Childs v. Kolodziej, 2023 ONSC 7275

CITATION: Childs v. Kolodziej, 2023 ONSC 7275 NAPANEE COURT FILE NO.: 83/20 DATE: 20230906 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEE N: ) ) Savanna Rose Childs, Applicant ) ) ) Mark Petty ) ) ) - and - ) ) ) Aleksander Ted Kolodziej , Respondent ) ) ) Self-represented ) ) ) ) )) HEARD: June 6, 7 and 8, 2023 Minnema J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This was an Application and cross-Application by the parents of Atlas, age 3, the dispute being primarily over parenting time to the father. The main related issue was child support arrears. Background Facts [ 2 ] The parties met near Orangeville, Ontario, in 2019.

They were not in a serious relationship, and the applicant mother indicates that they did not even “officially” date, they just hung out for a few months. They connected through the dating app Tinder. The respondent father’s family lives in that area and the mother had just become employed with a family there as an au pair. [ 3 ] In June of 2019 the mother learned she was pregnant. There is no dispute about paternity.

The mother was 19 years old at that time, and the father turned 21 that same month. [ 4 ] The mother told the father right away. [ 5 ] Two months after learning she was pregnant, in August of 2019, the mother quit her job as an au pair and moved back to the Kingston area to live with her mother and father. The father bought her a “promise ring” which he gave to her. [ 6 ] The mother studied at Cornell University online to be a nutritionist. The father was an apprentice electrician.

[ 7 ] The mother suffers from anxiety and is under the care of her family doctor and treated by medication. [ 8 ] The parties continued to communicate by telephone and social media a few times a week. The mother claimed that she would give the father updates about her pregnancy and that he would respond negatively and angrily, telling her it was a huge mistake and that he did not want her to continue the pregnancy and that she would be a terrible mother. The maternal grandmother (“MGM”) indicated that she overheard such conversations.

She claims she overhead telephone conversations where the father called the mother names, called her “trash” because she had a tattoo, and that she heard him say to the mother “I’m going to hunt you down”. The mother claimed the father wanted her to have an abortion and when she said she did not want to get one he said that he would drag her by the hair to the clinic. She said she felt threatened. The father denied all these assertions.

He said, to the contrary, that he told the mother he would support her decision whatever it was, but that when she herself indicated that she wanted to end the pregnancy by overdosing on her anxiety medications, he was adamant that she should not do that, indicating that he would drive her to a clinic instead. While the conversations took place both by telephone and electronically, the limited social media conversations between the parties when the mother was still pregnant (after she moved from Orangeville to her parents’ home) generally do not support the mother’s and grandmother’s versions.

To the contrary, they show that the father was being supportive of the mother while she was indicating very marked emotional distress. These communications were put into evidence by the father as the only records he could obtain, and he pointed out that the mother did not produce any copies of electronic communications herself, he says because they would not support her negative version of him and his alleged behaviour. He also notes, and it is undisputed, that the parties communicated regularly, and it was the mother who was often calling him.

While the mother said he told her to stop calling, he said only that he told her not to call him at work, and the communication continued. [ 9 ] The mother indicates that when Atlas was born on February 24, 2020, she did not have anyone with her in the delivery room. Her mother was in Florida, and while her father was at the hospital she did not want him to see her give birth. She immediately called the father from the recovery room. She said he did not have much to say and that he continually told her to stop calling him. Again, other than the father wanting to limit her calling him at work, this was denied.

While the mother suggests that the father was uninterested in the child, the inconsistent evidence again is that they continued to regularly communicate, and in those communications the father wanted to see the child. He suggested a time about two weeks after the child’s birth. The mother said no, she says because the father lived near the Toronto area, and she believed it was rampant with the COVID-19 virus at the time. [ 10 ] The father came on his proposed date anyway. This caught the mother and MGM by surprise. There are widely competing versions of what happened next.

The mother and her mother claim that the father came into the grandmother’s home uninvited, demanded to see the child, and picked him up out of the crib. The mother and MGM said that they were fearful and unnerved because they did not know what he was there for. The MGM says she considered calling the police but did not. They said the father complained about his car expenses and claimed that he came from an abusive household and that his family did not want to know the child, and that he was not interested in being part of the child’s life.

That last assertion, alleging that the father said he was not interested in the child, again was quite odd, given what has already been noted and that he had just driven all the way from Orangeville. The father’s version is very different. He says he came not to see the child given the mother’s concern about COVID-19, but rather to deliver two gifts for Atlas and an envelope with $1,000 cash, the latter because the mother had been communicating financial concerns.

He says he had no intention of going into the home, his purpose was only to drop off the gifts and cash which he did, but he was invited into the home by the MGM, and then offered to view the child given that he had travelled so far (it is a 600 kilometre/7 hours round trip according to the evidence). He said the MGM then placed the child in his arms. He said he left after feeling he had overstayed his welcome. The parties agree that he and the MGM had a detailed conversation on his way out, but again what was said is disputed as noted above.

As to the alleged statements attributed to him about his family, in his evidence he described them as a stable and respectful and loving family of Polish immigrants with no history of domestic violence. Regarding his allegedly stating that he was uninterested in the child, he denies this and again the weight of the evidence both before and after this event shows that, to the contrary, he has maintained a consistent interest in having a relationship with the child, up to and including this trial. [ 11 ] The parties continued to communicate electronically after that event.

It was very odd that, although the mother claimed the father was controlling and aggressive, nothing of that nature was put into evidence by her from electronic communications in support of those allegations. Indeed, the parties had very limited face to face time, as most of their communication was remote.

The visit by the father to the mother’s home above, while hardly worthy of detailed mention in most family law cases, took on an exaggerated importance in the minds of the parties in this case for the reason that it is the one and only time the MGM had met the father, and the only time the parties had a face to face meeting (other than in court) since the mother moved from Orangeville to Kingston in August of 2019. [ 12 ] The father sent the mother roses in May of 2020 for Mother’s Day. [ 13 ] The mother issued her Application on September 9, 2020.

Along with parenting claims (sole custody and supervised access to the father), she claimed equalization and sale of property despite having counsel and the parties not having been married. She also claimed a restraining order. The mother said she could have flexible hours working in her mother’s cleaning business once Atlas started going to school. Quite oddly, she did not claim child support.

It needs to be noted that the Application made many extreme allegations against the father (ie. that he was a risk to hurt her and the baby and that he was a drug dealer) none of which was supported by evidence heard at the trial. The pleading itself was contradictory in that the mother alleged that the father made it clear that he did not want to be part of the baby’s life while at the same time asserting that he was threatening court action to take the baby away from her. [ 14 ] The father filed his Answer dated October 14, 2020. He had counsel at the time.

