minicounsel

CITATION: Rosin v. Rosin, 2026 ONSC 3708

COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-0225-00

DATE: 2026-06-24

RE: Jennifer Rosin, Applicant

AND:

Eric Rosin, Respondent

BEFORE: Brochu J.

COUNSEL: Hunter MacKenzie, for the Applicant

Serge Ettinger, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 15, 2026

decision on motion

1This matter has been scheduled for trial on the January 2027 running list.

2The respondent has brought this motion seeking various temporary reliefs while the parties await trial.

3The main issues in dispute are temporary decision-making responsibility, the applicant’s parenting time schedule, and the enrollment of the child in school in September 2026.

4There are many other reliefs sought in the motion which are somewhat less contentious. The parties have also agreed on many terms, including a parenting time schedule for most holidays.

5The following are my reasons and temporary order.

Background

General Background

6The parties were married on May 6, 2022. They separated on March 7, 2024, according to the respondent and on May 9, 2024, according to the applicant.

7There is one child of the relationship, born August 19, 2022. He will soon be four years of age.

8It is the position of the respondent that the parties separated as a result of an assault perpetrated by the applicant on the respondent on March 7, 2024. The parties are not in agreement as to how this event unfolded. It is not necessary for the purpose of this matter for me to delve into this issue.

9After the parties separated, the respondent remained in the matrimonial home located at 60 Old Dawson Rd., Kaministiquia, Ontario. The child has resided primarily with the respondent in the matrimonial home since separation.

10The applicant has been living with her mother at 310 Franklin St. South, Thunder Bay, Ontario.

11The applicant was criminally charged because of the assault on March 7, 2024. The conditions for her release following the assault did not permit the applicant to communicate directly or indirectly with the respondent, nor to attend the matrimonial home.

12On September 27, 2024, the applicant’s criminal charges were disposed of, by way of the applicant entering into a peace bond. She was bound by conditions to keep the peace and be of good behavior, not to contact the respondent other than pursuant to a family court order or through counsel, and not to attend the respondent's residence except pursuant to a family court order. The applicant was bound by these conditions for a period of 12 months. The peace bond expired on September 27, 2025.

Existing Orders and Endorsements

13Prior to November 2024, the applicant was having her supervised parenting time at the Thunder Bay Children’s Centre.

14The issued order of Fregeau J. dated November 14, 2024, pursuant to interim minutes of settlement, provided for the following:

The child's primary residence with the respondent.
The applicant having parenting time two of every three weekends, from Saturday at 9:00 AM to Sunday at 4:00 PM. And one virtual visit with the child each week on a date and time to be agreed upon by the parties.
The applicant’s parenting time being supervised by her mother.
The applicant’s mother or another third party assisting with the parenting time exchanges, in order not to violate the applicant’s peace bond conditions.
Exchanges for the parenting time occurring at Odena Foods in Kakabeka Falls.
The parties were to communicate through AppClose or Our Family Wizard.

15At a case conference before Newton RSJ. on January 9, 2025, the applicant’s parenting time was extended such that she now has two of three weekends from Friday at 12:00 PM to Sunday at 12:00 PM. An order was also made for the involvement of the OCL.

16At a further case conference on February 20, 2025, the applicant indicated that she could no longer perform the exchanges in Kakabeka Falls because she did not have use of her own vehicle and her mother was no longer prepared to drive to and from Kakabeka Falls for the exchanges.

17The respondent agreed on a temporary basis, to perform all the transportation to and from the applicant’s residence in Thunder Bay, if the applicant provided funds to cover his fuel and wear and tear on his vehicle. The applicant indicated that she could pay no more than $80.00 per month to cover the transportation costs, which was agreed to on a without prejudice basis for the respondent to claim his actual expenses.

18It was further agreed that the parenting time was to continue to take place at the applicant’s mother’s home, but the applicant could have parenting time with the child outside the home for up to 90 minutes each day.

