CITATION: Browne v. Browne, 2026 ONSC 99

PETERBOROUGH COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-00000258-0000

DATE: 20260106

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Neil Browne

Applicant

– and –

Tracey Browne (Levack)

Respondent

M. Mulchan and M. Eisenberg, for the Applicant

R. Sankaran as agent for Anna Krajewska, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2025 followed by written submissions

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

S.E. Fraser, J.:

I. Nature of the Application

1The parties were married. They agree on the date of separation. They share two children who are twins and are now 15 years old. A trial was held before me to decide the issues that they cannot resolve themselves.

2On May 28, 2025, the parties reached agreement on several issues and a consent order issued (“the May 28, 2025 Order”). The May 28, 2025 Order resolved the issues of decision making, retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, ongoing spousal support, some property, the sale of the matrimonial home, the value of Sedan Crescent as of the date of separation and post-separation expenses.

3This judgment decides the remaining issues.

II. Issues

4The issues to be determined are:

a. parenting time;

b. child support;

c. s. 7 expenses;

d. equalization including division of the Applicant’s pension and ownership of a property referred to as Sedan Crescent; and

e. occupation rent.

III. Analysis

5In this analysis, I provide an overview of the family’s situation. I then address each issue in turn, by setting out the principles that govern the issue and applying the facts of this case to the principles.

A. The Family

6The parties started living together on April 1, 2008. They had twins, a boy and a girl, who were born April 26, 2010. They married on February 5, 2011. There is no need for them to be identified for the purpose of these Reasons and so I will refer to them only as the son and the daughter.

7The Applicant is a police officer and works for the Ontario Provincial Police. The Respondent is a nurse and works for the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, Ontario.

8The parties separated April 1, 2021, just before the children’s 10^th^ birthday.

9The relationship dissolved over allegations by the Respondent of infidelities by the Applicant which he denies. The Respondent accused the Applicant of cheating. They were arguing. The daughter texted them from another room and told them to stop. The Applicant decided to move out of the house soon after and secured an apartment. Initially, he was content that the Respondent and the children remain at the house.

10Originally, the children would spend time with the Applicant on alternating weekends. However, the daughter began to refuse to see the Applicant. Between the time of the separation and the commencement of the Application, approximately 10 months, the Applicant saw his daughter only 12 times.

11The parties were unable to reach any agreement on parenting. In the absence of an agreement, the children moved from home to home when they wanted to, not based on an agreed upon routine, but by texting the other parent to come and get them.

12Then, in February 2023, the Respondent reported to the CAS that she had concerns that the Applicant had inappropriately kissed their daughter. The incident was alleged to have occurred before the separation.

13As the parties approached their 10^th^ anniversary, they had a plan to renew their vows and were planning a ceremony. The Applicant was re-enacting the vows with his children, with the daughter playing the part of the Respondent. The Applicant stated that during the re-enactment, he kissed his daughter on her forehead. She apparently felt uncomfortable and would later report this to her mother. The son witnessed the event and did not think that it was inappropriate. However, learning of her daughter’s discomfort long after it had happened, the mother contacted the local children’s aid society. This led to a CAS investigation. Ultimately, the allegation was not verified, and no charges were laid.

14In July, 2023, the children came to live with the Applicant. First, the daughter called and asked her father to come and get her which he did. At the end of the month, the son asked to come.

15On January 23, 2024, the parties consented to an order that the children reside primarily with the Applicant and that the Respondent have parenting time every other weekend. A s. 30 assessment was also ordered on that date.

16In November, 2024, the son left to return to his mother’s house. This was after he got a mark back that was not good. When the Applicant asked him about it, the son snapped back stating that he was not the perfect child. The Applicant told him that they do not speak to each other like that, and the son stated that he would go reside with his mother, which he did until April, 2025 when he returned to live with the Applicant.

17At present, each parent believes that the other parent has undermined their parenting and their relationship with the children. I will describe this in more detail below. They each have expressed concerns to the assessor and to the Court that the other parent makes decisions unilaterally for the children.

18I was concerned that the views expressed by the children were somewhat dated. I considered seeking further information from them by way of an updated Voice of the Child Report or a judicial interview. In the end, I decided that they have already been interviewed for two Voice of the Child Reports and one section 30 assessment and that I should decide the case using that information.

B. Parenting Time

19The Applicant seeks an order that the Respondent mother have parenting time every other weekend and to have holidays in an even manner as set out in his draft order. He asserts that the children want to reside primarily with him, that this was the status quo and that it was recommended by the s. 30 assessor Graham Watson.

