ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
TIFFANY RUFFETT
Applicant
— AND —
JADE RUFFETT
Respondent
Before Justice C.C. Belda
Heard on August 25 and 26, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on September 10, 2025
Ms. Tiffany Ruffett...................................... self-represented litigant, on her own behalf
Mr. Edward Van Voort counsel for the Respondent
1Ms. Tiffany Ruffett (“the Applicant grandmother”) brought an Application, dated September 19, 2023, against Respondent, Jade Ruffett (“the Respondent mother”), requesting contact with her grandchild, K. (“the child”), born [..], 2016. The child’s biological father is deceased. The matter commenced in Barrie, Ontario but was transferred to Thunder Bay by Justice McDermot on January 16, 2024, following a case conference.
2The relief requested in the Application included a final order for the following:
(1) A minimum of one weekly virtual call with the child, unmonitored or monitored by the Respondent mother, provided the Respondent mother remains silent;
(2) In-person visits during the summer holidays in Simcoe, for a minimum period of two weeks; and
(3) A further in-person visit annually during a period of holidays for a minimum of 1 week.
3However, based on a recent incident on August 10, 2025, the Applicant grandmother amended her requested relief. She is now seeking the following orders instead:
(1) An order for reunification therapy for herself and the child to assist in re-establishing gradual contact;
(2) Telephone contact once per week with the assistance of reunification therapy; and
(3) In-person visits to commence next summer for a 1-week period.
4During the trial, the Respondent grandmother also noted that she would be prepared to engage in virtual, and possibly in-person, contact with the child, supervised by the Supervised Access Centre.
5The Respondent mother served and filed an Answer, dated January 3, 2025. She opposed the relief requested. She requested her own relief as follows:
(1) An order for decision-making over the child. This order was recently granted, on consent, on August 1, 2025. This order also included granting the Respondent mother, primary parenting time, primary residence and primary care and control of the child;
(2) A restraining order against the Respondent grandmother;
(3) An order preventing the Respondent grandmother from communicating with the child; and
(4) An order for costs.
6During the trial, the Applicant grandmother also agreed to a restraining order, as she was not seeking to have any contact with the Respondent mother. She submitted that a mutual non-harassment order would prevent contact and harassment between the parties. Notwithstanding her consent, she also expressed that she did not see anything currently that warranted a restraining order. She submitted she is not seeking or having contact with the Respondent mother, and she has not made attempts to contact the Respondent mother since July 2023.
7The parties agreed to have evidence in-chief completed via affidavit. The Applicant grandmother relied on her sworn affidavits of June 29 and July 18, 2023. She also relied on the affidavit of Lila Ann Rice, sworn July 28, 2025, and the viva voce evidence of Monica Smelko, a child protection worker from Family and Children’s Services Niagara (“FACS”).
8The Respondent mother filed evidence in-chief through her own affidavit sworn on July 22, 2025, as well as through the affidavit of Megan O’Connor, sworn July 29, 2025. She further relied on previous sworn affidavits of July 9 and July 27, 2023, and May 22, 2025.
9Both parties were able to cross-examine each other and the other party’s witnesses.
10Ms. Niemi, who completed the Voice of the Child Report, also testified and both parties had the opportunity to cross-examine her. While a request was made for the Voice of the Child report to be updated on April 23, 2025, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) declined on May 9, 2025, to due to lack of resources. The request was made due to conflicting evidence as to whether the child wants contact with the Applicant grandmother.
THE FACTS
Evidence of Ms. Niemi
11A Voice of the Child report, completed by Darlene Niemi, was filed on March 5, 2024, summarizing the child’s views at that time. The report is limited in scope. It doesn’t include interviews with the parties, or professional assessments, but in this case, the contents of the report aligned with other trial evidence and hence I found it to be useful.
12The child, interviewed twice in February 2024, was described as “bright and articulate”. He reported a positive relationship with his mother, stepfather Mr. Robinson, and baby sister. He was reported to be doing well in school. He made friends. He remembered enjoying time with his grandmother, but he also recalled frequent arguments between her and his mother, which upset him. In Ms. Niemi’s view the child appeared to have been exposed to conflict between his mother and grandmother. He was aware that they yelled a lot and that, in his mind, there was a direct connection between their conflict and why he was not having contact with the Applicant grandmother. Hence, the child was aware that he could not have contact with his grandmother because “[his] mom was too angry to communicate with [his grandmother]”. He demonstrated worry and distress about the conflict, to the point that it seemed to cause him physical distress.
13Despite this, the child said that he sometimes thought about his grandmother and he “kind of” missed her. He expressed interest in reconnecting. He suggested weekly Facetime calls and visits during trips to Penetanguishene, including an evening or a possible overnight visit. He specifically wanted to speak with her on their shared birthday but was concerned that contact might reignite conflict between the adults. He stated that if his mother was not angry with his grandmother that he would want to talk on the phone and see her more often.
14Ms. Niemi also confirmed the child’s views were his own and not influenced by others, though she acknowledged that children’s preferences can change over time. When asked if she thought that 1.5 years is a significant period of time in a child’s life, she could not provide an answer. But she noted that 1.5 years without contact could be a “reasonable” period of time, depending on the child. In this situation, Ms. Niemi’s report matched the other evidence presented at trial. With that in mind, I turn to the evidence provided by the parties.
Evidence of the Tiffany Ruffett
15The Applicant grandmother commenced her Application with a simultaneous ex-parte motion for contact with the child, after she became aware of the Respondent mother’s plans to relocate with the child from Penetanguishene to Thunder Bay in June, 2023.
16The Applicant is the child’s maternal grandmother, known as “Chimama,” and biological mother of the Respondent mother. The parties and the child are Anishinabek and registered members of the Beausoleil First Nation. The Applicant grandmother and her family have been affected by the intergenerational impact of Indian Residential Schools and the Scoops. She submitted that intergenerational trauma should be a factor considered by the Court, as is the child’s isolation from his cultural heritage.
17She is aware that the Respondent mother has another young child, the child’s sister, who resides with them as well.
18The Applicant grandmother has a vulnerable sector CPIC clearance through her work with the Georgian Bay Native Women’s Association and Beausoleil First Nation Education Advisory Council.
19The Applicant grandmother detailed that the Respondent mother left home twice: first at age 16 in 2015, denying the Respondent mother was kicked out, but stating that she left due to dropping out of school, inability to follow the household rules, and pursuing a relationship with Mr. William Patriquin, which led to pregnancy. The home remained open to her return.
20After the child’s birth, the Respondent mother returned home for support. The Applicant grandmother was present at the birth of the child and cut the umbilical cord. The parties lived together from early 2016 to late 2018, during which time the Applicant grandmother was actively involved with the child.
21In 2018, the Respondent mother moved out again to live with her then-partner, Mr. Michael Smith, until December 2020. The child called Mr. Smith “dad.” During this time, the Respondent mother posted on social media about “reliance on grandmothers,” her mother’s “sacrifices” and love for her mother. The Applicant grandmother called the Respondent mother her “best friend.”
22The Applicant grandmother submitted several pictures from 2019 to 2023 showing her constant involvement with the child, and depicting several outings, interactions and attendance at medical appointments. She agreed that the Respondent mother has been the sole caregiver for the child but maintained that she provided support in many ways, including transportation, childcare, medical and financial assistance, except during times when the Respondent mother was engaged in romantic relationships. The Applicant grandmother and the child would engage in activities such as rock hunting adventures, going to the park, bush walks or going out for food. She submitted extensive photographic evidence with respect to their activities and time spent with the child over the years.
23She deposed that the Respondent mother’s relationship with Mr. Smith became abusive, prompting a move to Barrie, to reside with her cousin. That arrangement did not work out and the Respondent mother ended up sharing a home with the Applicant grandmother due to financial struggles and schooling during the pandemic in 2021. The Applicant grandmother and child spent time together daily, including with his cousins, Gavin and Alaina, until a falling out with the Respondent’s sister, Sage, ended that contact. The Applicant grandmother claimed that she maintained communication between the cousins
24During the time they resided together, the Applicant grandmother stated that she covered the costs of the child’s ophthalmologist for treatment for strabismus of the right eye and arranged for reimbursement through an application for Jordan’s Principle.
25In August 2022, the Applicant grandmother noted that the Respondent mother met Mr. Tyler Robinson online and went to meet him in Thunder Bay, leaving the child in her care. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that the child was also left with a babysitter who looked after the child while she worked, and she picked up the child after work for the evening. She split nights with the babysitter as well. The babysitter was paid.
26Mr. Robinson then visited them on December 8, 2022 and did not leave the home. This marked the beginning of the end of the parties’ relationship, as his move into the shared home prompted conflict between the parties. The Applicant grandmother felt that Mr. Robinson began to dictate the relationship between the parties. He was also residing there illegally, which jeopardized their housing eligibility and the parties’ joint lease. She wanted to report this, leading to heated verbal altercations with the Respondent mother, sometimes in the presence or within earshot of the child, though she later denied this in submissions.
27She acknowledged that the child witnessed adult conflict that should have remained adult matters. She admitted the environment was toxic and acknowledged the child was “upset” and aware of the tension between the parties.
28The Applicant testified she was bullied, in person and online, by Mr. Robinson, the Respondent mother’s best friend, Ms. O’Connor, and the Respondent mother. Feeling unsafe, she installed a camera in the common area to protect herself and to refute allegations of abuse.