19At a settlement conference on January 6, 2026, the matter was placed on the January 2027 running trial list.

20Subsequent to an incident which occurred on January 14, 2026, wherein the applicant attended the respondent’s residence, a motion was brought seeking various reliefs including a restraining order.

21This motion was heard on January 29, 2026, and resulted in Wojciechowski J. granting an order that parenting time exchanges be conducted by the applicant’s mother or a third party, and that the applicant not be present at the exchanges. The order also provided some parameters for communication between the parties, including that the applicant not communicate directly or indirectly with the respondent, or come within 100 meters of the respondent, his residence, or where he may reasonably be expected to be. In the event of a breach, the order also provided that the respondent could bring the matter back before Wojciechowski J. on short notice to revisit the respondent’s request for a restraining order.

22None of the other reliefs sought were addressed at that time – they were adjourned and eventually heard before me.

OCL Report

23An OCL report was prepared pursuant to s. 112 the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43. It is authored by Darlene Niemi, Clinician, dated September 18, 2025. The following recommendations were made:

The respondent to have primary care and residence of the child.
The applicant to have unsupervised parenting time with the child as long as she continues to reside in the same home as her mother.
The applicant to have regular parenting time on alternating weeks from Thursday at 5:00 PM to Sunday at 5:00 PM in addition to other parenting time including special occasions and holidays.
The applicant and the respondent to share equally in the transportation of the child for parenting time. Third party presence at exchanges may be arranged.
Virtual parenting time through video calls between the applicant and the child to occur twice per week.
The applicant and the respondent to take the child to regular medical/dental appointments on an alternating basis.
The respondent to have final decision making for the child. The respondent is to seek input from the applicant on major matters of the child's care and upbringing.
Communication between the applicant and the respondent to continue to occur exclusively through a neutral communication platform such as Our Family Wizard for the purpose of updates and information sharing about the child and or decision-making consultation.
The respondent to ensure that the applicant has full access to all important information about the child including his health records, education, extracurricular activities and any other relevant information. The applicant to be responsible for obtaining this information on her own as she so chooses.
The applicant to undergo a psychological assessment for the purpose of exploring her mental health and to follow through with any recommendations made for treatment.
The respondent to continue to address his mental health with his therapist as long as he deems it to be helpful and until such time as it's no longer necessary and to follow through with any recommendations made.
The applicant and the respondent to advise the other of any changes to their living situation including persons residing in their homes.

Discussion and Analysis

Interim or Temporary Orders

24Interim or temporary orders are by their nature imperfect solutions to often complex problems. They are based on limited evidence, typically in affidavit form. They are meant to provide “a reasonably acceptable solution to a difficult problem until trial”: see Chaitas v. Christopoulos, 2004 CanLII 66352 (ON SC), [2004] O.J. No. 907 (Ont. S.C.), at paras. 18 and 21.

25Additionally, when change of the status quo is sought on an interim or temporary basis, courts must exercise particular caution and ensure that any change meets the child’s best interests: Stanway v. Stanway, 2024 ONSC 477, at paras. 15-16, citing S.H. v. D.K., 2022 ONSC 1203, at para. 26.

26As stated above, there are many issues raised, and temporary relief is sought in this proceeding. I intend on addressing each issue separately while outlining the parties’ positions on these issues.

(1) Decision-Making Responsibility

27It is the applicant’s position that she should have sole decision-making responsibility or in the alternative, that the parties should have joined decision-making responsibility. On the other hand, the respondent states that he should be granted sole decision-making responsibility.

28There is no question that the applicant and the respondent have difficulty communicating. In fact, a communication order was necessary. At first, the applicant could not communicate with the respondent given her release conditions, as she was then bound by the conditions of a peace bond.