In it he asked that the applicant’s claims be dismissed and sought joint custody and liberal (although modest) access, as well as information sharing. [ 15 ] On November 2, 2020 the mother signed a Reply asking that the father’s claims be dismissed. [ 16 ] At the Case Conference on December 4, 2020, despite it not being pled, a temporary child support order was made on consent requiring the father to pay $359 per month commencing December 1, 2020 based on an income of $40,000.

An order was also made for reasonable Zoom access for the father and indicated that if there was no agreement on face to face access a motion may be brought. Communication was ordered to be through the Our Family Wizard (“OFW”) app.

[ 17 ] Getting ahead of the chronology, the mother has always used OFW since ordered for what appears to be very brief monthly updates to the father plus photographs. The photographs were not in evidence, but many messages were. As an example of how brief, this message from December 1, 2021 is a typical example of a full message “he’s doing great, he’s advanced in his development. Happy & heathy, no concerns”.

There is only one brief communication from the father in evidence, when it appears that the mother was late (a rarity) in her brief monthly update. [ 18 ] At the Settlement Conference on June 14, 2021, the father consented to the mother having sole decision-making, and that order was made on a final basis. The mother agreed to file a Notice of Withdrawal with respect to her claim for a Restraining Order. Supervised parenting time for the father was ordered at the Salvation Army Supervised Access Centre (“SASAC” or “SAC” or “Centre”) for two two-hour visits per month.

Among the other temporary orders, the father was to obtain a medical report within 90 days on the issue of his mental health and emotional stability. [ 19 ] The father provided the medical letter dated August 9, 2021 from Dr. Akula who indicated that it was based on an assessment and subsequent questionnaire.

She indicated that it was her opinion that the father was “coherent, stable, able to follow and give a complete history, with good insight and judgment into his situation” adding that on the virtual attendance he appeared to be “calm, stable and had no overt signs of emotional dysregulation.” [ 20 ] Shortly before that letter, on July 17, 2021, the every other weekend in-person supervised visits started. From the observation notes in evidence the SAC could only accommodate them for 1 hour each.

For that first visit, the mother said to the monitor that she was nervous as the last time she and the child were together with the father it was a bad experience. It needs to be noted that she was referring to the one and only time noted above when Atlas was two weeks old, which was about a year and 4 months in the past, and that the father had been having virtual parenting time without incident. [ 21 ] As a

summary of the SAC observation notes for 2021, there were 13 visits scheduled, 1 was cancelled by the SASAC, 1 was cancelled by the father because of a scheduling confusion, 2 were cancelled by the mother because the child was ill, and 2 more were cancelled and it is not clear from the notes by whom or why. Of the remaining 7 visits, they all went very well, and the father was very supportive of the child.

Beginning the new year, the next visit in the rotation of January 1, 2022 did not occur as the Centre was closed. [ 22 ] In December of 2021, the father brought a motion to expand his parenting time to three hours in the community on alternating Saturdays, for make-up visits, and for a reduction of his child support to reflect his cost to travel for visits.

The motion was heard on January 4, 2022 by Justice Trousdale who ordered that in addition to the supervised parenting time at the SASAC, the father shall have contiguous unsupervised parenting time in the community for 1 to 1.5 hours with the exchanges to be supervised by the Centre with a number of conditions for the unsupervised time. The request for make-up time was dismissed.

The father’s child support was adjusted effective February 1, 2022 granting him a $50 per month reduction to take into account his twice per month travel expenses, with the total sum being $309 per month which was still based on a gross income of $40,000. [ 23 ] From the SAC observation notes and the evidence, the father’s parenting time as accommodated by the SASAC was thereafter 1.5 hours every other week unsupervised in the community (supervised exchanges) followed by continuing the 1 hour of supervised parenting time in the Centre.

This new “hybrid” parenting time (2.5 hours every two weeks) did not start until January 22, 2022 as the visit scheduled for January 15, 2022 was cancelled, although is not clear from the notes by whom or why. [ 24 ] For the January 22, 2022 visit, the unsupervised portion was scheduled for 2 pm and the supervised portion for 3:30 pm. The mother called that morning saying she was uncomfortable because the father had not provided a COVID test “as lawyers have suggested”.

The monitor told the mother her choices were to proceed, to cancel either the unsupervised portion or the supervised portion, or to cancel the entire visit. She asked the monitor what to do and was told the SAC cannot make that decision. The mother indicated that she was cancelling the entire visit. Then mother then called the monitor back shortly afterward and said she would only do the supervised part of the visit but wanted it to start at 2 pm.

I query here, if exposure to COVID-19 from the father was the real concern, what the difference would have been between allowing the supervised part of the visit to go ahead versus the whole visit. I also note re COVID that the father had already been having supervised parenting time for about 6 months. The monitor spoke to her supervisor who told her that the mother had already spoken with her and that it was pointed out that there was no requirement for a COVID test in the court order.

The mother was also told that if she chose only the supervised part of the visit then it would still need to be at 3:30 pm per the usual schedule. The monitor called the mother and relayed this information following which the mother decided to do the entire visit, although making the comment that it could mean her son could be exposed to COVID. The hybrid visit went ahead without incident, although the father received some instruction on changing a diaper. He responded to the mother’s direction re food.

He was very affectionate with the child and told him to be good to the mother and MGM and to eat his vegetables and food. [ 25 ] I do not plan on reviewing each subsequent visit in detail, but just make a few observations. For the next visit on February 5, 2022, the father needed some help from the monitor to get the child into the car seat. He checked the diaper, and the monitor told him Atlas was wet when leaving the last visit and therefore it would be good to check again before the end of the visit, and the father agreed and followed through.

As before, the father told the child to be a good boy for mom and grandma. He gave two new and still packaged toys to go home with the child. The February 19, 2022 visit was cancelled by the Centre because of poor weather. For the March 5, 2022 visit, the child was dressed for outdoors weather but the temperature was minus 6. The father did not have a plan for the 1.5 hours. After about 45 minutes they were cold, and he came back to the Centre and asked to come in early.

An exception was made allowing that, but he was told to plan better in the future, and there were no further incidents. [ 26 ] At the second Settlement Conference on March 21, 2022, the child support was adjusted effective April 1, 2022 to be $543 per month based on the father’s gross income for 2021 of $52,875.90 with the $50 per month reduction for travel expenses still being applied. [ 27 ] There were no SAC observational notes in evidence of the father’s hybrid parenting time from March 19, 2022 until May 28, 2022, a total of six visits. There is no evidence if any or how many were cancelled.

