ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO. D43376/22
B E T W E E N:
A.B.
VALERIY KOZYREV, for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
- and -
K.S.
LAUREN ISRAEL, for the RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT
HEARD: NOVEMBER 17-18, 2025
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
REASONS FOR DECISION
Part One – Introduction
1This trial was about the respondent’s (the father’s) parenting time with the parties’ four-year-old son (the child) and his child support obligations for the child.
2The applicant (the mother) seeks an order that the father’s parenting time with the child be supervised for one hour on alternate Sundays from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. by a professional supervised parenting time agency (agency), at the father’s expense.
3The father seeks an order that he have unsupervised parenting time with the child for five hours each Saturday, with exchanges to take place at a police station. He asks that the parties conduct the exchanges. If supervised parenting time or supervised parenting exchanges are ordered, the father asks that the mother pay the agency’s costs.
4During closing submissions, the parties agreed on the child support the father should pay to the mother for 2023 and 2025. They disagreed on what support the father should pay to the mother for 2024. The father asked that no child support be payable. The mother asked that the father pay her the Child Support Guidelines (guidelines) table amount, based on an annual imputed income to him of $15,696.1
5The court heard evidence from the parties, the mother’s husband, the father’s psychiatrist and the father’s case manager (the case manager) from Across Boundaries.2
6The issues for this court to determine are:
a) What parenting time orders are in the child’s best interests?
b) Should the father’s parenting time with the child be supervised by an agency, as requested by the mother?
c) If the father’s parenting time is supervised, how should the agency’s costs be allocated?
d) What income, if any, should be imputed to the father in 2024 for support purposes?
e) How should any child support arrears created by this order be paid?
Part Two – Background facts
7The mother is 21 years old. The father is 25 years old.
8The parties cohabited from January 2021 until February 13, 2022.
9The parties have the one child together.
10The child has lived with the mother since the parties separated.
11The mother married her husband in July 2023, and they continue to live together. They have an eleven-month-old child.
12The mother stays at home with her two children. She hopes to go back to high school in January 2026. Her husband is a contractor and supports their family.
13The father has a very young child with his girlfriend (L).
14The father’s living circumstances are unclear. He testified that he lives with L, their child and L’s child from another relationship. He says they are engaged and plan to get married. He also said he often stays over at the home of various family members.
15The father has been in receipt of Ontario Disability Support payments (ODSP) in 2025. He has previously worked as a labourer. He has not earned over $21,000 in any year since 2020.
16The mother issued this application for parenting and child support orders on December 21, 2022.
17The father filed his answer/claim seeking parenting time orders on March 1, 2023.
18On April 11, 2023, Justice Melanie Sager, the case management judge, made a temporary order that the father have supervised parenting time with the child at Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO). She also ordered the father to pay temporary child support to the mother of $256 each month, starting on April 1, 2023, based on his imputed annual income of $30,000.
19The temporary child support order has not been changed. The father only made two support payments shortly after that order was made.
20On December 15, 2023, Justice Sager endorsed that APCO had put the father’s visits with the child on hold because the father had not attended visits and had not informed APCO why.
21On June 19, 2024, on consent, Justice Sager ordered an increase in the father’s parenting time with the child. She ordered that the first hour of the visits be supervised at APCO, followed by one-hour unsupervised parenting time in the community, increasing to two hours unsupervised parenting time in the community after four visits. She also ordered that:
a) The father shall continue to be compliant with his treatment plan as set out by his psychiatrist.
b) The father shall continue to be compliant with his psychiatrist’s treatment plan and take prescribed medication.
c) The father shall see his psychiatrist monthly.
d) The father shall maintain weekly contact with his case manager at Across Boundaries.
e) The father shall maintain weekly contact with his youth worker at Midaynta Community Services.
22On September 3, 2024, on consent, Justice Sager increased the unsupervised portion of the father’s parenting time to three hours.
23On September 17, 2024, APCO terminated its services due to the father’s inappropriate conduct at a visit. The father’s parenting time stopped.
24The father appealed APCO’s decision to terminate services. That appeal was unsuccessful.
