CITATION: Lagrove v. Romanczuk, 2026 ONSC 996

COURT FILE NO.: FC-23-00001006-0000

DATE: April 7, 2026

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

Amy Lagrove

In person

Applicant

• and -

Gregory Romanczuk

In person

Respondent

HEARD: January 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23, 2026

TOBIN J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1The parties are before the court on this trial seeking a parenting order and child support with respect to their now seven-year-old child.

2The child has been in the care of each party an approximately equal amount of time since January 20, 2020. This plan was first arranged through the parties’ June 2020 email exchange and then pursuant to the temporary order of Mitrow J. dated March 26, 2024 (the Mitrow J. order).

3The Applicant (mother) now asks that the Respondent (father) have parenting time on alternate weekends and certain holidays.

4The father wants the equal parenting time plan to continue.

5The child support issues will be resolved having regard to the parenting time order and whether any income will be imputed to the mother.

Representation

6Both parties were self-represented during the trial.

7In the recent decision of Placca v. Umugiraneza, 2025 ONSC 7262, the court provided a summary of the court’s duty to self-represented litigants at paras. 7 and 8, as follows:

7. It is well-accepted that judges have special duties to self-represented litigants, in terms of acquainting them with courtroom procedure and the rules of evidence: Dujardin v. Dujardin Estate, 2018 ONCA 597, at para. 37, repeated in Gionet v. Pingue, 2018 ONCA 1040at para. 30; Morwald-Benevides v. Benevides, 2019 ONCA 1023at para. 34.

8. The Ontario Court of Appeal provided some guidance in dealing with self-represented litigants in Grand River Conservation Authority v. Vidhya Ramdas 2021 ONCA 815, at paras. 18 – 21, outlining the following considerations:

a. Self-represented litigants are expected to familiarize themselves with the relevant practices and procedures pertaining to their case and respect the court process;

b. The Court has the duty to ensure that self-represented litigants receive a fair hearing;

c. The court’s obligations to self-represented litigants are outlined in the Canadian Judicial Council’s 2006 Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons, which was endorsed by the Supreme Court in Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 470, at para. 4.

d. The Court must permit the represented party and the self-represented party to explain how they understand where things stand in the litigation; and,

e. It is open to a judge to engage in active adjudication. However, a judge must not cross the line between assisting self-represented litigants in the presentation of their evidence and becoming their advocate.

8In Gaynor v. Cruz Belliard 2024 ONSC 1661, Madsen J., as she then was, stated at para. 37:

At the same time, trial judges have special duties to self-represented parties, in acquainting them with courtroom procedure and the rules of evidence: see Davids v. Davids (1999), 1999 CanLII 9289 (ON CA), 125 O.A.C. 375 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 36; Dujardin v. Dujardin2018 ONCA 597, 423 D.L.R. (4th) 731 at para. 37; Gionet v. Pingue, 2018 ONCA 1040, 22 R.F.L. (8th) 55, at paras. 30-31. However, that assistance has limits, as the fair trial rights of the other party must also be respected: see Sanzone v. Schechter, 2016 ONCA 566, 402 D.L.R. (4th) 135, at para. 22, leave to appeal refused, [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 443; and Cicciarella v. Cicciarella (2009), 2009 CanLII 34988 (ON SCDC), 252 O.A.C. 156 (Ont. Div. Ct.), at paras. 36-38, 45. Ultimately, the test is whether both parties have had the full, fair, and impartial ear of the court — an opportunity for full answer and defence. What that balance looks like will vary from case to case based on the issues for determination and the sophistication and legal knowledge of the self-represented individual.

9These cases instruct the court to conduct a procedurally flexible hearing, but one that is fair to both parties. Unrepresented litigants must be given an opportunity to be heard in an effective manner.

10In this case, the court explained how the trial would proceed. This explanation included a review of the trial process, evidence the court is able to consider, and the law applicable to the issues raised.

11One of the challenges in the presentation of the case was the mother’s difficulty in effectively using the Case Center platform for filing and retrieving documents she sought to be admitted in evidence. Extra time was given to the mother to ensure that the documents she wanted to put before the court were located, uploaded, and could be referred to.

12As part of each party’s examination in chief, each allowed the court to ask questions so that basic and important facts relevant to the issues raised could be put into evidence. The parties were then able to provide the court with all the other relevant and mostly material evidence they wanted to present.

13The times allowed for the presentation of the case as contained in the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form were extended so that all the evidence, particularly that of the mother, could be properly put before the court. The father was well organized in the presentation of his case.

