CITATION: Edwards v. McKinnon, 2026 ONSC 4372

COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-96

DATE: 2026/07/28

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Cole Gordon Edwards

Applicant

– and –

Grace Elizabeth McKinnon

Respondent

L. Stojni, for the Applicant

S. DeGroot, for the Respondent

HEARD: June 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 22, 2026

The honourable Justice D. Piccoli

reasons for decision

1. In this decision, the applicant is referred to as “father” and the respondent as “mother”. The remaining witnesses shall, as is practical, be referred to by their relationship to the child.

2. This court heard a 10-day trial. There were 10 witnesses, including the parties and the clinician from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL), Mr. Glory To. The other witnesses were the paternal grandmother and step-grandfather (the “paternal grandparents”), father’s girlfriend, Emma Coles, the maternal grandparents, mother’s partner, Matthew Rooney, and Michelle Lucci, psychologist for mother who was qualified as a participant expert in the field of mental health.

3. Whether specifically referred to or not, I have carefully considered all the evidence in this trial.

4. It is clear that the child at issue, Jack, is loved by all his family, and in that regard, he is a very lucky child. However, there is a tremendous amount of conflict not just between the parties, but between their extended families. I hope for the sake of Jack that the conflict dissipates with the passage of time and the release of this decision.

5. The issues the parties have asked me to decide are as follows:

(a) Should the child be allowed to relocate to Ottawa?

(b) Who should make decisions related to the child?

(c) What parenting schedule is in the best interest of the child?

(d) What is the appropriate order for ongoing child support?

(e) What is the amount of retroactive child support, if any, owed by father to mother?

(f) Costs.

6. The main issue is relocation. Relocation cases are among the most difficult in family law.

7. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that father has the burden of proving that relocation would not be in the best interests of the child and he has not met that burden.

8. The court orders that Jack be allowed to relocate to Ottawa.

Brief Background Facts

9. In this case, most of the relevant facts are undisputed.

10. Father has worked at Toyota Car Manufacturing since 2018. He works two different shifts from Monday to Friday on a four-week rotation: two weeks working the morning shift from 6:15 a.m. to 2:45 p.m., and two weeks working the afternoon shift (sometimes referred to as the night shift), from 5:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Father also works overtime. Generally, he must work overtime on Saturday mornings when he works the afternoon shift.

11. Father is entitled to 32 vacation days per year; 27 are paid and 5 are unpaid. In addition, he does not work on statutory holidays, nor does he work during the Toyota shutdowns. The Toyota shutdowns typically occur during the third week in July and one week (sometimes two) over Christmas Break.

12. Father is provided with his vacation schedule by November of the year prior and his shut down days by January of the year they occur. Since separation, he has refused to provide this information to mother.

13. When the parties met, mother worked full time for Clarion Medical Services (Clarion) in event planning. She worked Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. In addition, she owns a medical spa called Rewind Spa. The spa work is administrative and can be done remotely.

14. At the time of trial, mother was in the early childhood education program. The University of Ottawa Teacher’s College recently accepted her to start in September 2026. She continues to operate her medical spa. She is on an extended maternity leave from Clarion.

15. When the parties met on an online dating site in October 2021, mother owned a home at 418 Newberry Lane (Newberry home) and father rented an apartment on Water Street (apartment).

16. In December 2021, mother discovered she was pregnant. The parties moved in together in August 2022 with the maternal grandparents. Then they moved into a home purchased together on Hahn Avenue in Cambridge, Ontario (Hahn Avenue), which they took possession of on August 19, 2022.

17. The pregnancy was unplanned. At the time, mother was 26 years of age and father 27 years of age.

18. When mother told father she was pregnant, he did not initially believe her. He required her to show him the results of the pregnancy test and then take a further pregnancy test.

19. Mother’s pregnancy was difficult. She gained between 80 to 100 pounds and was uncomfortable. She suffered from partial placenta previa. Sometime in March 2022, she was put on bed rest given the high risks and complications with her pregnancy. Some restrictions were lifted mid to end of May 2022. By June 2022, she was able to work remotely.

20. The child who is the subject matter of these proceedings, Jack Gordon McKinnon Edwards (“Jack” or “the child”), was born on August 9, 2022.

21. Jack is diagnosed as a presumed asthmatic. He is too young to be diagnosed with asthma. He uses inhalers. In addition, Jack does speech therapy for stuttering. Jack is otherwise healthy and has been described in a positive fashion by all witnesses who know him.

22. The maternal grandparents initiated a family meeting between both sets of grandparents and mother on August 16, 2022, because they were concerned about father’s behaviours. They were hoping the paternal grandparents would provide some assistance and support. The primary focus of the meeting was father’s aggression related to the child’s surname. The concerns raised included father’s temper and lack of support.

23. The court finds that on October 17, 2022, because of a violent incident, the parties separated. Mother essentially remained in her parent’s home until father completely moved out of the Hahn Avenue home in December 2022.

24. Mother started a relationship with Matthew Rooney on December 31, 2022. She knew him from high school. Father did not become aware of this relationship until questioning in May 2025. Father believes a “replacement was in the works” before he even left the Hahn Avenue home.

25. Initially following the separation, father had parenting time with Jack approximately twice per week for 2-3 hours in the Hahn Avenue home in the presence of a third party (often the maternal grandmother). He was not left alone with the child.

26. In January 2023, father had parenting time with Jack approximately twice per week for two to three hours at either the EarlyOn Centre or the mall. Often the paternal grandmother was present. He was not left alone with the child.

27. In February 2023, the parties retained Annette Katchaluba of By Peaceful Waters to assist in mediating a parenting plan.

28. In March 2023, father made a proposal for daytime only parenting time which he proposed increase to alternate weekend parenting time in June 2023. Mother did not agree.

29. In August 2023, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding (memorandum) with the assistance of Ms. Katchaluba. They received independent legal advice.

30. The memorandum included terms related to father’s vehicle, installation of a car seat, driving school, remediation of his apartment, and smoking and vaping generally. It required the father take a parenting course. As it relates to the parenting schedule, father’s parenting time was set for Tuesdays and Thursdays for one-and-a-half to three hours, depending on his work schedule. Once he proved he had taken a driving course and installed a car seat inspected by a certified professional, he was allowed to drive with Jack, and his parenting time was to be Tuesday and Thursdays for up to three hours but expanded to add two further parenting times per month on Saturdays for approximately three hours to four-and-a-half hours. The exchange location was the Hespeler Road Police Station. The memorandum also required father to sign passport documents and mother to provide father with a copy of Jack’s government documents. The parties were to return to Ms. Katchaluba on December 8, 2023, to develop a parenting plan to start January 2024.

31. Father did not comply with all aspects of the memorandum. He did not have the apartment remediated by a professional. Instead, he, his mother, and his stepfather cleaned the apartment, scrubbed and repainted every wall, and put in an air purifier. He did not have the car seat inspected by a professional. Ultimately, the parties agreed that providing a picture and an inspection by the paternal step-grandfather, a police officer, was sufficient. Father failed to sign the passport application because he was worried mother would take the child somewhere. He believes his intuition served him well, even though mother did not make a single comment that she would leave the country.