Termination of Contact
29By 2021, the Respondent mother stopped allowing the child contact with his biological paternal relatives. The only interaction in 2022 was a brief Christmas gift exchange on December 24, 2022, arranged by the Applicant grandmother. The Applicant grandmother states that the child often expressed that he missed his paternal grandparents and half sibling. She submits the child also missed Mr. Smith, but that relationship was also curtailed.
30Unfortunately, by December 28, 2022, the Respondent mother accused the Applicant grandmother of conspiring with the paternal family and restricted her access to the child, no longer allowing outings or shared activities. Though the Applicant grandmother was still asked babysit until February 2023, she couldn’t take the child out.
31By March 2023, the Respondent mother further limited contact, ending their “goodnight routine”, requiring supervision for conversations, and physically separating them by keeping the child in her bedroom. The Applicant grandmother testified the child tried to speak with her and make plans, often tearing up when taken away. By this time, she was only seeing the child in passing, 10 minutes at most.
32The Applicant grandmother described a pattern where the Respondent mother withheld the child from others, including paternal relatives, siblings, extended maternal family, and Mr. Smith (whom the child called “dad”), out of anger instead of concern for the child’s best interests. The child reportedly told the Applicant grandmother that he missed these family members around holidays like Valentine’s Day and Father’s Day.
33The Applicant grandmother also denied abuse allegations, noting the Respondent mother continued to rely on her for childcare until February 2023. The Applicant grandmother believed the accusations were motivated by financial gain and online popularity, as the mother and her partner were streamers with a GoFundMe page to assist in escaping the alleged abuse.
34On May 31, 2023, the Applicant grandmother left the shared home after posting online about being bullied by Mr. Robinson. She wasn’t allowed to say goodbye to the child, who she described as being held back from hugging her. Later, she declined contact via Facebook Messenger due to concerns about an administrator, Ms. O’Connor, who had previously posted her personal information in a negative context due to alleged fraud issues with the lease of the shared home. She testified that had she known that was the only alternative for contact, she would have taken it, but she was still trying to negotiate contact with the child through emails that went unanswered.
35Nonetheless, she briefly saw the child at a park on June 27, 2023, where she learned of the planned relocation but wasn’t given details. The Respondent mother again prevented a proper goodbye. By early July 2023, the Respondent mother and child moved to Thunder Bay without sharing contact information. The grandmother has not seen the child since.
Responses to Concerns of the Respondent
36On August 10, 2025, the Respondent mother’s counsel arranged a birthday call. The grandmother mailed gifts to the counsel’s office, hoping to open them with the child during the one-hour call, but the gifts were not given to him.
37During the virtual call, the child appeared briefly and said, “I don’t want to talk to you,” before the call ended. The Applicant grandmother disagrees with the child’s recent statement that he doesn’t want to speak to her. She does not believe it reflects his true wishes, referencing the earlier Voice of the Child Report, and instead suggesting something must have occurred in the background to influence him.
38The recent virtual contact incident prompted her to draft a reunification plan because the child’s attitude on the call was not consistent with his previous wishes. She had drafted the reunification plan with assistance from some colleagues to support the child’s emotional well-being and safely reintroduce contact in a child focused manner. She tried, unsuccessfully, to solicit help or input from professional service providers. She attempted to contact three Indigenous organizations in Thunder Bay and other social services organizations, including the Thunder Bay Indian Friendship Centre, but received no response. She also stated she could cover costs of reunification therapy through Indigenous benefits like Jordan’s Principle and Indian Affairs, as well as her own health benefits. She also requested to participate in therapy sessions if the child had a therapist, though she admitted she had no concrete alternatives for neutral facilitation or assessment if she could not.
39As previously noted, the Applicant grandmother denied abusing the Respondent mother or the child. During cross-examination, a past child welfare report from Family and Child Services Niagara (“FACS”) involving her eldest daughter, Sage, was raised. The report was 18 years old. She believed the referral was malicious and noted no abuse was verified. She testified the referral was made because the Sage wanted to reside with her father, while she wanted the child in her care. Furthermore, she recalled an incident where, as young children, Sage hit the Respondent mother with a wooden snake, and she intervened by hitting Sage with it, but denied causing injury.
40On cross-examination, she admitted to calling the Respondent mother derogatory names like “bitch,” “whore,” and possibly “slut,” though she claimed they were taken out of context and she regretted them. She also stated the Respondent mother had called her names. She denied threatening to report her to child protective services or making statements about being more credible due to her professional status should the Respondent mother try to report the abuse.
41The Applicant grandmother acknowledged that there was past tension between the parties, which according to her, were a result of the Respondent mother not following the rules and having a lifestyle not compatible with the household. Regardless, she still felt the parties were best friends until Mr. Robinson moved in, when tensions escalated even more.
42The Applicant grandmother also emphasized that her relationship with the child is separate from her relationship with the Respondent mother. She acknowledged that name-calling was not appropriate for the child to hear but insisted it was not abuse. She believed the Respondent mother was using the child to hurt her, and that she had no right to limit their contact, as the child was not an extension of the Respondent mother. She also stated the child wouldn’t be mistreated by her, as he wouldn’t make false allegations or bully her. She noted that the child, “Would not do those things, so I would not need to.”
43During cross-examination, the Applicant grandmother was questioned about whether she acted with the child’s best interests at heart. One example raised was her refusal to let the child take one of two cats he was close to, despite his distress. The cat had been in the care of the Respondent mother for about 7 years. Rather than leave the cat with the child as requested, the Applicant grandmother took the healthy cat with her, believing the child shouldn’t have perceived it as his. She acknowledged the child was very upset over this.
44She further acknowledged that a two-week visit in Penetanguishene would likely cause the child anxiety, which is why she proposed a reintroduction period. Initially saying she was unwilling to travel to Thunder Bay, she later said she could visit a few times a year, but emphasized the child’s need to reconnect with his community, people and land.
45She noted that there could be supervised contact at first but insisted it be through a neutral professional, not the Respondent mother. She proposed an elder unknown to the mother. She also stated she did not want contact with the Respondent mother and preferred a fixed schedule to avoid interaction, citing a lack of willingness to communicate from the Respondent mother. She agreed that they do not communicate, and she is not seeking any contact or relationship with the Respondent mother.
46Furthermore, the Applicant grandmother denied she has mental health issues, though she sees a counselor for stress, as needed. She reported weekly sessions following the disastrous August 10, 2025 call, but only has had four sessions in the past six months. She also denied substance misuse, only admitting to frequent and daily marijuana use for relaxation. She acknowledged one incident of smoking near an open window to a room the child may have been in, possibly exposing the child to marijuana smoke, but said it was unintentional and not repeated.
47Lastly, the Applicant grandmother admitted that even though she initialled the section in her 35.1 Affidavit that she would serve and file a 35.1A Affidavit, she did not do so.
The Applicant Grandmother’s Goal
48In cross-examination, the Applicant grandmother stated that her only goal was to obtain a court order for contact with the child in a way that aligns with the child’s wishes, best interest and well-being.
Evidence of Lila Ann Rice
49Ms. Rice, the Applicant grandmother’s aunt, is a teacher and Indigenous foster parent from Parry Sound, Ontario. In her affidavit, she emphasized the importance of intergenerational relationships in Indigenous communities, especially between grandparents and grandchildren, for passing down traditions, stories, and teachings.
50Ms. Rice met the child only once, shortly after his birth, when the child was brought home to reside with the parties, for a period of 2 to 4 hours. She has not returned to Penetanguishene since. She deposed she was able to see a deep and loving relationship between the Respondent grandmother and the child during that visit. When questioned how she formed that opinion, she stated it was based on the child’s calmness and the cooing sounds the grandmother made to the child. And even though the child was barely over a week old, she believed the child recognized his grandmother’s voice from the pregnancy, though she was not aware if the Applicant grandmother was involved in the pregnancy. She attributed their connection to “blood memory,” a spiritual concept in Indigenous culture. Ms. Rice deposed that she believed the Applicant grandmother to have a close and loving relationship with the child, though she could not offer any other example to support why that was so.
51Ms. Rice testified that a child’s relationship with grandparents, such as the Applicant grandmother, plays an important role in carrying forward the wisdom of the ancestors, passing down stories, traditions and teachings. She acknowledged it was a general comment on the importance of grandparents in indigenous culture. Again, she acknowledged that she did not witness any interactions where the Applicant grandmother shared traditional stories with the child.
52She deposed that the relationship between the child and his grandmother had cultural connotation such as gathering rocks or sharing stories. She acknowledges he had no first had knowledge of any of those activities or dates when they took place. She simply recalled seeing vague social media posts of some form.
53She further noted that the relationship between the Applicant grandmother and the child was a source of love, stability and pride due to their love of rocks, which again she never witnessed. However, this is because in indigenous culture there is a spiritual belief that a rock and the spirit it carries forms a bond and that bond is the pride. When asked if that if that was true for all indigenous children and grandparents, she responded that it was only the case for these two. She then acknowledged she had no knowledge if the child demonstrated he was proud of the bond he had with his grandmother.
54Nonetheless, in her view, a relationship between then is in the child’s best interests for his own emotional development and cultural grounding.
