Court File and Parties
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KRAEMER JAMES WARREN PESTELL Applicant
– and –
MARJOLAINE MARYSE WILES Respondent
COUNSEL:
Robert Cunningham, counsel, for the Applicant
The Respondent, self-represented
HEARD: April 20, 21, 22, 27 & 28, 2026 at Woodstock
Reasons for Judgment
1To the credit of the parties, counsel Mr. Cunningham, and Mr. Justice Leach, who conducted an extensive judicial mediation, the parties were able to settle almost all of the many issues that had remained outstanding, and which had not already been resolved through previous consent orders of this court. The mediation resulted in the final order of Leach J. dated April 2, 2026, which was made pursuant to Minutes of Settlement. Among other things, this order provided for joint decision-making authority regarding the child of the relationship, Harper Elaine Pestell, born November 10, 2021, and resolved many issues that require decisions to be made, such as communication, medical, educational and religious decisions, extracurricular activities, and so on. It also dealt with property issues and disposed of the issue of spousal support.
2The sole issue that remains to be decided by this court is how parenting time is to be allocated between the parents. The respondent asks for a continuation of the status quo, whereby all of Harper’s waking hours are divided equally between the parties, but the respondent has a greater share of the child’s overnight time, due to the current requirement that Harper be returned to the respondent at 8:15 p.m. at the end of Harper’s time with the applicant, instead of remaining with him for the night, and being put on the school bus the next morning.
3The applicant proposes that, on those two nights per week and at the end of his alternate weekends with Harper, the child be allowed to remain in his care until the next morning, when she would be put on the school bus, and would start her next segment of time with the respondent at the end of the school day. This proposal would result in the parties’ parenting time being exactly equal, both during Harper’s waking and sleeping hours. The report by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer supports this proposal.
4Since, under the current arrangement, the applicant has Harper in his care approximately 35% of the time, he pays the full table amount of child support. If the applicant’s proposal is accepted by the court, each party would have the child 50% of the time. In that event, child support would, by agreement of the parties, be calculated on a table-offset basis.
Background:
5The applicant is 32 years of age, and the respondent is 43. The respondent has a son, Jordan, from a prior marriage to Daniel Wiles, with whom she shares parenting on an equal basis. Jordan is currently 18 years old.
6The parties began living together in the fall of 2019, and agreed that they would have a child together by in vitro fertilization. Harper was born two years later.
7The applicant is a firefighter, employed by the City of London. As is common for firefighters, he works 24-hour shifts, from 7 a.m. one day until 7 a.m. the next. His schedule is set up on an 8-week cycle, whereby he will work one 24-hour shift, have the next 24 hours off, work another 24-hour shift, then have the next 5 days off. Since this covers a period of 8 days, the pattern shifts forward by one day each week, so that by the end of an 8-week cycle it will be back where it started from.
8The respondent is a paramedic, employed by Oxford County EMS. She works 12-hour shifts, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. She is normally on a 2-2-3 rotation where, for example, she will work Monday and Tuesday, be off Wednesday and Thursday, then work Friday, Saturday and Sunday. She will then be off Monday and Tuesday, work Wednesday and Thursday, and be off Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
9She is also sometimes on a supervisor shift, where she works 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., or vice versa. It is on a 24-hour rotation.
10The respondent was on maternity leave following the birth of Harper in November, 2021, until September, 2022. Understandably, she was the primary caregiver of the child during this period, because she was home and available, and was also breastfeeding. The applicant did his part by working to support the family, given the reduction in the respondent’s income from being on leave. He added some overtime shifts to his regular rotation, and also continued to work two jobs on the side, one of which was farm work and the other of which involved grooming snowmobile trails for a snowmobiling association during the winter months. He still works at those two jobs at present, although each is seasonal.
11Following her return to work, the respondent developed PTSD due to a work-related incident, and was placed on leave for about one year.
12As it was put during the course of this trial, the parties did not bring out the best in each other. From the applicant’s perspective, the respondent became very short with him, constantly criticizing him and blaming him daily for whatever he did or didn’t do. His response was to avoid conflict by agreeing to disagree, and to distance himself from the respondent. From the respondent’s perspective, she described the applicant’s behaviour as “explosive”, which led to conflict. She testified, though, that he had ADHD, which was not diagnosed until 2021, after which he started taking medication