32. Father started this application on February 5, 2024. Mother answered and made her own claims on March 20, 2024. In the spring of 2025, each party amended their pleadings.

33. Mother served a Notice of Intention to Relocate in March 2024.

34. Mother and Matthew Rooney had a child together, Charlotte, on January 3, 2025. Mr. Rooney took paternity leave from her birth until September 2025, and he lived with mother in Cambridge at Hahn Avenue at that time.

35. When Mr. Rooney returned to Ottawa following his paternity leave in September, mother struggled. Her parents had to help in the day-to-day care of the children.

36. Mr. Rooney works for the Canadian Armed Forces as an intelligence operator. In November 2024, he was employed as a Full Motion Video Analyst with Joint Intelligence Operational Centre in Ottawa. He is now a corporal. His position is a specialty position in Ottawa. He does research and provides commanders with intelligence to allow them to make decisions. Although he can do some remote work, his in-person work is only conducted in Ottawa. The court accepts that he cannot relocate outside of Ottawa. He expects to be promoted to Master Corporal in January 2027. His residential restrictions remain. His pay will increase from $85,000 to $91,000 per annum.

37. The maternal grandparents live in Cambridge, Ontario.

38. Father and the paternal grandparents purchased a home together in Cambridge and moved into that home in late October 2024. Prior to that, the maternal grandmother lived in Caledonia for over 20 years. Mother only discovered that father had moved in with the paternal grandparents from the OCL report.

39. Father completed a parenting program from November 2023 to January 2024.

40. OCL Glory To was appointed in August 2024. He released his report on December 17, 2024.

41. At the time of trial, Father has parenting time with Jack pursuant to Justice Mountford’s August 28, 2024, interim order. That interim order grants mother primary residence and father parenting time as follows:

• When he is on dayshift: Saturday at noon until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

• When he is on afternoon shift: Tuesdays and Thursdays from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. or 4:30 p.m., depending on if he needed time to travel.

• Father’s parenting time expanded commencing November 1, 2024, when on dayshift from Friday at 3:30 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

42. Father has had additional parenting time on holidays and other special occasions.

43. It is undisputed that because of this schedule, the child is in the care of his mother approximately 80% of the time.

44. Justice Mountford allowed father’s parenting time to be re-examined upon the conclusion of the OCL investigations. Despite the OCL report recommending more time to father, he did not bring a motion to expand his parenting time.

45. Justice Mountford’s August 28, 2024, order included terms that neither party smoke or vape around the child or bring the child to any place where smoking or vaping is allowed. If father smoked or vaped in his vehicle, the child was not to be transported in that vehicle until it had been professionally cleaned. He also ordered that father’s name be added to the daycare contact, and that father be permitted to pick up and drop off the child from daycare. He ordered that neither party make negative or disparaging remarks about the other in the presence of the child.

46. Father’s evidence is that mother told him she was bipolar during the pregnancy. Father was concerned because mother’s emotions were up and down during the pregnancy, so he wanted disclosure of mother’s medical records.

47. Father brought a motion for disclosure of records from mother’s doctor and Jack’s daycare. Mother brought a cross-motion for disclosure of records from father’s doctors. When serving the third parties with the motion, father served the daycare with information related to mother’s mental health. Justice Mountford heard the records motion on October 22, 2025. Although Justice Mountford ordered disclosure of mother’s mental health records, he left it for the trial judge to determine whether father’s requests were a fishing expedition.

48. Mother is a very private person. Father’s disclosure to the daycare caused her significant distress, particularly given her interest in working with children.

49. I find that the medical records produced at trial were not relevant or necessary. By the time Justice Mountford heard the records motion, the child was over two years old and there was no evidence that mother was unable to care for him. In fact, father acquiesced to her being his primary caregiver. Even in the interim motion for parenting, father did not seek primary care, despite his alleged concerns. By the time of trial, Jack remained in mother’s primary care and by all accounts was thriving.

50. Ms. Lucci confirms that mother does not suffer from bipolar. She was being treated for bipolar, but she was not properly diagnosed. Mother has generalized anxiety and ADHD combined type. She exhibits a level of stoicism that is evidenced in her measured response to things. Ms. Lucci explains that as a result, she may not be as expressive as others. Mother has experienced trauma and is motivated to work on healing.

OCL Report

51. On my consent order of June 10, 2024, the OCL was appointed (Mr. Glory To) to complete a s. 112 assessment. In the December 17, 2024, OCL report, Mr. To made a number of recommendations including that mother not be permitted to move with Jack, mother have sole decision making after consultation, father’s parenting time be expanded, father complete an anger management course, that mother continue with assessment of her mental health issues, and that the parties communicate through a parenting app.

52. Mr. To suggested the following parenting schedule:

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday	Sunday
Day Shift Working Hours 6:15 am – 2:45 pm
Father Overnight	Father Overnight	Mother	Father Overnight	Mother	Mother	Mother
Day Shift Working Hours 6:15 am – 3:45 pm
Father Overnight	Father Overnight	Mother	Father Overnight	Mother	Mother	Mother
Afternoon Shift Working Hours 5:30 pm - 2:00 am
Mother	Father from 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm	Mother	Father from 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm	Mother	Father 9:30 am to Overnight	Father Overnight
Afternoon Shift Working Hours 5:30 pm - 4:00 am
Mother	From 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm	Mother	From 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm	Mother	Father Overnight	Father Overnight

53. Mother filed a dispute to the OCL report on January 29, 2025. The OCL responded by letter on June 13, 2025. Father did not file a dispute to the report, nor did he question mother’s ability to care for the child to Mr. To.

54. There is no dispute that Mr. To is an experienced clinician. Despite that experience, the court cannot accept his recommendations regarding relocation for reasons including the following:

(a) Mr. To completed the report when the child was just over two years old. The child will be four years old in August 2026. There have been many changes to the child’s life since that report including the child’s monthly trips to Ottawa. There is no evidence before the court that the child is being negatively impacted by the drive to Ottawa. Mr. To acknowledged that the child’s age is relevant when considering a drive of five to six hours and that the difference between age two and four is significant as it is a rapid period of growth.

(b) Since Mr. To’s report, mother has had another child and her relationship with Mr. Rooney has solidified. Although she was pregnant at the time of the report, Mr. To was unable to explore the sibling bond.

(c) Mr. To did not consider the option of Jack being in the primary care of father – his recommendations are based on his assumption that both parents would remain in Cambridge. He gave no consideration to Jack being separated from his primary caregiver. As such, the recommendations are flawed: see BOURKE vs. DAVIS, 2020 ONSC 7667, at paras. 138-139.

(d) Father told Mr. To that mother exaggerated her family violence claims. As such, the issue of family violence, and its impact, were not addressed in the report. As set out below, I find that father perpetrated family violence against mother.

(e) When asked in cross-examination whether mother advised him that she was moving to Ottawa regardless, Mr. To fell into the double bind trap when he stated, “I would be concerned about whose needs she is meeting”.

55. In cross-examination, Mr. To agreed that financial stability impacts a child’s well being, and that a child’s best interest are served by well functioning, healthy parents. He also agreed that the well being of the primary care parent is important, which is increased by a supportive partner.