55The Applicant grandmother later noted she had intended Ms. Rice to be an expert witness on Indigenous grandparental roles but did not provide notice or evidence of her qualifications, and Ms. Rice was not identified as an elder or cultural knowledge keeper.
Evidence of Monica Smelko
56Ms. Smelko, a worker with Family and Child Services Niagara, investigated allegations involving the Applicant grandmother and her daughter, Sage, in March 2007. The investigation was triggered by a referral by Sage, then around 13, alleging that her mother planned to kidnap her from her father's care, where she was living at the time. There was also allegations of physical abuse. The Respondent mother was not involved in the investigation. Ultimately concerns were not verified and the file was closed.
57Aside from the notes, Ms. Smelko did not have an independent recollection of the investigation.
58The records, though redacted stated the following:
As per the file notes, [redacted] got in her face, yelling at her, slapping her once to stop her. The worker had no recollection who this referred to.
“Kicked her butt” to get her out of the room 4 years go, again there was no recollection of who was being talked about.
It notes that [redacted] lost child in May and was going through post traumatic stress.
It notes that a child was fearful of the Applicant grandmother, though the child was not identified.
59In addition, one of the notes does indicate “excellent happy kids, zero concerns.”
Evidence of the Respondent Mother
60The Respondent mother deposed that she lived with the Applicant grandmother until age 16, leaving due to ongoing abuse. She was in a relationship with William Patriquin from 2015 to 2016, and they had the subject child together in August 2016. Mr. Patriquin was also the father of a 5 year old boy, who resided with his mother. After their breakup, she briefly lived with her mother again but mostly resided independently from 2017 to 2021. The child’s father passed away on August 7, 2017.
61She returned to live with her mother from January 2021 to May 2023, following the break-up of another romantic relationship. In the Fall of 2022, she began a relationship with Mr. Tyler Robinson, who moved in shortly after. They had a daughter in August 2023, but the relationship ended in 2025. Mr. Robinson continues to see both children.
62The Respondent mother moved to Thunder Bay in July 2023, citing safety and practical concerns. She testified that it was her idea to part ways with the Applicant grandmother because she did not want to be involved in drama with her mother. However, it was the Applicant grandmother who physically left the home first. She claims the Applicant grandmother has not visited the child since July 2023 and has had no contact with the child, though she acknowledged frequent contact until June 2023. She asserts she is the sole caregiver, providing for all aspects of her children’s lives, and disputes claims of a close bond between the child and the grandmother. She claims the only thing the Applicant grandmother has provided is the odd gift. She claims the child has not asked about his grandmother. She deposed that she lives in a stable home, is sober, and has no child welfare involvement, contrasting her mother’s alleged daily marijuana use and past child welfare issues. However, the Respondent mother did acknowledge she smokes a small amount of cannabis as recommended by her therapist. However, she claims she does not use it in the presence of the children, though it still occurs when she is in a caregiving role.
63She further refuted Ms. Rice’s allegations that the child had a close and loving bond with his grandmother. She only met Ms. Rice on one occasion and Ms. Rice only met the child once when the child was 10 days old.
64The Respondent mother alleged long-term abuse of herself by the Applicant grandmother, describing a home filled with aggression. She testified that she suffers from Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD), which affects her memory, but she recalled specific incidents, including her sister Sage being struck with a wooden snake, causing visible physical injury. She recalls her sister being very upset. She also remembers a child welfare investigation involving Sage, though Sage was living with her father at the time. While she was originally under the impression that Sage was removed from the Applicant grandmother’s care, she acknowledged that was incorrect.
65She further claimed the Applicant grandmother failed to protect her from childhood sexual abuse due to poor supervision. Another incident involved the Applicant grandmother engaged in a heated verbal altercation, resulting in the Applicant grandmother physically dragging an adult and independent Sage from her basement apartment, causing Sage bleeding scratches in her arm.
66The Respondent mother describes living with the Applicant grandmother as a controlling and hostile environment, where her partners were attacked, she was treated like a child despite being a parent, and she faced constant conflict over household matters. She alleges that the Applicant grandmother was controlling and tried to give her a curfew and took the internet away from a place she paid for. They fought consistently about rent, rooms, their relationship growing up, or even if the Applicant grandmother felt like arguing when she got home.
67She reports being verbally abused with degrading insults and belittled about her education and credibility. This has been an ongoing pattern. She has been called a “bitch”, “a bitch in heat”, “a slut”, “a bad mom”, “a whore”, “a prostitute” and “a cunt”. She claimed she would also be called weird things during the Applicant grandmother’s rages such as a “white snowflake princess”. She also claims that the Applicant grandmother belittled her often, calling her a high school dropout and a delinquent, saying things would not go well for her and that her abuse was irrelevant because the Applicant grandmother was superior and had a job, and no one would believe the Respondent mother’s stories.
68She also cites the installation of a camera in the shared home’s common area as a violation of privacy and another sign of abuse. She testified the camera made the child feel unsafe and he started to avoid shared spaces. It was not the Respondent mother keeping the child in his or her room, it was because the camera was having an impact on his sense of safety.
69She also alleges legal abuse, including threats by the Applicant grandmother to involve child welfare, fraud over the lease of their home and collusion with the paternal grandmother to have the child removed from her care.
70Furthermore, the Respondent mother asserts that maintaining the current status quo is essential due to ongoing conflict and lack of communication with the Applicant grandmother, who she claims frequently initiated arguments in front of the child. She does not want her children exposed to adult conflict.
71The Respondent mother acknowledges the child previously expressed interest in seeing his grandmother, per the Voice of the Child Report, but she dismissed it as a “trauma bond.” She confirmed withholding contact and gifts by the Applicant grandmother, citing concerns like privacy and safety, including fears about tracking via an iPad. She agreed on cross-examination that as the child’s sole parent she should be able to decide if the child has contact with his grandmother.
72She further restricted contact with the paternal grandparents due to an unapproved haircut, lack of supervision, and exposure to inappropriate content. She acknowledged cutting off her own sister Sage and her children as Sage has taken the Applicant grandmother’s side when the Respondent chose to relocate, threating her with “nasty things”. The sisters are now reconnecting.
73She also acknowledged that while the child has an iPad which he can use to contact family members, he does not have his grandmother’s contact information. She claims he has not asked for that information. He is, however, now having contact with his paternal half siblings and his maternal cousins.
74She testified that a call was arranged from the child and grandmother’s shared birthday on August 10, 2025. It did not go well. The child was angry and upset and said he did not want to chat. She advised the child to show his face and say, “Happy Birthday”. She set him up on Zoom in his room. It ended quickly when the child expressed he did not want to speak to his grandmother. The Respondent mother did not encourage further conversation, stating the child made the decision.
75When asked to expand on any insight as to why the child may have changed his views on contact with the Applicant grandmother, she said that the child was “trauma bonded” to the Applicant grandmother and he saw greatness in his grandmother that the Respondent mother could not see in her. But as his sole protector, she maintains her role is to protect the child from dangerous or harmful situations the Applicant grandmother has or will put him in. She denied that the child’s change in views stems from anything that could have been heard in her household, as they do not speak about the Applicant grandmother.
76When asked to expand on what “dangerous situations” meant, the Respondent mother indicated it included the following:
(1) Substance abuse around the home by the Applicant grandmother, including marijuana and alcohol;
(2) Aggressive outbursts by the Applicant grandmother going around the home throwing objects, slamming doors and appliances;
(3) Spraying air freshener into the Respondent mother’s face when she was trying to get rid of the odour of marijuana in the home;
(4) A midnight screaming match about the lease that woke and distressed the child. The child woke up and was shaking and trembling under the covers in his bed, asking “what is a release?” over and over, his form of asking about the lease.
(5) Exposing the child to ongoing conflict, such as a situation at Easter when the Applicant grandmother was screaming in her face with the child present;
(6) The Applicant grandmother chasing the Respondent mother and the child when he had to catch the school bus to tell him that they were going to have a conversation just the two of them afterschool and making him feel like was in some kind of trouble;
(7) Triggering the Respondent mother’s own reaction to trauma through her behaviour, resulting in her trying to keep the child quiet during the Applicant grandmother’s outburst; and
(8) Threatening to kidnap the child to take the child to Toronto without consent, undermining the Respondent mother’s plans.
77Regardless, following the call the Respondent mother claims the child was upset and frustrated. He was crying into her arms and expressing distress over missing his cats, Max and Dax, something which had been a great grievance for him. He stated that his grandmother looked scary and different.
78She expanded on the situation about the cats. The child had been around and was closely bond with the cats since birth. The Respondent mother became the caretaker of the cats when the child was 3 years of age. When the parties parted ways, the Respondent mother offered to buy the cats, but only Dax, who was ill and later received end-of-life care, was released to her. The Applicant grandmother kept the healthy cat, Max, and took him in June before the move. During this exchange, she allegedly screamed at the Respondent, blaming her for the situation, while the child cried hysterically and clung to his mother. Contrary to the Applicant grandmother’s claim of holding the child back, the Respondent says she was comforting him, as a result of the Applicant grandmother’s actions. In her view, the Applicant grandmother did not care if she hurt the child as long as she got what she wanted.
79Lastly, she testified that if contact is granted, she prefers it occur at the Supervised Access Centre or with her present as a supervisor.