20The Respondent argues that Mr. Watson’s assessment is dated and that her relationship with the children has improved since the report was prepared. She asserts that it is in their best interests to preserve and rebuild their relationship and for parenting time to be shared.

21I first set out the governing principles. I then assess the evidence against the framework of those principles.

(a) Governing Principles

22Section 16 of the Divorce Act governs parenting decisions, and the focus of the decision is the best interests of the child. Section 16(1) provides that “the Court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or contact order” (emphasis added).

23In accordance with s. 16(2), I must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. To determine best interests, I must consider the factors set out in s. 16(3).

24Section 16(5) requires that past conduct is not considered, unless it is relevant to the exercise of a party’s parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with a child.

25When determining parenting time, I am required to give effect to the principle that a child should have parenting time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child. This is referred to as the parenting time factor. The nature of the inquiry is child centric. See Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, at para. 135. There is no presumption of shared parenting and the status quo is not the default position. See Cibuku v. Cibuku, 2023 ONSC 7128, at paras. 38-40.

26As noted by Kraft J. in Predotka v. Dudek, 2023 ONSC 7025, at paras. 20-21:

The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that the analysis of the child’s best interests in the context of parenting disputes must be undertaken from the lens of the child rather than the parents’ perspectives; parental preferences and rights do not play a role in the analysis except to the extent that they are necessary to ensure the best interests of the child (Young v. Young, 1993 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.), at paras. 74 and 202; Gordon, at pp. 50, 54, 68; F. v. N. 2022 SCC 51 (S.C.C.), at para. 61).

As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in King v. Low, 1985 59 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 87 (S.C.C.), at para. 101, the ultimate aim of the courts in resolving parenting disputes is “to choose the course which will best provide for the healthy growth, development and education of the child so that he will be equipped to face the problems of life as a mature adult.”

(b) Application of the factors

(i) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

27The children are presently in high school. Each have expressed a wish to reside with their father, although not permanently.

28Both children are in critical years in school. The children would benefit greatly with some routine and a plan for when they see their parents. I do not think the patterns that have been developed are healthy ones. They are at a stage where they are beginning to make their transition to adulthood. They need to be able to focus on their studies and activities and on resolving disputes productively.

29Mr. Watson noted that the children have been having a hard time regulating their emotions. He had concerns about the behaviour of both children when they interacted with their mother. The son was aloof and reserved. The daughter refused to come play the board game with her mother. The behavioural concerns were more on the extreme side of what he had typically seen. He wanted the children to repair their relationship with their mother and find a way to handle conflict in a more productive way.

30Both children appear to be high achievers in sport. The daughter was very involved in cheer and now volleyball.

31The daughter has been through an eating disorder program. This is an issue which requires the attention of both parents despite that she has been discharged from the program.

32The son is dedicated to hockey and both parents agree that he is very talented. He is experiencing anxiety which has led to physical health challenges and a withdrawal from school. He needs the support of both parents. I find the mother’s decisions have interfered with him getting the support that he needs. She has refused to answer questions about his health. She refused to convey key information about her son’s health under the guise that it is her son’s choice. She has had the ability to answer the Applicant’s questions, and she has chosen not to on many occasions.

33I am concerned about the reports that the Respondent has withdrawn privileges when the son expressed a desire to see his father and be with his father. I find this had directly contributed to the breakdown in her relationship with her children.

34Children in their teens need to know that they have the unconditional support of their parents. The need to know that their parents will love and support them through challenges at school and elsewhere. This is not to say that the children make the rules. They need to know what the rules are, and that there will be consistent application of them. I think it would be helpful for them to know what the routine is going to be.

35It is also important for children to have a relationship with each other.

(ii) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

36The children’s relationship with the Respondent was in a very bad state as of the date of the s. 30 assessment. I understand that the son’s relationship with his mother has improved so that he would be willing to spend more time with her. The mother has an extended family, and it appears that the children have a good relationship with her family. That comes through in the daughter’s Voice of the Child Report.

37At present, the daughter’s relationship with her mother is not good. This is clear from direct observations by the assessor, her clear statements in the Voice of the Child Reports, including that Dr. [L] tried to repair the relationship twice but could not.

38The relationship with the father appears to have improved.

(iii) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;

39Each parent has expressed a concern about the other parent’s interference. The Applicant gave examples of the Respondent scheduling activities during his parenting time. The Respondent reported concerns to the CAS which turned out to be unverified. She has accused the Applicant of giving the daughter scabies despite that she works as a nurse in an environment where that illness is also likely to be present.