Parent’s Plan of Care

56. Father seeks joint decision making. It is clear from father’s evidence and draft order that he prefers he and mother share parenting of Jack on a week about basis, or on the schedule proposed by OCL, in Cambridge. Father asserts the OCL schedule provides mother with 57% of the parenting time and him 43%.

57. If mother moves to Ottawa, father’s plan is that Jack live with him, that mother have video time with Jack once per week, and that mother return from Ottawa to Cambridge when he is on the afternoon shift and she remain in Cambridge. Her parenting time would be from Thursday at 5:00 p.m. to Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. If needed, this schedule could be reviewed when Jack reaches grade three.

58. Father proposes an equal sharing of the summer: one month each if mother moves to Ottawa and week about if mother remains in Cambridge.

59. If mother moves to Ottawa, she would be responsible to travel to Cambridge to exercise her parenting time.

60. Father proposes terms related to safety, special occasions, extracurricular activities, electronics, counselling for the child and school events. He says that because of the high conflict, a right of first refusal would not be appropriate, and the parties should continue to communicate through AppClose.

61. Mother’s plan is that is that Jack be allowed to move to Ottawa. She wants to make decisions about Jack after consultation with father. Father will have parenting time at minimum twice per month; she will travel to Cambridge once a month and father will travel to Ottawa once per month. He will have video parenting time three times per week. If father travels to Ottawa for regular parenting time, mother will reimburse him up to $500, provided certain conditions are met. She proposes an equal sharing of holidays and proposes that Jack be in the care of father for three non-consecutive weeks each summer with a possibility of a fourth, once Jack becomes older. She seeks provisions related to social media and proposes the parties communicate by WhatsApp.

62. For the following reasons, the mother’s plan of care is in the best interests of Jack. As the father did not make specific submissions related to mother’s plan of care and the mother did not put in notice provisions related to the regular parenting schedule, if the parties are unable to agree to notice provision, they may return before me for one hour to make submissions regarding notice of the chosen weekend(s) by each of them for the regular parenting schedule as set out in paragraph 5 of the orders made.

The Law

63. As the parties are not married, this matter is governed by the Children’s Law Reform Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“the CLRA”).

64. Sections 24, 39.3 and 39.4 of the CLRA apply to the question of whether Jack should be able to relocate to Ottawa, Ontario.

65. Despite being decided under the Divorce Act, the leading case related to relocation is Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22. The Divorce Act and CLRA use the same language.

(a) Burden of Proof

66. First, I must decide whether, as mother asserts, father has the burden to show that the move is not in the best interests of Jack, pursuant to s. 39.4(6), or whether, as father asserts, both parties have the burden, pursuant to s. 39.4(7) of the CLRA.

67. For the reasons that follow, I find that father has the burden pursuant to s. 39.4(6), which states:

(6) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, family arbitration award or agreement that provides that a child spend the vast majority of time in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child, the party opposing the relocation has the burden of proving that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child.

68. Justice Tweedie in Bromley v. Langer, 2025 ONSC 6365, at paras, 27-28, held:

Courts have held that “vast majority of time” is more than the 60/40 split as set out in the Child Support Guidelines as “shared parenting”. Some authorities have suggested “vast majority” falls somewhere at 75% of the time or more with one parent: Credland v. Cymbalisty, 2022 ONSC 433, at paras. 178-180, quoted in Nouri v. Watters, 2022 ONSC 5181, at para. 55.

69. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Angelillo v. Mughal, 2025 ONCA 769 at para. 17, held:

In cases where s. 16.93(2) applies, the presumption is that relocation is in the child’s best interests. The fundamental premise is that where the primary caregiver proposes to relocate is usually in the child’s best interests to relocate with that parent, since this will maintain continuity of care and stability in the child’s life: see D.A. Rollie Thompson, “Legislating About Relocating Bill C-78, N.S. and B.C.”, (2019) 38 Can. Fam. L.Q. 219, at pp. 241-42. This premise justifies burdening the non-relocating parent with showing that the relocation is not in the child’s best interests and should not be permitted.

70. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Shipton v. Shipton, 2024 ONCA 624, at para. 73, held that there is no suggestion in the legislation that the court is to consider anything other than actual time spent with the parent. Although, the phrase “vast majority of the time” is “impressionistic” and the court may determine where the presumption should be applied, this exercise of discretion must be reasonable. In Shipton, the Court of Appeal held the child resided with mother the vast majority of the time which, in that case, was approximately 77.4% of the time.

71. A failure to properly apply the presumption is a legal error: see Angelillo, at para. 20.

72. In this case, there is no dispute that the child is in the care of mother approximately 80% of the time. There is no dispute that there has been substantial compliance with the parenting time provisions in Justice Mountford’s August 2024 order. The test is therefore met: the order provides that Jack spends the vast majority of his time in the care of mother, the party who intends to relocate the child, and there has been substantial compliance with that order.

73. As such, the child is in the care of mother the vast majority of the time, and the father bears the resulting onus.

(b) Should I exercise my discretion because the order of Justice Mountford is an interim order?

74. The next issue I must decide is whether I should exercise my discretion to determine the burden should not be applied to the father, as set out in section 39.4(8) of the CLRA.

75. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decisions in Shipton and Angelillo were both cases where the parenting arrangement at the time of trial was the result of interim orders.

76. In this case, I see no reason to exercise my discretion because the current parenting schedule results from an interim order. There may well be circumstances where that discretion should be exercised – for example, in cases of parental alienation; where the sole reason for the move is to diminish the left behind parents’ relationship with the child; or perhaps where the interim order merely confirmed self-engineered status quo that was not changed on an interim basis – but this is not such a case.

(c) Other Relocation Factors

77. There is no dispute that mother has met the notice requirements under the CLRA.

78. I must not consider whether, if the child is prohibited from relocating, the mother would or would not relocate without the child (the “double bind” prohibition): CLRA, s. 39.4(4).

79. Drawing on Chapman v. Somerville, 2022 SKCA 88, Moreton v. Inthavixay, 2021 ONCA 501; Kohli v. Thom, 2025 ONCA 200; and Barendregt, I must undertake a blended analysis that considers the general best interests test found in s. 24, and the relocation factors found in s. 39.4(3), and then compare two options: a move with parent A (mother) or a stay with parent B (father). Without a pre-existing judicial determination, a parent’s desire to relocate is part of the factual matrix in the assessment of what parenting arrangement is in the best interests of the child: Barendregt at para. 112

80. I cannot consider the “double bind” scenario as prohibited by the legislation. I must compare the two binary options, and I cannot make a comparison that involves both parents remaining in Cambridge. Only if a relocation is not allowed should I then consider whether a conditional order is in the best interests of the child: Friesen v. Friesen, 2023 SKCA 60, at para. 98, and what that order might entail. As such, the question is whether Jack should remain in Cambridge with father or move to Ottawa with mother.

(d) Conflict and Family Violence

81. Before I turn to the other best interests’ factors in ss. 24 and 39.4(3) of the CLRA, I will deal with the history of conflict and mother’s assertion of family violence. I do this because my findings impact other factors in the best interests’ analysis.

