K.S. v. S.N., 2026 ONSC 2675

K.S. v. S.N., 2026 ONSC 2675

CITATION: K.S. v. S.N., 2026 ONSC 2675 COURT FILE NO.: 2024-01 DATE: 2026-05-06

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

K.S. Applicant

– and –

S.N. Respondent

COUNSEL: Self-represented, for the Applicant Krystal Lacroix Prud’homme, for the Respondent

HEARD: April 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, 2026

JUDGMENT

M. SMITH J

1This high-conflict parenting trial is about G.N.S., born on [… 2023] (“the child”).

2The Applicant seeks a declaration that she is the child’s sole legal parent, within the meaning of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”). Alternatively, she seeks primary residence, sole decision-making responsibility and that the parenting time of the Respondent be limited to every second weekend.

3The Respondent seeks, amongst other things, a declaration that she is the child’s parent, that the child’s primary residence be with her, and that the Applicant’s parenting time be limited to every second weekend. In terms of decision-making responsibility, the Respondent submits that it should be shared between the parties but that the final decision remains with the Respondent if there is a disagreement.

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4The parties started a relationship sometime in 2020 or 2021. They never cohabited in a permanent or continuous manner.

5In or around the Fall of 2022, the parties discussed the idea of having a child. The Respondent’s friend, M.K., agreed to be a sperm donor.

6The child was born on […2023].

7The parties separated in mid-August 2023.

8On the child’s birth certificate, the Respondent is listed as a parent. The Applicant alleges that she did not consent to this registration, saying that she was not able to make fully informed or independent decisions because of her physical and emotional condition following childbirth.

9The parties initially shared parenting of the child. In late September 2023, the Applicant withheld him from the Respondent, claiming that she was concerned about the child’s health.

10The Respondent commenced a proceeding at the Cour Supérieure de Québec (“Quebec proceedings”). Justice Bédard rendered a decision on December 6, 2023, making the following findings:

a) The parties are the child’s mothers.

b) E.G. is the child’s godmother.

c) In or around August 11, 2023, they ceased their relationship and established a shared custody arrangement, on a week-about basis.

d) As of September 29, 2023, the Applicant refused to maintain the shared custody arrangement, alleging that the frequent change in environment adversely affected the child, who refused feedings upon his return and experienced difficulty falling asleep.

11Applying the principles governing habitual residence, Justice Bédard found that the court lacked jurisdiction to determine the parenting arrangements. However, considering the urgency of the situation and the fact that the Applicant had refused all contact between the child and the Respondent, the court issued a safeguard order. The court concluded that it was in the child’s best interests that the Respondent be granted parenting time every three days from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., commencing on December 9, 2023. The exchanges were to take place in the presence of E.G. at the Costco located on Blair Road in Ottawa. Should E.G. be unavailable, the exchanges were to instead occur at the Association des familles monoparentales et recomposées de l’Outaouais.

12On January 2, 2024, the Applicant commenced the within Application. She sought the following relief: child support, decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and a restraining/non-harassment order.

13From January 14, 2024, until April 13, 2024, the Applicant refused all contact between the child and the Respondent.

14On April 15, 2024, the parties appeared before Justice Champagne and reached the following agreement: the Respondent was to have supervised parenting time on four occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., followed by unsupervised parenting time twice per week. The Applicant refused to honour this arrangement.

15On June 7, 2024, Justice Labrosse ordered increased parenting time for the Respondent.

16On September 20, 2024, Justice Flaherty ordered another increase of the Respondent’s parenting time.

17On October 28, 2024, Justice Holowka ordered a further increase of the Respondent’s parenting time, namely from Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. until Friday at 6:00 p.m. during the first week of the cycle and from Friday at 8:00 a.m. until Monday at 8:00 a.m during the second. This parenting schedule has remained since then.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS

18There is no doubt that the Applicant and the Respondent both love their child. However, I am of the view that they are taking unreasonable positions when it comes to limiting the other’s parenting time with the child, contrary to his best interests.