From the oral evidence there is no dispute that they went well.

[ 28 ] The next visit was on June 11, 2022. The father pointed out that he found an “Apple tag”, a device that allows one to monitor its movement and location, in the diaper bag the mother provided. The MGM when asked about that acknowledged that they use it all the time to keep track of the child’s belongings and had forgotten to take it out for the visit. [ 29 ] For the next visit on June 25, 2022, the father announced to the monitor that his mother and brother were not coming as his mother had a fall.

I note the father’s younger brother Andrzej (then age 6, now age 7) was present for the previous visit on June 11, 2022, and I understood that both he and the paternal grandmother Ela Kolodziej had begun attending some visits with the father, although again the notes from the previous 6 visits were not in evidence. The father had swim trunks and sunscreen as he told the monitor that they were going to a splash pad.

The mother, when dropping off the child, wanted the monitor to call her when the father and child returned from the unsupervised parenting time to let her know if the child is okay as “he takes heat very badly”. The monitor told her that they cannot call mid-visit, but she will let her know if there are problems. When the child came back into the supervised part of the visit the monitor checked the child regarding being hot but did not note any concerns. The father and child had their one hour supervised visit. When the child was returned to the mother she said to the child “oh your cheeks are flushed”.

The monitor pointed out to her they were not a different shade than when the child first arrived for the visit. The father had brought a wooden firetruck that he and Atlas assembled during the visit. While gifts for Atlas from the father had been well received by the MGM, when the truck was handed to the mother she shook her head and said “nope, no gift, we already talked to the lawyer about this.” This appears to have taken place when the child was present. [ 30 ] There are no SAC records from the next visits in the rotation from July 9 to October 29, 2022, a total of nine.

There is nothing in the evidence to suggest they did not occur. To the contrary, the father’s visits were indicated by both parties to be continuous and went well. [ 31 ] The Trial Scheduling Conference was held on August 19, 2022, and this trial date was set. A Trial Management Conference (Last Meeting) was set for March 20, 2023. [ 32 ] For the November 12, 2022 visit, it appears that the father’s younger brother Andrzej attended the previous visit (again there were no records) as the father in chatting with the monitor explained why he was not attending that day.

The child was resistant to leaving the MGM who brought him, but when he saw the father the transition when well. This was reported afterwards to the MGM who said, “oh good”. [ 33 ] There is no report from the SAC in evidence relating to the next visit of November 26, 2022. [ 34 ] On December 10, 2022 visit, a similar scenario happened at the start in that the child called out for the MGM at the exchange, but then transitioned easily once he saw the father. The father had Christmas gifts for the child that were given to the MGM and she said he’ll love them.

The MGM noted the child was having a hard time with diary products, and that was passed on to the father who acknowledged it. The child asked for cheese in the visit, but the father told him not today because of his tummy. [ 35 ] The father brought a motion dated December 19, 2022, for expanded parenting time (alternate weekends unsupervised and a mid- point exchange location) and sought leave to have the motion heard after the Trial Scheduling Conference.

The first return date was January 3, 2023. [ 36 ] It appears that the SAC was closed for the next visit on December 24, 2022 although there is no record in evidence. [ 37 ] At the first return date of the father’s motion on January 3, 2023, the matter was adjourned to a longer date for hearing to be set by the Trial Coordinator. [ 38 ] For the January 7, 2023 visit, the child told the MGM he misses her at the start of the visit, but again quickly transitioned to the father. The visit went well.

The father indicated that there were no snacks given for the unsupervised portion in the park and no diaper changes (Atlas was almost potty trained at this point). When the monitor provided the snack and diaper information to the MGM she commented “we’ll see about that”.

She took the toy gift the father brought but said “let’s put it in the bag before mommy sees it”. [ 39 ] On January 10, 2023, the Trial Coordinator set the date for the hearing of the father’s motion for expanded parenting time for February 27, 2023. [ 40 ] The January 21, 2023 visit was cancelled, the reason simply indicated as “transportation issues.” In a subsequent visit (February 18, 2023) the father while chatting with the monitor referred to “recent car troubles.” [ 41 ] The February 4, 2023 was cancelled with the reason given that the child was sick. [ 42 ] A visit was scheduled for February 11, 2023, being the following week, but the report from the SAC notes that it was cancelled as well but did not indicate a reason. [ 43 ] For the next visit on February 18, 2023, although the child had not seen the father for about 6 weeks, he transitioned into the father’s care without any difficulties.

Near the end of the visit the child said he does not want to leave, he wanted to stay. The father said “its okay, I’ll see you again, you get set to see mama and nana now” and the child said “no mama, no nana”. The child told the MGM, “I don’t want to go” and she commented “oh, look at all these toys”. The father had brought gifts for the child’s upcoming birthday, and it appears that they were taken. [ 44 ] The father’s motion for expanded parenting time was heard by Justice Swartz on February 27, 2023.

She granted leave but dismissed the substantive motion. [ 45 ] On March 4, 2023, the MGM and MGF (Christopher Childs) brought the child and Atlas was crying in the vehicle. They reported that he had been crying for 20 minutes saying “no”. However, he went to the monitor without difficulty and from her to the father without difficulty but was noted to be fussy and at the start and stretched his arms toward the door and said “Gramma”. The

MGM asked the monitor after the child had transitioned how long she would let a child cry and was told the child had stopped while they were getting ready to go out but if the child was struggling - in tears for 5 minutes – she would have intervened. The grandparents noted that usually Atlas was fine and looking forward to the visits but today he cried all the way. The monitor noted that when the father and child returned from the unsupervised part of the hybrid visit the child was “grinning from ear to ear”. The visit went well, although the monitor noted that the child looked and acted very tired.

At the end of the visit the MGM asked the child “did you miss me” and the child said “yes”. [ 46 ] Everything changed for the March 18, 2023 visit. The mother as well as the MGM attended for this drop off. The father arrived first and had his brother Andrzej with him. When the mother and the MGM arrived with the child, the MGM carried him into the Centre and he was crying and screaming “I don’t want to go” and said he wants his mom. The monitor encouraged him to go and at least say ‘hi’ to the father, but the child ran and hid, saying he did not want to go, and that he wanted his mom.

The mother asked the child if he was scared and the child says “I’m scared, I’m scared” while still crying. The monitor suggested that the mother wait in the car, she hesitated and said she couldn’t leave, but then did. The child tried to get outside, and the MGM tried to calm him and have him see the father. The MGM brought him to the visit room door and the monitor carried the child inside. The father took the child in his arms and tried to soothe him and told him what they had planned (the park and McDonalds). The child continued to cry and fuss and say he did not want to go and asked for his mother.

