King, who were married on April 1, 2015 in the city of Santa Marta, Cardenas, in the province of Matanzas, Cuba, shall be divorced and that the divorce will take effect 31 days after the date of this decision.

Costs

194Following this decision, if either party wishes to seek an order for legal costs arising from the hearing of this matter, they shall file written submissions in support of their arguments.

195In this regard, the party seeking costs shall file written submissions limited to 5 pages, not including any attachments, within 20 days following the release of this decision.

196Any responding submissions should then be filed in writing, limited to 5 pages without counting any attachments, within 30 days following the release of this decision.

Conclusion

197Pursuant to the Divorce Act, the following relief shall be granted:

a) The primary residence of the Children shall be with David;

b) Primary decision making authority shall be awarded to David, but David shall consult with Shauna on major decisions impacting the health and the education of the Children;

c) Shauna shall exercise the following parenting time with the Children:

. On the second weekend following the date of this decision, Shauna shall exercise parenting from 8:30 a.m. on Saturdays to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays, this parenting schedule to continue for a period of six (6) weeks;

. After exercising weekend parenting which includes one overnight for six weeks, Shauna shall exercise parenting from after school on Fridays until 5:00 p.m. on Sundays; and

. Should Shauna exercise these twelve (12) weeks of parenting without incident, then upon filing sufficient medical evidence supporting an expanded parenting schedule, this shall be deemed to constitute a material change in circumstances supporting a request for a change to the parenting schedule;

d) After Shauna has exercised a period of twelve (12) weeks’ parenting such that Shauna spends weekends with the Children from after school on Fridays to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays, David shall be entitled to parenting time one weekend per month on the third weekend of each and every month commencing from after school on Fridays to the following Friday after school when Shauna’s parenting time begins;

e) Child support for the Children shall be payable by Shauna to David in the amount of $419.00 per month on the first of each and every month commencing February 1, 2025;

f) Commencing January 1, 2026, s. 7 expenses shall be payable by the parties in proportion to their annual incomes calculated in the year previous to the section 7 expenses being incurred, and only with respect to those s. 7 expense agreed upon by David and Shauna to be reasonably incurred for the best interests of the Children;

g) The claim of David for an equalization of net family property is hereby dismissed; and

h) A divorce order shall issue.

The Hon. Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski

Footnotes

1. 1No corroborating evidence was provided to support this allegation, nor did Debbie Robillard’s evidence include a description of the non-prescription drugs.
2. 2The identity of the “close friends” was not provided, nor were any details of their concerns.
3. 3This affidavit was referenced in David’s affidavit. An affidavit of Paige Johnson was not filed as part of the record in this trial.