19The Applicant and the Respondent each filed comprehensive affidavits, supplemented by their oral testimony. The Applicant called her sister, her partner and her mother as witnesses, two of whom filed affidavits. The Respondent called her partner, a friend and the sperm donor, with affidavits from two of these witnesses.

20Credibility and reliability are important in this case given the various allegations raised by both parties. I do not have to believe or disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant or the Respondent in its entirety. I may accept none or part of their evidence, and I may also attach different weight to different parts of their evidence.

21Although the Applicant was composed during her testimony, I found that she was, at times, unresponsive and evasive. For example, when asked directly whether the parties had agreed to a shared parenting arrangement, she stated only that there was no formal agreement, instead of addressing whether an agreement had in fact been reached. She gave the same type of response when asked whether the parties had agreed to name E.G. as godmother, once again declining to answer the question directly.

22The Applicant and her witnesses demonstrated a tendency to exaggerate evidence they viewed as supportive of their case and to downplay evidence they considered adverse. They advanced a strongly negative portrayal of the Respondent, seeking to depict her as an unfit parent. I found that this one‑sided narrative undermined their credibility. In specific reference to the Applicant’s witnesses, I found that they demonstrated a lack of neutrality.

23Conversely, I found that the Respondent and her witnesses gave their evidence in a clear, measured, and straightforward manner, without any apparent exaggeration or embellishment. I did not find their evidence to be meaningfully challenged on cross-examination.

24The Respondent had ample reason to be critical of the Applicant, yet she largely refrained from doing so. The Respondent’s testimony was calm and balanced, and it was not delivered in an emotional or reactive manner, despite the Applicant’s past behaviour.

25Since the child’s birth, the Applicant has engaged in a pattern of unreasonable conduct, including questioning the Respondent’s parentage, denying the Respondent’s parenting time contrary to court orders, and failing to keep the Respondent informed regarding the child’s health and medical appointments. In effect, the Applicant has treated the Respondent as a non‑parent, repeatedly erecting obstacles and failing to support or encourage the development of the Respondent’s relationship with the child throughout these proceedings.

26I find the Respondent’s evidence to be more credible and reliable. As such, where the evidence of the parties conflict, I prefer the evidence of the Respondent, unless otherwise expressly indicated.

27I do not plan on summarizing all the evidence at trial, whether it be documentary evidence or oral testimony. That is not to say that the evidence not specifically mentioned in this Judgment was not a factor in my decision.

ISSUES

28The issues to be determined in this case are:

a) Should a declaration be made that the Applicant is the sole legal parent?

b) In the negative, what parenting order should be made with respect to the child’s primary residence, decision-making responsibility, the parenting schedule, child support and special or extraordinary expenses?

c) Is the Respondent entitled to compensation for her personal belongings?

ANALYSIS

Issue #1 – Should a declaration be made that the Applicant is the sole legal parent?

Legal principles

29Section 13 of the CLRA reads as follows:

Declaration of parentage, general

13 (1) At any time after a child is born, any person having an interest may apply to the court for a declaration that a person is or is not a parent of the child.

Exception, adopted child

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the child is adopted.

Declaration

(3) If the court finds on the balance of probabilities that a person is or is not a parent of a child, the court may make a declaration to that effect.

Restriction

(4) Despite subsection (3), the court shall not make any of the following declarations of parentage respecting a child under that subsection unless the conditions set out in subsection (5) are met:

1. A declaration of parentage that results in the child having more than two parents.

2. A declaration of parentage that results in the child having as a parent one other person, in addition to his or her birth parent, if that person is not a parent of the child under section 7, 8 or 9.

Conditions

(5) The following conditions apply for the purposes of subsection (4):

1. The application for the declaration is made on or before the first anniversary of the child’s birth, unless the court orders otherwise.

