71:I[968242,["/_next/static/chunks/3qg-bf4wge64d.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/3v_w1n5g6522p.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/3ujlpvff0vb-7.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/2k7f8suhxm2-8.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/2fsrnu2gp9_4u.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/27_9ufxbwin6z.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/2sdc2pl6b0whl.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/0rilgbl3o5bv-.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/2gp5e08e4bzb2.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/1zwxfs8apffsp.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/0ge_jygntn__-.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/2t983cxfikug7.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/3kdxm6uiq7max.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/1dqegofixi01y.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/1cyl-uh4-sfa1.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/26718zs_zmq0z.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/27m_b1lu9i1u-.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/2thbtt_hro9ll.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/30u_-tv5uqt2l.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/1zms0ibhk096x.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/3bllc1cdr-cl8.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/00tz5ai-lhcyz.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/28vaz4s6hoj88.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/15aavggsqkxbp.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/08dzzn4r58_fn.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/09yk5wp1raihi.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/3b2rj_jp15rs6.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx","/_next/static/chunks/2qubim9pduzar.js?dpl=dpl_3n4bec47mv7KbB4geZf7G8uJHyVx"],"SidebarDataSetter"] 72:T8771,CITATION: Tosic v. Economopoulos, [2026 ONSC 4057](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2026/4057) COURT FILE NO.: FC956/25 DATE: August 12, 2026 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO FAMILY COURT RE: Suzana Tosic, Applicant AND: Aris Economopoulos, Respondent BEFORE: OUELLETTE J. COUNSEL: Rebecca M. Coyne, for the Applicant Annie Yektaeian, as Agent for Natacha R. Leite, for the Respondent HEARD: July 14, 2026 DECISION Introduction [1] This is the continuation of the parties’ respective motions, both dated June 29, 2026. A hearing addressing only the mother’s request for an order permitting travel with the child was argued on July 8, 2026. Reasons respecting the issue were released July 10, 2026. [2] The remaining issues on the mother's motion are: 1. An order granting blanket consent for travel within North America for periods of up to seven days upon 15 days' notice; 2. A variation of the regular and holiday parenting schedule; and 3. Additional terms relating to parenting exchanges. [3] The father seeks the following relief: 1. An increase in his regular parenting time; 2. Summer holiday parenting time; and 3. Additional terms relating to parenting exchanges. [4] Although it is unnecessary to do so, I reiterate the observations made in my endorsement of July 10, 2026 concerning the volume of material filed. Much of the evidence and correspondence submitted was of limited assistance in determining the issues before the court. Brief Background [5] The parties were in a relatively short relationship. They married on July 9, 2022, and separated on October 12, 2024 when the mother was approximately eight months pregnant. Following the separation, the father relocated to Toronto. [6] Initially, the father's parenting time consisted of short visits at the former matrimonial home while the mother was present. The mother asserts that these visits were frequently conflictual, that the father often attended with third parties, failed to adhere to scheduled parenting times, and at times refused to leave when requested. The father states that he was uncomfortable attending the residence alone with the mother and therefore asked family members to accompany him. He further submits that the visits proposed by the mother did not adequately account for the five- to six-hour round-trip travel required to exercise parenting time. [7] The father's parenting time did not progress meaningfully in the months following separation. Unsurprisingly, each parent attributes responsibility for that lack of progress to the other. The mother deposes that the father declined seven scheduled visits during the summer of 2025 and that his inflexible positions prevented makeup parenting time or reasonable schedule adjustments. The father, in turn, deposes that the mother imposed unnecessary conditions on his parenting time and unilaterally determined what parenting schedule was appropriate without meaningful consultation with him. [8] On October 25, 2025, the mother provided a statement to police. The father was