The respondent T.A. brought a motion seeking re-introduction and virtual parenting time with the child K.A., whom he had not had contact with for nearly 10 years and who was unaware he was her biological father.
The child's mother, E.L., opposed the motion, citing K.A.'s lack of awareness of T.A.'s paternity and the serious criminal charges T.A. faced involving K.A.'s older siblings.
The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test under the Children's Law Reform Act, dismissed T.A.'s motion for immediate re-introductory parenting time.
Instead, the court ordered that K.A. be informed of T.A.'s biological fatherhood by her mental health worker with the mother's support, emphasizing a cautious approach due to the child's age, lack of prior relationship, and the criminal charges.
T.A. was granted leave to bring a new motion for parenting time after a period of counselling for K.A. and an update on her progress.