2. Every other person who is a parent of the child is a party to the application.

3. There is evidence that, before the child was conceived, every parent of the child and every person in respect of whom a declaration of parentage respecting that child is sought under the application intended to be, together, parents of the child.

4. The declaration is in the best interests of the child.

30Pre-conception intent is an important consideration in a declaration made pursuant to s. 13 of the CLRA: M.R.R. v. J.M., 2017 ONSC 2655, at para. 85.

31Entitlement to parentage should not be denied except in limited and exceptional circumstances. In the absence of a valid surrogacy agreement, it is difficult to envisage other circumstances in which a court would issue a declaration of non‑parentage. Where a parent seeks such a declaration without the support of a written agreement, the likelihood of success is significantly diminished: M.D. v. T.K., 2021 ONSC 8514, at paras. 23 and 24.

Discussion

32The Applicant’s request to declare that the Respondent is not the parent of the child is denied for two reasons.

33The first reason that the Applicant’s request must fail is that there was pre-conception intent that the Applicant and the Respondent were going to act as the child’s parents. Based on the evidence before me, I make the following findings of fact with respect to the parties’ pre-conception intentions:

a) During the relationship, the parties made the decision to have a child that they would parent together. While the Applicant was initially hesitant, she agreed to start a family with the Respondent.

b) The Respondent always wanted to have a child.

c) Prior to the child’s birth, the Respondent purchased and accumulated baby clothing and obtained all necessary items for the child, including a crib, baby bottles, pacifiers, and products used to treat colic.

d) The Applicant agreed to carry the child on behalf of the parties.

e) The parties agreed to select E.G. as the child’s godmother.

f) M.K. agreed to provide his sperm to the Respondent. An agreement between the Respondent and M.K. was signed on November 5, 2022, to this effect.

g) The Applicant agreed to be inseminated with the sperm of M.K.

h) The Respondent is the person that carried out the at-home insemination of the Applicant.

i) The Respondent was present during the birth of the child and cut the umbilical cord.

34The parties did not convert their intentions to a written agreement, and the Applicant has failed to convince me that the parties agreed that the Respondent would not be the child’s parent. To the contrary, I am satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that the parties conducted themselves in a manner consistent with a shared intention to become parents together.

35The second reason that the Applicant’s request must fail is that no Application for a declaration of non-parentage was brought on or before the first anniversary of the child’s birth in accordance with s. 13(5)1 of the CLRA. The Applicant commenced her Application on January 2, 2024, and did not seek a declaration of non-parentage.

36The Applicant says that her Application did not fully reflect the issues as they are now understood. It is submitted that, at the time that her Application was prepared, the Applicant did not have the benefit of complete information and relied on the evidence then available to me. The Applicant argues that, through the evidence adduced at trial, additional facts and material inconsistencies emerged that were not known, and could not reasonably have been known, when the Application was commenced.

37I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s submission that evidence presented at trial would have changed her position regarding non-parentage. Also, at no time during these proceedings, except informally at trial, did the Applicant seek to amend her Application to include a declaration of non-parentage. More importantly, the Applicant did not raise the issue of parentage during the Quebec proceedings, which resulted in that court concluding that the Applicant and the Respondent are the child’s parents.

38Moreover, in light of the positive impact the Respondent has had on the child and continues to have in his life, a declaration that the Respondent is not a parent would not serve the child’s best interests.

39Having regard to all the circumstances, I find the Respondent to be the child’s parent.

Issue #2 – What parenting order should be made with respect to the child’s primary residence, decision-making responsibility, the parenting schedule, child support and special or extraordinary expenses?

Legal principles

40The only factor to be considered by the court when making a parenting order is the best interests of the child: s. 24(1) of the CLRA.

41In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being: s. 24(2) of the CLRA.

42The factors related to the circumstances of the child, as set out in s. 24(3) of the CLRA, include:

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 parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life.

c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent.

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 co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child.

j) any family violence and its impact.