Evidence of Megan O’Connor
80Ms. O’Connor is the Respondent mother’s best friend. She met both parties in 2016. She deposed that she was aware that the parties were living together at the time but the parties stopped cohabiting from 2017 until 2021. During that time period, she only saw the Applicant grandmother for the child’s birthday parties. Though the Respondent mother was at Ms. O’Connor’s home daily, the Applicant grandmother only visited once or twice for unrelated issues with a roommate. In 2021, the parties started to live together again. She lived with them briefly from September to November 2022.
81During the 3 months she resided with the parties, she witnessed emotional and mental abuse of the Respondent mother by the Applicant grandmother, including anger issues and “eccentric behaviour”. She recalled a heated incident in 2022 where the Applicant grandmother was “seething” in the Respondent mother’s face, saying she was vile and disgusting. She claims she saw the Respondent mother wipe the spit off her face. She testified that when the Applicant grandmother saw her, she made a show of pretending to cry, telling the Respondent mother that she needed to “do good for her son”. She further stated that the child would ask her why his “Chimama” had to act like that and why did his “Chimama” hated his mother, while sobbing.
82Ms. O’Connor described the Applicant grandmother as emotionally unstable and referenced a document forgery incident that allegedly led to job loss, though she had no direct knowledge. She also mentioned a forged letter that turned out to be a housing support document.
83She also claimed the Applicant grandmother misused cannabis, ignored requests not to bring alcohol into the home, and exhibited extreme mood swings, suggesting possible mental health issues. There was no indication of how often this occurred.
84From her point of view, the Respondent mother was the child’s sole caregiver, and rarely used babysitters. She deposed that the Applicant grandmother had little to no involvement with the child and when she did, she exposed the child to verbal abuse of the Respondent mother. She claims the Applicant grandmother used the Respondent mother’s timid personality against her and tried to power-trip and control the Respondent mother though criticism and manipulation. She alleged that the Applicant grandmother is negative towards the Respondent and is constantly criticizing her parenting and calling her names.
85Ms. O’Connor claims she has seen the child being fearful of the Applicant grandmother and not wanting to be around her or speak to her. She claims that the child “has stated that he is afraid that the Applicant might find this out and be angry with him”.
86Ms. Connor maintains that she has been able to see the Respondent mother provide the children with a healthy routine, supports their education and teaches the children traditional, cultural and religious values.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
The Applicant
87The Applicant grandmother submits that access should be reinstated because the conflict lies between the adults and it is not in the child’s best interests. She submitted that children should not be caught in the middle of adult issues.
88She claims to have had a close, supportive relationship with the child since birth, and believes he misses her. It is her position that his wishes should be given adequate weight.
89She asserts that ending contact has negatively impacted the child emotionally, culturally, and psychologically, and that restoring their bond would benefit him.
90She further emphasizes her role as an Indigenous grandparent, contributing cultural stability and support, in accordance with the child’s best interests and insists she is not trying to replace the mother. She is simply trying to re-establish the close and emotional bond she has always shared with the child. She maintains that the child deserves love from all family members, especially after losing his biological father.
91Moreover, she submits that there is no history of abuse to justify cutting ties between a loving grandmother and her grandchild. The proposed request for reunification therapy to gradually reintroduce contact, structured to minimize direct communication between the parties and to prevent the involvement of Ms. O’Connor, would be a child-focused approach that meet his best interests.
The Respondent
92The Respondent mother denies making an arbitrary decision to end contact and maintains she did so on the basis of the child’s best interests to keep the child safe. Her position is that her ability to make parenting decisions on her child’s best interests should be respected. She believes that she has made good decisions for the child, all with his best interests in mind.
93The Respondent mother submits that the Applicant grandmother’s abusive behaviour towards her and exposing the child to a toxic home environment required her to take action to protect the child’s emotional and physical safety.
94In any event, the child has been thriving since contact ended, no longer expressing a desire to see his grandmother. While there is an acknowledgement that a year and half ago the child wanted to have contact with his grandmother, he has now changed his mind, and his current wishes should be respected. The child has suffered trauma because of the grandparent relationship, and it should not happen again.
95It is her position that the Applicant grandmother is prioritizing her own needs over the child’s current wishes and that reintroducing contact would disrupt the child’s stability. The child has not seen her grandmother in 2.5 years, a large portion of his life. His life should not be disrupted now that he is doing well, and against his wishes. Deference should be granted to the child’s only surviving parent.
96The Respondent asserts that the Applicant failed to meet the legal test for contact, citing a lack of a substantial relationship, emotional harm caused, poor parenting history, inability to communicate, inappropriate behavior, and a pattern of control. She also challenges the credibility of supporting evidence from Ms. Rice, and notes that the Applicant failed to file the required 35.1A affidavit, which she submits precludes a contact order.
ISSUES
97The issues for determination are as follows:
Can this court order contact considering the fact that the Applicant grandmother did not file a 35.1 Affidavit?
Has the Applicant grandmother met her onus under the test for grandparent contact?
If so, what is the appropriate level of contact that should be granted to the to Applicant grandmother?
If contact is permitted, is reunification therapy appropriate?
CREDIBILITY AND RELIABILITY
98Before addressing the main issues, I have considered the credibility of the parties. In general, I have considered the following established factors in the caselaw, which are not meant to be an exhaustive list:
(1) Are there inconsistencies in the witness’ evidence at trial and what they reported on other occasions, the evidence of other credible witnesses or in relation to the documentary evidence?
(2) Is there other independent evidence that confirms or contradicts the witness' testimony?
(3) Did they have a sufficient power of recollection to provide the court with an accurate account?
(4) Did the evidence appear to be inherently improbable and implausible?
(5) Was the evidence provided in a candid and straightforward manner, or was the witness evasive, strategic, hesitant, or biased?
(6) Where appropriate, was the witness capable of making concessions not favourable to their position, or were they generally self-serving?
99In this case it is necessary for the court to make credibility findings. I had substantial evidence from the Respondent with respect to the nature of the relationship between the child and the Applicant grandmother, abusive behaviour by the Applicant grandmother and exposure of the child to same.
100With respect to the evidence of the parties, both parties testified in a straightforward and candid manner. They both made concessions with respect to their behaviours which did not paint them in the best light, such as when the Applicant grandmother acknowledge calling the Respondent mother names and when the Respondent mother acknowledges not encouraging a relationship between the child and his extended family.
101I find that both parties provided a recollection of event to the best of their ability and where they differ in their recollection or the impact of events, it may very well be a matter of perception rather than dishonesty. However, I find that the evidence of the Respondent grandmother with respect to the Applicant grandmother’s abusive behaviour is compelling. I find that the Applicant grandmother has minimized her abusive behaviour towards the Respondent mother and its impact on the child.
102I also note that there were some internal inconsistencies in the evidence of the Applicant grandmother. For example, she testified that she was no longer able to speak to the child after March 2023 for period longer than 10 minutes, but she noted that she was asked to babysit until June 2023. Additionally, she alleged that she had cared for the child for a period of one week in August 2022 when the Respondent mother went on a trip, only to later admit that the Respondent mother hired a babysitter who cared for the child most of the day and some overnights. This makes me questions the Applicant grandmother’s reliability. However, it may also be an issue in recollecting something that occurred 3 to 4 years.
103The lease issue was unclear and not relied upon in assessing credibility.
104Among the collateral witnesses, Ms. Rice’s evidence was given little weight due to her lack of direct contact and reliance on hearsay. Her testimony was full of unsubstantiated generalizations. She did not know the child. Her answers her evasive or she claimed to not be able to recall a lot. That is not to say that I cannot accept that intergenerational involvement in the care of children is important in First Nation communities. I find I can take judicial notice of that.
105Ms. Smelko’s testimony was similarly limited, as she had no independent recollection of her past investigation. There is little weight to be given to her evidence that is not already included in the FACS report. Furthermore, I have placed little weight on the FACS report as the concerns were unverified and it was the only child protection investigation relating to the Applicant grandmother. It also occurred 18 years ago, and the extent of the redactions made it very unclear.
106Ms. O’Connor, despite her strained relationship with the Applicant grandmother, testified in a straightforward manner and acknowledged errors in her testimony. While I am not placing any weight on her testimony regarding the lease, her firsthand observations of the child’s emotional response to the parties’ conflict were plausible and persuasive. However, I do not find plausible her claims about the frequency of contact between the child and Applicant grandmother, as that was contradicted by photographic evidence.
107Lastly, Ms. Niemi’s testimony was credible and undisputed, but dated. While it reflected the child’s wishes from a year and a half ago, it could not clarify his current views due to the lack of a follow-up. It is unfortunate she was unable to complete an update follow up for the trial as I believe it would have clarified the child’s current wishes.
CAN THIS COURT ORDER CONTACT IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT FILE A 35.1A AFFIDAVIT?
108This is preliminary issue that must be addressed before delving into the law with respect to grandparent access. As noted, the Respondent mother raised the fact that the court could not order contact for the Applicant grandmother in absence of a 35.1A affidavit.
109Section 35.1 of the Family Law Rules (“the Rules”), reads as follows:
35.1 (1) If an application, answer or motion to change a final order contains a claim respecting decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to a child, the party making the claim shall serve and file with the document that contains the claim,
(a) an affidavit in Form 35.1 and, if the child or any party to the case has been involved in a child protection case or has received services from a child protection agency, an affidavit in Form 35.1A; and
(b) any other documents required by this rule. O. Reg. 42/21, s. 17.