25On December 10, 2024, on consent, Justice Sager ordered that the father’s parenting time take place each Saturday, for one hour at the Dawes Library Community Centre (Dawes), supervised by L. She ordered that the parenting exchanges be conducted by L and the mother’s husband at the front of the library.
26The parenting exchange on December 14, 2024, at Dawes went poorly. The mother’s husband, L and the father had a confrontation in the child’s presence. The visit did not take place.
27The parties attempted another parenting exchange at Dawes on January 25, 2025. Again, the mother’s husband, L and the father had a confrontation in the child’s presence. The visit did not take place. The father and the child have not had parenting time since then.
28The case did not return to court until June 9, 2025.3 Justice Sager endorsed that the court received no explanation why neither party asked to come before the court on an urgent basis, seeing that the father was not receiving his parenting time ordered by the court. Justice Sager gave the mother leave to bring a motion to change the temporary parenting time order. Filing timelines were set.4
29The mother did not bring a motion to change the temporary parenting time order. However, the father brought a motion for unsupervised parenting time. On July 22, 2025, Justice Sager heard the motion, provided short written reasons, and adjourned the motion on terms. She made a request to APCO to reconsider its decision to close the file. She ordered that temporary supervised parenting time take place weekly at APCO for two hours, subject to APCO’s availability and willingness to accept the family.
30APCO subsequently advised the parties it would not provide services because of the father’s previous conduct.
31On September 16, 2025, Justice Sager conducted a trial management conference and sent this case to trial.
Part Three – Legal considerations - parenting
3.1 Statutory considerations
32Subsection 24 (2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (the Act) provides that the court must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests.
33Subsection 24 (3) of the Act sets out a list of factors for the court to consider when determining a child’s best interests. This includes a consideration of the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity.
34Whether there has been family violence is an important best interests consideration. Family violence is defined in subsections 18 (1) and (2) of the Act. Factors related to family violence are outlined in subsection 24 (4) of the Act as follows:
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..
35Subsection 24 (6) of the Act states that in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
36Section 28 of the Act sets out the types of parenting orders the court can make.
37Subsection 33.1 (2) of the Act addresses the importance of the parties protecting children from conflict. It reads as follows:
- 1 Protection of children from conflict
(2) A party to a proceeding under this Part shall, to the best of the party’s ability, protect any child from conflict arising from the proceeding.
3.2 Best interests
38The list of best interests considerations in the Act 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.
39The 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.
40A custodial parent must not just accommodate access, they must facilitate it. See; Scrivo v. Scrivo, 2012 ONSC 2727, 2012 CarswellOnt 5545; Tran v. Chen, 2012 ONSC 3994, 2012 CarswellOnt 8551; D.E.S.A. v. N.B., 2025 ONCJ 279; Dessye v. Lopez, 2025 ONCJ 429.
41In considering a child’s best interests it will often be important to determine if a parent will follow the terms of a court order. See: Wiafe v. Afoakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201; Seyyad v. Pathan, 2022 ONCJ 501.
42A party's failure to protect a child from conflict may be an important consideration in granting primary residence or decision-making responsibility to the other parent. See: Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510; I.A. v. I.G., 2023 ONCJ 523.
43Impulse control and self-regulation are important parenting qualities. Children learn by observing their parents. If a parent is unregulated, there is a strong possibility that is what the child will learn. Also, the ability to listen and process information is an important parenting quality. See: D.E.S.A. v. N.B., 2025 ONCJ 279.
44In deciding on the appropriate decision-making responsibility regime, the court is required to consider all possible frameworks, and not simply those proposed by the parties. See: Chomos v. Hamilton, 2015 ONSC 5208 (S.C.J.); Koliniati v. Manolessos, 2025 ONSC 3274.
3.3 Mental health
45A parent’s physical or mental health may be very relevant to assessing his or her ability and willingness to care for and meet the needs of a child pursuant to clause 24 (3) (h) of the Act. See: W.A.C. v. C.V.F., 2022 ONSC 2539.