Discussion

43Having considered the totality of the circumstances and the factors as set out below, I conclude that it is in the child’s best interests that his primary residence be with the Respondent, that decision-making responsibility be shared, and that an equal parenting schedule be implemented.

Ability and willingness to care for the child and meet his needs

44The Applicant maintains that the Respondent does not offer the child a consistent and stable care environment. She points to what she characterizes as a pattern of instability, including unstable employment, reliance on multiple caregivers, daycare placement, and the child’s difficulty transitioning to the Respondent’s care. The Applicant submits that the child becomes upset following transitions and requires time to regulate, and that these concerns have intensified rather than diminished.

45The Applicant maintains that, when the child is in her care, he is happy, energetic, and well engaged in what she describes as a stable and consistent environment. She describes him as affectionate, responsive to routine, and interacting positively with others. I accept the Applicant’s evidence in this regard.

46The Applicant and her partner further assert that, before and during transitions, the child becomes distressed, clingy, and resistant, crying and attempting to avoid separation. They state that, following transitions, he appears fatigued and less engaged, experiences disruptions in eating and sleep, and wakes during the night calling out for the Applicant or her partner. The Applicant states that these transitions create a continuing cycle of distress that has not improved.

47The Applicant is critical of the Respondent’s caring abilities, stating that she has medical and safety concerns. She says that she has observed inconsistencies between what the Respondent reports and what she observes when the child is returned to her care.

48I do not accept the Applicant’s evidence regarding her medical and safety concerns vis-à-vis the Respondent, or the distress she alleges the child experiences after being returned to her care by the Respondent. I find that the Applicant’s testimony reflects a tendency to embellish the circumstances. In contrast, the Respondent’s evidence was more measured and, in my view, more credible.

49I recognize that transitions pose challenges for the child. However, the evidence demonstrates that, on several occasions, the Applicant and her family have contributed to the child’s distress during exchanges with the Respondent. They have done so by filming the exchanges in direct contravention of a court order, as well as through other negative and inappropriate conduct. In these circumstances, it is neither unexpected nor surprising that the child becomes upset during the transitions. That said, the Respondent’s evidence, which I accept, is that she can settle and reassure the child quickly after the exchanges conclude. He returns to being a happy and joyful child.

50I find that the Respondent has demonstrated a parenting ability to meet the child’s needs, including by providing a stable environment:

a) He eats well and sleeps through the night, with regular naps during the day.

b) He is happy and relaxed, and he does not demonstrate signs of stress. He actively seeks the Respondent’s presence and comfort.

c) He participates in a variety of artistic activities, including painting and modelling clay, which he enjoys.

d) He attends daycare, where he has developed friendships, routine and a sense of stability, as corroborated by the daycare’s educator. The Respondent walks the child to daycare with a neighbour and her slightly older child, a routine the child enjoys.

e) He has a positive relationship with the Respondent’s partner’s four children, whom he loves and who often ask for him.

51I conclude that both parents are genuinely invested in ensuring that the child’s physical and emotional needs are met on a daily basis.

52The Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent is unable to meet the child’s needs are misplaced and not supported by the evidence.

Nature and strength of the child’s relationship with both parents

53By all accounts, the child enjoys a loving relationship with both the Applicant and the Respondent.

54Despite the Applicant’s efforts to sabotage the relationship between the Respondent and the child, I am satisfied that the evidence supports a finding that the child has a strong attachment and bond to the Respondent.

Each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent

55The Applicant does not support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the Respondent.