82. These parents were relatively young when they met online. Within two months, they found out they were having a child together. Shortly after, they started looking for a home. They were not well suited. Mother admits she is stubborn and can be frustrating. She acknowledges she can be overprotective of her children. She is rules-based and rigid in her approach. Father admits he has low frustration tolerance and anger management issues and when he feels offended, he acts out.

83. The party’s families are also different. Mother’s family is more involved than father’s. Each family is critical of the other’s approach. This is unfortunate. The grandparents can and should set an example of respecting and appreciating differences. Jack is a part of both families.

84. Unfortunately, the conflict escalated over the course of their relationship. Neither parent was able to meet the needs, hopes or desires of the other. At times this led to childish, inappropriate behaviour and family violence. Some examples include:

(a) Both parents refer to Jack as “my son” reflecting their lack of insight and their failure to recognize that Jack is part of both of them;

(b) Father hid mother’s oven mitts after an argument;

(c) Father refused to give mother a foot rub when she had swollen feet. Instead, father decided to have a cigarette because he thought “Grace was playing it up”;

(d) The parties’ arguments about Jack’s last name required a special meeting between the grandparents and mother, which did not resolve the issue;

(e) Father believes that mother wanting her surname included in Jack’s surname is a “dig at him”. For a year and a half after separation, in order to receive the e-transfer of child support, mother had to answer the security question to What is Jack’s surname. The answer was “Jack Gordon Edwards”. Father refused to include McKinnon;

(f) Father did not notify mother of an appointment he scheduled with Jack’s doctor. He said he would include her by phone but then said he could not because his phone was at 1%;

(g) Father did not provide mother with a copy of the child’s doctor’s letter;

(h) Father did not allow Jack to return early from parenting when mother’s nanna died;

(i) Father did not allow mother to take Jack to a baby shower;

(j) When Jack was in the hospital and ill with respiratory issues in November 2024, and despite mother keeping him apprized of the situation and asking him to let her know when he wanted to attend, he attended without notice and barged through the door with a clear sign that said, “Stop – Isolation” and did not gown or mask;

(o) Father called Jack a “fairy” for being colourfully dressed at a pick-up exchange;

(p) Father refused to care for Jack when mother wanted to go visit her horse because he was angry with her;

(q) Father refused to provide mother with his yearly work calendar because he was worried she would use it for her convenience and he saw no need to do so;

(r) Father failed to advise mother of his change in address, as required by s. 39.1 of the CLRA;

(s) Mother was opposed to a Pink Floyd poster that father put up in a room in their home. It showed women with their bottoms showing. Father would not take it down, so she covered it with ferns. After their separation, father sent Jack to mother after his parenting time with a t-shirt with that very same picture on it. His excuse was that she sent Jack in t-shirts that said, “mama’s boy” and “grandma’s little helper”;

(t) Mother registered Jack in daycare with his surname as “McKinnon”;

(u) Mother failed to list father as an emergency contact at Jack’s first daycare;

(v) Mother demanded, at times, two-weeks advance notice for father or paternal grandparents to see Jack;

(w) Mother took a pop can out of father’s hands and threw it down the sink because he did not pay for it;

(x) Mother did not tell father when her relationship with Mr. Rooney became serious or that she was taking Jack to Ottawa. He found out during questioning; and

(y) Mother did not provide father with a copy of Jack’s birth certificate or health card when he asked her in February 2023.

85. There has been conflict at exchanges, even when one or more grandparents have attended. In October 2023, one exchange resulted in police involvement. More recently, in March 2026, when asked whether he had a raincoat for the child, father responded that if they wanted something from him, he would need notice. Jack froze and maternal grandmother redirected him. This continued conflict is most concerning. Jack is reaching an age where he understands the conflict, and I am concerned about the impact of that conflict on him.

86. Father described his relationship with mother as one of the darker times in his life, despite the birth of Jack. He was anxious and nervous; he felt like an outsider and did not want to go home. He thinks mother acted aggressively so he would leave. He asserts that he did not wake up and want to do the things that he did. He asserts mother conducted herself in a conflictual manner and he was emasculated. He maintains that his anger issues are related to and directed at mother. Otherwise, generally speaking, he has no anger issues.

87. Mother described her fear of father’s aggressive behaviour and her desire to protect Jack as a result. Mother gave numerous examples of her belief that father put his needs ahead of hers and Jack’s. After birth, she broke out in hives. She had fluid in her legs and had to put tensor bandages on. She was in a lot of pain. Jack had trouble latching. She could not at times prepare her own meals – father would eat and not offer her food. It was her mother and sister who helped her. She maintains that when she told father she was struggling, he was dismissive.

88. Despite mother’s repeated concerns about father’s ability to manage his anger, he denied having anger issues in the August 2024 motion. He indicated to Mr. To that mother’s concerns were fabricated or exaggerated. He only undertook and completed anger management in the spring of 2025.

89. The court finds that father perpetrated family violence against mother, as follows:

(a) While mother was pregnant, father smashed a pop can into the wall close to mother, damaging the drywall. His explanation is, “I may have lost my mind a little bit”, but he was trying to get things moved into the home and he felt mother was making more of a mess.

(b) In the later part of mother’s pregnancy, the parties argued about father vaping in the car. He slammed on the breaks, causing the seat belt to engage and put pressure on mother’s stomach. She vomited. At the time, father said mother’s distress was “an Oscar winning performance”, and in the trial he described her as “welling up with tears”, implying it was forced. This shows a lack of empathy and insight.

(c) In June 2022, when mother was on limited bed rest, he became extremely upset with her for refusing to pick up beer for him. His text messages to mother were aggressive and demeaning. When she told him she was in pain, her back was cramping and she could not get him beer, he responded that she is “spoiled rotten”, said, “don’t ask me for anything”, and “its always about you Really makes me think what our kid is going to turn into”, and then, “Don’t. Fucking. Bother”.

(d) On August 6, 2022, mother’s medical professionals advised her the scheduled C-section would have to be moved from August 8 to August 9 because of staffing issues at the hospital. When mother notified father of this, he became enraged. He sent a series of demeaning and abusive text messages. He texted, “I’ve met children tougher than u” and refers to her as a “pansy”. He insisted that she figure out what she needed to do to get the C-section scheduled to the original date because he refused to switch his work schedule.

(e) When he returned home from work on August 6, 2022, the abusive behaviour continued. Mother recorded it without father’s knowledge. The swearing, emotional, and psychological abuse can only be described as relentless. When mother asked him to stop, he responded, “I don’t just go from 0 to 100 for no fucking reason”, and “it is like a layered fucking cake of Grace shit that I have to fucking deal with”. When mother indicated that if he was going to behave this way he should not be in the delivery room, he responded, “I am going to see the birth of my fucking son”.

(f) The fact that at trial father could not admit how this behaviour might leave mother concerned about his ability to care for their young child shows how little insight he has into his own behaviour. Despite his behaviour on August 6, 2022, father told his own mother that Grace was “threatening” that he could not attend the delivery of the child.

(g) The culminating incident occurred on October 17, 2022. Father was sleeping in the basement. Jack was crying and the dog was making noise. Father had asked mother to keep things quiet. Noise continued. Father ran upstairs into the room where mother and Jack were and proceeded to kick or throw the child’s bassinette. He then picked up the ottoman, which I find was located at the foot of the bed, and threw it through the door, causing damage. Father left the home. Mother called her parents and from that day on, did not return to the home unless father was not there. Father’s evidence was this happened because his sleep was disrupted and he believes mother was intentionally making noise. He did not apologize for the ottoman but said to Jack, “daddy did something stupid”.

