Kounsil v. Kounsil: When Conflict, Credibility, and Parenting Collide

Introduction

The recent decision in Kounsil v. Kounsil, 2025 ONSC 3338, provides valuable guidance for practitioners on several critical issues, including credibility assessment, decision-making authority in high-conflict cases, substance abuse considerations, and income imputation.

Factual Background

Parmjot and Harpreet Kounsil married in Ontario in July 2014 and moved to Edmonton, where Harpreet had been living. They had one child, K., born June 30, 2016. The marriage quickly deteriorated, and by early 2018, Parmjot left Alberta with K. The separation date became a central dispute: Parmjot claimed January 2018, Harpreet February 2019. The court found that by March 2018, it was clear there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

The litigation was coloured by three major credibility and conduct concerns:

The Alberta Property Fraud: In January 2018, while Parmjot was already in Ontario, Harpreet and his lawyer closed on a new-build home in Edmonton using forged signatures and fabricated pay stubs in Parmjot’s name. Parmjot had no knowledge of the mortgage until months later. Harpreet pled guilty to fraud-related offences; his lawyer was convicted of forgery and suspended from practice. This incident became central to the court’s concerns about Harpreet’s reliability and judgment.

Alcohol Misuse and Criminal Charges: Harpreet had a 20-year history of binge drinking, with multiple hospitalizations for hallucinations, alcohol-induced psychosis, and withdrawal. He was charged with impaired driving in 2020 and had attended—but abandoned—various rehabilitation programs. Although he claimed sobriety since July 2021, the court noted he had no professional supports in place and described himself as “100% cured,” which the judge viewed with caution.

Financial Discrepancies: Harpreet’s reported annual incomes (ranging from $17,000 to $25,000 between 2018 and 2022) did not align with documented expenses of $75,000–$145,000 per year. He failed to disclose corporate tax returns from Alberta, unexplained deposits and transfers, and details of a CPP disability application. The court found the “math did not add up” and imputed minimum wage income for the disputed years.

Meanwhile, Parmjot had been the primary caregiver for K. since 2018, working part-time as a nurse and prioritizing her parenting role. The child resided primarily with her, though parenting time was eventually agreed upon pre-trial for both parents.

Key Legal Issues and Analysis

1. Credibility Assessment: The Impact of Criminal Conduct

Justice Stewart’s credibility analysis demonstrates how courts weigh evidence of criminal conduct. While acknowledging that Harpreet’s role in the fraudulent real estate closing “was wrong and he suffered criminal consequences,” the court rejected the applicant’s argument that “none of Harpreet’s evidence can be accepted because of these flaws” (para. 12).

The court found Harpreet’s evidence “vague and imprecise,” particularly regarding the Alberta property, health, alcohol consumption, and finances. His evidence “sometimes differed from his own documents (such as the agreed statement of facts in the Alberta criminal case)” and from medical records (para. 10).

Additional Insight: Courts will not automatically disregard a litigant’s evidence because of past misconduct. Instead, credibility is assessed issue by issue. For practitioners, this means that while prior criminal or fraudulent acts can seriously damage a witness’s reliability, opposing counsel must still test credibility on specific factual disputes rather than seek wholesale rejection.

Practice Point: Criminal conduct does not automatically render all evidence inadmissible, but it significantly impacts credibility assessments. Courts will scrutinize such witnesses more carefully and require corroborating evidence.

2. Decision-Making Authority: When Joint Decision-Making is Inappropriate

The court rejected joint decision-making despite both parties having parenting time, citing Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, (2005) 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), for the principle that parenting time “does not lead to the inexorable conclusion that joint decision making is in the best interests of the child” (para. 33).

Key factors considered:

• No evidence of ability to make joint decisions over five years of separation
• History of acrimony between parties
• Parmjot’s role as primary care parent
• Harpreet’s “questionable judgment,” including insisting he could parent while actively misusing alcohol

The court noted that while abuse allegations were disputed, “the mere gulf in perception between the parties illustrates their lack of common ground and speaks to their inability to collaborate and coordinate” (para. 38).

Additional Insight: Harpreet advanced a parallel parenting proposal for the first time in written closing arguments. The court gave it “no weight” (para. 40), stressing that novel concepts require a developed evidentiary record. This confirms that Ontario courts remain reluctant to impose parallel parenting absent a strong, early evidentiary foundation.

Practice Point: Joint or parallel decision-making requires demonstrated ability to collaborate. Raising parallel parenting late in the process, without evidence of how it would work in practice, will not succeed.