56By seeking a declaration that the Respondent is not a parent, the Applicant has signalled to the court that she does not support the continuation of the relationship between the child and the Respondent. Also, her conduct more generally further demonstrates a lack of support for that relationship.

a) After the child’s birth, the parties agreed to shared parenting. On October 6, 2023, the Applicant refused to return the child to the Respondent’s care.

b) The Applicant has refused access to the child’s medical records and health card.

c) On November 28, 2023, the Respondent obtained a parenting order from Justice Bédard in the Quebec proceedings whereby she was to exercise her parenting time with the child every three days. The Applicant did not abide by the order of Justice Bédard. Between January 14, 2024 and April 13, 2024, the Applicant refused to allow the Respondent to see her child.

d) On May 1, 2024, contrary to the agreement reached between the parties, the Applicant did not attend the exchange for the Respondent’s parenting time.

e) In multiple communications with the Respondent, the Applicant asserted that the child is not the Respondent’s son. The Respondent alleges that the Applicant made similar statements in the child’s presence. Given the Applicant’s broader pattern of conduct aimed at undermining the relationship between the Respondent and the child, I accept the Respondent’s evidence on this point.

f) The Applicant refused to share parenting time during holidays and special occasions.

g) On September 12, 2025, the Applicant did not attend the exchange, sending her sister and mother, who filmed and recorded the scene. It was disruptive to the child and contrary to court orders.

h) On September 23 and 24, 2025, the Applicant did not attend the exchanges.

i) The Applicant does not immediately communicate with the Respondent regarding the child’s health or medical appointments.

57The evidence clearly demonstrates that the Applicant lacks both the capacity and the willingness to foster and support the development and continuation of the relationship between the Respondent and the child. Since their separation in August 2023, the Applicant has engaged in a pattern of deliberate and repeated non‑compliance with court orders, and pursued self-help remedies to limit or eliminate parenting time between the Respondent and the child. Her conduct has attempted to undermine their relationship and has affected the child’s well-being.

58During her testimony, the Applicant repeatedly maintained that she was consistently acting in the child’s best interests. She testified that she terminated the Respondent’s parenting time, or limited it significantly, in his best interests. I find this assertion untenable. In the absence of any safety, welfare, or other compelling concern, restricting a child’s relationship with a parent cannot reasonably be said to advance that child’s best interests. No such justification was established on the evidence before me. I therefore find that the Applicant’s conduct was not guided by the child’s best interests.

The history of care

59On October 28, 2024, Justice Holowka increased the Respondent’s parenting time to ensure that the Respondent has a meaningful relationship with the child, which is in line with the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

60Although the Applicant has made significant attempts to limit the Respondent’s parenting time with the child, the Respondent has nonetheless been able to be involved in the child’s care since his birth, and even more so since the order of Justice Holowka. The parties have been sharing responsibility for the child’s care.

61I find that the evidence before me establishes the Respondent’s significant and consistent involvement in the child’s care, and that the care provided by the Respondent has always been directed toward advancing the child’s best interests.

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

62There are no religious or spiritual factors requiring consideration. The child is not baptized, and neither party practises a religion.

63With respect to linguistic considerations, the French language forms an important part of the child’s life. The Applicant speaks French but is more comfortable in English. I am satisfied that both parties agree on the importance of the child being raised bilingually, in both French and English.

The plans for the child’s care

64The Respondent has set out in her affidavit, and supplemented by her oral testimony, her plan for the child’s care. I am convinced that the child has a very strong bond with the Respondent, and he actively seeks her presence, physical closeness, and attention. As noted earlier, the Respondent is fully involved in the child’s daily life, and she is attentive to all his needs. The Respondent’s plan is as follows:

a) She has created a stable, predictable, reassuring and structured environment for the child, where he feels safe, allowing him to express himself freely and to explore and develop his autonomy with confidence.

b) She has established a stable daily routine for the child, which includes regular schedules for meals, sleep, activities, and daycare.

c) She prioritizes his living environments, especially in relation to daycare, and eventually, his transition to school. Her goal is to provide a coherent setting that supports emotional, social, and cognitive development.

d) She is maintaining a stable family environment in which he can grow, surrounded by consistent and familiar reference points. In this regard, I found the Respondent’s partner and her family to be a positive influence in the child’s life.

e) She strives to maintain an environment free of conflict and to adopt a respectful approach. She supports the preservation of his parental relationships within a healthy, stable framework adapted to his needs. In support of this initiative, the Respondent has taken a parenting course to prevent conflict, as well as the Positive Parenting Program geared to foster positive family relationships.