29Subsequently, once the peace bond terminated, the applicant’s behavior escalated wherein it became necessary for the respondent to bring a motion for a restraining order. Even though the restraining order was not granted, Wojciechowski J. felt that it was necessary to make an order that the applicant not communicate with the respondent and that she remain within 100 meters of the respondent and his residence. In the event of a breach of those conditions, Wojciechowski J. indicated that he would consider on short notice the respondent’s request for a restraining order.

30The circumstances make it difficult for the parties to effectively communicate for the purpose of decision-making. At this time, joint decision making would certainly not be reasonable, nor in the best interest of the child. It would likely result in conflict between the parties with a lack of ability to arrive at a decision.

31I questioned counsel for the respondent as to what major decisions will be required between now and the scheduled trial date. It was conceded that the major decision at this time is where the child will be attending school, which will be decided by the Court on this motion. There are other issues that have arisen, such as issues with dental and medical appointments. There were some concerns raised regarding the ability to make decisions as they arise for education and other needs.

32The main issues at trial will be decision-making responsibility and parenting time. In my view, this is an issue that should be decided on a fulsome record and not based on competing affidavits. Many allegations have been made by both parties as it relates to the others’ mental health issues. There are also many concerns as it relates to the difficulty in communicating.

33There is no urgency in having the issue of decision-making responsibility determined on a temporary basis. The parties have been separated for over two years, and the only issue that has arisen to date as it relates to decision-making is that of the child’s schooling.

34I acknowledge some issues reported by the respondent regarding treatment providers, however, this was more in relation to interference on the part of the applicant. The required medical and dental care has been provided to the child, without any issues.

35Consequently, the issue of decision-making responsibility is to be determined at trial.

(2) Primary Care and Residence

36The Court has already granted the respondent temporary primary care and residence of the child. Since the party’s separation, the child has remained in the matrimonial home and in the primary care of the respondent. I see no reason to change the primary care and residence on a further temporary basis.

37It would not be in the child's best interest to make drastic changes to these arrangements while the parties await final determination at the trial scheduled in early 2027. It remains in the best interest of the child that the respondent has primary care and residence.

38I find that the child's primary care and residence shall remain with the respondent.

(3) Parenting Time

In Person

39The respondent is proposing to implement a parenting time schedule as recommended in the OCL report, alternating every second weekend with the applicant having parenting time from Thursday at 5:00 PM to Sunday at 5:00 PM.

40The applicant is seeking to increase her parenting time on a gradual basis wherein the parenting time would rotate to a week on/week off schedule within a month’s time.

41The OCL report suggested that the above recommended schedule for parenting time remain in place for the child's first two years of school. Ms. Niemi has recognized the difficulty for the applicant to bring the child to school during her parenting time given her lack of transportation. It is stated that with regular PD days, if aligned with the applicant’s parenting time schedule, would result in the child only missing approximately one day of school per month; this was felt to be reasonable for junior/senior kindergarten. It was also suggested that perhaps the applicant could take the child to school on one of the Fridays per month during her parenting time.

42As it relates to the supervision of the parenting time, the OCL report indicates that provided there is no substantial increase in the parenting time schedule, it would be recommended that the supervision be lifted as long as the applicant continued to reside in the same home as her mother.

43Many of the concerns outlined in the OCL report relate to the applicant’s mental health and the communication issues. Despite the concerns raised, the applicant seems to have done little in order address these issues. She provided a note entitled “Psych Consult – Summary” dated November 19, 2025, from psychiatrist Dr. K. Gyomorey, which in my view falls short from what was recommended by the OCL. I questioned the applicant’s counsel whether she had received a report. It was indicated that the note was all that had been supplied.

44Not only that, but the applicant’s behavior once again escalated in January 2026 resulting in the present non-communication order.

45Many allegations are also being raised by the respondent regarding the ability of the applicant to properly care for the child. Obviously, the applicant disagrees. This is often the nature of temporary motions, wherein the court is ill equipped to make determinations based on competing affidavits.