Background Facts

14The mother is now 44 years old.

15The father is now 47 years old.

16In March 2018, the parties began living together when the father and his son, N., moved into the mother’s residence.

17On […] 2018, the parties became the parents of the child, ELR (“child”).

18The child is now seven years old and attends grade 2 at […] Public School.

19On October 11, 2018, the parties separated. The father and his son moved out of the mother’s residence.

20Following the parties’ separation, the child remained in the primary care of the mother. The father had parenting time.

21The mother remained at home with the child until the end of her parental leave which lasted until August 2019.

22The mother was employed by Canada Post. Her hours of employment prior to her parental leave were from 5:00 a.m. until she returned home at approximately 1:30 p.m. each weekday. She was concerned about childcare arrangements because daycare centers did not open until 7:30 a.m. during the week. This concern was heightened because the father would not, or was not able to, commit to a plan for the child’s care while the mother and the daycare were not available at the same time. His proposal was to have this young child sleep at his home. This was not acceptable to the mother because childcare was undertaken by the paternal grandmother.

23To address her childcare concern, the mother sought accommodation from her employer. One of the benefits available to the mother from Canada Post was to apply for Family Status. This would allow her to adjust her hours of employment to accommodate her parenting responsibilities. The father cooperated in this application.

24The mother did receive the benefit of Family Status, and her hours were adjusted to a “flex schedule.” On her return to work in August 2019, her hours were from 10:00 a.m. until approximately 4:30 p.m. each weekday. However, with the reduction in her hours, her income was also reduced.

25Following the separation, the father paid child support each month in the amount of $400 until March 2019, when he increased the amount to $811 per month. He paid this latter amount until June 2020.

26With the onset of the pandemic, in March 2020, childcare centers were closed. The parties agreed that the mother would stay home with the child.

27The child’s daycare center re-opened in July 2020. By that time, the mother, who was not eligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), had depleted her savings. She wanted to return to work. She did so. Her hours were from 3:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. To accommodate this schedule, the parties agreed, in an email exchange, to a parenting and child support plan that provided in part as follows:

• They would “share control of the child.”

• The child would spend Monday and Tuesday night with the father, and Wednesday and Thursday with the mother.

• The child would spend alternate weekends with each parent.

• “No child support shall be paid.”

• Childcare costs would be shared; 63 per cent by the father and 37 per cent by the mother.

• The mother was to receive government benefits on the basis that the child lived with her full time.

28This plan was able to work because the mother could count on the assistance of the maternal grandparents to provide child care when needed.

29After this plan was agreed upon by the parties, they would, on occasion, have disputes about parenting schedules, responsibility for child care and child support issues.

30Communication between the parties became difficult on occasion. The mother viewed the father as unresponsive and unwilling to come to a decision. The father viewed the mother as unwilling to negotiate and engage with him by addressing all his questions or concerns.

31It is not necessary, nor will it be helpful to the parties, to relitigate all these issues. It is sufficient to say that in the end, they were able to meet the needs of the child.

32It is in the context of these disagreements that on September 6, 2023, the mother started the Application that is now before the court.

33The father’s Answer is dated September 22, 2023.

34The case was before the court on a motion for a temporary order on March 24, 2024. An order was made by Mitrow J. which provided in part as follows:

On consent

• The parties would communicate through OurFamilyWizard.

On consent on an interim without prejudice basis

• The child would spend a week about with each parent.

• The child would spend Tuesday after school until the return to school on Wednesday morning with the other parent.

• Pick-ups of the child were to take place from the school or after care program.

• The father would pay child support to the mother in the amount of $1,036 per month based on his income of $116,000 per year. The mother would pay the father $585 per month based on her income of $63,000. The net amount of child support to be paid by the father to the mother was $451 each month.

35The terms of the order granted by Mitrow J. remained in force up to the date of trial.

36In August 2024, the mother took a long-term leave of absence from Canada Post. She enrolled in Conestoga College to study accounting. This is a four-year program that she attends virtually. The course is given during a fall term (September–December) and a winter term (January–April).

37When the child is in her care and in school, the mother spends the majority of her day attending to her studies. When the child is with the father, she also attends to her studies as well as other tasks.

38From May 2026 to August 2026, she will try to engage in part-time work. She is “working on that” now.

39The mother estimates that with her student loans and other income, she has approximately $25,000 in income each year to support the child and herself.