f) She has provided, in detail, the child’s daily routine, which is very child-focussed and appropriate for a child of his age.

g) In the event that she is granted primary care, her plan is as follows:

i. The child would continue to attend his current daycare.

ii. At the time of school registration, she would wish to enroll him in a school located close to her home to ensure continuity with his current daycare, maintaining familiar reference points. She submits that École des Belles-Rives would meet the child’s needs.

iii. She is supported by her partner, friends, and the child’s daycare community. Also, her family, who live in France, visit her regularly.

iv. It is important that the child has a healthy balance, ensures continuity, and maintains regular contact with the Applicant.

v. In terms of work, she is currently on medical leave due to an injury. Once she has recovered, she anticipates returning to work.

vi. Her application for permanent residence does not allow her to move outside of the Province of Quebec.

65The Applicant did not provide any plans for the child’s care, either in her affidavit or her oral testimony. Her detailed affidavit is accusatory in nature, with the purpose of demonstrating that the Respondent is not a good parent.

66I can surmise, however, from the Applicant’s affidavit and oral testimony that she makes the following claims:

a) She has been the primary caregiver for the child.

b) She has consistently met his daily needs and provided routine and emotional support.

c) She believes that the child is experiencing difficulties and that it is necessary to respond in a manner that protects his emotional well‑being and sense of security. Her focus has consistently been on the child, his stability, his well‑being, and his long‑term best interests.

d) She has made decisions to maintain stability and minimize unnecessary disruptions.

e) Once the child is stabilized after the exchanges, he is able to participate in routines such as eating full meals, sleeping more consistently, and engaging in daily activities.

f) She provides him with increased physical comfort for extended periods of time.

g) The child benefits from an established and consistent support system while in the Applicant’s care. Her partner is actively involved in his life and provides additional support. The child’s grandparents live nearby and are regularly engaged in his care, as is the Applicant’s sister, who lives close by with the child’s cousin. Together, they participate in regular family outings and activities, providing the child with stability and positive social interaction.

67I only have the benefit of the Respondent’s proposed parenting plan, which I find to be appropriate for the child’s ongoing care. I am satisfied that the Applicant is presently providing attentive and loving care to the child. However, she did not provide a parenting plan, and I therefore have little evidence before me regarding her longer‑term intentions. In light of the Applicant’s past conduct and her position at trial on issues of parentage, I am not persuaded that her future plans would adequately support and encourage the child’s relationship with the Respondent, a factor of considerable importance in the best interests analysis.

Ability and willingness to communicate and cooperate with each other

68The ability of parties to communicate and cooperate on matters affecting a child is regarded as a central consideration in determining parental decision‑making responsibility. Evidence that a party is unwilling, without justification, to engage in respectful communication and cooperation regarding parenting matters may be indicative of that party’s broader attitude toward the other parent.

69The Applicant says that the Respondent does not communicate or cooperate effectively with her. In her affidavit, she identifies several incidents that occurred while the child was in the Respondent’s care and asserts that the Respondent does not consistently provide relevant information about those events. According to the Applicant, this lack of consistent communication makes it difficult to ensure continuity of care. She further alleges that she has observed discrepancies between what the Respondent reports and the child’s condition upon his return to her care. The Applicant maintains that these communication and transparency issues impair her ability to co‑parent effectively with the Respondent.

70In my view, this is another instance in which the Applicant has exaggerated.

71The Respondent acknowledges that communication between the parties has often been difficult and, at times, marked by conflict. She attributes these difficulties to what she characterizes as intimidation tactics used against her by the Applicant. In support of this position, the Respondent refers to an unfounded complaint that the Applicant made to Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott‑Russell (“Valoris”).

72I accept that communication between the parties has been difficult. While the Respondent is not without responsibility, I am satisfied that her conduct must be viewed, at least in part, as reactive to the Applicant’s challenging behaviour.