40The Respondent has failed to communicate, and this includes important health decisions. The Applicant learned for the first time that his son had been prescribed Prozac when he came to live with him. The Respondent did not tell him. The son was not feeling well and when the Applicant took him to the doctor, he learned that his son had been taking double the dose of the medication. This could have been avoided if the Respondent communicated clearly. I accept the Applicant’s evidence on this issue.

41I have serious concerns about the Respondent’s willingness to support the Applicant’s relationship with the children. I do not have concerns about the Applicant’s ability to support the children’s relationship with their mother.

(iv) the history of care of the child;

42The children have been residing primarily with the Applicant since July 2023 except when the son left from November 2024 to April 2025.

(v) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

43The views and preferences of the children were elicited through two Voice of the Child Reports and an assessment conducted under s. 30 of the CLRA. The reports raise serious concerns about the impact of the separation on the children. They also raise concerns about the children’s deteriorating relationship with their mother.

44There were two Voice of the Child Reports prepared for each of the children. The first on May 25, 2023 regarding where the children wanted to live. The second on November 23, 2023. The second report was sought because the children began residing primarily with their father in July, 2023, and were having sporadic direct contact with their mother.

45In the first Voice of the Child Report, the daughter stated that she did not want to live with either parent. She wanted her parents to apologize for not being home with them when they were living together. She told her dad not to yell at her when she didn’t do anything and told her mom not to cry when she called her out. She did not want to go to the same high school as her brother.

46She wanted issues resolved prior to saying what kind of parenting arrangement she wanted and stated, “At this point in time the arrangements stay the same”. At that point in time, she was residing primarily with the Respondent. She was adamant that changes needed to be made before considering parenting time between their homes.

47A further Voice of the Child Report was completed following the Settlement Conference. In respect of the daughter’s wishes, the report states:

[Daughter] directed the Professional to include her ideas and concerns in the report as shown below. The grammar and punctuation, as well as the order of the items were approved by [Daughter] as follows:

1. “Neither one of my parents has said sorry to me. It’s just about me, not about you. Mom, stop making excuses. My parents know what this means.

2. I want to live at my father’s home all the time.

3. I don’t want my mom to take me to volleyball. She’s not allowed to come. I don’t need anything else distracting me from doing the best I can.

4. I would prefer to go to [deleted] Secondary School to attend grade 9 in September 2024.

5. I want to stay at [deleted] Catholic Elementary School until the end of grade eight (8).

6. It’s okay if I go to the same high school as [brother], but I’d prefer not to.

7. I don’t feel that my mom listens to what I’m trying to voice to her. For example, when I ask her to leave me alone, I want her to leave me alone.

8. Mom broke my trust and gave information about me and my situations to others without my permission. Leading to people knowing about it and I did not intend for them to ever know. I 100% do not trust my mom. My mom does not know that I know it was her that told people my information. She broke trust one time and I gave her another chance. She broke it a second time and I gave her one last chance then she broke it a third time and no more chances. The first time was when I was about nine years old. The last time was September or October this year. (2023)

9. When my mom comes to my dad’s, my dad makes me talk to her but when he’s not home I don’t’.

10. Mom doesn’t tell me before she comes to see me, she doesn’t announce it.

11. Mom can phone me once a month for five minutes max.

12. I do not want to be alone with my mom.

13. I would agree to meet with my mom once a month for 3 hrs. tops, as long as [brother] was with me, or my aunts or cousins.

14. I will not go to counselling with my mother.

15. Dr. [L] has tried to help my relationship with my mom and failed multiple times - two times.”

48The latest Voice of the Child Report in respect of the son states:

1. “Mom can go to my hockey games but I don’t see the point in her going to my practices. I don’t want my mother to take me to any of my practices or games.

2. If I don’t answer your phone call the first time, I won’t answer it the eighth time. In half hour my mom will phone me eight times. This happens two to three times a day, everyday since I moved in with my dad. When I do pick up the phone and she says ‘hi, do you want to come over’. I say no and she hangs up.

3. Mom can phone me once a day right when I get home from school up to 5pm. Text messaging same time as phoning. Stop texting me or phoning me at school.

4. I need twenty minutes notice by phone or text message before mom just shows up at dad’s house to see me. I won’t get in your car and go anywhere with you but I will talk to you at the door for about ten minutes. No more than once a week.

5. If I ask you for anything I need, don’t have your immediate response be ‘go ask your dad.’ For example, if I break my hockey stick, she’ll tell me to have my dad pay for it and when I needed my phone fixed because it wouldn’t turn on. My dad pays for my phone.

6. I want to live at my dad’s house fulltime.

7. Every other Saturday mom can pick me up from dad’s house at 10am and drop me off to dad’s house at 2pm (the same day).

