Filing in court also sends a message to the court and the other side that you are serious about equal shared parenting.
There you have it, I mentioned this previously in my post and it is being echoed here by Involveddad75.
This is the route I took when months of Mediation (initiated by me) turned out to be a dud
HOVA.....I really do hope you are taking notes, printing stuff out and not overlooking anything that is being said here, and not feeling overwhelmed?????
What you are getting here is a combination of personal experience and some rational thinking. GET WORKING ON FILING AN APPLICATION PRONTO. There is an online wizard that can help you, and you can ask questions here
To add to the Spousal Support info from post #10 here from Involveddad
Case Commentary - Burns v. Krebss, 2013 ONCJ 76 (CanLII)
Spousal Support requires that the parties cohabit: “Cohabited in a Relationship of Some Permanence”.
It is not enough that the parties have a child together.
[19] The statute and case law are clear that both the preconditions of cohabitation and a relationship of some permanence must be present to meet the definition of spouse under section 29(b) of the Act. In Molodowich v. Pettinen reflex, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.) Justice Kurisko sets out the factors and issues that a court must consider in making a determination of whether two parties meet the definition of “cohabit” under the Act:
It is not enough that the parties have a child together.
[19] The statute and case law are clear that both the preconditions of cohabitation and a relationship of some permanence must be present to meet the definition of spouse under section 29(b) of the Act. In Molodowich v. Pettinen reflex, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.) Justice Kurisko sets out the factors and issues that a court must consider in making a determination of whether two parties meet the definition of “cohabit” under the Act:
Comment