subsequently charged with three counts of assault and two counts of assault with a weapon relating to allegations made by the mother. His release conditions prohibit direct or indirect communication with her. The mother alleges that the father engaged in a history of abusive and controlling behaviour, which he denies. The father, for his part, alleges that the mother has engaged in controlling behaviour toward him. [9] The current parenting arrangements are governed by the interim, without prejudice consent order of Campbell J. dated November 28, 2025. Since January 31, 2026, the father has exercised parenting time every Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until Sunday at 1:00 p.m. He was also granted parenting time on December 24, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and from December 31, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. until January 1, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. [10] The mother is scheduled to return to work on August 10, 2026. She will work Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The child will attend daycare, and the mother anticipates receiving assistance from her own mother as required. The father is currently unemployed but hopes to return to work. He resides with his parents. [11] To date, the father has borne the responsibility of parenting exchanges. Position of the Parties [12] The mother seeks a variation of the parenting schedule so that the child resides with the father on alternating weekends from Friday at 12:00 p.m. to Sunday at 12:00 p.m. (noon). In the event the father obtains employment, she proposes that parenting time occur on alternating weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. She also proposes alternate Wednesday parenting time from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The mother's proposal results in a modest increase in the father's parenting time over a two-week period. She explains that, upon her return to work, she wishes to have uninterrupted parenting time with the child on alternating weekends. The mother further submits that the father should continue to bear responsibility for transportation and parenting exchanges. [13] The father seeks a significantly expanded parenting schedule implemented on a graduated basis. He proposes an immediate increase such that the child would be in his care every Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. Thereafter, parenting time would extend from Saturday at 10:00 a.m. to Monday at 7:00 a.m. Beginning in December 2026, the father seeks a further extension to Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. Finally, commencing in January 2027, he proposes a two-week rotating schedule whereby, in Week 1, the child would be in his care from Saturday at 10:00 a.m. until Tuesday at 7:00 p.m., and in Week 2, from Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. until Thursday at 7:00 p.m. The father also seeks an order requiring that parenting exchanges occur in Ancaster, or at another mutually convenient midway location. [14] For the reasons that follow, I find that the father's proposal is overly ambitious in light of the child's age, circumstances, and the history of parenting time to date. Conversely, I find that the mother's proposal is unduly cautious and does not adequately recognize the importance of fostering the child's relationship with the father through a measured expansion of parenting time. [15] The parties resolved the issue of Thanksgiving parenting time. An order shall issue on consent in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement dated July 8, 2026, which have been filed with the court. [16] No submissions were made respecting Christmas parenting time at the hearing, although each party's position is set out in their respective Notices of Motion. Accordingly, I will address that issue on the basis of the materials filed and the overall parenting framework that follows. Legislation [17] The only relevant test in considering parenting arrangements for children is their best interests. These parties were married and therefore sections 16, 16.1 through 16.4 and 16.6 of the [Divorce Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html) govern the analysis. There is no presumption favouring equal parenting time, nor is there any "tender years" presumption that a young child should primarily remain in the care of her mother. [18] In assessing Sofia's best interests, the following considerations are particularly significant: 1. This is a high-conflict parenting dispute in which both parties have become firmly entrenched in their respective positions. 