73That said, the evidence demonstrates that, notwithstanding the Applicant’s negative conduct toward the Respondent, there were instances of positive communication and cooperation between the parties, undertaken in the child’s best interests.

Family violence

74The Applicant alleges two incidents of violence against the Respondent.

75The first occurred in December 2022, where it is alleged that the Respondent deliberately kicked the Applicant in the stomach. The Respondent denies the allegations and says that it was an accident. The evidence is conflictual on whether this was a deliberate act. I cannot resolve this evidentiary conflict and, as such, I am not prepared to make any findings of family violence in regards to this incident.

76The second occurred sometime in November 2025. The Applicant contacted Valoris because she was concerned with the child’s safety and well-being when he was under the care of the Respondent. Specifically, the Applicant was concerned about bite marks that were found on his body.

77Valoris thoroughly investigated the matter and concluded that the file should be closed because they have no concerns that the child’s safety is at risk. Having read the Valoris file, I find that there was no merit in the Applicant’s complaint.

78The Respondent alleges that the Applicant engaged in emotional, psychological, and physical abuse, and that the Applicant’s conduct was controlling and contributed to the end of their relationship.

79The Respondent relies in particular on alleged incidents on December 18, 2023, and May 7, 2024. I am not satisfied that the evidence supports allegations of abuse on the part of the Applicant.

80On the evidentiary record before me, I conclude that there are no family violence concerns.

Summary

81The Applicant and the Respondent are loving and attentive caregivers to the child, and he has a strong attachment to both.

82However, the Applicant has engaged in repeated and deliberate conduct aimed at restricting or eliminating the Respondent’s relationship with the child, contrary to his best interests. At present, the Applicant lacks the capacity and willingness to foster and support that relationship. Conversely, the Respondent supports the relationship between the Applicant and the child. She has presented a detailed, child‑focused parenting plan emphasizing routine, continuity, schooling, emotional security, and respect for the child’s relationship with the Applicant.

83In my view, the child’s best interests are better served by a parenting framework that ensures stability and predictability, and which protects and promotes his meaningful relationship with both parents. The Respondent has demonstrated a greater willingness and ability to support the child’s relationships on a go-forward basis. This consideration, together with the Respondent’s structured plan and demonstrated parenting capacity supports the following parenting orders:

a) Primary residence in favour of the Respondent.

b) Shared decision-making responsibility for all major decisions and activities concerning the child. A protocol shall be established for this decision-making process. If the parties do not agree on an issue, the Respondent shall make the final decision.

c) The parenting schedule shall be on a week‑about basis, which will reduce the frequency of exchanges. To further minimize conflict, the parties should structure exchanges in a manner that limits direct contact between them. For example, the Applicant’s parenting time could commence on Friday afternoon after picking up the child from his daycare.

d) With the child expected to commence school in 2027, the current shared parenting schedule will necessarily require reconsideration. It would not be in the child’s best interests to be required to travel approximately two hours daily from the Applicant’s residence in order to attend school in Gatineau. If that travel distance remains unchanged at the time the child begins school, the parenting schedule will need to be modified to reflect his best interests.

e) Once the child’s school has been selected, the parties shall review the parenting arrangements and make such adjustments as may be required in light of the child’s best interests. By way of example, if the Applicant continues to reside in Hammond, Ontario, it would be in the child’s best interests for his primary residence during the school week to be with the Respondent, so as to minimize travel to and from school. In that circumstance, the parenting schedule would need to be adjusted to ensure that both parents continue to enjoy equal or near‑equal parenting time, to the extent consistent with the child’s best interests. Conversely, if the Applicant relocates closer to the child’s school such that extended daily travel is no longer required, the existing week‑about parenting schedule may remain appropriate. I shall remain seized on this issue. If the parties are unable to agree, they shall contact the trial coordinator’s office to schedule a hearing before me.

f) The parties shall share holidays and special occasions equally, alternating these periods on an odd- and even-numbered year basis.