8. I want to spend Christmas with dad and his family. Between Christmas and New Year, I would spend a couple of days at my mom’s house but not overnight.

9. I still want to go to [deleted] School for grade nine. I don’t care if my sister goes to the same high school.

10. Right before I moved to dad’s house, my mom hid my cell phone for two weeks because I was on the phone with my dad in my room. She told me to hang up. I hung up and she took my phone. She hid my phone before when I was talking to my dad but not for as long. I moved out of my mom’s a week or two later.

11. When my mom took my phone away the last time, she wouldn’t let me play online video games with my dad either. She took my video game console away and put it in her room for a week.

12. My mom didn’t want me to talk to my dad because she didn’t want him to tell me about court or who pays what bills.

13. I asked for more time with my dad and mom said, have your dad talk to me. Nothing changed, mom ignored my dad.

49Graham Watson prepared a comprehensive report under s. 30 of the CLRA arranged through the Kawartha Family Court Assessment Service following the Court Order of January 23, 2024. It is dated July 31, 2024. Mr. Watson is a Registered Social Worker and holds an M.S.W. He reported that both parents reported concerns about the other parent and how the other parent was influencing the children. The Respondent expressed concerns about inadequate care by the Applicant including that the children were not fed or supervised, that they were exposed to sexual affairs of the Applicant.

50The Applicant expressed concerns that the Respondent mother booked activities during his parenting time. He was concerned at the time that the Respondent was influencing his daughter and the relationship was deteriorating.

51The son wished to have more parenting time with the father, and he expressed a concern that his mother took away his video games when he wanted to speak with his father.

52The children were interviewed on May 29, 2024, and they were observed in their interaction with one another. Mr. Watson also made observations about the way that the children interacted with their parents. He was concerned about the way that the children interacted with the Respondent. Mr. Watson was also concerned about some of the language used by the children to describe the mother.

53In the end, he recommended that:

a. the current parenting time schedule remain as is and that the children see their mother every other weekend at a minimum (i.e., Fridays at 6pm to Sundays at 8pm), planned reasonable telephone/video contact between the Respondent and the children while they are with their father is supported, but it must be planned and reasonable among other things.

b. that decision making continue to be shared equally between the parents and that the parents need to a drastically improve their communications. He recommended the exclusive use of co-parenting software and that the parents contact the Kawartha Family Court Assessment Service for information on New Ways for Families co-parenting communication program.

c. That the family seek professional support in addressing parent-child contact problems. Ideally, this would include involving a therapist who is specialized in family therapy and/or co-parenting conflict.

d. The children would benefit from their own individual counselling to address the issues noted in the report.

54Mr. Watson acknowledged that it was difficult in the present circumstances to make a long-term recommendation and that his recommendations were made one year before the trial. He agreed that with family therapy, the recommendations could be adjusted accordingly.

55The Respondent tendered photographs of her and the children interacting happily together, the last of which were taken October 6, 2024 at the pumpkin patch and Christmas Eve 2024. I hope that continues. However, they do not discount the serious concerns that the reports raise.

56I find that the children wish to live primarily with the Applicant and that these preferences are presently strongly held.

(vi) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

57This is not an issue.

(vii) any plans for the child’s care;

58There are no specific plans. However, of note is that the Respondent did not agree to arrange for counseling for her son with any of the recommended counsellors.

(viii) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

59Each parent can meet the basic needs of the children.

60I questioned whether the preference to live with the Applicant is because, as suggested, he is a more lenient parent with a greater income, such that the environment is more favourable. I can find no evidence that this is the case. Rather, I find that the children’s preference appears to directly flow from the way that the Respondent engaged with her children. The children appear to have voted with their feet.

61I was concerned that the Applicant discounted the health concerns about his daughter and the eating disorder treatment team’s recommendations. However, on review of the Family Wizard communications, it appears that despite some misgivings about the program, he took steps to implement the recommendations to ensure that his daughter’s eating was monitored at home and at school.

62The son is experiencing very serious health issues which may be connected to his debilitating anxiety or could be a health issue. I was also concerned about an over-emphasis on his son’s success in hockey, it being his draft year, when he was experiencing health concerns. I have graver concerns about the mother’s withholding of privileges when her son expressed a desire to see his father.

(ix) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

63I have serious concerns about the Respondent’s ability to cooperate.

64She refused to communicate through the Family Wizard Application despite reaching a consent order on August 15, 2023 that the parties would use the Family Wizard for communication. Her response is that she was concerned about the cost of the application. The result of this is that the Applicant communicated through the Family Wizard but received no responses to his queries and communications, which was to the detriment of the children.

65Rather than planning for the best interests of the children together with the Applicant, I find that she repeatedly undermined his relationship with them. That was done by showing up during his parenting time to take a child with her, texting them to do things with her when the Applicant was having parenting time and booking appointments for the children, to be completed with her, during the Applicant’s parenting time.

66Another stark example occurred in Court. The parties reached a decision on joint decision making on the morning of May 28, 2025. I signed an order to that effect. An issue arose about the son’s health. Prior to breaking for lunch, I warned the Respondent that she was in cross-examination and should not talk to anyone about her evidence and she understood. During the lunch break, she proceeded to book an appointment for her son. This was done without consulting with the Applicant. It also contradicts her evidence that it is her son who does not wish his father to have information about his health. It provides an example of her failure to understand her son’s best chance at recovery is for both parents to be working together through clear communication to support him.

67I understand from the assessor’s report that it is difficult to make definitive conclusions about the cause of parent-child contact problems. The assessor noted that some of the Respondent’s reactions to her daughter’s behaviour are normal parental reactions to a daughter’s defiance. However, this one example demonstrated controlling behaviour that did not accord with the spirit of the agreement reached between the parties.

(x) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

68This is not an issue in this case.

(xi) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

69This is not applicable in this case.

(xii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

70I have some reservations about the Respondent’s ability to cooperate as reflected elsewhere in these Reasons.

(xiii) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

71This is not an issue in this case.

(xiv) Final Analysis

72The task in determining the bests interests is not to tally up the results but to look holistically at them. After so doing, I find that for the stability of the children in their high school years, that the status quo should be maintained. The relationship with their mother will take time to rebuild. The children should be able to count on both parents whether they live primarily with one or the other.

73The children’s wishes were for limited time with their mother. This is not being guided by “a moment of volatility” as the Respondent puts it. I find it the result of the Respondent’s behavior which undermined her children’s emotional and physical well-being. This does not mean that the Applicant has been perfect. I find that his focus on his son’s draft year in hockey was to the exclusion of recognizing that there are presently serious health concerns which need to be addressed. This is also in part due to the Respondent withholding important information.

74I do not agree that the Applicant’s evidence revealed glaring inconsistencies, selective memory and a lack of knowledge regarding the children’s well-being. Rather, I find that the Respondent purposefully withheld information from the Applicant that could have been shared with him such that he has been left in the dark about many issues. Another example is that the Respondent has a colleague at the jail prescribe medication for her son. I find that she used her son’s privacy interests as an excuse for not disclosing information.

75I have scrutinized what has transpired to consider whether the children’s views are driven by the Applicant being seen as the fun parent or with more resources. I reject that this is the reason that the children did not want to spend more time with the Respondent.

76I agree that the daughter’s parental alignment has swung drastically from her mother to her father over a short period of time. However, she has maintained that preference.

77The Respondent argues that the assessor confirmed that the children tended to favour the parent who allowed them more privileges, that they were playing one parent against the other, and that he urged specialized family therapy.

78I do not accept that the children’s decisions were driven by fun or material needs. Rather, there is evidence that the mother undermined their relationship with their father. This included by levelling accusations that resulted in CAS involvement, about their health care, by arriving unscheduled while they were having parenting time with their father and scheduling events during his parenting time. As well, the Respondent would call and text the children repeatedly, show up unannounced, and refuse to respond to communications from the Applicant.

79Considering the above factors and looking to an order that will endure the healthy growth, development and education of the children, so they can be equipped to face the problems of life as mature adults, I find that the status quo should not be disrupted.

80The children shall live primarily with the Applicant. The Applicant proposed that the Respondent’s parenting time occur from 6:00 p.m. on Friday to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday on alternating weekends. In my view, it makes more sense for that parenting time to commence after school on Friday and ending on Monday morning when school begins.

81The balance of the schedule shall be as set out in paragraph 2 of the draft order tendered by the Applicant.

C. Child Support

82As a result of my decision, that it is in the best interests of the children to maintain the status quo, and for the children to continue to reside primarily with the Applicant, I find that the Applicant is entitled to child support.

83The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant child support for the children in the amount of $1,144.00 which is based on the Respondent’s 2024 Annual Income of $77,126.11 minus union dues of $1,699 and in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

D. Section 7 expenses

84The Respondent raised concerns about the amount of s. 7 expenses which she finds prohibitive given her income. While she is willing to pay a share, she asked that I place a $10,000 ceiling on those expenses. She noted that her son’s hockey expenses have been rising and that her son changed teams without her being part of that decision and that the new team’s fees were more expensive.