40The reason she chose to enroll in school and take leave from her employment is that she is no longer able to work at a job at Canada Post that requires she undertake shift work. Irregular work hours make it very difficult for her to maintain a stable schedule of care for the child. She is no longer able to count on the predictable and consistent childcare support she had from (a) her mother and father, because of their health, nor (b) the respondent.

41The mother’s last work schedule was from 3:30 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. If she were to go on Family Status again, her employer would need to find her a job with reduced hours within regularly scheduled shifts. The uncontradicted evidence is that this would not be an easy request to meet.

Issues

42The issues raised in this case are as follows:

1. What parenting order is in the child’s best interests?

2. What child support order should be made?

Issue 1 – What parenting order is in the child’s best interests?

43The determination of what parenting order will be in the child’s best interests involves a number of considerations:

• How will decision-making responsibility be shared?

• What parenting-time schedule is to be ordered?

• How should holidays and other special occasions be shared?

• Should non-school parenting-time exchanges be supervised at Merrymount Family Support and Crisis Center (“Merrymount”)?

The position of the parties

i) Decision-making responsibility

44The mother and the father both sought joint decision-making responsibility with respect to the child.

45When asked by the court whether a dispute resolution term is called for in this case, both said it was not necessary as they were able to come to terms on most important matters concerning the education and health of their child. The most recent example of this was the parties’ ability to arrange for a psycho-educational assessment to address perceived learning challenges exhibited by the child.

ii) Parenting time

46The mother asks that the child reside primarily in her care. She also asks that the child be in the father’s care on alternate weekends and specified holidays.

47In the alternative, the mother asks that the current parenting-time schedule continue except that the child is brought to her home each weekday morning so that she can take the child to school. At the end of the school day, the mother would pick the child up, bring her home, and the father would pick the child up from the mother at her home.

48It is the father’s position that the current parenting-time schedule should remain in place. He also asks that parenting time during holidays and other special events be specified. He asks that all parenting-time exchanges take place at school, the afterschool program or at Merrymount.

Legal Considerations

49When making a parenting order with respect to a child, the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-12, s. 24(1), requires the court to take into account only the child’s best interests.

50Section 24(2) requires the court to give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and wellbeing when determining the child’s best interests.

51The factors to be considered in determining best interests are set out in ss. 24(3) and (4) which provide as follows:

(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,

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

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

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

(d) the history of care of the child;

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

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

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

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

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

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

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

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and

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

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3) (j), the court shall take into account,

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor.

52In allocating parenting time, s. 24(6) requires the court to give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with their best interests.

53The factors set out in subsection 24(3) of the CLRA are both mandatory and critical to determining the best interests of the child: Tremblay-Chartier v. Blanchette, 2025 ONSC 6273, at para. 24. However, no one factor in the statutory definition of a child’s best interests is given statutory preeminence: Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479, at para. 62.

54This list of factors is not a checklist to be tabulated where the party with the most points is declared the winner. Rather, it calls for a court to take an holistic view of the child, their needs, and the people who will be part of their life. This analysis is to be undertaken in a child-centric manner, that is, from the child's perspective.

55A starting point to assess a child's best interests when making a parenting order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe.

56An additional factor to consider is whether a parent will follow the terms of an order that are in effect, as set out in the CLRA, s. 33.1(5), as well as meet all other duties imposed on the parties under s. 33.1.

57A judge can fashion a parenting regime that is not in the precise terms sought by either party: A.M. v. C.H., 2019 ONCA 764, at para. 29.

The Child

58Both parents describe the child as wonderful. She loves both of her parents.

59She is described as intelligent and curious, socially outgoing with her good friends, and “gets along” with her teacher. In December 2025, the child was student of the month. Physically, she is healthy.

60While in the mother’s care, she enjoys the extracurricular activity of Jujitsu classes.

61While in the care of the father, the child enjoys nature, camping and arts and crafts.

62The child is in grade 2 at Hillcrest Public School, which is located in the catchment area associated with the mother’s residence. She does well academically. However, the parents have observed the child to have some writing and reading challenges. The parents have arranged for a psycho-educational assessment to be conducted to address the child’s educational challenges regarding language and, at the father’s request, math.

Best Interest Considerations

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

63The parties describe the child as well adjusted for her age and stage of development.

64Both parties recognize the need for the child to have stability and consistency in her care.

65As described above, both recognize the need for the child’s learning challenges to be addressed, and they are doing so.

66Though not referred to by the parties, the court has reviewed and considered the AFCC-Ontario Parenting Plan Guide (the Guide). In Tremblay-Chartier, at para. 40, the Divisional Court wrote that while the AFCC-Ontario Parenting Plan Guide is not binding, courts in this province have accepted the social science behind the Guide when considering the best interests of a child.