The father said to Atlas that his mother is going shopping but will be back. The child continued to ask for his mother and would not calm, and after 15 minutes the monitor decided to cancel the visit. The father put the child down and asked if he could say goodbye. The child gave the father a hug and said goodbye then settled a little. The monitor asked him about going with the father “tata”, the child said he’s scared and he was breathing fast trying to catch his breath. The monitor asked him why he was scared, and Atlas looked around and but didn’t respond.

The father asked Atlas if he is scared of him, the child says yes, the father asked why, indicating that he has never hurt him and loves him. The child repeated that he didn’t want to go and wanted his mom. The monitor said they will go back and see his mom. The child said “bye” to the father and walked out of the visiting room. Neither of the hybrid portions of the visit took place and the SAC marked its report as “child refusal”. It needs to be noted that Atlas was 3 years old at the time just recently having had a birthday. [ 47 ] The MGM was upset about having to force the child.

However, she asked about and discussed with the monitor strategies for the next time. She said they (she and the MGF) had to bring the mother with them this time as for the previous visit the child cried for 40 minutes at home before they left, and they wouldn’t have been able to get him there without the mother. The father was clearly frustrated, and of course he had driven with his younger brother all the way from Orangeville for the visit.

He noted this had never happened before and stated that there was no reason for the child to be afraid of him and that something must have been said to the child to make him afraid. [ 48 ] On March 20, 2023, the Trial Management Conference/Last Meeting took place before Justice Waters, but the parties were unable to come to an agreement. [ 49 ] On March 21, 2023 the father signed a Form 14: Notice of Change in Representation indicating that he had decided to act in person. [ 50 ] The next scheduled visit was April 1, 2023. The father arrived beforehand with two toys he hoped might support the exchange.

The monitor said that if the child refused the plan was to have him come back at 3:30 pm for the supervised visit and see if he would go through with it. The monitor observed the MGM taking the child out of the car seat and that he was visibly upset, red-faced crying and kicking. She tried to place him in the wagon (which had been used previously to transition the child into the visiting room) but he jumped out and was screaming. The monitor waived hello to the child, the child said hello to her, and she asked him if he wanted to see tata (the father) in the other room.

The child replied “no, mummy, no … I’m scared, I go home.” The mother encouraged the child to go and suggested the monitor pick him up, but the child refused. The monitor said she was getting a toy the father brought but the child continued to cry yelling “no, no”. The monitor shared that they were going to the park today and there might be some puppies there. The child stopped crying looked at the monitor and said “tata”, and the MGM said that tata drove a long way to see him. The child walked quickly towards the door and into the visiting room, but when he saw the father he started yelling “no, need mommy”.

The father picked him up and kissed him, but Atlas fussed and kicked to get down. The child reached out to the monitor, who took him. The father tried to show the child a dinosaur toy he brought him, but the child continued to say “mommy, mommy”. The monitor walked back to the other room and the father said goodbye to the child. The supervisor told the mother to bring the child back for the 3:30 pm supervised portion of the visit, but the mother said she felt that it will go the same way and did not want to put the child through it.

The mother said at home they talk about Atlas and the father going to the park, playing with toys, and having fun. The monitor asked the child if he would like to say hi to tata one more time, and the child said “no, home”, ran to the door and asked to go in the car. The MGF said that the father has his phone where he could watch videos, and the monitor suggested that he could sit in the toy room with her for a few minutes, but the child asked to go home where his iPad is.

The monitor asked the child if there is anything tata could bring next time to make him feel safe and happy, and the child relied “no, go home now”. The mother said to the monitor that they were starting counselling sessions at the Maltby Centre. The monitor told the father that the maternal side and child had left and had refused the 3:30 pm supervised portion of the visit as they did not want to work Atlas up again.

The monitor commented that for a moment it seemed like the child was going to go with the father but then it looked like a switch just flipped, and the father said he agreed and didn’t understand. [ 51 ] The next scheduled visit was April 15, 2023 but it was cancelled by the father on account of a work obligation. The visit after that on April 29, 2023 was cancelled as well by the father, the reason noted being because the other party/counsel had not provided him with documents he requested yet.

These documents from the evidence were a mental health assessment of the mother and strategies for resuming the parenting time. The father indicated that because of the cost of travel he wanted highest possibility of success. The mother did provide a letter from her family doctor dated April 18, 2023, prior to that cancelled visit, which indicated as follows: This woman is on medical treatment for anxiety. My assessment is that she doing very well on her medication. She is able to complete the necessary tasks of daily living, not only for herself but also is able to parent her young son Atlas.

He is being seen by Maltby and together they are helping Atlas navigate the difficulties of dual parenting and seeing both parents. I have no concerns that mom is incapable of caring for her son. [ 52 ] The father indicated that he did not believe that report, and, while he has no medical expertise, it was his view that the mother

was bipolar. [ 53 ] Regarding the Maltby Centre, the mother’s lawyer provided the father with a contact name and a phone number, but the father seemed to want more, such as an itinerary and a response from the mother. Her evidence was that she and the child had three sessions with them. The father said that the Maltby Centre indicated to him that it could not continue if strategies were not being followed. As were no more visits for a few months, this may have related to a lack of opportunity to implement them. There were some differing opinions or communication issues or at least misunderstandings at this point.

The mother’s view was that the father in cancelling the visits did not give her an opportunity to implement the Maltby Centre recommendations or strategies. The father’s view was that he cancelled the visits because without him knowing those strategies – he said he did not get an update regarding them - he was not confident the child would have a good experience. [ 54 ] On May 1, 2023, the mother’s monthly update to the father was one of the longer ones, if not the longest. It included three photos and indicated in full: “Atlas is doing fantastic. His development is above & beyond, reading lots, very outgoing.

Making lots of friends. Working with the Maltby centre to address separation anxiety, going well. Loves numbers, hates haircuts.” [ 55 ] On May 26, 2023 a further Trial Scheduling Conference was held before Justice Swartz, likely because of the father’s change in counsel. The matter was confirmed for trial. [ 56 ] Both parties spoke of an attempted parenting time visit the weekend before the trial, which would have been June 3, 2023. That was about 2 months after the last attempt on April 1, 2023.