90. Concerningly, the paternal grandparents attempt to downplay the incident with the ottoman and bassinet and underestimate the fear it would cause a mother in that situation.

91. Although father admits the things he did were not right and he could have behaved better, he continues to assert that mother conducted herself in a conflictual manner, that there were reasons he became this upset i.e., that he felt he was being emasculated. He maintains that these were isolated incidents and that he does not conduct himself with others in this fashion. Based on the evidence, it does appear that father’s aggression was only directed at mother. However, that is precisely the issue before the court. I find that he committed family violence against mother.

(e) The Best Interests Analysis – has father rebutted the presumption and met his burden?

92. Having determined that the burden rests with father, I now turn to father’s position that a move to Ottawa is not in Jack’s best interests and my reasons for finding he has not met his burden.

93. Father argues that the move is not in the child’s best interests for the following reasons:

(a) He wants to remain an integral part of the child’s day-to-day life and not be replaced by Mr. Rooney;

(b) He is concerned that mother (who, according to him, has never placed importance on the father/child relationship) will not facilitate or promote a relationship between him and the child and that he will not see the child, despite mother’s plan;

(c) The relocation will impact the child’s ties with him and his family, as well as the maternal grandparents and the maternal aunt;

(d) The child has been in Cambridge his entire life and all of his supports are in Cambridge;

(e) The only people in Ottawa will be mother, Jack’s sister and Mr. Rooney;

(f) The drive time between Cambridge and Ottawa is significant for a young child;

(g) Mother’s partner can find a job in the Cambridge area;

(h) His relationship with the child should be given priority to mother’s relationship with Mr. Rooney and to the child’s relationship with his sibling; and

(i) Mother’s financial issues are her own doing.

Reasons for the Relocation

94. I find mother has bona fide reasons for seeking to relocate the child. The main reason is so that she and Mr. Rooney can live as a family with their child, Charlotte, and Jack. This provides her with emotional, psychological and financial stability, which benefits Jack: see Barendregt, at para. 169. I do not find, despite father’s suggestions, that the move is because she wants to limit father’s relationship with Jack.

95. Mr. Rooney provides mother with support in all aspects of her life. He is her partner. The support mother receives inures to the benefit of Jack. Mr. Rooney cannot live outside Ottawa.

96. There are obvious financial benefits to the merging of households. There is also the fact that military housing is very affordable. The evidence is that total monthly housing costs will be approximately $1,400 to $1,500 per month. The home is a three-bedroom home with a small back yard, a park on every corner, a swimming pool, a skate park and lots of families.

97. Mother has thought out and planned for schooling, after school childcare, if required, and has researched available daycares for Jack and Charlotte. She has also planned for the future. She will be attending teachers’ college in September 2026, so that she has a job where she can be home with the children before and after school and in the summers.

Impact of the Relocation on Jack and Father’s Parenting Time

98. Mother has carefully and thoughtfully considered how this move will impact Jack.

99. Jack is almost four years old. In September 2026, he would be transitioning to start school regardless of his residence. Other than daycare and speech therapy, he has no specific programming in the Cambridge area.

100. There is no doubt that Jack is close to his father and their relationship will change. Jack will see his father less frequently, but with my order, which expands on mother’s proposal as it relates to parenting time with father, he will spend more total time with his father. I understand that this will not replace father’s inability to attend schooling events or extra curricular activities, as is the case in most relocation decisions, but I believe this is what is best for Jack.

101. If I did not allow Jack to move to Ottawa, the impact on him would be significant. He would not be in the care of his mother, who he is most bonded with and who has cared for him since birth. Further, he would not be living day-to-day with his sister, Charlotte, who, by all accounts, he is very bonded to.

102. I accept that Jack will adapt to the change. Starting school would be a change/transition in any event and change is inevitable at this young age. He was transitioning to school provided speech therapy in the fall. He has already made friends in the military housing complex and, by all accounts, enjoys his time in Ottawa.

103. There will be virtually no case where the left behind parent is not impacted by the relocation. Mother’s plan is reasonable and attenuates the concern as much as possible. The plan recognizes the importance of Jack’s relationship with father.

Jack’s Needs Given His Age and Stage of Development

104. Both parents are able and willing to meet Jack’s needs.

105. Jack was described by various witnesses as follows: a joyful, wonderful child; well behaved; smart little boy; bright; attentive; an absolute gem; a kind little boy who is very sensitive; inquisitive; happy to learn; great kid. No one noted any behavioural or other issues with Jack save his health issues. Although father only acknowledged that mother was able to provide for Jack’s basic needs, it is clear that she has done a good job raising him. Father has concerns about her parenting “down the road” because of her mood swings, and, if she is allowed to move to Ottawa, she will not have the support of her parents.

106. There is no doubt that father is an important part of Jack’s life and that they have a good relationship. Father taught him how to ride a bike. They play together. Father cooks and cares for Jack during his time with him and Jack seeks comfort from him.

107. I am concerned that father has not taken Jack’s respiratory issues as seriously as he should and that he has failed to follow through with the memorandum and breached Justice Mountford’s order at least once as it relates to vaping or smoking in his vehicle.

108. Jack’s needs, given his age and stage of development, are with his primary parent. He needs stability and this is best accomplished by ensuring that he retains his primary residence with his mother.

Nature and Strength of Jack’s Relationships with His Parents and Other Important People in His Life

109. As already indicated, Jack has a strong bond with both parents, but his most significant bond is to his mother.

110. There is also no doubt that Jack has a close bond with his maternal grandparents. They both plan to retire and purchase seasonal housing in Ottawa where they can live for six months of the year. They have also indicated their intention that for the other six months, they will travel to Ottawa at least once a month for a period of four days.

111. There is no doubt that Jack has established a close bond with his paternal grandparents, most especially Stan, who he refers to as “Poppy”. Mother has indicated that she will make the child available should the paternal grandparents come to Ottawa, and the court expects her to keep this promise.

112. Jack and Charlotte, by all accounts, have a close bond. They have been described as two peas in a pod and as best friends. Jack goes to her crib every morning. He talks about her a lot and she is his whole world. If he is getting a snack for himself, he gets one for her. More recently he has been trying to help her walk. Jack adores his sister. They are inseparable. This sibling bond is important.

113. There is no doubt that Jack is close with both parents, his sister, his maternal grandparents, and his paternal grandparents. He has also developed a relationship with Mr. Rooney. In considering the options in a binary fashion, the result is the same: Jack’s stability and continuity make it imperative that he remain in the care of his mother. His maternal grandparents plan to spend a lot of time in Ottawa and purchase a seasonal home there. The order I am making grants father as much time as is consistent with Jack’s best interests. On the other hand, if I required Jack to remain in Cambridge, his relationship with his mother and his sister would be gravely impacted: see BOURKE v. DAVIS, 2020 ONSC 7667, at paras. 130-135. Jack’s relationship to his sister is important. They are close in age and will spend their lives growing up together. It is important that they have each other’s support and get the opportunity to do activities and day-to-day life together.