46Mental health issues do not preclude a parent from effectively parenting a child. In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866 this court wrote as follows:
113It does not automatically follow that a child will be in need of protection just because a parent has mental health challenges. Many parents with mental health issues parent their children well – others can’t. There is a wide range of mental illnesses that affect parents differently and, by extension, affect their children differently.
114The court needs to assess several factors to determine if a parent’s mental illness places a child at risk of harm and if so, whether a child can still be placed in the parent’s care. These factors include:
a) The type of mental illness the parent has.
b) The severity of the mental illness.
c) The frequency of the parent’s mental illness symptoms – whether they are situational or chronic.
d) The impact of the mental illness on the parent’s functioning.
e) The impact of the mental illness on the parent’s parenting.
f) Other risk factors impacting on the mental illness, including substance abuse, difficulties with interpersonal relationships, domestic violence and other stressors such as unstable housing and financial problems.
g) The impact of the mental illness on the children.
h) The insight of the parent into their mental illness.
i) The ability of the parent to meaningfully engage with supports to address the mental health issues.
j) Whether the parent is compliant with treatment recommendations.
k) The strength of the parent’s support system, the insight of those support persons into the parent’s mental health issues and the ability of those persons to prioritize a child’s needs to those of the parent’s and to protect the child.
l) Whether the children have any needs that make them more vulnerable to compromised parenting.
Also see: Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. N.D., 2021 ONCJ 369; Valoris v. J.W., C.R. Muskeg Lake Cree Nation, 2022 ONSC 2901; R.A.K. v. M.Z., 2023 ONCJ 476.
3.4 Family violence
47The Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22 recently made the following observations about family violence:
The recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis (par. 146).
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).
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).
48Justice 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.
49Violence 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.
3.5 Supervised parenting time
50A starting point to assess a child’s best interests when making a parenting time order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. It is also in a child's best interests when making a parenting time order that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe. See: I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615; J.N. v. A.S., 2020 ONSC 5292; A.L.M. v. V.L.S., 2020 ONCJ 502; M.R.-J. v. K.J., 2020 ONCJ 305; Abbas v. Downey, 2020 ONCJ 283; N.D. v. R.K., 2020 ONCJ 266.
51The best interests of the child have been found to be met by having a loving relationship with both parents and that such a relationship should be interfered with only in demonstrated circumstances of danger to the child’s physical or mental well-being. Moreover, the child has a right to have contact with both parents. The person seeking supervised access bears the burden of establishing that supervision is necessary. See: Klymenko v. Klymenko, 2020 ONSC 5451.
52The party who seeks to reduce normal access will usually be required to provide a justification for taking such a position. The greater the restriction sought, the more important it becomes to justify that restriction. See: M.A. v. J.D. 2003 CanLII 52807 (ON CJ), [2003] O.J. No. 2946 (OCJ); Dayboll v. Biyag, 2022 ONSC 6510.
53Supervised access is not intended to be a long-term arrangement for a child. It is beneficial for children who require gradual reintroduction to a parent, or whose safety requires it until such time as the parent is sufficiently rehabilitated and a child is no longer in danger of physical or emotional harm. See: I.O. v. I.G., 2023 ONCJ 520; Gomez v. Isaza, 2025 ONCJ 324. However, when the court does not expect the risks addressed by supervision to diminish, it is appropriate to order long-term supervision of access. See: Tuttle v. Tuttle, 2014 ONSC 5011; B.C. v. M.T., 2019 ONCJ 33; L.S. v. M.A.F., 2021 ONCJ 554; C.S. v. K.M., 2023 ONCJ 106.