It seemed to have gone poorly, pretty much the same as the June 3 attempt, with the child distraught and refusing to go with the father. According to the mother she tried to work on Maltby Centre recommendations, but the child had a panic attack (screaming, hysterical, red-faced, sweating). She said no further counselling had been scheduled. Issues and Positions for the Hearing [ 57 ] The main issue as noted is the father’s parenting time. The mother said in her evidence that the visitation with the father is not positive now, and she would like to revisit it in the future when the child is older.

In other words, she would like to suspend the father’s parenting time, stating the child is young, vulnerable, and scared, even though she does not know why. However, her official position in her opening and closing submissions was that the hybrid parenting time through the SASAC should continue until the child’s behaviour returns to a baseline. This would give her a chance to act on advice she has received and for the father to get input as well.

After that, a progression sensitive to the child’s needs should occur, starting with parenting time of expanding duration in the community until arriving at a regular parenting schedule, namely every other weekend along the lines that the father has been seeking, can be established. The father was seeking an order for unsupervised parenting time every other weekend for 2 or 3 days (three days if the weekend was attached to a holiday). He wants to be able to bring child to see his family, and I note that the mother formally agreed but indicated the child is not ready yet.

The father said, without context, that an “exposure therapy approach” would be best, and that the child should go regardless of his current resistance. [ 58 ] The second issue for the mother was ongoing and retroactive child support. She simply asked that it be adjusted in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines and father’s actual income. The parties agreed on an estimated income for the father to be used for 2023.

The mother conceded continuing a $50 per month reduction to mitigate - but not compensate for - the father’s travel costs, and she did not object to the father getting credit for his $1,000 cash payment in 2020. The father generally was not opposed to paying child support and noted that he had made all the interim payments ordered. However, he was of the view that he should not have to pay retroactive support or past adjustments, his reasons being he has abided the interim orders, paid $1,000 in cash, and given the mother a “promise ring” for which he said he paid $860.

He was further of the view that he should be compensated for his travel expenses by way of an almost dollar for dollar reduction in his child support payments, and he gave evidence of his travel costs including the cost of his vehicle, repairs, gas, etc. He mentioned in evidence the words “undue hardship” but did not plead it. [ 59 ] Lastly, the father indicated that the parties should discontinue the use of Our Family Wizard. He felt it was too expensive ($400 per year) when all that he receives is one brief message from the mother a month. He said his messages were also short and to the point.

He suggested there could still be an order that contact be kept to a minimum. [ 60 ] In

summary, there are two broad issues before the court, the father’s parenting time and child support, plus the narrower issue of the continued use of OFW. Parenting Time – Law and Analysis Law [ 61 ] As the parties were not married, this case is governed by the Children’s Law Reform Act , R.S.O. 1990,

Chapter C.12 as amended. All references to legislation relating to parenting time and decision-making are to that Act unless otherwise indicated. [ 62 ] I am to apply the test found in section 24(1) which indicates that in making a parenting order with respect to a child the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with

section 24. S ubsection 24(2) directs the court in determining best interests to consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child. It goes on to provide a list of included factors in subsection 24(3), and in subsection 24(2) directs the court when considering those to give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. The remaining subsections in

section 24 clarify how family violence is to be approached, how past conduct is to be considered, and that in allocating parenting time the child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with his or her best interests (this latter “parenting time factor” was the previously misnamed “maximum contact principle” under the Divorce Act : see Barendregt v. Grebliunas , 2022 SCC 22 at para. 135 ). Analysis – Parenting Time [ 63 ] In going through the factors from subsection 24(3), the headings below are loose short forms for the more detailed text of the

actual subsections. I have taken some of them out of order. History of Care [ 64 ] There is no dispute that the child has only been cared for by the mother, and perhaps her parents to some degree, and that the father has only had video, supervised, and the hybrid parenting time as set out above. Child's Needs [ 65 ] I am to look at the child’s needs given his age and stage of development, and stability is a need noted in the subsection 24(3)(a). [ 66 ] There was very little evidence about Atlas’ needs and development beyond the brief reports by the mother to the father using OFW.

They suggest that the child is meeting his developmental milestones and progressing well. [ 67 ] I note that the Parenting Plan Guide (“PPG” or “Guide”) published by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – Ontario (AFCC-O), provides a good up-to-date

summary of the social science research on both toddlers, defined as aged 18 to 36 months, and preschoolers defined as aged 3 to 5 years. Atlas seems to fall roughly between these two categories in the sense of recently moving from the former to the latter. [ 68 ] Regarding toddlers generally, the Guide indicates: Toddlers are sensitive to conflict between their parents and may have fears of separation, become clingy, and show stress.

If separations are too long toddlers may show less independence or less interest in exploring their environment, or may exhibit behavioral problems. … Healthy toddlers are starting to assert their independence, and may express themselves by saying “No” and resisting even the most reasonable parental requests (the “terrible twos”). Some children at this age become fearful of separations and may cling or cry at separation from one or both parents (including when left at daycare).

Resistance to parental exchanges is normal for many toddlers and should not be taken as a sign that the child is rejecting a parent. [ 69 ] Regarding the different schedules for toddlers, the Guide notes: If one of the parents has not established the parenting skills necessary to effectively and safely manage a toddler, that parent having 2 or 3 day-time contacts a week (starting at 1 to 2 hours and working up to 4 to 6 hours) should allow that parent to develop a relationship and parenting skills. … Even at this age, children will be stressed by tension and argument between caregivers, and if exchanges by the parents are tense, it is preferable to have a third party, like a grandparent, take the child from one parent to the other. [ 70 ] Regarding preschoolers generally, the Guide indicates: They are prone to fears and anxiety and may have nighttime fears.

They may have difficulties with separations or transitions, but can generally calm down and settle in. Preschool children are alert to the moods and tension of their caregivers. [ 71 ] Regarding the different schedules for preschoolers the Guide notes: Preschoolers can tolerate longer absences from a parent, but a child’s temperament and the pre-separation parenting arrangements must be considered.

Transitional objects, such as a favorite toy, stuffed animal or blanket, moving between the two homes can help a preschooler manage sadness and anxiety. [ 72 ] Some of the above noted tendencies may be in play with the difficulty observed with the father’s parenting time since April. Indeed, some refusal behaviours were also observed on the occasion the child was indicating in a visit that that he did not want to leave the father and return to his mother and grandmother. [ 73 ] Of course, it is important for all the children to have a healthy relationship with both parents.

Child's Relationships [ 74 ] As the child lives with the mother and she is his primary caregiver, and also lives with the maternal grandparents, one would expect, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, that the child has a good relationship with all three.