110Under the Rules, parties with child welfare involvement are required to file a Form 35.1A affidavit. The Applicant grandmother appears not to have filed this form, or if she did, it was not included in the continuing record transferred from Barrie. The form is not normally included in the continuing record.
111While the Rules mandate filing, they do not explicitly prohibit a judge from granting parenting time or contact due to an inadvertent omission of the form. Courts are encouraged to prioritize the child’s best interests, and procedural errors may be remedied if they do not prejudice the other party or compromise child safety.
112My own research did not find any discernible case law directly addressing whether a missing Form 35.1A bars the court from making a contact. It was not provided by the Respondent mother either. Rule 1(7), however, does allow for judicial discretion in procedural matters, which suggests that a court could potentially allow the affidavit to be filed late or make directions to cure the defect.
113Although this issue is not about pleadings, an area in which case law is available, it can be analogous. Family law proceedings allow for more flexibility than civil litigation. As affirmed in Frick v. Frick, 2016 ONCA 799, the Rules are designed to reflect the unique nature of family cases, emphasizing active case management, early disclosure, and proportionality in resolving disputes
114In Jamieson v. Jamieson, 2020 ONSC 6935, it was held that courts may grant relief that was not explicitly pleaded if two conditions are met:
(1) It is clear that the relief is warranted; and
(2) No prejudice arises from the failure to plead the request.
115In Khamis v. Noormohamed, 2011 ONCA 127, the Court upheld a trial decision allowing an unequal equalization claim, noting that the opposing party had sufficient notice of the issue.
116Where the best interests of a child are at stake, courts are especially inclined to overlook deficiencies in pleadings. This approach was supported in Sleiman v. Sleiman, 2002 CanLII 44930 (ON CA) and Olubowale v. Morgan, 2011 ONCJ 353.
117In this case, there is no need to cure the deficiency, seeing a trial has been completed. The Applicant grandmother did complete a 35.1 affidavit. She is a self-represented party and while that comes with rights and obligations, it also comes with some accommodations. This is not a case where the Applicant grandmother attempted to hide any involvement with child welfare agencies. While she did not provide a 31.1A Affidavit, she completed and obtained her Report on Records from every child welfare agency in the jurisdictions she has resided in. We are aware that she had involvement with only one child welfare agency. The report was provided, and the investigator was cross-examined at trial. There is no prejudice.
118Normally the lack of information in a 35.1 and 35.1A affidavit would speak of risk to the child, but that has been mitigated through the information already provided and made an exhibit at trial. Moreover, this particular issue should have been addressed at the trial management conference. Child welfare involvement was known to the parties from the start of the proceedings. It cannot be used at this stage to prevent a decision on the merits. I find that a decision on contact can proceed in the absence of a 35.1A affidavit, where particulars of the Applicant grandmother’s involvement with child welfare agencies have been provided for consideration on the child’s best interests.
THE LAW ON GRANDPARENT CONTACT
119Grandparents do not have a legal right of contact with their grandchildren. The onus is on grandparents to show that contact is in the children’s best interests.
120The starting presumption is that deference should be given to a parent’s decision whether to award a grandparent contact with a child. See: Chapman v. Chapman, 2001 CanLII 24015 (ONCA). It is always important to defer to the decisions of parents regarding their children. However, deference is only accorded when those decisions are reasonable, and the parents are acting in the child’s bests interests. See: M.M. v. K.M., 2023 ONCJ 314, McLaughlin v. Huehn, 2004 ONCJ 426; Bennett v. MacFarlane, 2021 ONSC 3700; Arbuzova v. Scriver et al, 2024 ONSC 832.
121In Giansante v. DiChiara, 2005 CanLII 26446 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 3184 (SCJ), the court reviewed the decision in Chapman, and held that deference should generally be given to a custodial parent’s decision regarding access unless the following three questions are answered in the affirmative:
(1) Does a positive grandparent-grandchild relationship already exist?
(2) Does the parent’s decision imperil this relationship?
(3) Has the parent acted arbitrarily?
122In F.S. v. N.J. and T.S., 2024 ONCJ 199, the court considered the date it should determine if a positive grandparent/grandchild already existed. In that case, the grandmother had a close relationship with the child while the mother and child lived with her. However, once the mother moved out, the grandmother only saw the child a handful of times. Then the mother cut off the grandmother’s contact for a long time before the grandmother started her application for contact.
123The court in F.S. found the appropriate date to determine if there was a positive pre-existing relationship was the date when the mother cut off contact with the grandmother. This approach was also taken by Justice Himel in Kirshenblatt v. Kirshenblatt, 2024 ONSC 2896.
124Moreover, in Kirshenblatt, Justice Himel also found she could order contact even if the three Giasante questions were not answered in the affirmative.
125In determining if there is a “positive relationship”, the case law notes the following:
(a) There must generally be substantial pre-existing relationship between relative and child. Strong loving ties must exist based on time spent with each other.
(b) That relationship must be constructive one for child in sense that it is worth preserving. If relations between parties are too poisoned, previously positive relationship may not be capable of preservation.
(c) This determination must include consideration of child’s age and time since child last saw relative.
(d) If a young child has lost a parent, the existence of strong pre-existing relationship may not be necessary when it is the relative of the lost parent who applies for access.
See: M.M., Ibid.
126The Ontario Court of Appeal in Torabi v. Patterson, 2016 ONCJ 210 and B.F. v. A.N., 2024 ONCA 94 set out that there is now a two-part test to determine contact cases. The three questions posed in Giansante are now the first part of the test to determine if the court will defer to the parent’s wishes.
127The court in B.F. stated that if the court determines it will not defer to the parent’s wishes, the second part of the test requires a best interests analysis. I am to consider the section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, (“the CLRA”). The relevant portion reads as follows:
24 (1) In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.
Primary consideration
(2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.
Factors
(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,
(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;
(d) the history of care of the child;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.
Factors relating to family violence
(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3) (j), the court shall take into account,
(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;
(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;
(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;
(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;
(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;
(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;
(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
(h) any other relevant factor. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.
Past conduct
(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person, unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of the person’s decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.
128According to B.F., considerations also include the following factors, many of which overlap with the best interest test under the CLRA:
(1) The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with the grandparent;
(2) The history of the child’s care;
(3) The child’s needs, including special needs;
(4) the grandparent’s willingness and ability to meet the child’s needs;
(5) their willingness and ability to co-operate with the child’s parent and other caregivers;
(6) the child's cultural, linguistic, and religious upbringing; and
(7) any criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure relevant to the safety of the child.
129In Ninkovic v. Utjesinovic, 2019 ONSC 558Ont. S.C.J. , 23 R.F.L. (8th) 172, paragraphs 72-74, inclusive, note the following with respect to the second part of the test:
72In considering, at the second stage, whether access to the grandparent is in the best interests of the child, an important consideration is the extent to which this would cause anxiety and stress for the parent, which in turn could have a deleterious impact on the child. For example in Barber v. Mangal, 2009 ONCJ 631, Justice Brownstone found that the intensity of the conflict between the parents and the grandmother seeking access was such that any access would be extremely stressful for the parents and "given their personalities, there is a very real and substantial risk that such stress would be visited upon the child." See para. 17. At the same time, animosity does not necessarily preclude an access order. See para. 18.
73See also MacDonald v. MacDonald, CanLII 15444 in which Justice Pazaratz found that the "level of conflict between the applicant and the respondent is so overwhelming that any future contact will invariably result in the children and their family experiencing more upset, commotion, and grief," and dismissed the grandmother's request for access to her daughter's children.
74A further consideration is whether an access order would destabilize the family unit. See Blackburn v. Fortin, 2006 CarswellOnt 3458. In that case, Justice Smith declined to grant access to a grandmother where significant tension existed between the grandmother and mother, the grandmother often imposed unsolicited views on proper child-rearing, and the grandmother had made a heavy-handed attempt to change the parents' decision regarding schooling. The court found that access could destabilize the family unit.
130While the statute was not argued a trial, because the issue of cultural connection was raised and because the child is an indigenous child, and because it was raised in the Applicant Grandmother’s Application, I must also consider An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, SC 2019 c. 24 (“The Federal Act”).
131The Federal Act, which came into force in 2020, establishes a national framework for child and family services involving Indigenous children. It was developed in response to the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care and aims to affirm Indigenous jurisdiction over these services. The preamble and Section 8 acknowledge the historical harms of colonial policies, including residential schools and the Sixties Scoop, and emphasize the need to support Indigenous families and communities through culturally appropriate services. Section 9 outlines guiding principles for interpreting and administering the Act, including the best interests of the child, cultural continuity, and substantive equality. These principles stress the importance of keeping children connected to their families, communities, and cultures, and ensuring services do not contribute to assimilation or cultural loss. The Act supports Indigenous self-determination and aligns with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. Section 9 of the Federal Act, reads as follows:
9 (1) This Act is to be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle of the best interests of the child.