46These allegations and concerns will be fully explored on a comprehensive record at the trial of this matter.

47Consequently, the OCL report has been helpful to the Court on this motion. In this regard, Ms. Niemi recommended a parenting time schedule which consists of a four-day alternating weekend.

48The child will be four years of age in August; he is young, and any drastic change between now and a final determination at trial would not be in his best interest. Especially if there is a possibility that it be changed yet again at the trial.

49The ultimate issue to be decided regarding parenting time, is whether this is a matter in which shared parenting time would be appropriate. That is a matter for trial.

50At this time, it is appropriate to increase the parenting time from Thursday to Sunday, alternating weekends. This will provide some additional time for the applicant and the child to engage in various activities and create a routine.

51I have selected the commencement date of Thursday, July 2, 2026. Based on the schedule the parties provided at the motion hearing, I believe that this would be the second of the two out of three weekends that the applicant has with the child.

Virtual Parenting Time

52It is also important for the applicant and the child to have contact between parenting time.

53There is no disagreement between the parties as it relates to the additional virtual parenting time twice a week. Where their proposals differ is on which days and at what time the virtual parenting should take place. The applicant is also seeking that virtual parenting be for a duration of 25 minutes each.

54The parties did not address in their materials, nor during submissions, why the specific days and time were being suggested.

55I have selected the days suggested by the applicant, as it seems to cover the gaps between contact with the child more evenly. As it relates to time, since the child is in the care of the respondent, I trust that the 5:00 PM time was selected as it better suits their schedule.

56I have not imposed a time restriction on the virtual parenting time. In my view, it may be difficult to capture the child’s attention for a 25-minute call. The idea is not to impose a set duration for the contact, but to ensure that the contact occurs on a weekly basis, at a regular time. It is the contact itself, the routine, and the quality of the contact that is important, not the duration of the call.

(4) Parenting Time – Holidays

57The parties agreed to a parenting time schedule for most of the holidays. In dispute is the schedule for the summer holidays and whether specific provisions should be made for New Year’s Eve and the child's birthday.

58It was the respondent’s position that it is not necessary to include New Year’s Eve or the child's birthday as a holiday.

New Year’s Eve

59The applicant is suggesting that the parties alternate New Year's Eve such that the applicant would have the child in her care on odd numbered years and the respondent on even numbered years, from 3:30 PM until the following morning (January 1) at 9:00 AM at which time the regular parenting schedule shall resume.

60Given the detailed holiday schedule provided by the parties, there should be no issues in adding New Year's Eve, as this seems to be an important holiday for the applicant. It is a reasonable request and will allow both parents to share in the holidays.

61It should be noted that my order below reflects that the applicant will have the child in even numbered years as opposed to odd numbered years for New Year’s Eve. I did this as this holiday was important to the mother. If she was to have the child in her care New Year’s Eve in odd numbered years, it would mean that the child would be in the respondent’s care this year. Given that this order is temporary, it was felt that it would better accommodate time this year between the applicant and the child, such that she will have the child in her care for New Year’s Eve.

Child’s Birthday

62The applicant is proposing that the parties alternate the child's birthday with the applicant having the child in her care for his birthday in even numbered years, and the respondent in odd numbered years, from 9:00 AM on August 19 to 9:00 AM on August 20.

63The child's birthday is during the summer. This year it falls on a Wednesday, but it will vary from year to year. My concern is that it could interfere with summer plans and/or extended holidays, which would create additional tension between the parties.

64The child will spend his birthday with the party in whose care he is on that date. The other party can celebrate with the child during their respective parenting time. It often occurs that children’s birthday parties or celebrations are held on a different date, mainly during a weekend.

65However, I do feel that it is important that the party in whose care the child is not, have the opportunity to wish him a happy birthday. As such, the party in whose care the child is, will ensure that the other party has the opportunity to have a virtual call with the child on that day, at a time to be agreed upon by the parties.