114. The relationship between father and paternal grandparents can be maintained by this order and father’s twice monthly in-person parenting time, thrice weekly video time, and extended holiday time.

Plans of Care

115. Mother has put forward a good and workable plan that involves herself travelling back to Cambridge with Jack once per month, father travelling to Ottawa once per month and herself reimbursing him up to $500 for gas and other expenses; three weeks for the father in the summer; and a sharing of all other holidays. It also includes multiple video calls throughout the week.

116. Mother has committed to returning to Cambridge for Father’s Day (which can start Saturday but will have to leave at a reasonable hour on Sunday) and Jack’s birthday.

117. For Christmas, she proposes to have the child in her care until Christmas Eve each year until after church, and then the child will be in the care of father every Christmas Eve from 8:00 p.m. until Christmas day at noon.

118. She anticipates all holidays will be in Cambridge except March Break, and if she cannot come to Cambridge, she and father could meet halfway. Her evidence at trial related to her willingness to travel to Cambridge has been incorporated into my order.

119. Mother wants to limit posting the child on social media and recommends a shared Google Drive that would be accessible to his family and girlfriend. She is open to something different, but father did not comment on this at all. I am not prepared to place the restrictions mother requests in an order. I find that mother overreacted in June 2025 when the paternal grandmother was video taping Jack during soccer. I trust father and the paternal grandparents to not do things that will put Jack at risk.

120. Mother wants to communicate by WhatsApp because it is free, whereas AppClose is no longer free, and multiple people can be signed in and using it. Despite father not making submissions on this issue, I find it best that the parties continue to communicate by AppClose as they have been doing.

121. Mother does not want father to attend any in-person medical appointment with her. My order allows father to attend in person if he is able. The parties are cautioned they are expected to behave in a child-focused manner during these appointments.

122. Mother can continue to run her medical spa business remotely and she has a plan to educate herself and become a teacher. This is a child-focused decision based on her desire to be more available to Jack and Charlotte. She will begin teachers’ college in September 2026.

123. In Ottawa, Jack will be with his best friend Zoey and other friends. He can attend Holy Family Catholic School and is eligible for the bus. There are a lot of walk-in clinics and hospitals, and it is not hard to find a dentist. Mother has arranged for two teenagers to take Jack home from the bus stop, should she be unable to do so.

124. The location of the miliary housing is ideal. It has a great community of people and will give mother, and hence the child, stability, a good support system and a loving home environment. She will also be able to care for Charlotte or have third party care. She will be able to repay her debt and have financial stability.

125. Father gave little feedback about mother’s plan. He does not agree with the plan for Christmas but did not tell me why. He does not believe mother will ever expand summer parenting time. He agrees that, if required, he could travel to Ottawa once per month. He believes the cost will exceed $500, but he did not tell me why.

126. Father’s plan is problematic. First, based on the evidence, his preference that mother remain in Cambridge and they share parenting time equally. If she wishes to move to Ottawa, then he proposed that she return to Cambridge the times he is on night shifts and have care of the child from Thursday to Tuesday of each week. His plan really requires that when he is on morning shift, Jack will be woken up and taken care of by the paternal grandparents, and when he is on afternoons, Jack will, in fact, but for a short period of time after school, be taken care of mostly by the paternal grandparents. His shift work does not allow him to be properly available to care for Jack. His plan also includes separating Jack from his mother who has been his primary caregiver. It also puts little weight on Jack’s relationship with his sister. In his evidence, father made a point of distinguishing Charolette as “only” a half-sibling, which reflects a lack of understanding of the importance of that relationship to Jack.

127. As it relates to the history of care, there is no dispute that mother has been the primary caregiver, and no significant concerns have been raised with respect to her ability to act in the role as primary caregiver. She provides nurture, love and support on a day-to-day basis.

128. I also find that during the pregnancy and after Jack was born, it was the maternal grandmother who assisted mother. Father was not attentive to mother’s needs, nor did he assist in any significant way with the care of the child. He put his own needs first. He explained that he wanted a father-mother structural unit which was based on essential biological roles.

Each Parent’s Willingness to Support a Relationship with the Other Parent

129. There is a complete lack of trust between these parties and the grandparents.

130. The court has concerns about each party’s willingness to support a relationship with the other. The conflict and animosity have continued. Mother’s initial unwillingness that father have in-person unsupervised parenting time was based, at least in part, on the short relationship, the volatility of that relationship, and the family violence. It was understandable in the circumstances. Mother has complied with the August 2024 order, and I have no reason to believe she will not comply with my order.

131. Father’s animosity is deeper rooted; it stems from his concern that mother is dictatorial and has been unreasonable in her positions regarding parenting time, at least until Justice Mountford’s order. It is concerning to the court that father did and continues to minimize his behaviour. Even in this trial, he refers to mother’s “performance”, he did not take anger management classes until recommended by Mr. To, and he continues to maintain that he was baited by mother. Father did not show genuine concern for her health and did not show genuine remorse.

132. Despite father’s concerns, the evidence satisfies me that mother takes her obligations under the court order seriously and I do not see future noncompliance issues. I believe mother will do everything she needs to do to comply with the court order.

Cultural, Linguistic, Religious and Spiritual

133. The only evidence related to cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing was both parents’ desire that the child attend Catholic school and mother’s wish to take him to church and have him exposed to the Orthodox Easter and Christmas Eve celebration.

Conclusion Related to Best Interests

134. Based on a blended holistic analysis, relocation is in the best interests of the child. Further, I find that the parenting plan proposed by mother is generally a good plan. I have added one week of parenting time in the summer, granted father the ability to choose the weekend he comes to Ottawa, and granted him the first two consecutive March Breaks. I have not ordered the restrictive social media terms mother requested and I have maintained the application father requested.

Decision Making

135. Justice Chappel has helpfully summarized the legal principles to be considered when determining what type of decision-making order is in the best interests of the children: McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, at paras. 97-98; S.V.G. v. V.G, 2023 ONSC 3206, at paras. 107-12; see also Predotka v. Dudek, 2023 ONSC 7025, at para. 30. I have considered those principles.

136. I carefully considered ordering that the parties share joint decision-making responsibility for Jack. There are many benefits. However, as Kraft J. explained, before a court can make an order for shared decision making, there must be evidence that the parties are able to communicate effectively with one another despite their differences see Predotka, at para. 26)

137. Both parents agree that their relationship was marred by significant conflict which continued throughout the litigation, including the trial.

138. Based on my findings, I am not satisfied that these parents can communicate effectively about Jack’s interests. In my view, there is a history of significant conflict that has impacted their ability to parent together. I find that the parties are unable to cooperate and communicate about issues relating to Jack and that they will be unable to making important decisions about Jack in a joint decision-making arrangement.

139. The family violence committed, together with the other behaviour, make it clear that these parties cannot make decisions together. I find that father has little to no respect for mother. He feels that she has little or no respect for him and that she is marginalizing him.

140. Jack needs to know that decisions are going to be made for him effectively. To date, mother has made good decisions for Jack and there is no reason to doubt she will continue to do so.