(2) This Act is to be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle of cultural continuity as reflected in the following concepts:
(a) cultural continuity is essential to the well-being of a child, a family and an Indigenous group, community or people;
(b) the transmission of the languages, cultures, practices, customs, traditions, ceremonies and knowledge of Indigenous peoples is integral to cultural continuity;
(c) a child’s well-being is often promoted when the child resides with members of his or her family and the culture of the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs is respected;
(d) child and family services provided in relation to an Indigenous child are to be provided in a manner that does not contribute to the assimilation of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs or to the destruction of the culture of that Indigenous group, community or people; and
(e) the characteristics and challenges of the region in which a child, a family or an Indigenous group, community or people is located are to be considered.
132The court in M.L. v Dilico Anishnabek Family Care, [2022] OJ No 1324, stated at paragraphs 72 and 73:
72 A court applying the CLRA will be required to apply the national standards in deciding the appellant’s application.
73 In deciding the appellants’ CLRA application, the court will have to interpret these provisions to incorporate the national standards set out in the federal act and the CYFSA in a manner that harmonizes the legislation.
133As such, while section 10 of The Federal Act specifically addresses the best interests of children in the context of the provision of child and family services, or child protection apprehensions, the factors listed in (2) and (3) must be considered in the CLRA context as well.
(2) When the factors referred to in subsection (3) are being considered, primary consideration must be given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being, as well as to the importance, for that child, of having an ongoing relationship with his or her family and with the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs and of preserving the child’s connections to his or her culture.
(3) To determine the best interests of an Indigenous child, all factors related to the circumstances of the child must be considered, including
(a) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage;
(b) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(c) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with his or her parent, the care provider and any member of his or her family who plays an important role in his or her life;
(d) the importance to the child of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connections to the language and territory of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) any plans for the child’s care, including care in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs;
(g) any family violence and its impact on the child, including whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence as well as the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child; and
(h) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
ANALYSIS
134The central issue is whether the Applicant grandmother should be granted contact with her grandchild. The dispute focuses on whether restoring their relationship serves the child’s best interests or whether continued separation is preferable. The burden of proof lies with the Applicant to meet the legal test for contact.
Part 1 of the Test: The Giansante Analysis
135As noted by the caselaw, whether a positive relationship existed, is to be considered as of the time that contact ended.
136In this case, I find the date for consideration of the status of the relationship between the child and the Applicant grandmother would be December 28, 2022, almost 3 years ago and not when she moved from the shared home on March 31, 2023. This is because her relationship with the child began being limited by the Respondent mother after the child’s visit with the paternal grandparents.
137The Applicant grandmother had been involved in the child’s life since birth, with varying levels of contact depending on the Respondent mother’s circumstances. While some caregiving details are disputed, the Respondent mother acknowledged the Applicant grandmother’s role as a supportive grandparent, including attending appointments and engaging in activities. The Respondent mother did not dispute the Applicant grandmother’s involvement with the child as a supporting grandparent.
138Evidence shows a once-loving bond, supported by photos and, to the Applicant grandmother’s recollection, the child seemed to enjoy the time he spent with his grandmother one-on-one. There were requests to by the Respondent mother for the Applicant grandmother to babysit the child, which shows some level of trust that the Applicant grandmother could provide for the safe care of the child, even if it was just within the home.
139However, there is also evidence that the relationship between the Applicant grandmother and the child was damaged by the Applicant grandmother’s abusive behavior toward the Respondent mother, which distressed the child and eventually resulted in the child and/or his mother restricting his movements around the home and limiting his contact with his grandmother. While the child’s distress at the arguments between the parties predated December 28, 2022, it certainly became worse after that time.
140There are assertions by the Respondent mother that the child last saw the Applicant grandmother on June 27, 2023 and that is too a long period of time for the child’s relationship with his grandmother to be re-established. She asserts that the relationship has now irreparably deteriorated or is no longer viable because the child is not asking for the Applicant grandmother, nor does he want to speak to her. This can be a consideration under the first part of the test. However, I am not convinced by the evidence that simply not asking for or not mentioning the Applicant grandmother means that the child has forgotten that relationship, or that he was not affected by the loss, especially considering the evidence found in the Voice of the Child Report. What is clear is that in February 2024, almost a year after, without ever communicating to the Respondent mother that he missed his grandmother, and without speaking about her in the household, the child still told Ms. Niemi that he missed his grandmother and wanted to have contact with her.
141From this evidence, I find that the relationship had value to the child at age 7, even if it perhaps no longer does at age 9, considering the child’s recently communicated wishes. However, it does not appear the relationship is a constructive one for the child in the sense that is worth preserving. The relationship between the parties is acknowledged by both to be toxic, fraught with conflict, and at times spilling over into their relationship with the child. It matters not that there was no intention for the child to be affected by screaming fights at midnight, and that there is no intention for the child to hear adult conflict. The child was aware of the adult issues and conflict between the parties. There was evidence from Ms. Niemi, the Respondent mother and Ms. O’Connor with respect to the effect on the child. The child himself told Ms. Niemi of a time when he recalled his grandmother yelling at his mom while he was playing video games, at Easter, and another time when he was crying in his room because of their yelling. This is consistent with Ms. O’Connor’s description of the child sobbing after one such incident. The Respondent mother’s examples are too numerous to list.
142Ms. Niemi described during her testimony that the child seemed to be in physical distress when recounting the conflict between the parties. Moreover, the parties seem to be glossing the language used when the child expressed his views to have contact with the Applicant grandmother. It was not a stand-alone statement. It was qualified. The child requested contact, stating “if his mom was not angry at Chamama [sic] anymore he would want to talk on the phone and see her more often [emphasis added].”
143It is quite obvious the relationship between the parties has not abated. Their animosity is palpable. Neither party is in a position to resume any type of cordial relationship, despite the lip service provided by the Applicant grandmother about being willing to speak to the Respondent mother and extending an olive branch. She says she is capable of having a relationship with her daughter but that her daughter is unwilling.
144However, it is not surprising that the Respondent mother is unwilling to communicate. As mentioned, there is credible evidence that not only was the relationship between the parties unstable, hostile and fraught with tension, it was also marred with persistent and long-standing abusive behaviour. The Applicant grandmother called the Respondent mother derogatory names and belittled her over several years. The child was privy to it and was affected by hearing that abuse. The Respondent mother is not willing to put herself in that situation again and she does not want the child to be in that situation either. And despite the child’s own account that his grandmother did not yell at him, when the Applicant grandmother was questioned about her abusive behaviour, including the invasion of privacy, she responded she would essentially not treat the child the same way because he would not behave the same way the mother did. This begs the question of what would happen if the child were to challenge her or rebel against what the Applicant grandmother herself referred to her “strict household”. The Applicant grandmother’s comment suggests conditional behavior based on compliance, raising concerns about future interactions if contact is ordered.
145I find that the evidence in this case supports some of the assertions made by both parties. While there was a loving, somewhat positive and close pre-existing relationship between the child and the paternal grandmother, the truth remains that the child was deeply and negatively impacted by the conflict between the parties, which presents a risk of harm to the child. That makes it questionable as to whether it is worth preserving considering the baggage it carries.
146I also find that the child/grandparent relationship was imperilled by the Respondent mother’s decision to start limiting contact in December 2022. The child went from having the stability of seeing the Applicant grandmother constantly, including movie nights and rock hunting, as noted in Ms. Niemi’s report, to brief interactions within the home, and eventually, no contact at all.
147With respect to whether the Respondent mother acted arbitrarily in cutting off contact, I find that she has not. The Respondent mother did have valid concerns with respect to risk of emotional harm to the child as a result of the conflict he was exposed to, on what seems to be a regular basis. I accept that the Respondent wanted to act to protect the child’s well-being. I accept that it was her primary motivation, as she was trying to break the cycle of abuse. She was acting the in the child’s best interests, even though part of her motivation was also to protect herself.
148The Respondent mother’s decision to end all contact rather than imposing contact terms that could address her concerns were in proportion to the issues raised and hence reasonable.
149So the answers to the three questions posed by the Giansante test are: perhaps, yes and no. While, at times, this may be sufficient to defer to a parent’s decision, and parental discretion is often respected in these types of cases, I am given pause by the evidence provided by the Applicant grandmother, which was partly corroborated by the Respondent mother herself, that the Respondent mother has a history of cutting off contact between the child and family members due to her own conflicts with other adults.
150To briefly summarize, the Applicant grandmother presented evidence that the child was cut off from his paternal siblings and extended family, despite having lost his biological father and lacking other connections to that side of his family. The Respondent mother’s decision to end all contact appears disproportionate to the incidents cited. Supervised contact could have preserved those relationships in a safe setting, but that option was not considered. Although there is a history of conflict between the parties, the Respondent mother’s decision to restrict contact was triggered by the Applicant grandmother facilitating a visit with the paternal grandparents, an act the Respondent mother may have viewed as undermining her parental authority.
151In addition, the Respondent mother cut off the child’s contact with Mr. Smith following their separation, even though the child identified Mr. Smith as his father.
152The Respondent mother also severed the child’s contact with his maternal aunt and cousins, despite their previously close relationship. This was due to a family dispute, not any harm to the child. The decision appeared to lack consideration for the emotional impact on the child of losing multiple close relationships in a short period of time. In addition, despite the Respondent mother maintaining that she has nothing but the child’s best interests and safety at heart, she paid no deference to the child’s clearly expressed wishes in 2024. Now she asks the court to place a significant weight on the child’s newly expressed views because they now support her own. This approach is not child focused.
153As a result, I am prepared to consider whether contact with the Applicant grandmother may still be in the child’s best interests, even though not all factors under the Kishenblatt test weigh in favor. The best interest of the child must be analyzed to determine whether the risk of the child can be balanced with the benefits he may gain from a relationship with his grandmother, despite partial deference to the Respondent mother’s decision, in light of examples of both parties’ failing to consider the impact of their actions on the child and his best interests.
Part 2 of the Test – Best Interest of the Child
154As noted, a best interest analysis need to consider section 24 of the CLRA, sections 9 and 10 of The Federal Act, and the additional considerations in B.F. and Ninkovic.
155I must also keep in mind the following:
(1) The list of best interest considerations in the CYFSA is not exhaustive. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736. It is also not a checklist to be tabulated with the highest score winning. Rather, it calls for the court to take a holistic look at the child, his or her needs and the persons around the child. See: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.
(2) An assessment of the best interests of the child must take into account all of the relevant circumstances with respect to the needs of the child and the ability of each parent to meet those needs. See: Mokhov v. Ratayeva, 2021 ONSC 5454 (SCJ).
(3) The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents. See: Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC). Adult preferences or “rights” do not form part of the analysis except insofar as they are relevant to the determination of the best interests of the child. See: Young v. Young 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC); E.M.B. v. M.F.B. 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510.
(4) No one factor in the statutory definition of “bests interests” has greater weight than the others: Libbus v. Libbus, [2008] O.J. No. 4148 (Ont. S. C. J.), Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479.
156Some of the best interest considerations have been touched upon in my analysis of the first part of the test. But I will summarize some of them here. Prior to the end of their contact, it appears that the child had a close and loving relationship with the Applicant grandmother. The Applicant grandmother has been involved with the child since birth and enjoyed regular contact throughout the years. This contact increased to daily contact during periods of time between 2016 to 2018, and 2021 to 2023, when the parties resided in a shared family home. She assisted with babysitting, taking the child to appointments and engaging in regular grandparent behaviour and outings. She has indicated that she is willing and able to meet the child’s needs if she is permitted to visit, even if she has no contact or restricted contact with the Respondent mother. The close and loving relationship between the Applicant grandmother and the child is not the problem. The problem is that the Applicant grandmother’s behaviour towards the Respondent mother has been detrimental to the child’s best interests.
157The child does not have any special needs. He is 9 years of age. He was 6.5 years of age when he stopped seeing his grandmother. In February 2024, the child expressed wishes that included being able to have telephone contact with his “Chimama” on a weekly basis and their shared birthday, as well as in person visits when he visited his home community. He expressed those visits could be for an afternoon or even an overnight. As per the Voice of the Child Report, the child has adapted very well to the move to Thunder Bay and he is happy. He did express missing his grandmother.
158However, a year and half later, the child had the opportunity to express updated wishes when he refused to participate in a Zoom call with the Applicant grandmother, telling her he didn’t want to speak and ending the call in distress. The Applicant argues that his current views contradict earlier statements to the OCL and may reflect the Respondent mother’s influence. She requests a neutral reassessment of his wishes but has not proposed a concrete plan. Without updated input from the OCL, the reasons behind the change remain speculative.
159It could be, as the Respondent mother, submitted that the child’s wishes have changed due to the passage of time. It could be, as the Applicant grandmother submitted, that it is due to influence in the Respondent mother’s home. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle. A two-and-a-half-year absence is significant in a young child’s life. While the Respondent states she does not discuss the Applicant at home, the child appears aware of the strained relationship. The OCL report noted the child knew of possible written communication between the parties, despite not being told directly. Children are sensitive to their parents’ emotions, and the Respondent’s reluctance around the Zoom call may have affected the child. Notably, the call was not court-ordered but merely suggested.
160In any event, it is possible that the child was affected by the stress the Respondent mother felt when the call was made. It was clear she did not want to facilitate it. It is also consistent with the qualification the child provided in that that he wanted contact if his mother were no longer angry with his grandmother. It may be something that could be remedied with neutral supervision.
161I have also considered the poor relationship between the parties. However, animosity between the parties does not preclude a contact order. A contact order is the only way the child could have a relationship with his grandmother, especially given the Respondent mother’s history of withholding access to extended family. Although she has recently begun allowing contact with some relatives, this is a new development and its consistency remains uncertain.
162However, I do not take lightly the possibility that a contact order could negatively impact the child and destabilize the household if contact is forced. Such contact would likely cause stress for the Respondent mother and affect her parenting. The child already expressed upset and grief when forced to have recent contact. He reacted badly and clung to his mother. The only thing that is positive, is that aside from facilitating the visit between the child and paternal grandparents in December 2022, the Applicant grandmother has not undermined the Respondent mother’s decision-making and has consented to her having full parental authority, indicating she does not seek a parental role.
163The possibility of a serious impact on the child also needs to be discussed in the context of family violence. Family violence must be taken seriously and is a very important consideration under the best interest test. I have found that there is evidence of abuse by the Applicant grandmother on the Respondent mother.
164Most of the particulars of the abuse are not disputed by the Applicant grandmother. She does not see their frequent and explosive arguments as abuse or as family violence. She sees them as adult issues.
165She also does not see how it has impacted the child. She does not see how the child need not have been in the same room to overhear the vicious nature of their arguments, even though she does acknowledge the toxicity in the home. She sees herself as the victim, though most of the evidence indicates it was the Respondent mother who was in the receiving end of the abuse.
166In general, the Applicant grandmother minimizes the extent of the negative relationship between the parties. She lacks insight into how her behaviour affected the child. She fails to see that “hard” evidence is not necessary to prove that the abuse took place. Her minimization of the problem is concerning to the Court. The Respondent mother’s evidence, including corroborative evidence, in the form of firsthand accounts is sufficient and credible.
167While the Applicant grandmother may not see her behaviour as family violence, it does not change the fact that it was. The Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22 made the following observations about family violence:
(1) Amendments to the legislation recognise that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the analysis of the child’s best interests (par. 146).
(2) The suggestion that domestic abuse or family violence has no impact on the children and has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s parenting ability is untenable. Research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives: Department of Justice, Risk Factors for Children in Situations of Family Violence in the Context of Separation and Divorce (February 2014), at p. 12. Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath, or hearing about it: S. Artz et al., “A Comprehensive Review of the Literature on the Impact of Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence for Children and Youth” (2014), 5 I.J.C.Y.F.S. 493, at p. 497. (par. 145).
(3) Domestic violence allegations are notoriously difficult to prove. Family violence often takes place behind closed doors and may lack corroborating evidence. Thus, proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim or may overlap with and enhance the significance of other factors, such as the need for limited contact or support (par. 145).
168Justice Deborah Chappel wrote about the importance of family violence as a best interests factor in paragraph 86 of McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, as follows:
The broad definition of family violence and the specific inclusion of this factor as a mandatory consideration in determining the best interests of children recognize the profound effects that all forms of family violence can have on children. These consequences can be both direct, if a child is exposed to the family violence, or indirect, if the victimized parent’s physical, emotional and psychological well-being are compromised, since these consequences in turn often negatively impact their ability to meet the child’s physical and emotional needs.
169I must also keep in mind that family violence can be subtle and complex, often involving coercive and controlling behaviors that occur in private and are difficult to prove. Perpetrators of abuse may be manipulative and persuasive, making it hard for victims—often the only witnesses—to be believed, especially when lacking third-party evidence. See: Volgemut v. Decristoforo, 2021 ONSC 7382. Moreover, denigrating a parent in front of the children fits within the definition of family violence. See: Ammar v. Smith, 2021 ONSC 3204; McIntosh v Baker, 2022 ONSC 4235. Lastly, violence need not be physical. Emotional and psychological abuse can have a devastating impact on a child. See: Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510; El Khatib v. Noun, 2023 ONSC 1667.
170I find that that the Applicant grandmother exhibited controlling and coercive behaviours. There was evidence of the Applicant grandmother trying to control the Respondent mother, whether it be by giving her a curfew, taking away the internet or criticizing her choice in partners. There was evidence of aggressive behaviors. The child has been indirectly affected and, at times, directly affected by it such as with the cat incident. It meets the definition of family violence. It was pervasive and over a long period of time. However, the level of contact granted, along with built-in safety measures, can be tailored to minimize potential harm to the child and household, especially in cases involving domestic violence or instability.
171Much was made by the Applicant grandmother with regards to the lack of contact between herself and the child affecting the child’s cultural upbringings and heritage within his indigenous home community. I acknowledge that in Indigenous cultures, grandparents play a profoundly important role in the cultural upbringing of children. Their involvement is not only customary but also deeply rooted in traditional values and community structures. I also acknowledge that Indigenous grandparents are often seen as keepers of traditional knowledge, language, beliefs, and customs. They serve as mentors and storytellers, passing down oral histories and spiritual teachings that are essential to maintaining cultural identity. This transmission of knowledge is especially vital given the historical trauma and cultural disruption caused by colonization and residential schools, which the Applicant grandmother noted as affecting her family. There is no doubt that the residential school system and the Scoops fractured many Indigenous families and communities.