67The Guide states that children aged 6 to 9 engage with more people outside of the family and benefit from experiences that help develop a sense of competence, such as participation in school, sports, and other peer relationships.

68Both parents are meeting the child’s needs by allowing her to engage in experiences that help and develop her sense of competence. The mother gave an example of this when she helped the child decode a math pattern with which she was struggling. When the child “figured it out” she was proud and wanted to show her maternal grandmother right away. She wanted the mother to take a picture of her results so that she could show them to the father and her teacher.

69The father also gave an example of how he helps the child with reading and encourages her love of nature.

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

70The evidence is uncontradicted that the child has a close and loving relationship with both parents.

71The father describes the bond that he has with the child as a special bond.

72The child is also close with her maternal grandparents. They live “two doors away” from the mother and child. They see each other almost every day when the child is in the mother’s care.

73The mother has three older children (ages 22, 18 and 17) who now live with their father. The child sees these children when they visit the mother from time to time.

74The child also has a positive relationship with the paternal grandmother, the father’s siblings, and the child’s cousins.

75The father also has an older child now age 15. This child is an exceptional young hockey player. Though the two children do not spend much time together, the child looks up to her older brother.

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

76Both parents recognize the importance of the other parent’s relationship with the child.

77There is no evidence either has involved the child in this litigation nor spoken about the other in a negative way to or in front of the child.

78The mother candidly acknowledged to the father in cross-examination that it would not be in the child’s best interest to reduce the amount of time he has with her.

d) the history of care of the child

79The history of child care was described earlier in these reasons.

80It is clear that since July 2020, there has been a form of shared parenting time of the child except for brief periods during holidays and illness.

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

81The parties did not provide any admissible evidence of the child’s views and preferences. However, based on the evidence that the child has a close and loving relationship with both parents, I infer that the child wants parenting time with both of them.

g) any plans for the child’s care

82The current childcare plan has been in place since March 2024.

83Neither parent wants to significantly change the childcare plan that now exists.

84Despite the mother’s pleadings and proposed draft order that she have primary residence, she did acknowledge in evidence that it would not be in the child’s best interests to reduce the father’s parenting time.

85Both parents want the child to continue her schooling and receive the support she needs to be successful.

86One change sought by the mother is for the father to bring the child to her home at the start of the child’s school day when she is in the father’s care. The mother proposes that she bring the child to school in the morning and pick the child up at the end of the school day. The father would be able to pick the child up from her home at the end of his workday.

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

87The mother and father are loving, responsible and concerned parents.

88Both parents have the ability and willingness to care for and meet the child’s needs in their own way.

89The mother has demonstrated her ability to identify the child’s educational and medical needs and take the necessary steps, in consultation with the father, school officials, and health care providers, to meet those needs.

90The mother made career choices that have affected her financially so that she is able to be available to care for the child in person.

91The father has demonstrated his ability and commitment to nurturing the child and engaging her in many activities. The father has arranged suitable child care for the child at times when he is unable to care for her.

Communication

92The mother keeps the father informed of matters of importance regarding the child.

93A review of the many emails and OurFamilyWizard messages put into evidence confirms the back-and-forth engagement the parties have had regarding their child. While on some occasions the communications are strained, they are for the most part polite and focused. The mother appears to be direct and action oriented. The father is analytical and searching in his approach to consultations or, as he called it, negotiations.

94Despite their different communication styles, the parties have been able to make and implement decisions regarding the child.

Decision and discussion

95I find it is in the child’s best interests that:

1. the parties continue to have joint decision-making responsibilities;

2. they continue with the week about schedule;

3. the child spend Tuesday after school until the return to school on Wednesday morning with the non-residential parent;

4. when the child is in the father’s care, he is to bring the child to the mother’s home before school and pick her up from the mother’s home when his workday is over; and

5. the parties continue to communicate by OurFamilyWizard, text or email on important issues concerning the child.

Joint decision-making responsibility

96In Warcop v. Warcop, 2009 CanLII 6423 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 94, the court addressed the nature of the communication that would indicate whether it would be in a child’s best interests to make an order for joint custody (now joint decision-making responsibility), as follows:

The focus is simply on the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child will obviously not be fostered if the parents are unable to communicate and cooperate in making decisions that affect the child. However, a standard of perfection is not required, and is obviously not achievable. The issue is whether a reasonable measure of communication and cooperation is in place, and is achievable in the future, so that the best interests of the child can be ensured on an ongoing basis. In making this assessment, the Court must be governed by the evidence that has been presented as to the communication and cooperation between the parties to date; the mechanisms that are in place to ensure that it will continue; and the assessment of the judge as to the capabilities of the parties to do so in the future.

97In this case, the parties have been able to make important decisions regarding the child. For example, and as stated above, they are in agreement with a plan to meet the child’s educational needs.

98The child’s healthcare needs are being taken care of without ongoing or significant conflict.

99The father wants the opportunity to take the child to some healthcare appointments. This is not opposed by the mother. All she asks is that the father follow through with his commitments.

100I am persuaded by the evidence that these parents have the best interests of their child when they consider and communicate important decisions that need to be made. Their communication may not be perfect, but to their credit it has been effective.

101Neither party wanted the court to impose a decision-making structure or timeframe for doing so. I infer from this that the parties are confident they will continue to be able to make decisions jointly about the child and always do so in her best interests.

102In order to ensure that there is a record of their discussions, the parties shall continue to communicate electronically through OurFamilyWizard, text, and email unless they both agree otherwise. These communications are to be brief, informative, focused, and friendly.

Parenting time

103The week about and one night with the non-residential parent schedule has been in place since the Mitrow J. order was made in March 2024.

104The evidence supports the finding that the schedule has allowed the child to develop and maintain the positive and loving relationship she has with both parties and significant extended family members.

105The status quo parenting-time plan has benefited the child. There was no compelling evidence presented at trial to support it being changed at this time.

Before and after-school child care

106The mother asks that she care for the child before and after school during the father’s parenting time. She argues that it is in the child’s best interests to be cared for by a parent who is available rather than a third party.

107The mother’s current schedule allows her to be available to receive the child from the father when he would otherwise drop her off at the before-school childcare program and to return the child to him at the end of his workday. As well, it will save on costs.

108The father opposes this request. He does not want to have direct contact with the mother during parenting-time exchanges.

109The father argues that the mother’s plan would be confusing for the child.

110The father’s position is informed by information he tried to give the court about exchanges that took place between the mother and her former spouse. However, no evidence was presented during the trial about this. Comments made by the father about this during submissions are not evidence and cannot be considered.

111The father is also concerned that if he withdraws the child from the before and after-school program and the mother is not willing or able to continue bringing and picking up the child, he will be left without childcare alternatives. Once removed from the before and after-school care program, it is difficult to resume this care because of lengthy waiting lists.

112The father’s first two reasons do not appear to be supported by the evidence presented at trial. There is no evidence that explains why the child would be confused by this plan. Rather, the evidence discloses that the child has a close relationship with both parents. A benefit for the child would be to see her parents cooperate in parenting-time exchanges.

113If the father does not want to interact with the mother, he can remain in his vehicle while the child is met by the mother in the morning and by him in the afternoon.

114The additional time the child is with the mother does not change the shared parenting plan that is in place.

115The father’s concern of being stranded without a before and after-school childcare plan if the mother’s circumstances change is a compelling argument. Both parties agree that it would take time to regain a spot in the before and after-school program once the child is withdrawn from it. However, after the mother withdrew from the before and after-school program when she no longer needed it, the father was readily able to have the child re-enrolled.

116In addition, the mother’s evidence is that she will continue her online studies at Conestoga College for another two to three years. As long as the mother continues her online studies, she will be able to receive and return the child to the father.

117In order to address the father’s concern, the mother shall be required to give the father ten months’ notice—that is one school year—of any change in her circumstances that would prevent her from caring for the child before or after school.

118In coming to this decision, I also take into account that the maternal grandparents, according to the mother, are able to help in emergency situations should the need arise.

Holidays and special occasions

119I find that the majority of the father’s parenting time proposals for holidays and other special occasions better meet the best interests of the child than do the mother’s.

March Break

120The parties shall spend March Break with the child in alternate years.

121In odd-numbered years, the child shall be in the father’s care, and in even-numbered years with the mother. March Break shall start at 4:30 p.m. on the last day of school before the March Break week commences and shall continue until the start of school the next following Monday.

Mother’s Day and Father’s Day

122If the child is not otherwise in the mother’s care on Mother’s Day or the father’s care on Father’s Day, she is to be in their respective care from 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. that day.

School Winter/Christmas Break

123During the child’s school Winter/Christmas Break, the week about schedule shall continue. However, in even-numbered years, the father shall have the child in his care from December 24 at 4:30 p.m. until December 25 at 10:00 a.m. The mother shall have the child in her care from December 25 at 10:00 a.m. until December 26 at 4:30 p.m. In odd-numbered years the schedule shall be reversed.

Easter Long Weekend

124During the Easter long weekend, the father shall have the child in his care in even-numbered years from Good Friday at 10:00 a.m. until Easter Saturday at 4:30 p.m. The mother shall have the child in her care from Easter Saturday at 4:30 p.m. until the child returns to school the following Tuesday morning. In odd-numbered years, the schedule shall be reversed. It is not the intent of this provision to change the week about schedule.

Summer vacation from school

125During the child’s summer vacation from school, the father asks that the alternate schedule continue but without the mid-week parenting time by the non-residential parent.

126The mother asks that during the summer the father have the child from the last day of school until July 31 at 3:30 p.m. She asks that the child be in her care from July 31 at 3:30 p.m. until the end of August. This will allow her to take extended trips with the child.

127The father stated that he is not able to take extended time off from work during the summer.

128In order to address the concerns and wishes of both parties, the week about parenting scheduling shall continue during the months of July and August but without mid-week parenting time for the non-care parent. However, each parent shall be entitled to a period of two consecutive weeks with the child during the months of July and August.

129In even-numbered years, the mother shall advise the father of the two weeks she intends to exercise parenting time with the child by April 1. The father shall advise of the two weeks he intends to exercise parenting time if he so chooses by May 1. In odd-numbered years, the schedule shall be reversed.

Exchanges at Merrymount

130The father asks that all non-school-day and non-camp-day exchanges take place and be supervised by Merrymount.

131For reasons stated above, I am not persuaded this is necessary nor in the child’s best interests. The evidence does not support a finding that there is a level of risk or conflict between the parties that requires the child to be shielded from seeing the parties during parenting-time exchanges. The court observed the parties to be respectful of one another throughout this trial, including while being cross-examined. The parties impressed with their mature demeanor while interacting with one another. It is for these reasons that I would not make the supervised parenting order as requested by the father.

Different arrangements or additional parenting time

132In addition to the parenting time ordered, the parties may agree, in advance and in writing, to any other or additional parenting time.

Additional terms

133I find that some of the additional terms requested by the father are appropriate and in the child’s best interests. They contribute to the certainty and stability the child requires.

• Notice of either party’s intention to change their address or relocate: these requirements are already contained in the CLRA and need not be included in a court order.

• Telephone calls with the child: each party may call the child a maximum of two times per week for a maximum of 20 minutes per call while the child is in the care of the other party.

• Notice of emergency: in case of an emergency or injury to the child, the party in whose care the child is at the time shall notify the other party as soon as possible.

• Travel:

− The mother shall keep the child’s passport and provide it to the father when he needs it for travel. The cost to obtain the child’s passport shall be shared on the same basis as a s.7 special expense would be shared, that is, in proportion to the parties’ respective incomes.

− Each party shall provide the other with requested travel authorizations in a timely manner.

− Each parent shall provide to the other, in writing, an itinerary and contact information should they travel outside of the province of Ontario with the child for more than seven consecutive days.

Issue 2 – What amount of child support should be ordered?

134The child support to be ordered in this case will be based upon the parties sharing parenting time equally.

135The Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97 (CSG), s. 9 provides the statutory basis for determining the amount of child support to be paid when parenting time is shared. Section 9 is formulated as follows:

9. Where each parent or spouse exercises parenting time with respect to a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the order for the support of a child must be determined by taking into account,

(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the parents or spouses;

(b) the increased costs of shared parenting time arrangements; and

(c) the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent or spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.

136The three factors structure the exercise of discretion. It allows for sufficient flexibility to ensure that the economic reality and particular circumstances of the parties is accounted for. It is meant to ensure a fair level of support: Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217, at para. 27.

Set-off

137The father’s total income for child support purposes has been as follows:

Year

Income

2019

$89,241

2020

$102,582

2021

$83,134

2022

$95,551

2023

$116,557

2024

$131,138

2025

$131,138 estimate

2026

$131,138 estimate

138The mother’s income has been as follows:

Year

Income

2019

$33,765

2020

$45,618

2021

$65,261

2022

$77,902

2023

$66,479

2024

$51,000

2025

$25,000 approx.

2026

$25,000 approx.

139The father argues that income should be imputed to the mother for the years 2024 and ongoing. He submits that the mother’s decision to take a leave of absence from her employment with Canada Post and enroll in college was “indefensible.” According to the father, the mother should not have left her employment when she knew she had an ongoing child support obligation.

140With respect, I do not agree that the mother’s education plan was unreasonable in the circumstances.

141The mother’s employment required her to work shifts that made it difficult, if not impossible, to care for the child on a week about basis. And it is on a week about basis the father argued was in the child’s best interests.

142The mother was not able to obtain needed child care from the father, her parents, or third-party daycare providers during the early morning hours. While her parents did help her in the past, their health problems prevent them from doing so in the future except in urgent or emergency situations.

143The mother’s uncontradicted evidence is that her employer was not able to readily accommodate her needs related to child care. It must also be considered that she did not quit her job; she took a three-year leave of absence. She will need to deal with her employer with respect to the fourth year of her programme.

144The mother enrolled in a programme of education—accounting—that once completed will allow her to apply for employment which would allow her to work regular daytime office hours. She will complete this course in 2028. While taking this course, the mother’s evidence is that she has approximately $25,000 in income from student loans and grants. As well, she hopes to secure employment on a part-time basis this summer, to supplement her income. She anticipated earning approximately $1,000 per month during the four months she will not be in school.

145It is based on these considerations that I find that the mother’s decision to take a leave of absence to attend school is reasonable.

146However, I do agree with the father that income should be imputed to the mother, just not in the amount he proposes.

147As the mother has the child in her care every other week throughout the year, and summers off from school, I find it is appropriate to impute income to her while she pursues her education on the basis of her working part time and earning minimum wage.

148Income in the amount of $15,000 will be imputed to the mother in addition to her bursary and grant income of approximately $25,000 for a total annual income for child support purposes in the amount of $40,000.

149The set-off amounts of child support based on the mother’s actual 2024 income of $51,000 and imputed income for 2025 and 2026 of $40,000 are as follows:

Year

Father’s child support obligation

Mother’s child support obligation

Set-off amount to be paid by father to mother

2024

$1,155

$470

$685/month

2025 until Sept. 30

$1,155

$359

$796/month

2025 from Oct. to Dec.

$1,179

$334

$845/month

2026

$1,179

$334

$845/month

Increased cost of shared parenting

150Section 9(b) requires the court to take into account any increased costs associated with the shared parenting plan. For example, this may include duplicated costs, or the disproportionate assumption of expenses by one or the other parent.

151In this case, neither party identified or put in evidence any increased costs associated with the long outstanding shared parenting plan.

Other circumstances

152Section 9(c) allows the court to consider the resources and needs of both parties and child. The court must be concerned with the standard of living of the child in each household and the ability of each parent to absorb the cost required to maintain this standard of living.

153In this case, the mother has less income available to her as a result of her attending school. Her imputed income is approximately two-thirds of that earned by her in the last year she worked full time at Canada Post. The mother is able to maintain the child in the extracurricular activities she has always participated in.

154The evidence does not suggest that with the payment of set-off child support, the standard of living to be experienced by the child will be significantly different in the parties’ respective homes.

Amount of child support to be ordered

155After taking into account these factors, I find that the appropriate amount of child support to be paid in this case is the set-off amount for the years 2024, 2025 and 2026 as calculated above.

156The father is to be credited with all payments he has made on account of child support since January 1, 2024.

Child support from June 2020 until August 31, 2023

157The parties had an agreement in place at that time and I find that it is not appropriate to look behind that agreement at this time.

Section 7 expenses

158Should s. 7 expenses be incurred in the future, they are to be shared on the basis of the father’s income and the mother’s imputed income.

Order

159For these reasons, the following order shall issue under provincial legislation:

1. The parties shall share joint decision-making responsibility with respect to the child, ELR, born […] 2018.

2. The parties shall have parenting time on a week about schedule. However, the child shall spend Tuesday after school until the return to school on Wednesday morning with the non-residential parent.

3. When the child is in the father’s care, he is to bring the child to the mother’s home before school and pick her up from the mother’s home when his workday is over.

4. The mother shall give the father ten months’ notice—that is one school year—of any change in her circumstances that would prevent her from caring for the child before or after school.

5. The parties shall continue to communicate by OurFamilyWizard, text or email on important issues concerning the child.

Holidays and special occasions

March Break

6. The parties shall spend March Break with the child in alternate years.

7. In odd-numbered years, the child shall be in the father’s care, and in even-numbered years with the mother. March Break shall start at 4:30 p.m. on the last day of school before the March Break week commences and shall continue until the start of school the next following Monday.

Mother’s Day and Father’s Day

8. If the child is not otherwise in the mother’s care on Mother’s Day or the father’s care on Father’s Day, she is to be in their respective care from 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. that day.

School Winter/Christmas Break

9. During the child’s school Winter/Christmas Break, the week about schedule shall continue. However, in even-numbered years, the father shall have the child in his care from December 24 at 4:30 p.m. until December 25 at 10:00 a.m. The mother shall have the child in her care from December 25 at 10:00 a.m. until December 26 at 4:30 p.m. In odd-numbered years the schedule shall be reversed.

Easter Long Weekend

10. During the Easter long weekend, the father shall have the child in his care in even-numbered years from Good Friday at 10:00 a.m. until Easter Saturday at 4:30 p.m. The mother shall have the child in her care from Easter Saturday at 4:30 p.m. until the child returns to school the following Tuesday morning. In odd-numbered years, the schedule shall be reversed. It is not the intent of this provision to change the week about schedule.

Summer vacation from school

11. The week about parenting scheduling shall continue during the months of July and August but without mid-week parenting time for the non-residential parent. However, each parent shall be entitled to one period of two consecutive weeks with the child during the months of July and/or August.

12. In even-numbered years, the mother shall advise the father of the two weeks she intends to exercise parenting time with the child by April 1. The father shall advise of the two weeks he intends to exercise parenting time, if he so chooses, by May 1. In odd-numbered years, the schedule shall be reversed.

Exchanges at Merrymount

13. The father's request that parenting time exchanges take place at Merrymount is not granted.

Different arrangements or additional parenting time

14. In addition to the parenting time ordered, the parties may agree, in advance and in writing, to any other or additional parenting time.

Additional terms

15. Telephone calls with the child: each party may call the child a maximum of two times per week for a maximum of 20 minutes per call while the child is in the care of the other party.

16. Notice of emergency: in case of an emergency or injury to the child, the party in whose care the child is at the time shall notify the other party as soon as possible.

17. Travel:

− The mother shall keep the child’s passport and provide it to the father when he needs it for travel. The cost to obtain the child’s passport shall be shared on the same basis as a s.7 special expense would be shared, that is, in proportion to the parties’ respective incomes.

− Each party shall provide the other with requested travel authorizations in a timely manner.

− Each parent shall provide to the other, in writing, an itinerary and contact information should they travel outside of the province of Ontario with the child for more than seven consecutive days.

Child Support

18. Income in the amount of $15,000 will be imputed to the mother in addition to her bursary and grant income of approximately $25,000 for a total annual income for child support purposes in the amount of $40,000.

19. Child support shall be paid as follows:

Year

Father’s child support obligation

Mother’s child support obligation

Set-off amount to be paid by father to mother

2024

$1,155

$470

$685/mo.

2025 until Sept. 30

$1,155

$359

$796/mo.

2025 from Oct. to Dec.

$1,179

$334

$845/mo.

2026

$1,179

$334

$845/mo.

20. The father and mother are to be credited with all payments they made on account of child support since January 1, 2024.

21. For greater certainty, child support on an ongoing basis shall be paid as follows: commencing on the first day of April, 2026 and on the first day of each subsequent month: (i) the mother shall pay to the father for the support of the child $334 per month and (ii) the father shall pay to the mother for the support of the child $1,179 per month. These amounts are based upon of the mother’s imputed income of $40,000 per year, the father's estimated income for 2026 in the amount of $131,138, and CSG s.9.

Child support from June 2020 until August 31, 2023

22. As the parties had a child support agreement in place from June 2020 until August 31, 2023, no further support is to be paid by either party to the other in respect of that period.

Section 7 expenses

23. Section 7 expenses incurred are to be shared on the basis of the father’s income and the mother’s imputed income.

Costs

160The Court is not inclined to make an order of costs as it appears that there has been divided success. However, if either party wishes to make cost submissions, the party seeking costs is to serve and file cost submissions of no more than three pages in length (double-spaced and using 12-point font) together with a bill of costs and any offers to settle by no later than April 17, 2026. The responding party is to file their serve their costs submissions of no more than three pages in length (double-spaced and using 12-point font) together with a bill of costs and any offers to settle by no later than April 28, 2026. If costs submissions are not filed in accordance with the timelines provided for, costs shall be deemed settled or that one party elected not to file submissions.

A final word

161The court wishes to commend and thank the mother and the father for the respectful, sensitive, and child-focused manner in which they presented their respective cases.