2. The father has consistently expressed a desire for increased parenting time. 3. There is no evidence before the court that either parent is unable to meet Sofia's day-to-day needs when she is in their care. 1. The father's residence in Toronto creates significant logistical challenges to regular contact and frequent parenting exchanges given the distance between the parties' homes. [19] The Guide may be of assistance to courts and litigants by providing helpful information, suggestions and guidance in the development of parenting arrangements. However, it does not create presumptive parenting schedules and is not a mandatory consideration to be applied universally in every case. See: Gjorsovski v. Krajisnik, [2025 ONSC 7220](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2025/7220). [20] Although both parties referred generally to the Guide, neither counsel directed me to the underlying social science research or scholarly literature upon which its recommendations are based. More importantly, neither party presented expert evidence addressing the particular needs of this child or the circumstances of this family. In the absence of such evidence, I decline to apply the Guide as a determinative framework. Sofia's best interests must instead be assessed on the evidence before the court and the statutory factors set out in the [Divorce Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html). [21] The analysis therefore proceeds in accordance with the factors enumerated in [ss. 16](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html#sec16_smooth) and [16.1](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html#sec16.1_smooth) to [16.4](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html#sec16.4_smooth) of the [Divorce Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html). In doing so, I remain mindful of two additional considerations. First, the purpose of a temporary parenting order is to establish a functioning status quo pending trial, and such arrangements should not be altered lightly absent persuasive evidence that a change is in the child's best interests. Second, the court is operating on affidavit evidence alone, without the benefit of viva voce testimony or cross-examination. Accordingly, caution must be exercised when making findings of fact and crafting interim parenting arrangements that may have significant consequences for both the child and the parties. The [Divorce Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html) and the Interim Parenting Schedule for Sofia [22] I turn now to the analysis of Sofia's best interests pursuant to the factors set out in the [Divorce Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html). Having reviewed the evidence before me, I make the following findings for the purposes of this interim motion: i. Sofia has been in the primary care of the mother since birth and is closely bonded with her. ii. Sofia is thriving in the mother's care. There is no evidence that her physical, emotional, developmental, or day-to-day needs are not being met. iii. The mother has historically assumed primary responsibility for Sofia's day-to-day care and decision-making. iv. The father is capable of appropriately caring for Sofia during his parenting time. The evidence establishes that Sofia and the father share a close, loving, and meaningful relationship. v. Neither parent presently demonstrates a strong willingness or ability to support and encourage Sofia's relationship with the other parent. This appears, at least in part, to be a product of the high-conflict nature of these proceedings. Much of the evidence filed by both parties focuses on the perceived shortcomings of the other parent rather than on Sofia's needs, routines, or wellbeing. vi. Following the parties' separation, the father chose to reside in Toronto. That decision creates significant logistical challenges for parenting arrangements, particularly given Sofia's young age. vii. It is not in Sofia's best interests to implement a parenting schedule that places her in the father's care for substantial periods during the school week. Such a schedule would be difficult to sustain once Sofia commences school and would likely require significant restructuring in a relatively short period of time. viii. The mother has returned, or is about to return, to full-time employment, and the child will be in daycare during the week. ix. The commute between the parties' residences is substantial, requiring approximately five to six hours of travel for a return trip between homes, and approximately ten to twelve hours of travel over the course of a parenting weekend. Travel times are affected by traffic and weather conditions. x. The father's proposed graduated parenting schedule lacks sufficient detail regarding how it will operate when Sofia begins school or when he secures employment. While the father submits that members of his family would assist with childcare, there is little evidence regarding the availability, willingness, or long-term capacity of the paternal grandparents to provide regular care. xi. The child will benefit from uninterrupted time with both parties on weekends. xii. The father provides little detail regarding his proposed childcare arrangements should he return to employment. xiii. It is in Sofia's best interests to maintain connections with both sides of her family and to develop an understanding