3. Substance Abuse: Balancing Recovery with Child Protection

The court’s analysis of Harpreet’s alcohol issues provides guidance on addressing substance abuse in parenting cases. Despite his claim of sobriety since July 1, 2021, the court maintained protective measures based on:

• Medical records documenting “a longstanding history over the last 20 years of binge alcohol intoxication”
• Multiple hospitalizations for alcohol-related issues, including hallucinations and suspected alcohol withdrawal
• His statement that he was “100% cured” without professional supports

The court acknowledged Harpreet’s progress while noting that “alcohol use disorder is known to be refractory” and expressed concern about his choice to maintain abstinence “without the supports of health professionals and/or medications” (para. 62).

Additional Insight: The court adopted a risk-based approach—recognizing Harpreet’s efforts while maintaining restrictions to protect K. This reflects a broader judicial trend: recovery is respected, but unsupported claims of being “cured” from addiction are treated cautiously. Measures like alcohol abstinence orders balance child safety with parental rehabilitation.

Practice Point: Courts will balance recognition of recovery efforts with child protection. Unsupported claims of being “cured” from addiction without professional assistance will be viewed skeptically.

4. Income Imputation: Consequences of Inadequate Financial Disclosure

The court imputed minimum wage income to Harpreet for 2018–2022 based on inadequate financial disclosure under s. 19(1)(f) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Specific deficiencies included:

• Failure to disclose Alberta corporation income information
• No evidence about large deposits and transfers
• Non-disclosure of CPP disability application and appeal

The court noted the mathematical impossibility of Harpreet’s reported expenses ($75K–$145K annually) on his declared income but found that Parmjot lacked “evidence of Harpreet earning more than his reported income (other than her suspicions)” (para. 89).

Additional Insight: Courts are anchored to evidence when imputing income. Without proof of higher earnings, judges default to minimum wage, ensuring fairness without speculating. This underscores the importance of disclosure: the less a payor reveals, the more likely a court will impute conservatively but firmly.

Practice Point: Courts will impute income where financial disclosure is inadequate, but the imputed amount must be “grounded in the evidence” and have “a rational basis.” In the absence of evidence of actual higher earnings, minimum wage may be imputed.

5. Travel and Communication Orders in High-Conflict Cases

The court structured detailed travel provisions recognizing the parties’ inability to collaborate:

• Written communication required (initially through AppClose app)
• Graduated notice requirements based on distance of travel
• Consent required for travel outside Ontario
• Recognition that “last minute travel is a luxury afforded to parents who have mutual trust, respect, and collaboration” (para. 73)

Additional Insight: The endorsement of AppClose highlights a growing trend in Ontario: courts increasingly mandate co-parenting apps to reduce conflict, provide accountability, and maintain a written record. Counsel should anticipate such orders in high-conflict files.

Practice Point: In high-conflict cases, detailed procedural orders for communication and travel can reduce future disputes and provide clear frameworks for both parties.

6. Mobility and Relocation Restrictions

Parmjot sought to restrict relocation outside the GTA; Harpreet wanted a stricter 25 km limit from Brampton City Hall. The court rejected both, finding no evidence of any current relocation plan (paras. 65–68).

Additional Insight: This reflects judicial reluctance to impose arbitrary geographic restrictions without evidence of an imminent move. Courts prefer to rely on the Divorce Act’s relocation framework, which provides notice and mechanisms for negotiation or litigation when actual relocation arises.

Practice Point: Courts avoid speculative mobility orders. Relocation restrictions must be grounded in evidence of risk, not hypothetical concerns.

Procedural Considerations

Novel Arguments in Closing Submissions

The court rejected Harpreet’s parallel parenting proposal, giving it “no weight given that it is a novel argument which was raised for the first time in written closing argument” (para. 40).

Practice Point: Novel legal arguments should be raised early in proceedings. Courts are reluctant to consider new concepts introduced only in closing arguments without proper development through evidence and submissions.

Orders Declined Due to Insufficient Evidence

The court declined several requested orders due to lack of trial evidence:

• Life insurance requirements (due to limited financial circumstances and no evidence of costs)
• Spousal support ($10,000 lump sum with “no evidence at trial regarding this entitlement”)
• Reimbursement for supervision services (required solely due to Harpreet’s medical issues)

Practice Point: All relief sought must be supported by proper evidence at trial. Courts will not make orders based on positions in pleadings without evidentiary support.

Conclusion

Kounsil v. Kounsil reinforces fundamental principles while providing practical guidance for high-conflict family law cases. The decision emphasizes that while courts recognize efforts at rehabilitation and recovery, child protection remains paramount. It also demonstrates the importance of thorough financial disclosure, the dangers of raising novel arguments late, and the growing judicial reliance on parenting apps in high-conflict situations.

For practitioners, the case highlights:

• Credibility challenges must be targeted, not global.
• Joint or parallel parenting requires a track record of cooperation.
• Addiction recovery is respected, but safeguards remain.
• Minimum wage imputation is the fallback when disclosure is inadequate.
• Parenting apps are an emerging standard for communication.
• Relocation limits must be tied to real risks, not speculation.

Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!

Connect with us on LinkedIn.

Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.