Summer Holidays

66The respondent is proposing that the applicant have five consecutive overnights with the child in July and five consecutive overnights with the child in August, such that two additional days will be added to the applicant's regular alternate weekend parenting time. This is in line with the recommendations in the OCL report.

67The applicant did not propose an alternative to the above. The dispute mainly arose because of the applicant’s position on shared parenting time. She anticipated that by the summer months she would have had a parenting time schedule of a week on/week off, which represents more time than what is being proposed by the respondent for summer holidays.

68I find this proposal by the respondent to be reasonable. It is anticipated that this parenting time schedule will be revised upon final determination at trial. Consequently, it is a reasonable proposition for the upcoming summer – it will offer the applicant additional time with the child during the summer months.

69It should be noted that in the order I provided for a ten-day written notice to the respondent for the applicant’s selected five consecutive days in July 2026. That is to align with the timing of the delivery of my decision and a realization that a thirty-day notice would not be feasible.

(5) Transportation

70Given that the applicant does not have a vehicle, it was conceded that transportation would have to continue to be facilitated by the respondent. The parties agreed that the only issue to be determined was whether the applicant’s contribution towards the cost of transportation should continue at a rate of $80.00 per month or be increased to $150.00 per month as requested by the respondent.

71I was not provided with much information from either parties as to the cost(s) associated with the transportation on the part of the respondent and/or the applicant’s ability to pay. Other than her mentioning that she has debts to pay and could not afford more than $80.00 per month, I was not provided with any further information.

72There is no question that the price of gas has went up in the recent months. There should be less transportation with the new schedule, resulting in approximately two trips per month, not counting special holidays. Considering the foregoing, I will increase the contribution by the applicant to these costs to $100.00 per month. This is without prejudice to the respondent seeking reimbursement of his actual costs.

(6) School

73The child will be commencing school in September 2026. The parties are not in agreement as to where the child should be enrolled for schooling.

74It is the respondent’s position that the child should attend Kakabeka Public School. The applicant is opposed and submits that the child should be attending school in Thunder Bay.

75The applicant is specifically suggesting that the child should attend one of the French language schools in Thunder Bay, either École publique des Vents du Nord, or École catholique Franco-Supérieur.

76In light of my decision as it relates to the parenting time schedule, it only makes sense that the child attend school closest to the respondent’s home. The respondent outlined many benefits to the child attending Kakabeka Public School. Both parties have also participated in the orientation offered by the school. It is anticipated the child will already know some of the children in his group. Kakabeka Public School is also a 30-minute bus ride from the respondent’s home, compared to a 90-minute bus ride, with a transfer, if he was to be bused to Thunder Bay.

77The applicant offered scant information as to why her choice of a French language school in Thunder Bay would be in the best interest of the child. The parties do not speak French. She offered no information as to the process for registration, other than an indication from counsel at the motion hearing that the child was on a wait list.

78French education is certainly an asset. However, in this case, it seems as though the applicant’s school choice was made to directly correlate with the busing availability from the respondent’s home to a school in Thunder Bay. The French language schools would be the only schools from which the child could be bused from outside of his school zone catchment area.

79It would make no sense for the child to be bused all the way to Thunder Bay for schooling given that his primary residence is in Kaministiquia.

80I find that it is in the child’s best interest that he be enrolled and attend the Kakabeka Public School in September 2026.

(7) The Applicant’s Personal Belongings

81Lastly, the respondent would like to return to the applicant her personal belongings, such as clothing, holiday decorations, sentimental items, her mother's China set, and other miscellaneous items. He has had all these items boxed up and ready for her to retrieve for some time now.

82The applicant is refusing to retrieve these items, insisting that she wants to walk through the home and pick the items that she wants.

83The issue of property division is not being determined today. However, it seems reasonable that the applicant’s personal belongings be returned to her. The respondent has offered to slowly deliver these items when bringing the child to the applicant's residence for parenting time.