141. However, it is important to the child’s well-being that he understand that both parents, to the extent that it is in his best interests, are participating in Jack’s life. This participation does not only include spending time with him but also playing an active role in decisions that will shape Jack’s life. For these reasons, I am ordering that father is entitled to be advised of all major decisions and shall be given the right to provide his input on decisions, which shall be given careful consideration by mother prior to making decisions. This will allow him to participate meaningfully in Jack’s life.

142. Communication is key regardless of where Jack is living, and both parties are encouraged to take a course in communication counselling.

Child Support

143. There is no dispute about the child support mother has received from father, or that child support is to commence January 2023. The parties agreed on their incomes.

144. There is no dispute as it relates to the ongoing amount of child support payable.

145. The dispute is about how retroactive child support is calculated, namely whether the income for the year in question is used or whether the prior years’ income is used. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Vanos v. Vanos, 2010 ONCA 876, at para. 16, adopted the reasoning in Desjardins v. Bart, 2006 CanLII 33701 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 17, which states as follows:

Although the normal practice, based on convenience, is to address child support going forward based on the previous year’s income, once the court is intervening and looking backwards at a particular period, it makes sense to adjust child support retroactively for the relevant period, which in this case is 2004.

146. In this case, father’s income for the years in question is known. As such, the court finds that father owes mother $5,962.40 in retroactive child support. The court adopts mother’s calculation, as follows:

Child Support Payments 2022 – 2026

Year	Yearly Income	Table Support (Month)	Table Support (Year)	Support Paid	Retro Owed
2023	$90,063	$834.00	$10,008.00	$8,024.80 (Ex 35)	$1,983.20
2024	$102,868	$933.00	$11,196.00	$9,375.20 (Ex 35)	$1,820.80
2025	$114,721	$1,025.00 x 9 months = $8,631.00 $1,050 x 3 months = $2,958.00	$12,375.00	$10,801.60 (Ex 35)	$1,573.40
2026 (5 months)	$114,721	$1,050.00	$5,250.00	$4,665.00	$585.00

Total: $5,962.40

147. Father has not paid any of Jack’s daycare expenses because he states there was no agreement as to when Jack would be attending daycare and there were times when he was available to care for Jack. This was despite the fact that he admitted he left it up to mother to determine what would happen to Jack when she went back to work. Further, he believes mother received a subsidy. Father should have paid his proportionate share of daycare expenses that were incurred for the purposes of mother’s employment. As mother has not sought an order in this regard and I have not been provided with any cost regarding same, no order will be made.

148. Given that father did not address orders being requested by mother related to the sharing of section 7 expenses and given that they are to the financial benefit of the father, I have made those orders requested by mother. I have not made the order requested by mother related to post secondary expenses. I did not receive any submissions on the issue, and the child is just about to turn 4 years of age.

For all of the above reasons, this court orders:

1. The child Jack Gordon McKinnon Edwards, born August 9, 2022 (“Jack”), shall be permitted to relocate to Ottawa with the Respondent, Grace Elizabeth McKinnon (“Respondent”). Jack shall have his primary residence with the Respondent.

2. The Respondent shall have sole decision-making authority for Jack save and except as it relates to extra curricular activities that may impact the Applicant’s, Cole Edward’s (“Applicant”), parenting time, in which case, the decision shall be made jointly.

3. For major decisions, the Respondent shall consult with the Applicant beforehand and must consider his input before making a final decision. If the parties cannot agree, where practical, the recommendations of third-party professionals shall be considered. The Respondent shall forthwith notify the Applicant of any decision made.

4. The party with care of Jack shall make day-to-day decisions that affect Jack’s welfare.

5. The Applicant shall have parenting time with Jack as follows:

a. The Applicant shall have a minimum of two (2) weekends per month as follows:

i. In Cambridge, for one weekend each month, where parenting time shall be:

1. From Friday at 3:30 p.m. until Sunday at 2:00 p.m., if Friday is a holiday/PA Day. If Friday is not a holiday/ PA Day, the parenting time starts Friday at 9:00p.m.

2. From Saturday at 9:00 a.m. to Monday at 2:00 p.m., if Monday is a holiday/PA Day. If Monday is not a holiday/PA Day parenting time ends Sunday at 2:00p.m.

Although the choice of the weekend in Cambridge should be agreed to between the parties, if they cannot agree, mother shall decide the weekend per month that she brings the child to Cambridge, Ontario. There should be notice given well in advance. If the parties cannot agree on notice provisions, they shall return before me.

ii. In Ottawa, for one weekend each month where parenting time shall be:

1. From Friday at 9:00 a.m. until Sunday at 4:00 p.m., if Friday is a holiday/PA Day. If Friday is not a PA Day or holiday, then parenting time starts after school on Friday.

2. From Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Monday at 4:00 p.m., if Monday is a holiday/PA Day. If Monday is not a holiday or PA Day, the parenting time is from Friday at 4:00p.m. to Monday to school.

Although the choice of the weekend in Ottawa should be agreed to between the parties, if they cannot agree, father shall decide the weekend per month that he attends in Ottawa, and mother shall ensure the child is fully available on that weekend. There should be notice given well in advance/ If the parties cannot agree to notice provisions, they shall return before me.

6. Regular contact between Jack and the Applicant shall be maintained through video calls no fewer than three times per week for a minimum of 30 minutes. In the absence of agreement, such calls shall take place on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays.

7. A shared Google Drive shall be used to exchange photos, videos, and other information featuring Jack, keeping the Applicant and Respondent connected to Jack’s milestones and daily life.

Summer Holidays

8. The Applicant shall have four (4) weeks of parenting time with Jack during the summer months, as follows:

a. One (1) week, which shall align with Toyota shutdown;

b. One (1) week in August, which shall not include Jack’s birthday;

c. Two (2) additional non-consecutive weeks, as chosen by father. Once Jack turns 8 years of age, namely in the summer of 2030 if the Applicant choose those weeks shall be consecutive.

d. For the weeks under (a), (b) and (c), the Applicant shall provide notice of his chosen weeks by February 1^st.

9. For the summer of 2026, the Applicant shall have two non-consecutive weeks of summer holidays, given the timing of the trial and this decision. He shall choose which two weeks, but it cannot be the week before school starts.

10. The Applicant shall allow the Respondent to have virtual contact with Jack on at least three times per week during each week of vacation for a minimum of 30 minutes.

Christmas Break

11. The Applicant and Respondent shall equally share the school Christmas Break and, as the Respondent has suggested, she shall return Jack to Cambridge during this break. The only exceptions to the Respondent returning Jack to Cambridge is if both parties consent in writing or if father moves from the Cambridge area. This equal sharing of parenting time shall include that:

a. The Respondent shall have Jack each December 24 until 8:30 p.m.

b. The Applicant shall have Jack each December 24 at 8:30 p.m. until December 25 at 12:00 p.m.

c. The Respondent shall have Jack each December 25 at 12:00 p.m. until December 26 at 12:00 p.m. The Applicant shall have each December 26 at 12:00 p.m. to December 28 at 12:00 p.m.

d. The Applicant’s parenting time shall include the Toyota shutdown period, and father shall determine the sharing of time other than as set out in (a) to (c) above.

