INDRODUCTION

In Ford v. Cassel, the court examined multiple parenting issues after the parties could not come to an agreement themselves. The court examined matters such as decision-making, support and a Christmas holiday schedule all based on the best interests of the child.

BACKGROUND

In this case, the parties made a joint application for a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution hearing to address several matters relating to their shared child.

During the hearing, the parties agreed on multiple issues such as regular parenting time for the father, and a schedule for certain holidays such as Thanksgiving, Easter, and the March and summer breaks.

However, the parties could not agree on decision-making, child support, and other parenting matters which ultimately required an order from Justice MacEachem to resolve.

ANALYSIS

The first matter the court analyzed was decision-making.

The mother sought sole decision-making for the child, while the father sought joint.

As with most matters in family law, in making its decision the court decided based on the best interests of the child.

In this case, the best interests of the child were deemed to be sole decision-making by the Applicant mother. The court looked at factors such as the status quo and relationship of the parties to make this decision. More specifically, Justice MacEachem noted that the mother had solely been making decisions for the child since birth, and that the child has always primarily resided with the Applicant mother. Likewise, the parties had historically struggled to communicate with each other. As a result, the court found that there was not a reasonable prospect that the parties would be able to make joint decisions together in the child’s best interest. Here, the child would benefit from a clearer understanding of decision-making.

The next matter the court addressed were remaining issues surrounding parenting.

Although the parties had agreed to a regular parenting schedule of one weekend per month for the Respondent father, they could not agree on a transfer time or location.

In this case, the father lived in Montreal while the mother lived in Ottawa. The mother proposed a time of 6:00 PM, while the father suggested 7:00 PM or 7:30 PM. Similarly, the father proposed the pickup to be at a mutual friend’s home in Ottawa, while the mother suggested a mid-way point between the parties’ two homes.

Justice MacEachem decided that the transfer should occur at 7:00 PM at the midway point. This transfer accommodated the father’s work schedule and was at a location that was actually closer than the location the Respondent had initially proposed.

Another concern in this case was the Christmas schedule. The mother proposed the parties’ share the Christmas break while the father suggested they alternate the entire break each year.

The court ultimately ordered that the Christmas break should be split. In his decision, Justice MacEachem noted that the mother’s proposal was based on the child spending an equal amount of time with each parent. Meanwhile, the father’s proposal was based on what he thought would be potentially easier for the child.

The final issue considered by the court was child support. The mother sought an increase in payments to correspond with the father’s increased income.

The father’s income had increased, and he provided no evidence concerning child support. As a result, the father had been underpaying child support since 2018 when his income increased. The court ordered the increased payments as a result.

The mother also claimed contributions for Section 7 expenses. The father argued he did not have to contribute to such expenses as he was never consulted. However, the court considered the expenses to be reasonable, including activities such as hockey or swimming, and ordered the father to pay.

CONCULSION

In conclusion, the court in Ford v. Cassel was stringent in applying the best interests of the child. For many issues, the father offered a proposal that did not reflect what the court considered to be most appropriate for the child. As an example, the father offered a Christmas schedule that did not promote a parenting arrangement that provided for meaningful time with each parent. In response, the court ordered what they thought to be in the child’s best interests.