84I find the respondent’s proposal reasonable.

85It is to be noted that it is without prejudice to the applicant claiming entitlement to other items that may not have been delivered to her.

Conclusion and Order

86The following includes not only the orders outlined above but also incorporates the orders to which the parties indicated their consent at the motion hearing.

The child, E.R., born August 19, 2022 (hereinafter "the Child") shall have his primary residence with the Respondent father.
The parties shall alternate which parent takes the Child to his regular (non-emergency) medical and dental appointments. The Respondent father shall schedule the Child’s appointments and shall endeavor to schedule such appoints such that the alternate appointments fall on the Applicant mother's parenting time. The Respondent father shall provide notice to the Applicant mother through the Our Family Wizard parenting application as soon as a medical or dental appointment is scheduled.
Both parties shall be entitled to all information concerning the Child’s health and education. The Respondent father shall sign Authorizations as necessary to allow the Applicant mother to obtain information directly from the Child’s doctor, dentist, school, or other professionals involved with the Child.
The Child shall be registered for and attend the Kakabeka Public School, located at 1 Porter St., Kakabeka Falls, ON commencing in the 2026 / 2027 school year, and continue to attend Kakabeka Public School until further order of this Court.
The Applicant shall have regular parenting time with the Child as follows:

a. Commencing on July 2, 2026, and every other alternate weekends from Thursday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. to occur at 310 Franklin Street South, Thunder Bay, Ontario where the Applicant's mother Pamela Piscipo resides.

b. Provided that the Applicant continues to reside with her mother Pamela Piscipo, at 310 Franklin Street South, Thunder Bay, Ontario, the Applicant’s parenting time shall be unsupervised.

c. The Applicant mother shall have two video visits with the Child each week to occur as follows:

i) On Sunday and Tuesday at 5:00 p.m. during the week that the Applicant has her upcoming in-person parenting time.

ii) On Tuesday and Thursday at 5:00 p.m. during the week that the Applicant does not have in-person parenting time.

The Applicant's mother Pamela Piscipo, or another third party agreeable to both parties, shall perform the parenting exchanges on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant shall not be present for said exchanges.
On a without prejudice basis, the Respondent father shall continue to perform the transportation for the Applicant's mother's parenting time, such that the Respondent shall drop off and pick up the Child at 310 Franklin Street South, Thunder Bay, Ontario. Commencing July 1, 2026, the Applicant mother shall pay to the Respondent father $100.00 per month as compensation for his fuel and wear and tear on his vehicle associated with performing said transportation.
Holiday time with the Child shall occur as follows:

a) Family Day Weekend - Regardless of the regular parenting schedule, the Applicant mother shall have care of the Child on Family Day weekend in even numbered years, and regardless of the regular parenting schedule, the Respondent father shall have care of the Child in odd numbered years. The said Family Day weekend parenting time shall run from the Friday at 5:00 p.m. until the Monday at 5:00 p.m. at which time the regular parenting schedule shall resume.

b) Easter Weekend - Regardless of the regular parenting schedule, the parties shall share Easter weekend with the Child each year as follows:

i) In odd numbered years, the Respondent father shall care for the Child from Good Friday at 2:00 p.m. until Sunday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. and the Applicant mother shall care for the Child from Sunday at 2:00 p.m. until Monday at 7:00 p.m. at which time the regular parenting schedule shall resume. In even numbered years, the opposite shall occur.

c) Mother's Day - If Mother's Day does not otherwise fall on the Applicant mother's regular parenting weekend, the Applicant mother shall care for the Child on Mother's Day from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at which time the regular parenting schedule shall resume.

d) Father's Day - If Father's Day does not otherwise fall on the Respondent father's regular parenting weekend, the Respondent father shall care for the Child on Father's Day from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at which time the regular parenting schedule shall resume.