of her cultural heritage, including her maternal ties to Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as her paternal Greek heritage. xiv. The parties have no history of coparenting. xv. The parties are unable to communicate directly. The father's criminal release conditions prohibit communication with the mother. In addition, the mother alleges a history of abuse and controlling behaviour, which the father denies, while the father alleges controlling behaviour by the mother. Although these allegations remain contested and have not been tested through cross-examination, they are sufficiently serious that the court must consider the possibility of family violence as part of the best-interests analysis mandated by the [Divorce Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html). [23] In light of the forgoing, I find that Sofia's best interests are served by transitioning to an alternating weekend parenting schedule and by creating opportunities for the father to spend additional time with Sofia during the week when he is present in the Komoka/London area and able to exercise that parenting time. [24] Increasing the father's weekend parenting time will provide him with more meaningful and uninterrupted time with Sofia while reducing the burden imposed by lengthy travel. [25] Although I find that additional time between Sofia and her father to be in the child’s best interests, this must be balanced with the need for stability and routine given her young age. Although Sofia is not yet two years old, she will begin school within a relatively short period of time. When that occurs, she will necessarily be anchored primarily in one community. I am therefore reluctant to implement an interim schedule that depends extensively upon weekday parenting across two jurisdictions and that will almost certainly require substantial revision once Sofia enters school. [26] The evidence further establishes that Sofia is thriving in the mother's care. The father's ultimate proposal represents a significant departure from the current parenting arrangement. Moreover, his employment circumstances remain uncertain, and his future availability to care for Sofia on a regular basis is presently unknown. [27] In comparing the parties' competing proposals, I prefer the general framework advanced by the mother because it provides greater stability, continuity, and predictability for Sofia, particularly as she begins daycare and adjusts to her mother's return to full-time employment. That said, I agree with the father that Sofia's relationship with him would benefit from additional parenting time beyond that contemplated in the mother's proposal. [28] At present, the father is unemployed and, aside from the inconvenience associated with travel, has availability during the week to spend time with Sofia. In my view, Sofia's best interests are best served by a schedule that preserves stability in her primary residence, significantly increases the father's uninterrupted weekend parenting time, and permits additional weekday parenting opportunities where they can reasonably occur without disrupting Sofia's routine or creating an arrangement that is unlikely to remain workable as she grows older. Travel [29] I turn now to the mother’s request for an order dispensing with the father's consent for travel. [30] As mentioned, this is a high conflict relationship. A disproportionate amount of time, expense, and court resources has been devoted to disputes concerning the mother's travel requests. The mother submits that the father uses his consent as a means of exercising control over her and the child. The father, on the other hand, argues that the mother's requests are often lacking in detail and that he is entitled to reasonable information concerning Sofia's travel plans. [31] On the conflicting evidence, it is not possible to make a determination on this motion of which party is at fault for their inability to reach agreement. What is apparent, however, is that the current process is not functioning and that a practical solution is required to reduce ongoing conflict and future litigation. [32] The evidence establishes that the mother has family connections in Michigan and that cross-border travel forms a regular and legitimate part of maintaining those relationships. Importantly, there is no evidence before the court giving rise to any concern that the mother may wrongfully retain or relocate Sofia in the United States or otherwise frustrate the father's parenting relationship. [33] In these circumstances, I find that it is in Sofia's best interests for the mother to be permitted to travel with her without obtaining the father's express consent, provided that reasonable notice and sufficient travel particulars are given in advance and the proposed travel does not interfere with the father's parenting time. Such an arrangement appropriately balances Sofia's interest in maintaining family connections and participating in travel opportunities with the father's legitimate interest in receiving information concerning her whereabouts. Exchanges [34] The father requests that the mother be required to delegate a third party to conduct parenting exchanges. He alleges that the mother engages in conduct that causes Sofia distress during exchanges. [35] There is insufficient evidence before me to support such a finding. The father is not present at exchanges therefore his evidence comes through third-party information. On the evidence before the court, I am unable to conclude that the mother intentionally agitates Sofia or otherwise behaves in a manner that necessitates removing her from the exchange process. [36] The father proposes that the parties' respective mothers conduct the parenting exchanges. However, neither grandmother is a party to this proceeding and neither has been served with the relief sought. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate to make an order compelling either of them to assume responsibility for exchanges. The parties are expected to act in the best interest of the child and ensure to the best of their ability that the transitions proceed with the least disruption possible. [37] The father also requests that the exchange occur at a mid-way point. [38] At present, the father is unemployed and is not paying child support. Requiring the mother to assume responsibility for half the transportation would place an unreasonable burden upon her, particularly when it was the father who chose to relocate to Toronto following the parties' separation. I agree with the submission of the father's counsel that transportation arrangements should not be punitive. However, they must reflect the realities of the parties' respective circumstances, including their availability, the distance between residences, and the father's release conditions prohibiting contact with the mother. [39] Whenever possible, parenting exchanges shall occur at Sofia's daycare. This arrangement minimizes the need for third-party involvement and reduces opportunities for conflict arising from the parties' inability to communicate directly. [40] When daycare is not available, including on weekend exchanges, the parties shall conduct exchanges in either Belmont or Woodstock. In my view, this strikes an appropriate balance between alleviating some of the transportation burden borne by the father while recognizing that it was the father who relocated and that the child continues to reside primarily with the mother in the London area. Summer [41] The father seeks two non-consecutive weeks of parenting time during the summer of 2026. The mother opposes that request and instead proposes two additional parenting periods consisting of two overnights each. [42] During submissions, the father also suggested that one of the proposed weeks could occur in Greece, noting that the mother also seeks flexibility with respect to international travel. [43] I am not persuaded that the father's proposal is presently in Sofia's best interests. [44] Sofia is about to experience significant changes in her daily routine. She will shortly begin attending daycare on a full-time basis, which represents a substantial developmental transition. While it is appropriate to provide the father with additional parenting opportunities, those opportunities must be balanced against Sofia's need for stability, predictability, and continuity of care. [45] To date, Sofia has not spent more than a single overnight consecutively in the care of the father. In those circumstances, a sudden progression to a week-long period of parenting time would represent too dramatic a change from the existing arrangement. [46] It would have been helpful to have evidence from the father regarding how he proposes to respond if Sofia experiences distress arising from a prolonged separation from her mother. Rather than acknowledging that possibility and providing a concrete plan, the father's materials largely assume that such concerns will not arise. [47] I am also not persuaded that parenting time in Greece is presently appropriate. The proposal lacks sufficient detail and, in my view, reflects inadequate consideration of Sofia's age and developmental needs. If Sofia were to experience significant difficulty adjusting to an extended separation from her mother, there would be little practical ability for the mother to assist or provide reassurance while the child is overseas. [48] Accordingly, I find that an incremental increase in parenting time is appropriate but that a request for week-long parenting periods, whether in Canada or internationally, is premature at this time. The focus should remain on gradually expanding the father's parenting time in a manner that promotes Sofia's relationship with him while preserving the stability and routine that are presently serving her well. ORDER: [49] Pursuant to the [Divorce Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html), a temporary order shall issue as follows: Regular Parenting Schedule 1. Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Temporary Order of Justice Campbell dated November 28, 2025 shall be vacated. 2. Commencing August 14, 2026, and on alternate weekends thereafter, the Respondent father, Aris Economopoulos, shall exercise parenting time with the child, Sofia Tosic Economopoulos, from Friday at noon (pick up at daycare) to Sunday at 6:00 p.m., increasing to Monday on holiday weekends: a. The Respondent shall pick up the child at daycare. If daycare is not available, then the exchange shall occur at the Komoka Wellness Center; b. If the Respondent commences work and is unable to conduct the 12:00 p.m. noon exchange on Friday, he may delegate a third party to conduct the exchange on his behalf; c. If the Respondent commences work and is no longer able to exercise his parenting time on Fridays, he may elect to commence his parenting time on Saturday mornings at 10:00 a.m. instead. If so, the Saturday morning exchange shall occur at the Husky/Mobile Gas Station at HWY 401 & 74, Belmont, Ontario. The Respondent shall be responsible for delegating a third party to attend to conduct the exchange; d. The Sunday evening exchange shall occur in the Tim Hortons parking lot at 566 Norwich Avenue, Woodstock, Ontario. The Respondent shall be responsible for delegating a third party to attend to conduct the exchange. 3. Commencing August 26, 2026, the Respondent shall exercise parenting time with the child on alternate Wednesdays from 12:00 p.m. (noon) to Thursday morning at 8:30 a.m.: a. The Respondent shall pick up the child at daycare. If daycare is not available, then the exchange shall occur at the Komoka Wellness Center; b. The Respondent shall drop off the child at daycare; c. The Respondent must secure appropriate accommodations in London (i.e., a hotel or Airbnb); d. By Monday at 6:00 p.m., the Respondent is to confirm that he will be exercising parenting time and provide a copy of the reservation confirmation which will include the accommodation’s name and address. If he does not send a confirmation, then the parenting time shall be forfeited; e. No other adult except the Respondent’s parents may be present for this parenting time. 4. If the Respondent’s schedule permits, commencing August 19, 2026, parenting time with the child shall occur on alternate Wednesdays from 12:00 p.m. (noon) to 6:00 p.m.: a. These visits shall occur in Komoka or London; b. The Respondent shall pick up the child at daycare. If daycare is not available, then the exchange shall occur at the Komoka Wellness Center; c. The drop off shall occur at the Komoka Wellness Center; d. The Applicant shall delegate a third party to receive the child at drop-off. 5. The parties shall maintain a flexible approach in scheduling mid-week visits taking into consideration the Respondent’s work schedule. The time and day for the parenting time should not be strictly adhered to if reasonable alternatives are proposed on notice. 6. If the Respondent relocates to within 15 kilometres of Komoka or the City of London, either party may seek a review of the parenting schedule. Exchanges 7. Neither party shall record exchanges, and both parties shall direct their third-party delegates to also refrain from recording exchanges. 8. Should the third-party delegates continue to record exchanges, then the party conducting the exchange may request the other party to choose a different third-party delegate. International Travel 9. Paragraph 7 of the Temporary Order of Justice Campbell dated November 28, 2025 shall be vacated. 10. The Applicant mother, Suzana Tosic, may travel with the child to visit family in Michigan without the consent of the Respondent for a period not to exceed seven days up to two times per year, on the following terms: a. She shall provide 21 day’s notice to the Respondent of her intent to travel; b. Notice to the Respondent shall include: i. Which border she intends to cross, ii. The dates and estimated times for the border crossing, iii. The address where she will be staying overnight while in Michigan, iv. A phone number and email address where the child can be reached while in Michigan, v. Names of all adults travelling with the child, and vi. Any other relevant details; c. The Applicant’s travel shall not interfere with the Respondent’s weekend parenting time; d. If the Applicant’s travel interferes with the Respondent’s mid-week parenting time, make-up time shall be offered either the week before or after her planned travel. 11. The Respondent shall not travel internationally with the child prior to 2028. 12. Subject to paragraph 11 of this Order, neither party shall unreasonably refuse to grant permission for the other parent to travel to a country that is a signatory of the Hague Convention. If requested by the party travelling with the child, the other shall, in a timely manner, sign a consent to travel letter recommended by border services at: [https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/children/consent-letter](https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/children/consent-letter). 13. Subject to paragraph 11, if either party plans to take the child outside of Canada for a vacation, he or she shall notify the other at least 30 days in advance, except as otherwise specified in the paragraph above. Such notice shall include: i. Particulars of the method of travel (car, train, plane…), ii. Copies of airfare or train tickets, if applicable, iii. The dates and estimated times for departure and arrival, iv. The address where the child will be staying overnight while away, v. A phone number and email address where the child can be reached while away, vi. Names of all adults travelling with the child, and vii. Any other relevant details. Holiday Parenting Schedule: 14. Summer 2026: a. The Respondent’s regularly scheduled parenting time commencing at noon on August 26, 2026 shall extend to Sunday August 30, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. The Respondent is not required to reside in London on August 26, 2026. b. There shall be an additional weekend from Friday, September 4 at 12:00 p.m. (noon) to Monday September 7 at 6:00 p.m. 15. Summer 2027 (July and August): a. The Respondent shall have two non-consecutive weeks with the child to commence on a regularly scheduled parenting weekend. b. The Respondent may travel within Canada with the child for his summer parenting time, provided that: i. He provide 21 day’s notice to the Applicant of his travel plans; ii. Notice to the Applicant shall include: 1. Particulars of the method of travel (car, train, plane…), 2. Copies of airfare or train tickets, if applicable, 3. The dates and estimated times for departure and arrival, 4. The address where he will be staying overnight while away, 5. A phone number and email address where the child can be reached while away, 6. Names of all adults travelling with the child, and 7. Any other relevant details. c. The Applicant mother shall have the child for two weeks: i. If she chooses to have the child on non consecutive weeks, it shall commence on a regularly scheduled parenting weekend; ii. If she chooses to have the weeks consecutively, then her summer parenting time shall commence on a Sunday following the Respondent’s parenting weekend, and it shall conclude Friday at 10:00 a.m. to ensure the child is available for the Respondent’s next regularly scheduled parenting weekend. d. The Applicant may travel with the child in Canada or internationally for her summer parenting time, provided that: i. She provide 21 day’s notice to the Respondent of her travel plans, ii. Notice to the Respondent shall include: 1. Particulars of the method of travel (car, train, plane…), 2. Copies of airfare or train tickets, if applicable, 3. The dates and estimated times for departure and arrival, 4. The address where she will be staying overnight while away, 5. A phone number where the child can be reached while away, 6. Names of all adults travelling with the child, and 7. Any other relevant details. e. While on vacation, the travelling party shall send to the other party (through a third party) a photo of the child taken during that day. f. The Respondent shall have first choice of vacation weeks in 2027. He shall notify the Applicant on or before May 1 of his chosen dates. If the Respondent does not notify the Applicant prior to the May 1 deadline, the Applicant shall have the opportunity to pick her chosen weeks first. Christmas 2026 16. For Christmas break, the following schedule shall apply and replace the regular parenting schedule: a. The child shall be in the care of the Applicant mother from December 23, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. to December 25, 2026 at 2:00 p.m.; b. The child shall be in the care of the Respondent father from December 25, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. to December 29, 2026 at 5:00 p.m.; c. The child shall be in the care of the Applicant mother from December 29, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. to January 1, 2027 at 2:00 p.m.; d. The child shall be in the care of the Respondent father from January 1, 2027 at 2:00 p.m. to January 5, 2027 at 5:00 p.m.; e. The regular parenting schedule shall resume thereafter; f. For the Christmas schedule, exchanges shall occur in the Tim Hortons parking lot at 566 Norwich Avenue, Woodstock, Ontario. On Consent: Thanksgiving 2026 17. The Respondent, Aris Economopoulos, shall have parenting time with the child Sofia over the Thanksgiving weekend from 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 10, 2026, with the Respondent to pick Sofia up from the Kitchener area at a public place to be determined, to 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 11, 2026, with Sofia to be returned to the Komoka Wellness Centre. [50] If the parties cannot agree on costs, each may submit a bill of costs, any offers to settle and five-page submissions, double-spaced using 12-point font, by August 27, 2026. Submissions shall be directed to my attention by email to [LondonUFCAdmin@ontario.ca](mailto:LondonUFCAdmin@ontario.ca). “Justice Stephanie J. Ouellette” \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Justice Stephanie J. Ouellette Released: August 12, 202634:["$","$L71",null,{"caseData":{"id":209911,"body":"$72","year":2026,"court":{"id":1,"name":"Superior Court of Justice","slug":"scj","abbreviation":"SCJ"},"issues":[{"id":423976,"outcome":"granted","description":"Whether the court should grant blanket consent for travel within North America for the mother.","issue_index":0},{"id":423977,"outcome":"mixed — partially granted","description":"Whether the regular and holiday parenting schedule should be varied.","issue_index":1},{"id":423978,"outcome":"mixed — partially granted","description":"Whether additional terms relating to parenting exchanges are required.","issue_index":2}],"judges":[{"id":30221,"name":"Stephanie J. Ouellette","role":"authoring","slug":"stephaniejouellette","username":"stephaniejouellette"}],"source":"https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026canlii89306/2026canlii89306.html","lawyers":[{"id":179923,"url":"https://www.minicounsel.ca/rebeccamcoyne","name":"Rebecca M. Coyne","role":"applicant_counsel","slug":"rebeccamcoyne","username":"rebeccamcoyne","is_placeholder":false},{"id":18147,"url":"https://www.minicounsel.ca/annieyektaeian","name":"Annie Yektaeian","role":"respondent_counsel","slug":"annieyektaeian","username":"annieyektaeian","is_placeholder":false}],"parties":[{"id":269261,"name":"Aris Economopoulos","role":"respondent"},{"id":269260,"name":"Suzana Tosic","role":"applicant"}],"summary":"This decision addresses the continuation of the parties' motions regarding interim parenting arrangements for their young child. The mother sought a varied schedule and blanket consent for travel, while the father sought significantly expanded parenting time. The court found the father's proposal overly ambitious and the mother's unduly cautious. Balancing the child's need for stability with the benefit of increased time with the father, the court ordered an alternating weekend schedule with additional mid-week time for the father when he is in the London area. The mother was also granted permission to travel with the child to visit family in Michigan without the father's consent, subject to reasonable notice. Exchange locations were established to balance the transportation burden.","citation":"Tosic v. Economopoulos 2026 SCJ mini 31","court_id":1,"keywords":["best interests of the child","high-conflict","interim order","parenting time","travel consent"],"province":{"id":1,"name":"Ontario","abbreviation":"ON"},"one_liner":"Interim parenting schedule ordered to increase father's time while maintaining stability and travel provisions.","case_types":["motion"],"date_heard":"2026-07-14","cited_cases":[{"id":961262,"url":"https://www.minicounsel.ca/scj/2025/7220","title":"Gjorsovski v. Krajisnik, 2025 ONSC 7220","polarity":"neutral","treatment":"cited","relationship_kind":"treatment"}],"disposition":"other","has_dissent":false,"legal_tests":[],"panel_split":false,"source_slug":"/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026canlii89306/2026canlii89306.html","times_cited":0,"areas_of_law":[{"id":10012,"name":"Family and Matrimonial Law","slug":"family-and-matrimonial-law"}],"file_numbers":[{"id":212230,"file_number":"FC956/25"}],"party_string":"Suzana Tosic v. Aris Economopoulos","tax_metadata":null,"document_kind":null,"fact_patterns":[{"id":6703,"name":"cross-border travel","slug":"cross-border-travel"},{"id":2190,"name":"high-conflict separation","slug":"high-conflict-separation"},{"id":5528,"name":"infant child","slug":"infant-child"},{"id":8274,"name":"long distance travel","slug":"long-distance-travel"},{"id":3479,"name":"parenting schedule","slug":"parenting-schedule"}],"hearing_dates":["2026-07-14"],"canonical_year":2026,"date_judgement":"2026-08-12","decisionMakers":[],"external_links":[{"id":247100,"url":"https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026canlii89306/2026canlii89306.html","label":"Source","domain":"www.canlii.org","url_path":"/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026canlii89306/2026canlii89306.html"}],"noindex_reason":null,"citation_scheme":"mini","decision_number":89306,"final_judgement":"Temporary order issued modifying the parenting schedule, travel rules, and exchange logistics.","representatives":[],"source_language":"en","expert_witnesses":[],"canonical_path_id":"m31","financial_outcomes":null,"parties_anonymized":false,"statutory_provisions":[{"id":490412,"topic":"best interests of the child","section":"s. 16","statute":"Divorce Act"},{"id":490413,"topic":"parenting orders","section":"s. 16.1","statute":"Divorce Act"}],"certification_outcome":"not_certification","legislation_citations":[{"id":310456,"url":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html","title":"Divorce Act"}]},"tocEntries":[],"relationships":{"same_proceeding":[],"appeal":[]},"podcastInitial":{"kind":"none"},"citingTreatmentSummary":[]}] 37:E{"digest":"NEXT_REDIRECT;replace;/scj/2026/m31;308;"}