85However, the Respondent did attend a tryout so it could not have been a surprise that her son was being recruited to play for a different team which he ultimately chose. However, the move came with increased fees (from $4,695 to $7,000) and that there would be increased costs associated with the change in teams due to travel and equipment costs.

86She asks that I cap s. 7 expenses at $10,000.00 and the parties’ share be proportionate to their income.

87I accept that s. 7 expenses should be reasonable. However, the parties made joint decisions to place their child in competitive hockey. The Applicant testified that when the children were residing with her primarily, that she wanted them to continue with hockey and volleyball.

88Neither parent appears to have contemplated the expenses for the children to attend post-secondary education and those expenses may soon be upon them.

89The parties agreed in their Agreed Statement of Facts that the Applicant had paid s. 7 expenses. The Applicant has tallied expenses paid by him from the date of separation to May 31, 2025 and the Respondent’s share proportionate to income for each year. The Respondent’s share totals $10,494.56. I accept the Applicant’s calculations and order the Respondent to reimburse the Applicant for those expenses.

90I also find that there shall be a cap on the s. 7 expenses. I find the cap should be $13,000 which is the total for hockey fees, $7,000, estimated equipment $4,000 and $2,000 for volleyball. I realize that this leaves no allowance for personal training. I accept that based on the 2024 income tax returns, the Respondent’s share, proportionate to her income is 36.4%.

91I also find that the Respondent shall pay a share of health-related expenses.

E. Pension

92The Applicant seeks an order equalizing the pensions at source. The Respondent asserts that the immediate needs of the parties and financial realities militate in favour of pension equalization from the proceeds of the matrimonial home. The Applicant argues that if he is required to include his pension in the equalization payment, he would have little left from the sale of the matrimonial home leaving him unable to purchase a home.

93There is no presumption of a statutory onus that an equalization payment will be made by a transfer of a lump sum payment from a pension plan. Each case depends on its own facts. See Ramezani v. Najafi, 2021 ONSC 7638, at para. 153. The Respondent’s position is driven by her need to manage debts and secure suitable housing. In support of her position, she relies upon Vanderwal v. Vanderwal, 2015 ONSC 384.

94The Applicant has not yet retired. He can make a lump sum transfer under s. 67.3 of the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, s. P.8, as amended. He argues that there will be notional tax attributed to either party since the amounts are divided as source. Tax is deferred until the parties retire which is to their benefit over the long term.

95I accept the Applicant’s arguments. Division at source makes more sense financially. I therefore order that the parties’ respective pensions shall be divided at source and shall not be included in the equalization of the parties’ Net Family Property. Accordingly, there shall be no deduction for notional disposition costs either.

F. Sedan Crescent

96The Applicant’s brother Richard Browne lives at 474 Sedan Crescent in Oshawa. To avoid confusion, I will refer to him as Richard, but I mean no disrespect.

97Richard and the Applicant purchased the house as joint tenants for Richard to live in with his family. Both testified that the Applicant’s name is on title because Richard needed someone to co-sign a loan for him. Richard testified that he works. Neither Richard nor the Applicant were able to describe in detail their understanding of what this meant legally. Richard’s name is no longer on title. Rather, in addition to the Applicant, there is a trustee in bankruptcy. Richard had seen a trustee in bankruptcy, but he was unclear on the legal status of that. He believed that he did not apply for bankruptcy.

98Richard made some cash deposits into his account. I accept his evidence that this came from his girlfriend’s contribution to the house.

99The Respondent argues that she has an ownership interest which the Court should recognize. Relying on Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, she asserts that legal title is presumptive of beneficial ownership and that I should presume ownership as there is no compelling evidence otherwise.

100Richard produced bank statements showing that he made the mortgage payments. Richard missed some mortgage payments.

101The Respondent testified that she knew that the Applicant’s name was on title and asked him to remove it, because he received notices of missed payments.

102I find there is compelling evidence to find that the Applicant holds title as a formality and that there is no beneficial ownership.

103The property was purchased 10 years before the parties married. The evidence was clear and consistent that Richard could not have qualified for a mortgage alone because his position was considered part-time, even though he often worked full-time hours. The bank insisted that someone co-sign the loan and be on title.

104I find that the Applicant did not contribute to the mortgage. He has paid no property or other taxes. He has not contributed to renovations or other carrying costs. There is no evidence that he contributed to the payment of utilities. He slept at Sedan on a few occasions. He did not move into the Sedan home post-separation. Richard has lived in the house with his spouse and children.

105The original mortgage documents are no longer available. In evidence is a letter from Scotiabank dated April 30, 2025 which confirms that Richard did not meet the income requirements to qualify for a mortgage to purchase the Sedan property such that the Applicant is required to co-sign.