e) Victoria Day Weekend - Regardless of the regular parenting schedule, the Respondent father shall have care of the Child on Victoria Day weekend in even numbered years, and regardless of the regular parenting schedule, the Applicant mother shall have care of the Child in odd numbered years. The said Victoria Day weekend parenting time shall run from the Friday at 5:00 p.m. until the Monday at 5:00 p.m. at which time the regular parenting schedule shall resume.

f) Summer holidays - Each year the Applicant mother shall have a total of five (5) consecutive overnights with the Child in July and five (5) consecutive overnights with the Child in August, such that the additional two (2) days shall be added on to the Applicant's regular alternate weekend parenting time resulting in the five overnights. The Applicant mother shall provide not less than thirty (30) days written notice of which week in July and which week in August the Applicant mother desires to have her additional parenting time. For the summer of 2026, the Applicant shall provide ten (10) days written notice of which week in July she wishes to have her additional parenting time.

g) Halloween - The parties shall alternate Halloween with the Child each year such that the Applicant mother shall have even numbered years and the Respondent shall have odd numbered years. The party scheduled to care for the Child on Halloween shall have care of the Child from after school (or 3:30 p.m. if not a school day) until the commencement of school the following morning (or 9:00 a.m. if not a school day), at which time the regular parenting schedule shall resume.

h) Thanksgiving Weekend - Regardless of the regular parenting schedule the parties shall share Thanksgiving weekend with the Child each year as follows:

i) In even numbered years, the Respondent father shall care for the Child from Friday after school (or 3:30 p.m. if not in school) until Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. and the Applicant mother shall care for the Child from Sunday at 10:00 a.m. until Monday at 7:00 p.m. at which time the regular parenting schedule shall resume. In odd numbered years the opposite shall occur.

i) Child’s Birthday – The party that does not have the Child in his/her care on the Child’s birthday (August 19) shall have a virtual call with the Child, at a time to be agreed upon by the parties.

j) Christmas and New Year’s Eve - The regular parenting schedule shall apply to Christmas and New Year’s Eve each year except as follows:

i) In odd numbered years, the Applicant mother shall care for the Child from December 24th at 2:00 p.m. until December 25th at 2:00 p.m. and the Respondent father shall care for the Child from December 25th at 2:00 p.m. until December 26th at 2:00 p.m.

ii) In even numbered years, the Respondent father shall care for the Child from December 24th at 2:00 p.m. until December 25th at 2:00 p.m. and the Applicant father shall care for the Child from December 25th at 2:00 p.m. until December 26th at 2:00 p.m.

iii) In even numbered years, the Applicant mother shall care for the Child on New Years’s Eve from December 31st at 3:30 p.m. until January 1st at 9:00 a.m.

iv) In odd numbered years, the Respondent father shall care for the Child on New Years’s Eve from December 31st at 3:30 p.m. until January 1st at 9:00 a.m.

The Respondent father shall deliver to the Applicant mother her personal belongings. This can be done over time and at a rate that is suitable to the Respondent father, by dropping off some of the Applicant’s personal belongings when he attends her home for the parenting time exchanges. This is without prejudice to the Applicant mother making any claims for any other property that she may claim an entitlement to.

87For clarity, the previous order of Wojciechowski J. dated January 29, 2026, shall remain in effect, and is in no way terminated by this temporary order.

Costs

88If the parties cannot agree on costs, the respondent shall serve and file costs submissions within 10 days of the release of this decision. The applicant’s submissions shall be served and filed within 10 days of the receipt of the respondent’s submissions. Any reply submissions shall be served and filed within 5 days of receipt of the responding submissions. All costs submissions shall not exceed three pages, not including any offers to settle or bills of costs.

89Submissions received beyond these deadlines will not be considered. Costs will be deemed settled.

Brochu J.

Date: June 24, 2026

CITATION: Rosin v. Rosin, 2026 ONSC 3708

COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-0225-00

DATE: 2026-06-24

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE