The Canadian Centre for Men and Families opened in Ottawa earlier this month. This is the third location of the organization, which aims to connect men in crisis with both legal support and mental health support programs. The other two locations are in Toronto, where full services are offered, and Calgary, where the centre is open one day a week.

The Canadian Centre for Men and Families

The three centres are run by CAFE (Canadian Association for Equality), a registered educational charity and bills itself as the “first facility of its kind”. The centres bill themselves as “open, inclusive and safe space[s] dedicated to the health and well-being of boys, men, fathers and their families”.

The centres provide workshops, counselling, discussion groups, and special events. Programming includes sessions on fathering, trauma and abuse support, suicide prevention, tutoring and mentoring. They also provide advocacy, research, outreach, and public education about a variety of issues affecting men.

Services Geared Towards Men with Family Law Issues

Patrick Wright, the centre’s Executive Director, told The Lawyer’s Daily that:

A lot of the men that are coming into our centre are going through issues related to custody, or divorce and separation. Sometimes they’re victims of domestic abuse or sexual abuse, so we want to have a resource that they can rely on to provide them with…advice.

We want to provide space where men can come and get help. I think in our society it’s hard for men to be able to ask for help. Sometimes we, as men,  feel alone and we don’t know where to go when we do need assistance.

Wright said that in the first month of operation, 15 to 20 men came into the Ottawa location seeking services and assistance. The most common issue most men have questions about is child custody, but there are other serious issues that generally go hand in hand with such discrete questions, including mental health issues or a need for trauma support.

Wright notes that there are many support centres related to family that are geared towards women specifically. In his opinion, it is just as important to include men in the dialogue about family law, since men also go through situations and experiences in which they require guidance and direction.

Wright says that:

We definitely want to be a place where men can go to get started. A lot of people come in and they don’t know where to start. So being able to provide them with some guidance…I think is really important.

It is unclear whether the centre plans to open any other locations, whether in Ontario or otherwise.

The Centre Has Sparked Controversy

When the first centre originally opened in Toronto it drew some controversy. Gender equality advocates opposed the opening, fearing that CAFE and the centre would propogate what the advocates viewed as misogynist and anti-feminist agendas.

Women’s rights advocates disagreed with CAFE’s methods of solving the hardships facing men, stating that the philosophy behind the centre seemed to be rooted more in frustration about woman’s rights being protected and women’s equality being promoted, rather than men’s rights being violated, and stating that this is not a means of building a society marked by “compassion and equality”.

The centre denies “launching a war on womankind”.

It remains to be seen whether any additional centres will open, but this is certainly an interesting development that we will continue to monitor.

If you are a father and have questions about your rights with respect to custody and support or any other family law matter, contact Windsor family lawyer Jason P. Howie at 519-973-1500 or online. Many of our clients are referred to us by former and current clients, and also by lawyers, counsellors, and other professionals.


We all have deep-seated fears.  Spiders (my wife).   Heights (me).   Eating meat (my vegan daughter).

There is one deep-seated fear in all newly separated fathers: he will not be an important part of the lives of his children.

I can’t tell you how many times I have heard this worry.  Sometimes it is the very first thing that a client tells me.  Even some of the best and most involved fathers have openly raised this issue as their greatest fear.

So, I am sending out this post not to reassure fathers.  That is like trying to convince someone who is afraid of flying that air travel is statistically safe.  The fear is real, whether realistic or not.

I am sending out this post to the mothers who may be dealing with their first separated Father’s Day.  I have some tips:

  •  Try to find the time to craft a handmade Father’s Day card.  I still keep mine, including the paper necktie!   Your former spouse will know that the kids did not come up with this on their own.  You are sending a very important message that you value his involvement in the life of the children;
  • This may be the first Father’s Day with you in a new relationship.  But the father of your children is worried about being replaced.  A short card or note from you reassuring your former spouse that he will always be their  father will create long-lasting goodwill;
  • If, by any chance, the kids are waking up with their father in a different residence, then have the children face time their father.  The earlier in the morning, the better.
  •   That being said, there is no reason why Father’s Day should not be spent between the children and their father.

These are a couple of tips that I think will help.  But I wasn’t born in La-La Land.   Some of these things may be hard to do, especially if Mother’s Day was not respected.  But we have been told time and time again that nothing is more damaging to children than a less than respectful relationship between mom and dad.  So, bite your tongue, and it may bleed.  But take the step.

If you have questions about child custody and access, or about managing family dynamics following a separation or divorce, call 519-973-1500 or contact us online. We serve clients in Windsor, Essex County and throughout the region.


In Cosentino v. Cosentino¸ Justice Pazaratz was asked to make a temporary order in a dispute between two parents who were fighting over what city their three-year old child would attend junior kindergarten.

What Happened?

The parties started living together in 2011, and were married in July of 2012. Their only child, Christian, was born on December 16, 2012.  They separated three years later, in July of 2015.

The father continues to live in the matrimonial home on Hamilton mountain whereas the mother moved to Niagara-on-the-Lake, where she resides with her new partner.

Within a month of their separation, the parties executed a detailed, five-page separation agreement which included provisions for shared 50/50 custody of Christian, various provisions dividing expenses equally, with each parent responsible for the child during their portion of the shared time, as well as the following clause which became the subject of the dispute:

Preference for schooling will be discuss (sic) as needed & French Immersion options as he will attend either the school beside the condo (Annunciation) or St. Peter & Paul for French immersion (Sept 2016).

The Mother’s Request

The mother brought a motion requesting a temporary order be made, and requested the following:

  • That Christian be enrolled in junior kindergarten at St. Michael’s Catholic Elementary school in Niagara-on-the-Lake, commencing in September 2016
  • That in the alternative, Christian was to commence school in Niagara-on-the-Lake beginning in January 2017
  • That, if Christian were to attend school in Niagara-on-the-Lake, the father was to have timesharing weekends on three weekends per month one mid-week visit one day per week until 7:30pm, with the mother transporting the child for the start of the father’s weekends, and the father being responsible for transportation at all other times.

The Father’s Request

In response to the mother’s request, the father requested:

  • That Christian be enrolled in junior kindergarten at Annunciation of Our Lord School in Hamilton, commencing in September
  • That the parents continue to share time with Christian on a 2-2-3 rotation
  • That, in the alternative, Christian to reside primarily with the father, and the mother to have three weekends per month, and whatever mid-week evening access she could accommodate.

The Court’s Comments on Temporary Orders

 As always, Justice Pazaratz made some insightful and illuminating comments about the decision he had been asked to make:

At first glance, a motion about junior kindergarten might appear quite straightforward.  Almost innocuous. Niagara-on-the-Lake or Hamilton?  Sounds simple enough.

But in reality, deciding where a three year old starts school has the potential to impact – and perhaps even determine – the long-term outcome of what is rapidly turning into a bitter custody dispute.

Indeed, the decision about Christian’s schooling was an important one, for a number of reasons:

  • Once Christian was enrolled in school he would inevitably remain there for the entire duration of the school year
  • Enrollment in a school in either city would mean that his primary residence would shift in favour of the parent who lives in that city. The equal parenting/equal time format would not be viable given the distance between the two cities
  • Once Christian becomes used to a particular school, there will be inevitable concerns about disrupting his routine, his familiar surroundings, and his relationships with teachers and other kids.
  • After a primary residence was established, the likelihood of reverting back to equal time, not to mention the reversing of the primary residence, would be “quite remote”. As long as the parents continued to live about one hour away from one another, equal time and mid-week transitions would be problematic.

Justice Pazaratz noted that:

Temporary orders can have a huge impact on final orders.  Effectively, they can have a forever impact on children.  As a result, motions judges must be mindful of both short-term and long-term dynamics, to ensure that the maximum contact principle is not undermined by the unilateral action of either party…

Justice Pazaratz went on to say that even though this was a request for a temporary order, it was necessary to take a cautious approach in order to safeguard the best interests of the child, and avoid the “reckless creation of a new status quo”.

He criticized the mother’s request, pointing out that:

  • The parents had shared equal time with Christian since their separation, which had been beneficial to him
  • The reason this status quo was now in jeopardy was because the mother decided to move one hour away
  • Despite assurances from the mother’s lawyer that the father would be given “make up time” with Christian on weekends and holidays, granting either parents 100% of time on weekends was not a desirable or sustainable arrangement.
  • Depriving the father of any involvement in Christian’s schooling represents a “fundamental departure” from the agreement the parties had entered into
  • Christian had been born and raised in Hamilton, with extensive family supports in that city, as well as doctors, dentists and other professional connections
  • Christian had been Hamilton based since before the separation, had has been Hamilton based since. Through her request, the mother is now trying to unilaterally make Christian Niagara based.
  • This is not just an issue of where Christian is to attend school, it would entail a number of fundamental changes, including a diminishment of his relationship with his father, as well as changes to general custody and mobility issues.
  • The mother had not presented any evidence with respect to why she had to relocate to Niagara-on-the-Lake, or why she and her new partner could not relocate to Hamilton, or closer to Hamilton.

Justice Pazaratz also stated that major changes that had mobility implications for children should not be made on a temporary basis, except in rare or compelling circumstances, of which this was not the case.

He clarified that:

The issue is not whether a parent should ever be allowed to relocate a child’s residence an hour away.  The abundant caselaw on mobility makes it clear that in appropriate circumstances – after thorough consideration of all of the evidence — much greater moves have been approved as being in the best interests of the child.

The issue is whether a parent should be allowed to unilaterally impose a change to a child’s routine which will subvert a successful status quo, and create an entirely self  serving new status quo in the middle of a custody dispute and in the middle of a section 112 investigation.

The Court’s Final Decision

 Justice Pazaratz issued the following temporary order:

  • The father is entitled to enroll Christian at Annunciation of Our Lord school in Hamilton
  • There is a presumption that the parents will share equal time with the child, including alternating weekends
  • The mother will be responsible for transporting Christian to and from her residence in Niagara-on-the-Lake
  • The mother will ensure that Christian does not miss any school while in her care
  • If the mother is unable to maintain an equal time sharing arrangement (including alternate weekends and some weekdays), she will have the option of having Christian three our of four weekends and one overnight mid-week visit, with advance notice to the father.

If you have questions about child custody or support arrangements, or changing the status quo, call Windsor family lawyer Jason P. Howie at 519-973-1500 or contact us online. Many of our clients are referred to us by former and current clients, and also by lawyers, counsellors and other professionals.

In Nicholson v. Nicholson, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently explored the issue of whether a payor parent was responsible for child support during a defined block of access time, finding in the affirmative.

The Context

The parties were separated in 2012 after 24.5 years of marriage. They have three children, Amber (27), Aryn (25) and Dale (21).

The two older children are financially independent. At the time of hearing, Dale was still a dependant.

Issues in dispute between the parties included:

  • Whether the father was responsible for paying child support for Aryn while she was in his care during the summer visitation
  • When the child support for Dale should commence and end?

Is the Father Responsible for Child Support During Summer Visitation?

Both parents agreed that Aryn was residing with the mother between May and September 2015. During these four months, the father had summer parenting time with Aryn.

The father argued that while he had Aryn for the summer he was not obligated to pay child support to the mother.

Justice Sutherland disagreed, and determined that the father was responsible for paying child support for Aryn between May and August 2015:

The support being paid by [the father] is for the benefit of the Aryn.  The [father’s] time with Aryn during the summer was the agreed upon summer parenting time schedule.  This on its own, in my opinion, does not vitiate the obligation to pay child support for Aryn during the time [the father] had Aryn.

Duration of Child Support for Dependent Child

Dale was expected to graduate from a Paramedic program in August 2016.

The father requested that child support not end until the end of 2016 to permit Dale to obtain employment and because he paid child support for Aryn for four months after she graduated from nursing school.

Justice Sutherland agreed with the father’s argument. The mother had not disputed that he had paid support for Aryn until she got on her feet after graduation, and Justice Sutherland saw “no reason why that agreement should not apply to Dale”. The mother was ordered to pay support for Dale until December 31, 2016.

To speak with an experienced Windsor lawyer about child custody or support, call 519-973-1500 or contact us online. Many of our clients are referred to us by former and current clients, and also by lawyers, counsellors and other professionals

Bill 34, also known as An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act with respect to the relationship between a child and the child’s grandparents, was recently given royal assent after being re-introduced by NDP MPP Michael Mantha (Algoma-Manitoulin) in fall of 2016.

Grandparents and Access to Grandchildren in Ontario

Advocacy groups have been pushing for change for over a decade. Six previous versions of the bill were previously proposed, but never passed.

Grandparents’ rights groups estimate that 75,000 grandparents in Ontario have historically been denied access to approximately 112,000 grandchildren, which the rights groups say causes “needless alienation, pain and suffering”.

In some circumstances, grandparents are not able to see their grandchildren following a separation or divorce, as custody and access arrangements leave the children primarily with one parent who then denies grandparents and other family of their former spouse access to the children. In other situations, a grandparent is alienated from his or her adult child or children and, consequently, is not given permission to see their grandchildren.

Indeed, during the debate about Bill 34, Mr. Mantha acknowledged:

Some people assume that these issues arise out of divorce, but this is not necessarily the case for most…Sometimes the root cause is found in sibling jealousy over money, over disputes, people innocently speaking out of turn, or sons and daughters exercising their control. Most often, it just occurs with seemingly no logic, no reason — and it’s happening

What Does the Bill Change?

The Bill brings Ontario in line with Quebec, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Yukon, which all previously passed legislation affecting grandparents’ rights.

While Bill 34 does not automatically grant grandparents the right to their grandchildren, it provides them with a chance to make an argument for access during custody disputes, and it means that courts will have to consider grandparents in custody cases, while considering what is in the best interests of the child or children in question.

Best Interests of the Child

As with parental access, courts will consider the merits of each individual case, and will ultimately, make a decision based on the specific circumstances. In order to do so, courts consider the following, per section 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act:

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application.  2006, c. 1, s. 3 (1); 2009, c. 11, s. 10.

If you have questions about access or custody of children following a divorce or separation, or if you are a grandparent who has not been able to see your grandchildren but would like to have access to them, call Jason P. Howie at 519-973-1500 or contact us online. We serve clients in Windsor, Essex County and throughout the region.

Do I Have to Pay Spousal Support If I am Appealing?
October 12, 2017
The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that spousal support must be paid ev ...
Master Criticizes Former Couple’s “Extreme” Strategies in Family Court
October 6, 2017
In a decision reminiscent of those written by Justice Pazaratz here in Onta ...
Men’s Support Centre Opens, Offering Support During Crisis
September 25, 2017
The Canadian Centre for Men and Families opened in Ottawa earlier this mont ...

how can we help you

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm is not secure and does not establish lawyer-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

I have read the disclaimer. (*)

Our Office Location

Jason P. Howie, Professional Corporation
420 Devonshire Road
Windsor, ON N8Y 4T6

Serves clients in Windsor, Leamington, Tecumseh, Essex, Chatham-Kent, and throughout South Western Ontario.