106In the result, I find that the Applicant has produced compelling evidence such that I conclude and declare that his interest in the property is held in trust for his brother. As a result, the Sedan property shall be excluded from the calculation of net family property.

G. Equalization Payment

107A comparative Net Family Property statement was filed as Exhibit 7 at trial. The differences arise from whether Sedan Crescent and related fees is included or excluded and how the pension is be dealt with. I have decided these issues in favour of the Applicant, such that as a result, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant an equalization payment of $3,197.43.

H. Occupation Rent

108The Respondent has lived in the five-bedroom matrimonial home since separation. Until the time of the consent order reached at trial, she had refused to agree to sell. The Applicant rented a three-bedroom house after initially moving into a smaller apartment. The Applicant seeks occupation rent.

109Entitlement to occupation rent is governed by s. 122(2) of the Courts of Justice Act. It is not automatically awarded and must be justified. Relevant factors to consider are the timing of the claim for occupation rent, the duration of the occupancy, the inability of the non-resident spouse to realize on her equity in the property, any reasonable credits to be set off against occupation rent, and any other competing claims in the litigation. Griffiths v. Zambosco, 2001 24097 (ON CA).

110As set out by Justice Quinn in Higgins v. Higgins, it is a tool to achieve justice in the circumstances of each case and set out several factors drawn from the case law. He disagreed that it was awarded only in exceptional cases. Rather, it is a way to achieve financial fairness. See Higgins v. Higgins, 2001 28223 (ON SC), at paras. 53-56; Saroli v. Saroli, 2021 ONSC 4450, at para. 312.

111The Respondent resided in the home during the period of separation. There has been no order for exclusive possession. The Applicant paid the mortgage. She was without child and spousal support at that the time until it was later ordered. She paid some of the expenses relating to the house. Until July 2023, the children primarily resided with her. She argues that it is unfair for her to pay rent in addition to the mortgage contributions, particularly because continuing to reside in the house meant stability for the children. I accept that this is arguable until July, 2023, when the children no longer resided primarily with her.

112The Applicant sought occupation rent in his Application. I accept the Applicant’s submission that his interest in the matrimonial home prevented him from purchasing a new property and I reject the Respondent’s submission that it is the Sedan property that is preventing him from buying a new residence.

113The Respondent argues that the Applicant has not demonstrated a financial loss or that the Respondent has derived an unfair financial benefit.

114I do not agree. The Applicant has paid both the rent for his residence and the mortgage on the house. He first rented a basement apartment for $1,800 per month and is now at a rental property for $2,975 per month.

115The parties reached consent on August 15, 2023 for the Applicant to arrange for an appraiser to appraise the home. After the children moved out, the Respondent resided primarily alone in the five-bedroom house. However, the Respondent has paid the utilities, taxes and insurance. She states that she resisted a sale because the thought that the children would return to living primarily with her. They did not.

116The Respondent refused to sell the matrimonial home. I accept that the Applicant did not bring a motion to force the sale. On October 3, 2023, Justice Corkery ordered that the Applicant pay 100% of the mortgage and ordered the Respondent to pay 100% of the utilities and insurance. A sale was not pursued at that the time. The Applicant states that at that time, he thought they would be going to Court in a few months to decide the issue. Still, he did not move to sell the house when it became clear that the house would not be sold soon.

117The parties have resolved on consent the post-separation expenses. These include an agreement that the Applicant has overpaid the mortgage, property taxes, and utilities, among other things such that the Respondent shall pay on consent $85,000 from her share of the proceeds of the matrimonial home.

118I agree that this is a case where I could exercise my discretion to award occupation rent. However, if I did it would be from August 1, 2023 to May 31, 2025, which is the period after both children left to go reside with their father. However, I decline to do so. In my view, I do not have sufficient information on what an appropriate rent is or the totals of which the Respondent paid towards insurance, property taxes and utilities for this period. For this reason, I decline to award occupation rent.

IV. Disposition

119The Application is allowed. I make the following orders:

a. The children shall reside primarily with the Applicant. The Respondent shall have parenting time alternating weekends from after school or 3:30 p.m. on Friday to 9:00 a.m. or drop off at school on Monday and additional parenting time as agreed between the parties in writing. In addition:

i. During the weeks the children do not see their mother, the Respondent shall have telephone/video contact with the children on Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.;

ii. During the weeks the children are with their mother on the weekend, she shall have telephone/video contact with the children on Mondays and Wednesdays between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

iii. This holiday schedule is in addition to the regular parenting time above, and overrides the regular parenting time in the event of conflict.

1. The children will stay with the Applicant during the Spring Break in odd-numbered years and with the Respondent in even-numbered years, from after school as the break starts until the start of school following the break.

2. The children will stay with the Applicant on Easter Weekend from pick up after school on Thursday until Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. when he shall drive the children to the Respondent’s home. The children will stay with the Respondent from Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. until the start of school on Tuesday.

3. If the children are not otherwise with the Respondent on this weekend, the children will stay with the Respondent on Mother’s Day Weekend, from Saturday at 7:00 p.m. until the start of school on Monday.

4. If the children are not otherwise with the Applicant on this weekend, the children will stay with the Applicant on Father’s Day Weekend, from Saturday at 7:00 p.m. until the start of school on Monday.

5. The children will stay with the Applicant on Thanksgiving Weekend from pick up after school on Thursday until Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. when he shall drive the children to the Respondent’s home. The children will stay with the Respondent from Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. until the start of school on Tuesday.

6. The parties will equally share the children’s Christmas Break. The children will stay with the Applicant for the first half of the Christmas Break in odd-numbered years and the last half of the Christmas Break in even-numbered years, and with the Respondent for the first half of the Christmas Break in even-numbered years and the last half of the Christmas Break in odd numbered years. The first half will start after school on the last day of school in December and end at noon on the date that is the half way point of the Christmas Break. The second half will start at noon on the date that is the half way point of the Christmas Break and end at the start of school on the January return date.

7. Regardless of the Christmas Break schedule set out above, the children will stay with the Applicant from 4:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve/Morning until Christmas Day at noon, and with the Respondent from noon on Christmas Day until 9:00 p.m. on Boxing Day in even-numbered years, and with the Respondent from 4:00 p.m. on Christmas Eve/Morning until Christmas Day at noon, and with the Applicant from noon on Christmas Day until 9:00 p.m. on Boxing Day in odd-numbered years.

b. Commencing May 1, 2025, and on the first day of the month thereafter, the Respondent shall pay child support to the Applicant for the children in the amount of $1,144.00 based on the Respondent’s 2024 Annual Income of $77,126.11 minus union dues of $1,699 and in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

c. By no later than July 1st of each calendar year, the parties shall exchange Notices of Assessment. Child Support obligations shall then be reviewed and by no later than August 1st of each calendar year, support shall be adjusted to reflect the parties updated income.

d. On a final basis, the Respondent shall owe the Applicant extraordinary expenses in the fixed amount of $10,494.56 as of May 31, 2025. There shall be no other retroactive extraordinary expenses owing by the Applicant to the Respondent as of May 31, 2025, and there shall be no retroactive extraordinary expenses owing by the Respondent to the Applicant as of May 31, 2025.

e. Commencing May 1, 2025, the Respondent shall pay 36.4% of the ongoing special and extraordinary expenses for the children based on the Applicant’s 2024 income of $176,122 with union dues deducted of $1,699 and the Respondent’s 2024 income of $77,126.11 with union dues deducted of $1,755, such expenses shall be agreed upon in writing in advance. Such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.

f. The following expenses shall be considered to have been agreed upon in advance in writing and do not require any other consent in advance:

i. Sports-related expenses to a total of $13,000 annually (the total expenses for the children together) before the proportionate share as set out in clause (e) above is calculated;

ii. Health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;

iii. extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs; and

iv. The portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child.

g. I declare on a final basis that the Applicant holds his 50% share of the property municipally located at 474 Sedan Crescent in trust for his brother Richard Browne. The value of the property shall be listed at $0.00 on his Net Family Property Statement.

h. The parties’ respective pensions shall be divided at source and shall not be included in the equalization of the parties’ Net Family Property. Accordingly, there shall be no deduction for notional disposition costs either.

i. The Applicant father is entitled to pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act.

120The parties are encouraged to resolve costs.

121If they cannot, costs will be addressed by written submissions.

122The Applicant has been successful is presumptively entitled to his costs. He shall provide his written submissions on costs, no longer than five double-spaced pages, exclusive of any offers and Bill of Costs, by 4:00 p.m. on January 23, 2026, filed through the portal, uploaded to Case Center and emailed to my Judicial Assistant. Submissions shall be electronically indexed and bookmarked.

123The Respondent shall respond with submissions subject to the same directions, by February 6, 2026.

124I thank counsel for their assistance with this matter and their civility during the trial.

NOTE: If either party believes that I have made a mathematical error in any of the calculations in this Judgment, they may bring the matter to my attention (via email to my Judicial Assistant, with a copy to the opposing party) within 30 days and I will address it by a telephone conference.