March Break

12. The Applicant shall have Jack in his care on March Break for the years 2027 and 2028, and every even-numbered year thereafter from Saturday at 12:00 p.m. until the following Saturday at 12:00 p.m. The Respondent shall have this parenting time in 2029 and every odd numbered year thereafter.

Mother’s Day and Father’s Day

13. Jack shall spend Mother’s Day with the Respondent each year.

14. Jack shall spend Father’s Day with the Applicant each year. If Father’s Day falls on a weekend where the Respondent would otherwise have parenting time, the Respondent instead shall as she has suggested, travel to Cambridge to facilitate the Applicant’s Father’s Day weekend with Jack from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. to Sunday at 2:00 p.m.

Jack’s Birthday

15. Jack’s birthday shall be shared between the parties. As suggested by the Respondent, she shall return to the Cambridge area on Jack’s birthday to ensure that the day can be shared. The only exception to this is if both parties consent in writing otherwise or if father moves from the Cambridge area.

Easter/Thanksgiving

16. The parties shall equally share Easter and Thanksgiving holidays. As suggested by the Respondent, she shall return Jack to the Cambridge area. When English and Orthodox Easter overlap, the Respondent will have preference for how to divide the weekend. On all other weekends, the Applicant shall have preference for how to divide the weekend.

Other Special Events

17. The parties shall make reasonable accommodations for special occasions, including but not limited to family weddings, milestone birthdays, religious or cultural observances, and funerals. The parties shall make requests for special occasion parenting time in writing with a minimum of 60 days’ notice, when able. The parties shall consider such requests in good faith.

Exchanges/Travel Expenses

Regular Schedule

18. The Respondent shall cover travel expenses (car, train, or air) in both directions for regular parenting schedules, including back-to-back weekend, regular weekend, or long weekend schedules and Jack’s birthday, Easter and Thanksgiving, along with fees for unaccompanied minor services by Via Rail or Air Canada, when used.

19. The Respondent shall reimburse the Applicant for travel expenses, up to a maximum of $500 per calendar month ($150 for travel, $350 for accommodation), in any month where the following conditions are met:

a. The Applicant travels to Ottawa for the purpose of exercising parenting time with Jack;

b. The Applicant incurs overnight accommodation expenses during such travel; and,

c. The Applicant provides the Respondent with a receipt confirming suitable overnight accommodation (e.g., hotel, motel, Airbnb) no later than 14 days following the conclusion of the parenting time in Ottawa.

Holiday Schedule

20. For the following parenting time, the Applicant and the Respondent shall either meet halfway at their own expense or share the cost of Jack’s train or airfare, including any applicable unaccompanied minor service fees charged by Via Rail or Air Canada:

a. Vacation exchanges (but not Jack’s birthday)

b. March Break exchanges

21. Notwithstanding paragraph 18 above, if the Respondent is otherwise travelling to Cambridge during the exchange period, the Respondent shall be responsible for Jack’s travel expenses.

Other Parenting time

22. For all other parenting time not covered by paragraphs 18 to 21, the Applicant will cover travel expenses (car, train, or air) along with fees for unaccompanied minor services by Via Rail or Air Canada when used.

Third party Information and Communication

23. Both parties shall independently have access to information from third parties, including but not limited to school staff, heath care providers, daycare providers and therapists/counsellors.

24. All communication between the parties shall be civil and child focused. The parties shall follow the BIFF model: communication shall be brief, informative, friendly, or firm.

25. All communications about Jack shall be in writing via AppClose.

Applicant’s Work Schedule

26. The Applicant shall provide the Respondent with his yearly schedule outlining his vacation time and seasonal holiday shutdowns in December of each year commencing December 2027. For 2026, he shall provide the yearly schedule forthwith.

27. The Applicant shall provide the Respondent a copy of his work pocket calendar provided by Toyota in January of each year commencing January 2027. For 2026 he shall provide the work pocket calendar forthwith.

Scheduling Issues

28. The Respondent shall provide the Applicant with school schedules, professional development (PD) days, and planned vacation periods, to facilitate the coordination of parenting time immediately upon receiving same.

Appointments

29. The Respondent shall be responsible for scheduling and coordinating Jack’s appointments. The Respondent must provide the Applicant with timely and complete information regarding each appointment, including available options for participation, to ensure equitable access and transparency.

30. Appointments may be:

i. Video conferencing, if allowed by the practitioner;

ii. Telephone or speakerphone: Audio-only communications; or

iii. In person, if he is able to attend.

Passport/Travel

31. The Applicant shall forthwith execute all necessary documents, and take all necessary steps, for the Respondent to obtain Jack’s passport.

32. Each party shall be at liberty to travel to the United States for a trip not exceeding twenty (24) hours without the consent of the other party. However, notice of such trip shall be provided to the other party in advance.

33. For all other trips outside of Canada, the travelling party shall provide at least thirty (30) days notice of the trip, including details of the trip (location, contact information, travel dates), and shall provide the other party with a travel consent to sign. Consent to travel shall not be unreasonably withheld.

34. The Respondent shall provide the Applicant with copies of any updated government documents (e.g., health card) forthwith upon receipt of same.

Child Support

35. The Applicant shall pay to the Respondent retroactive child support in the sum of $5,962.40.

36. The Applicant shall pay child support to the Respondent for the child, Jack Gordon McKinnon Edwards, born August 9, 2022, in the sum of $1,050 per month, commencing on June 1, 2026, and on the first day of each month thereafter in accordance with a Guideline income of $114,722.

37. The Applicant and the Respondent shall provide the other with a copy of their respective T1 General Tax Return and Notice of Assessment each year, no later than June 1. Any adjustment to child support or proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses shall be effective June 1. The Respondent shall pay for extracurricular activities she enrolls Jack in. The Applicant shall pay for s. 7 expenses for activities he enrolls Jack in. Any agreed upon travel sports shall be shared in proportionate to their respective incomes and ability to pay, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Agreement shall not be unreasonable withheld.

38. Additional s. 7 expenses shall be dealt with as follows:

a. The Respondent shall pay for any s. 7 daycare expenses in Ottawa; the Applicant shall pay for any s. 7 daycare expenses in Cambridge.

b. Medical/dental expenses that are not covered by benefits shall be shared in proportion to income.

Costs

39. The parties shall confer to determine if they are able to resolve the issue of costs. They are strongly encouraged to resolve costs, and they must engage in settlement discussions regarding this issue. If the parties are not able to resolve the issue of costs, they shall each serve and file written submissions on costs by September 11, 2026. The narrative portion of costs submissions for this trial shall not exceed five pages, not including the bill of costs and offers to settle. The written submissions shall be typed, double spaced and have characters of at least 12-point size. Both parties shall submit bills of costs with their submissions. Submissions shall be directed to my attention by email to Kitchener.SCJJA@ontario.ca. If a party does not serve and file submissions respecting costs in accordance with these deadlines there shall be no costs payable to that party, although costs may still be awarded against that party.

D. Piccoli J.

Released: July 28, 2026

CITATION: Edwards v. McKinnon, 2026 ONSC 4372

COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-96

DATE: 2026/07/28

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Cole Gordon Edwards

Applicant

– and –

Grace Elizabeth McKinnon

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

D. Piccoli J.

Released: July 28, 2026