g) The Respondent shall be permitted to make a passport application for the child. The Applicant has raised a concern that there is a potential risk that the child could be removed from this jurisdiction. There is no evidence before me to support this concern.

h) The parties shall be permitted to travel domestically and internationally with the child.

i) The parties shall continue to communicate through a parental tool.

j) Communication between the parties shall be child-focussed, brief, informative, friendly, polite, and positive; not accusatory, lecturing, insulting, or condescending.

k) I decline to order police enforcement. I am satisfied that the Applicant and the Respondent are capable of conducting themselves appropriately, in the child’s best interests.

84In terms of child support and special or extraordinary expenses (“s. 7 expenses”), the Applicant and the Respondent seek child support.

85The Applicant deposes in her affidavit that, throughout these proceedings, she sought financial disclosure from the Respondent, but it was not granted. There is no explanation as to why it was not granted. Also, the Applicant refers to Exhibit JJ in her affidavit as evidence of the request for disclosure. However, Exhibit JJ does not form part of the affidavit that was filed in Case Centre. There is insufficient evidence to support a request for retroactive child support or s. 7 expenses.

86Similarly, the Respondent has not provided sufficient evidence to justify a retroactive award of child support or s. 7 expenses, if it was even applicable.

87Accordingly, there shall be no award for retroactive child support or s. 7 expenses.

88Going forward, child support shall be determined on a set‑off basis pursuant to the child support guidelines, calculated using the parties’ respective reported incomes. Section 7 expenses shall be shared by the parties in proportion to their respective reported incomes.

Issue #3 – Is the Respondent entitled to compensation for her personal belongings?

89The Respondent seeks an order for the payment of $3,000 as compensation for her personal belongings that were not returned by the Applicant.

90I note that this relief was not sought in the Respondent’s pleading.

91Even if I permitted an amendment of the Respondent’s pleading at trial, I would not grant the relief sought. I am not persuaded that the Respondent established that her personal belongings were not returned to her or that the items claimed, such as the paddleboard, belonged to her. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence presented in regards to the value of the items.

92The Respondent has failed to discharge her burden of proof and, as such, her claim is dismissed.

DISPOSITION

93For the foregoing reasons, I make the following orders:

a) The Respondent is the child’s parent.

b) The child’s primary residence shall be with the Respondent.

c) The parties shall share decision-making responsibility for all major decisions and activities concerning the child. If the parties do not agree on an issue, the Respondent shall make the final decision.

d) The parenting schedule shall be on a week‑about basis. I shall remain seized for any amendments sought to the parenting schedule once the child commences school.

e) The parties shall share holidays and special occasions equally, alternating these periods on an odd and even numbered year basis.

f) The Respondent shall be permitted to obtain a passport for the child.

g) The parties shall be permitted to travel domestically and internationally with the child.

h) The parties shall continue to communicate through a parental tool.

i) Communication between the parties shall be child-focussed, brief, informative, friendly, polite, and positive; not accusatory, lecturing, insulting, or condescending.

j) Child support shall be determined on a set‑off basis pursuant to the child support guidelines, calculated using the parties’ respective reported incomes. Section 7 expenses shall be shared by the parties in proportion to their respective reported incomes.

k) The Respondent’s claim for compensation is denied.

94The parties shall draft a standard parenting order, incorporating the above. If there is a disagreement, the parties may ask the trial coordinator to schedule a hearing before me to settle the dispute.

95I would encourage the parties to have meaningful discussions regarding costs. If they are unable to agree, then the Respondent shall serve and file her costs submissions, limited to five pages, excluding Offers to Settle and a Bill of Costs, within 30 days of the date of this Judgment. The Applicant shall file and serve her responding costs submissions, with the same page restrictions, within 30 days thereafter.

96This Judgment was written in English, for the Applicant’s benefit. If the Respondent wishes to obtain a French translation of this Judgment, she may make the request through the trial coordinator’s office.

M. Smith J