The bigger questions is the nature of Atlas’ relationships with the paternal side of the family. [ 75 ] While Atlas has had some exposure to the child Andrzej, who is technically his uncle, and the paternal grandmother, these were somewhat sporadic, and it is difficult to assess whether they were consistent enough to establish much in the way of a relationship. Even the father’s relationship as it stands is difficult to assess.

The MGM opined that there was unfortunately no bond yet between the father and child, although she is not an expert and had no direct observations. [ 76 ] Certainly, the bulk of the supervised visit reports show a good relationship growing between father and son. However, given the geographical distance, there was no opportunity for the regular contact as recommended by the AFCC-O PPG (several times per week), but rather the child was seeing the father every other weekend at best, and unfortunately that

schedule was interrupted at times by sickness, weather, holidays, mechanical problems, etc. By my count summarizing the evidence above, since parenting time at the SAC started, it occurred 7 times in 2021 over a 5 ½ month period, 22 times in 2022 assuming (a big assumption) that all the available visits

took place (there were no records for 15 of the visits), and for 2023 there was a visit on January 7 followed by a 6 week gap, a visit on February 18 and March 4, and then no visits thereafter because of the child’s refusals. [ 77 ] Globally, the frequency of the visits in 2021 and 2023 were disappointing, and re the latter there were only 3 visits in the first 2 ½ months before the noted problems took hold. Willingness to Support the Child’s Relationship with the Other Parent [ 78 ] The father’s behaviour in the supervised access visits suggests that he supports the mother’s relationship with the child.

He regularly tells Atlas to be good for, and listen to, his mother.

He agreed early on in this process to the mother having sole decision- making, and he has conceded primary residence to her seeking only modest parenting time. [ 79 ] While on December 4, 2020 the mother consented to Zoom parenting time for the father and about 6 months later, on June 14, 2021, she consented to supervised parenting time at the SASAC, it needs to be noted that six months later, despite the visits going well, she opposed his motion that resulted in an expansion on January 4, 2022 of his parenting time to hybrid, and she successfully opposed his motion for a further expansion which was dismissed on February 27, 2023, over a year later when notably the visits were still going well. [ 80 ] The father claims that he has been “maliciously alienated” from the child by the maternal side.

His only explanation for Atlas’ refusals at the SAC is that they are saying bad things about him in their home and have turned the child against him. Certainly, the mother and maternal grandmother have a negative view of the father (ie. aggressive, controlling, etc.), which in my view given the very limited contact they have with him and the weight of the evidence, is unfounded. Indeed, the anxiety of the mother may be a factor here in the sense of overreaction or misappreciation of situations, possibly adopted or fed upon by the MGM. I will return to that.

The mother and MGM were very specific in their evidence that they do not speak ill of the father in the home. [ 81 ] I have noted, in uncharacteristic detail, the extent of the hints from the SASAC reports that the mother may be oppositional to the father’s visits. It doesn’t amount to much. Other than the mother asking the child the leading questions “are you scared”, the reports seem to suggest that the maternal side was doing what it could to make the visits work, trying different transporters to the visits, engaging the Maltby Centre, and the MGM asked the monitor for suggestions.

The mother is a first time parent and Atlas is the MGM’s first grandchild, and they were unable to manage Atlas around the later parenting time visits. Child's Views and Preferences [ 82 ] The child is too young to provide his voice to this proceeding, which seems to be conceded. Child's Cultural, Linguistic, Religious and Spiritual Upbringing and Heritage [ 83 ] Nothing was said about this from the maternal side. The father has wishes to expose the child to his Polish culture, and there was nothing voiced in opposition from the mother.

Indeed, the maternal side has adopted the father’s use of the word “tata” to identify himself with the child, which is Polish for dad. Ability of Parents [ 84 ] This case seemed to be progressing well, with the father and child growing a relationship. Then the child’s quite marked resistance to the visits started. The issue of parenting ability was addressed in this case primarily related to the cause of the impasse.

There were a number of possible explanations for the difficulty alluded to in the course of the trial, but they are not exhaustive. [ 85 ] One, raised by the mother’s counsel in closing, was that it is just a stage in the child’s development.

In this regard, he is supported by the excerpts from the AFCC-O PPG noted above. [ 86 ] One, alluded to by the MGM, was that the infrequency of the visits may have simply provided insufficient time or exposure for the child to develop a strong enough bond with the father to overcome the difficult behaviours exhibited as part of the child’s normal development. [ 87 ] One, as noted above asserted by the father, is that intentional alienation has taken place. In a somewhat simplistic way, he asserts that, as the visits went very well, the cause must be intentional interference on the part of the mother.

There is some evidence in line with that, namely the unwarranted dim view of him she holds, her resistance in the legal proceeding to expand parenting time, and the example of her asking the child if he is scared.

The mother and MGM, however, deny that and assert that they only say positive things to the child about the father and their time together, and in support of that position there is evidence of them trying to problem solve the marked separation difficulties. [ 88 ] One possibility, raised more as a question by the mother in response to the alienation allegations levelled against her by the father, is that it must be that something happened with the father or his brother during an unsupervised portion of a visit.

However, she conceded that she had no idea why the child refuses, and there is also no evidence to support that conjecture. [ 89 ] Lastly, there is some evidence to support other possibilities that the parties did not raise directly. The backdrop is that the mother admittedly has anxiety issues and has shown anxious reactions to the father’s time with the child that are either a misreading of the situation or disproportionate. There are many examples. Her reaction to the first hybrid visit, irrationally tied to COVID (para. 24

above). She was concerned about the father smoking around the child, saying in evidence that she smelled smoke on the diaper bag, while this was not noted by the monitors and the father says he does not smoke. Her concern re the child’s sensitivity to heat and inclination to be critical of the father’s care related to that for no reason (para. 29 above). Her allegation in evidence that the father reacted poorly to or ignored her communications about the child’s food sensitivities, while the SAC reports indicated, to the contrary, that the father was responsive and took direction.

When the father asked that the child have an allergy test to confirm the alleged diary allergy, he was considered to be oppositional. The mother referred in her evidence to the father’s difficulties or reluctance to change diapers, but according to the SAC reports he learned quickly and acted responsively and appropriately.

Against that backdrop and in view of the insights from the AFCC-O PPG that children of Atlas’ rough age (3 years old) are alert to the moods and tension of their caregivers, one possibility is that, while the mother indicates that she is not saying anything negative to the child about the father which the MGM confirms, the child may sense the mother’s anxiety around the father’s parenting time and be reacting strongly to that. Another possibility is that Atlas, like his mother, is simply an anxious child. [ 90 ] However, again, these are all just possibilities and are speculative.

There was nothing from the Maltby Centre in evidence. This heading again focuses on the ability of the parents, and it seems clear that even with the help of the Maltby Centre and the SAC monitors, the mother does not seem to have the ability to reassure the child that the visits are safe. The fall out is that the attempts to hold the visits are stressful events for the child, and the cancellations are weakening his relationship with the father. Plans of Care [ 91 ] The plans of care are tied to the parties’ positions as set out above. I note that these are young first-time parents.

The mother’s view in her evidence, that the visits should just end and pick up at some undetermined time in the future, did not seem particularly child focussed. She has counsel who, along with being very helpful to the court and accommodating to the father throughout the trial, assisted her in presenting her a more reasonable formal position. The father’s plan of just ignoring the child’s angst and forcing him without more to attend overnight parenting time also reflects a lack of parenting insight, despite the concern and frustration.

Ability to Cooperate with Other Parent [ 92 ] Unfortunately, there is little evidence of an ability to cooperate. The mother started out quite aggressively in her pleadings when she had different counsel with accusations about the father that were not born out by the evidence. She views this hardworking and rather serious young father very negatively wherever she can. The father, in turn, does not help matters.

While the text exchanges in evidence and his support of the mother at the SAC visits were appropriate and sensitive, and despite his conceding sole decision-making, his allegations in this hearing that the mother is bipolar and unstable when he is not even contesting primary parenting, and his accusations of malicious alienation with respect to his parenting time, were not conducive to building bridges.

Family Violence [ 93 ] As noted in Barendregt at para. 142 , any family violence or abuse may affect a child’s welfare and should be considered in relocation decisions. [ 94 ] In my view there has been no family violence in this case. Just as the mother argued that the way she conducted herself during the course of this trial was evidence that the father’s concerns about her anxiety have been exaggerated, so to the father’s conduct gave no indication that he has trouble with his temper or was quick to anger.

The evidence from the maternal side of his being aggressive was suspect and appeared coloured by the mother’s anxiety. Other Relevant Proceedings [ 95 ] This is not applicable, with nothing having been raised by the parties. Non-Listed Factors [ 96 ] There are two rather important complicating factors in this case. The first one is that the parties had a short relationship and never lived together. The mother got pregnant in Orangeville where the father resides but shortly afterward moved to Amherstview and had the child here.

The AFCC-O PPG says under the heading “Parents Who Never Lived Together”: As soon as parentage is established, and even before that, the mother should be encouraging the development of a strong relationship with the father, unless there are concerns about abuse or a lack of capacity to provide adequate care. As discussed in the

section on infants, there should be short, frequent visits as a relationship is established and the father gains experience with the child. [ 97 ] The other related complicating factor of course is that the mother has remained here and the father in Orangeville. The AFCC-O PPG says under the heading “Long-Distance Parenting”: The nature of the parenting

schedule in these situations will depend on many factors, including the age of the children, the children’s temperament, the financial resources of the parents, and the distance between the parents’ homes. [ 98 ] Simply stated, there has been little practical opportunity for the frequent visits between the father and child that the PPG suggests is conducive to fostering a strong relationship. The facts in this case leave me with many questions. Was the amount of contact to date in this case enough?

Were the gaps in contact in 2021 and 2023 ill-timed in the sense of resulting in a weakening of the relationship or a regression? Was the optimal opportunity to expand from the hybrid model to increased parenting time away from the SASAC lost, ie. did the expansion of parenting time not happen quickly enough? There is no evidence pointing to a clear answer to these questions. Conclusions/Decision [ 99 ] This case presents a difficult, but thankfully not often seen, fact scenario related to parenting.

A child is conceived in one jurisdiction, and then born in another a considerable distance away from where the father lives, he has somewhat limited financial

resources, and the challenge is to establish and maintain a meaningful relationship between the father and child. [ 100 ] The quick transition to the parenting time along the lines that the father is requesting might have been the obvious result had this trial happened near the end of 2022. It is not clear to me why the visits had to continue at the SASAC for a full year and a half up until that time. It is also disappointing that the parties did not use virtual parenting time for the visits that were missed.

For that matter, it is also disappointing that virtual parenting time did not supplement the every other weekend in-person parenting time, to try to fulfill the optimal “short, frequent visits” referred to in the AFCC-O PPG. [ 101 ] How does the court move to expanded parenting time to the father when the child is so resistant, for reasons that are not clear, and with no expert to assist and help manage it? In the best of all worlds, the father would move here to focus on the relationship, but that solution was not canvassed or even raised.

The father still lives with his parents and with a much younger brother with whom he is close. [ 102 ] The mother’s formal step-up parenting plan is a good one in theory, although the intervals are quite long and some are impractical (ie. one overnight at the father’s residence). I also must consider child’s current resistance, notwithstanding that he is only three years old. [ 103 ] In my view this case requires a brief rewind or reset, going back to baby steps again to build on what remains of the father/child relationship, using a step-up plan. [ 104 ] Orders to go as follows: 1.

Commencing immediately, the father shall have virtual parenting time every Tuesday evening, Thursday evening, and Saturday for a minimum of 15 minutes each in duration. On any weekend noted below where the father has in-person parenting time, the Saturday visit shall be rescinded. If an in-person visit is missed or cancelled for any reason, a virtual visit shall occur in its stead on that same day and on each day the visit was to occur. 2. After 4 weeks, the supervised visits shall resume at the SASAC every other Saturday for one hour. 3.

After 6 visits at the SASAC, the father shall have parenting time in the community of Napanee between the hours of 10 am to 5 pm on alternate weekends in addition to the supervised parenting time at the SASAC on the other alternate weekend. 4. After 4 community visits, the father shall have parenting time from Saturday at 10 am to Sunday at 5 pm in the community of Napanee or Kingston on alternate weekends, and the parenting time at the SASAC shall end. 5. After 4 overnight visits, the father shall have parenting time from Friday at 5 pm to Sunday at 5 pm on alternate weekends, which can take place at his home.

The virtual visits as set out above shall end, and there shall be one weekly virtual visit every Wednesday evening, although the requirement shall continue that if an in-person visit is missed or cancelled for any reason, a virtual visit shall occur in its stead on that same day and on each day the visit was to occur. 6. There shall be such further and other parenting time as agreed upon by the parties in writing, and the above

schedule can be changed by agreement of the parties in writing. 7. All parenting time exchanges shall be at the SASAC or as otherwise agreed. In the event the SASAC is not available for parenting time exchanges and the parties cannot agree, they shall occur at the Tim Hortons in Napanee at the corner of Centre St. and Jim Kimmett Blvd. The maternal grandmother or grandfather can attend at the exchanges instead of the mother, and there are no restrictions on who attends in addition to the parties. 8. Any deviation from the above

schedule that is not agreed to by the parties in writing shall be deemed to be a material change in circumstances allowing a Motion to Change to be brought to among other things address the implementation of the parenting plan. 9.

There shall also be orders to go as requested in the mother’s Opening Statement paragraphs 29 to 32. [ 105 ] A few comments about the above orders. [ 106 ] I appreciate that the every weekend visits may be difficult for the father given the travel involved, but he needs to put in that time for his relationship with Atlas and it is only for a short duration. [ 107 ] Also, in my view the Saturday to Sunday overnights will be impractical for the father and uncomfortable for the child to have in Orangeville, and as such I have required them to be in Napanee or Kingston.

This will mean that the father will have to pay for accommodation (Airbnb, hotel, motel, etc.) but that is a cost that cannot be avoided. [ 108 ] As noted, if the child is sick, if there is a weather event or the father has car troubles etc., the order still requires that a virtual visit take place. If it is a three day weekend visit, there would be three virtual visits. [ 109 ] Two last things. It was not requested and as such I did not order it, but I would strongly recommend to the parties that they immediately engage in some form of co-parenting counselling, and hopefully that can be done virtually.

They will have to deal with each other for a very long time given that they share a young child, and if they can learn to be more comfortable and trusting of each other it will be in the child’s best interests, as well as save themselves grief and time in court. Along those lines, I have continued in para. 104-9 above the requirement that the parties communicate using OFW. In my view that is preferrable for now, given the mother’s anxiety and that it has worked. The parties are a liberty to agree on another medium for communication when they are comfortable.

Child Support Issue – Law, Evidence, and Analysis [ 110 ] As the parties were not married, child support is governed by

Part III of the Family Law Act (“FLA”). The obligation for child

support arises in

section 31, and there were no raised issues about entitlement. Per section 33(7) the purposes of a child support order are to recognize that each parent has an obligation to provide support for the children, and to apportion that obligation according to the Child Support Guidelines (“CSG” or “Guidelines”). Per section 33(11) the court making an order for the support of a child shall do so in accordance with the Guidelines. [ 111 ] In this case the maternal side told the father that they did not want his money and they would provide for the child on his own. Child support was not pled.

In my view the retroactive date for support adjustments then is December 1, 2020, the date child support was ordered to be paid at the Case Conference.

I would not go back beyond that. [ 112 ] On the topic of undue hardship, pled or not, it is obvious without the need for further analysis that, given the father’s income and with the mother being on social assistance and with both parties still living with their parents, the father cannot meet the test under the Guidelines. [ 113 ] As noted the father paid $1,000 cash to the mother for which he is to be credited. [ 114 ] The mother agreed to a $50 deduction per month for the father’s travel expenses. I find that amount, as it is agreed to, is appropriate. I would not grant more.

Not only is the legal basis for it unclear, the father in seeking a larger reduction in the full amount or close to the actual amount of all his travel expenses misunderstood the purposes of child support. [ 115 ] The income used for the father was based on his Notice of Assessments for 2020 and 2022 and his Tax Return

Summary for 2021. None of those documents showed his union due payments, although there is no doubt that he is in a union. He gave evidence that his dues were $51 per month until sometime in 2022 when they went up to $62/month. I accept this and have deducted them as $612 for 2020 to 2022 and $754 for 2023. After discussion, the parties agreed to use the father’s 2022 income as the basis for his expected 2023 income. [ 116 ] In view of the above, I make the following calculations: 1. Year 2. Applicant’s Income 3. Monthly Child Support Payable per the Guidelines 4. Child Support Owed 5.

Temporary Child Support Ordered 6. Payments Believed Made 7.

Yearly Totals Owing (or Overpaid) 2020 (Dec. only) $46,656 ($47,268 less $612) $432 $432 (1 month) $359 $359* plus $1,000 ($927) 2021 (Jan. to June) $64,781 ($65,393 less $612 union dues) $602 $3,612 (6 months) See below ($359/month) See below - 2021 (July to Dec.) $64,781 ($65,393 less $612 union dues) $552 ($602 less $50 re travel) $3,312 (6 months) $4,308 for all of 2021 ($359/month) $3,231* for all of 2021 $3,693 2022 $63,631 ($64,243 less $612 union dues) $541 ($591 less $50 re travel) $6,492 $4,758 ($359 for Jan., changed to $309 effective Feb. 1, 2022) $6,173* $319 2023 (Jan. to Sept.) $63,489 ($64,243 less $754 union dues) $539 ($589 less $50 re travel) $4,851 $4,161 ($309 for Jan. to Mar. changed to $543 effective Apr. 1, 2022) $4,161** $690 Total (4. – 6.) $18,699 $14,924 $3,775 Total (4. – 5.) $18,699 $13,586 $5,113 *Per FRO records. ** Assuming ongoing payments per the Temporary Order

[ 117 ] With the support obligation being enforced through the Family Responsibility Office, the adjustments shall be made through that agency’s calculations based on the first three columns above only (Year, Applicant’s Income, Monthly Child Support Payable per the Guidelines) less the actual payments it collected. A credit is also given as indicated to the father of $1,000 for 2020. FRO will calculate the arrears. [ 118 ] The amount owed less the amounts set out in the temporary orders suggest a shortfall of $5,113.

However, the amount owed less what the evidence indicated the father may have already paid suggested arrears of approximately $3,775. That is close to the mother’s calculation in her closing submission of $4,744 in arrears up until June 8, 2023 without the $1,000 credit for 2020 being applied. The actual number will be calculated by FRO. [ 119 ] The ongoing support shall be $539 per month commencing October 1, 2023 based on the above calculations. The support for 2023 shall be adjusted by the parties in 2024 once the father’s income tax documents for that year are received.

The formal order shall include an income disclosure clause mirroring the one at paragraph 8 of the Temporary Order of January 4, 2022. [ 120 ] There was no request or evidence led with respect to

section 7 expenses. Decision [ 121 ] Orders to go as set out above. [ 122 ] Both parties in their pleadings indicated that they were seeking costs. I did not hear that claim repeated in either opening or closing submissions. I’m not convinced this is an appropriate case for costs. However, if a party wants to address me on that issue, they can request a 30-minute Zoom hearing from the Trial Coordinator, provided that they do so within 10 days. __________________________ Mr. Justice Timothy Minnema Released: September 6, 2023