172In many Indigenous communities, extended family play a central role in child-rearing. Grandparents frequently live in multi-generational homes and assume caregiving roles, especially when parents face challenges such as mental health issues, incarceration, or substance abuse. These arrangements reflect a collective approach for raising children and emphasize community over individualism. Moreover, Indigenous grandparents often help children understand their place within the community, fostering a sense of belonging and identity. Their guidance is often highly respected, and their presence provides emotional stability and cultural continuity.
173But aside from some generalizations, there is no evidence that the Applicant grandmother has stepped into this type of role for the child. Aside from walking in the bush and collecting rocks, there is no evidence that she has served as the child’s cultural compass. There is no evidence that she is passing language, practices, customs or traditions to the child. In fact, there is little evidence by either party of how they ensure the child is connected to his culture. We do have minimal evidence in Ms. Niemi’s report that the child continued to attend pow wows since moving to Thunder Bay and from Ms. O’Connor noting that the Respondent mother has involved the child in cultural activities.
174The evidence provided on this issue is insufficient for a proper analysis. In any event, this is not a case involving differing cultural backgrounds or a grandparent acting in place of a deceased parent. Both parties share the same First Nation identity and cultural heritage. The Respondent mother can pass on cultural teachings and has expressed plans to take the child to Penetanguishene now that she is more financially stable.
175Based on the above, I find that there is a risk of harm to the child stemming from the child’s exposure to the negative, toxic and aggressive relationship between the parties. This tension has affected the child’s relationships with both women and undermined his sense of safety at home, leading him to feel he must side with his mother. However, this risk can be mitigated when the parties avoid direct interaction, as the child reported no issues in his individual relationship with the Applicant grandmother and confirmed she never yelled at him. From the child’s disclosure to the OCL, he had a loving and engaging relationship with his grandmother, which at the time he wished to preserve, when it was not marred by the conflict between the parties.
176Taking all of that into consideration, I find that the risk does not outweigh the benefits of contact for this child. However, the challenge is determining how much contact, and what manner of the contact, can keep the child safe. The child will need time to reestablish her connection with the Applicant grandmother, and it needs to be done in a safe manner, and in such way that will restrict the parties’ communication with each other until such a time as they are willing to engage freely, should that ever occur.
177It also needs to recognize that the relationship we are trying to nurture is a grandparent relationship and not a parental relationship, as agreed by the parties. A request for weekly contact is not reasonable, based on the long period of separation and the child’s new wishes, though expressed without background context. Moreover, allowing the Applicant grandmother to be in close proximity to the Respondent mother would likely result in palpable stress to both people, which could be easily picked up by the child.
178To that end, supervised access is required and will ensure that the Applicant grandmother does not engage in abusive behaviours with the child, should he challenge her. Supervision is not usually intended to be a long-term remedy but, in this case, it will permit some contact between the Applicant grandmother and the child, in a safe manner. The hope is that if neutral supervision is available, the child may be more willing to engage with the Applicant grandmother, as he previously expressed in the Voice of the Child Report. If he does not, that will speak as to the validity and weight of his current wishes.
Reunification Therapy
179The Applicant grandmother requested reunification therapy with the child, despite it not being included in her original application. As I noted in my determination of whether the court could grant a contact order absent a 35.1A Affidavit, the court has discretion to consider requests not specifically included in the original application, provided they are incidental to the main claim, serve the child’s best interests, and do not prejudice the other party. In this case, the request for reunification therapy is incidental to the Applicant grandmother’s contact claim.
180The court has the legal authority to make such an order under section 28(1)(b) and (c)(vii) of the CLRA. This was confirmed in Testani v. Haughton, 2016 ONSC 5827, where the court outlined when reunification therapy may be appropriate. These types of orders are often made in cases involving parental alienation, as seen in A.M. v. C.H., X. v. Y., 2016 ONSC 545, and MacLeod v. MacLeod, 2022 ONSC 2457. This case does not involve parental alienation, but the court’s power to order therapy is not limited to those situations.
181In Testani, at paragraph 18, Justice Jarvis listed several important factors to consider before ordering reunification therapy. These include:
(1) Using such orders only when truly necessary;
(2) Having strong evidence that therapy will help;
(3) Providing a clear and detailed plan that names the therapist and outlines expectations;
(4) Recognizing that resistance to therapy matters but doesn’t automatically prevent an order;
(5) Waiting for any ongoing assessments to finish before making a decision; and
(6) Giving clear instructions to the therapist along with a request for a report back to the court.
182Unfortunately, as this was a new development, the Applicant grandmother did not have any relevant evidence to provide to the court for determination. While she had a two-page plan, which was only reviewed by the Respondent and the court at trial, it was self-created and not developed by a qualified therapist or expert, so it carried no evidentiary weight. The child is not currently seeing a counselor who could advise us if reunification therapy is suitable or if the child is willing to engage in it. The Respondent mother confirmed the child was not seeing a counselor because, despite exploring it with the child’s service providers, it was not recommended.
183After considering these factors, I cannot determine whether reunification therapy is in the child’s best interests. Both the child and Respondent mother have experienced family violence, and their feelings and safety must be respected, while giving those wishes appropriate weight, were discernable. Without evidence that the child and/or the Respondent mother are ready or willing to engage in therapy, and without details of a plan, forcing it would be inappropriate and likely ineffective.
DISPOSITION
184Based on my consideration of the two-part test, I find that the only form of contact that balances the child’s right to maintain some connection to the Application grandmother with his need for safety and stability is supervised contract in a neutral setting. Should contact be seen by a neutral party to be a negative experience for the child, it will need to end. The child should not suffer undue distress once he has been provided with the opportunity to express his updated preferences in a safe and controlled environment.
185This disposition seeks to acknowledge the historical value of the child’s relationship with his grandmother, the Respondent mother’s legitimate safety concerns and the child’s wishes as expressed in the past and present. It also takes into consideration the importance of cultural continuity, while recognizing that cultural continuity cannot come at the expense of the child’s emotional well-being, security, and stability.
186A final order shall issue as follows:
(1) The Applicant, Tiffany Ruffett, shall have supervised contact with the child, K., born […], 2016, pursuant to section 21(3) and 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, as follows:
a) Facetime, Zoom or other type of virtual video calls to occur once per month, for up to an hour each call. Supervised Access Centre (“SAC”) staff may end the call earlier if the child declines to participate or exhibits distress. The date and time shall be subject to the availability of the SAC.
b) The above noted contact shall be supervised by the SAC for a period of 12 months. Only the child and a worker shall be present in the room during the calls.
c) If the child refuses to engage in 3 consecutive calls, the calls shall cease.
d) If after the initial 12-month period contact has been positive, the Respondent, Jade Ruffett, shall continue to facilitate virtual contact between the child and the Applicant on a monthly basis. Such contact shall occur no less than once per month, for a duration of not less than thirty (30) minutes, or longer should the child so desire. The scheduling of each call, including the specific date and time, shall be at the discretion of the Respondent.
e) Should the Respondent determine that continued supervision remains necessary, she may appoint a supervisor of her choosing, provided that the appointed individual does not participate in the calls and refrains from any negative interaction with the Applicant. The Respondent may personally provide such supervision, as long as the child is comfortable engaging in the calls in the presence of his mother.
(2) The Applicant shall not record the calls, disparage the Respondent or discuss adult conflict during the calls.
(3) The Respondent shall make best efforts to encourage the child to attend and participate in the calls.
(4) The parties shall complete their SAC intake and any required paperwork, within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
(5) SAC visits shall commence as soon as possible when the SAC is able to provide dates and times.
(6) The parties shall not speak negatively about each other, nor will they permit third parties to do so, in the presence of the child.
(7) The Applicant shall not harass, intimidate, threaten, or communicate with the Respondent or the child in any way that causes them fear, distress, or emotional harm.
(8) The Applicant shall not attend at or near the Respondent’s residence, place of employment, or any location where the Applicant is known to regularly be, except as required for the purposes of providing supervision should the Respondent decide to expand to in-person contact.
(9) The Applicant shall not contact the Respondent directly or indirectly, except:
(a) Pursuant to section 1(d) and (e) above, for the purposes of arranging contact outside of the SAC. Such arrangements shall be made by email, or through a third party as appointed by the Respondent; and
(b) To send gifts or cards to the child on special occasions, up to four times per year. The Respondent shall provide such gifts or cards to the child forthwith upon receipt.
(10) The Respondent shall provide a valid email address and an address or post office box where gifts can be sent, pursuant to section 8(b) above, within 15 days of this order.
(11) Paragraphs 8 and 9 of this order shall remain in effect for a period of 2 years.
187These types of cases are not easy to determine. This case involves deep conflict and broken trust between a mother and daughter, making reconciliation unlikely. While the court cannot compel them to repair their relationship, both parties could benefit from ongoing counseling and from considering the child’s perspective. It appears the child loves both of them and continues to be affected by their choices and conflict.
188I urge the parties to engage in negotiations with respect to costs. The issue was an important one and a trial was certainly necessary. The disposition is closer to concessions made at trial than the parties’ original positions.
189If the issue of costs cannot be agreed upon, I shall determine it by written submissions. These shall not exceed five pages plus attachments of Bills of Costs from counsel and Offers to Settle, if any. The Applicant's submissions are due by October 10, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. and the Respondent's by October 31, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. If no submissions are received by the due dates, the issue of costs will have been deemed settled. Late submissions shall not be entertained.
Released: September 10, 2025
Signed: Justice Claudia C. Belda