Part Four – The mother’s evidence
4.1 The mother’s narrative
54The mother’s evidence can be summarized as follows:
a) She has been the child’s primary caregiver. The father had little involvement with the child when they lived together.
b) The father was violent, controlling and abusive to her. He repeatedly threatened and assaulted her, destroyed her belongings and controlled her movements. She left the relationship for the safety of her and the child.
c) The father has severe mental health issues. He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. She believes this is exacerbated by his marijuana use.
d) There were positive aspects of the father’s visits at APCO. However, she also had concerns, including the father being disengaged at some visits, being distracted by his phone, not following APCO rules and speaking negatively about her to the child. She said he also missed six visits.
e) The father was prohibited from visiting any of APCO’s supervised parenting centres or contacting APCO staff directly due to his inappropriate behaviour towards the staff.
f) The Dawes library security staff banned the father from attending the library due to his aggressive behaviour.
g) The child was traumatized by the parenting exchange incidents at Dawes. She testified the child is fearful of the father.
h) She seeks an order that the father’s parenting time with the child be supervised by an agency due to the father’s aggressive behaviour, mental health issues and substance abuse. She is very concerned about the child’s emotional and physical safety with the father.
55The mother’s husband testified about the two attempted parenting exchanges at Dawes. He deposed that:
a) The child refused to go with L on both parenting exchanges.
b) On the first visit, the child cried and tried to run back to the car. He tried to convince the child to go with L, but the child wouldn’t stop crying.
c) L tried to physically grab the child, and he did not permit this. The father came out from the library aggressively, confronted him and physically held on to the child. The child refused to go with the father. The mother’s husband put the child back in the car. The child was distressed and crying as the father constantly yelled profanities.
d) At the second visit, the father suddenly ran out of the library, began shouting at him and aggressively tried to take the child from his care. The child became upset. The father and he struggled over the child in front of several people. A bystander tried to calm the father down, but he started yelling at her. The mother’s husband was able to get the child in the car and leave. The child was extremely distressed.
4.2 Assessment of the mother’s and her husband’s evidence
56The court treated the mother’s evidence with caution for the following reasons:
a) She candidly admitted that she preferred the father have no relationship with the child.
b) She saw little value in the child having a relationship with the father.
c) She has done very little to facilitate the father’s relationship with the child.
d) She has created barriers for the father having successful parenting time. She was often late for APCO visits, cutting into the father’s parenting time. APCO sent her a warning letter about this. She did not agree to any parenting time increases until motions were ready to be heard. After the two aborted parenting exchanges at Dawes, she did not bring the child again for parenting time, despite a court order being in place. She did not bring a motion to change that order.
e) She said nothing positive about the father, despite the positive APCO notes. She inordinately focused on the relatively few critical comments in the APCO notes. She only reluctantly acknowledged the positive notes when presented to her. When asked why she said nothing positive about the father in her affidavits, she said she didn’t want to say anything that might result in the father having unsupervised parenting time.
f) She exaggerated her evidence. She claimed the child was traumatized by the aborted Dawes exchanges. On cross-examination, she conceded he was just quiet when he came home. She has not taken the child for counseling and said he is a happy child, developing normally. She also claimed the father was disengaged with the child at visits. That was unfair.
g) She deposed she has followed every court order and that she has provided the father with every opportunity to exercise parenting time. She conceded in cross-examination this was not true.
57The court also treated the mother’s husband’s evidence with caution. He was aligned with the mother and in his trial affidavit failed to discuss his own poor conduct at the aborted Dawes parenting exchanges. He unnecessarily brought friends to the exchanges, videotaped the exchanges and yelled back at the father in front of the child. Neither he nor the mother notified L they would no longer attend at Dawes. The father attended, hoping the child would come.
Part Five – The independent evidence
5.1 APCO
58The APCO observation notes were filed at trial together with a letter from APCO explaining why it terminated service for the family. No one seriously challenged the credibility or reliability of these records.
59The APCO observation notes set out minor concerns about the father’s visits with the child. However, they were generally positive. The father and the child enjoyed the visits. They were affectionate with each other. They played well together. They had a bond. The supervised exchanges also proceeded smoothly until the last incident at APCO; the child was happy to leave with the father and happy when he returned at the end of the visit.
60APCO sent a letter to the parties terminating its services. The letter sets out the following reasons for doing this:
a) The father spoke to staff in a raised voice and could not be redirected by them.
b) When told that he was responsible for the child until the end of his visit, the father responded repeatedly, “I don’t care about any of that. You want to call the cops, go on and call the cops! See if I care, call the cops”. He said this with his hands balled into fists.
c) He continued to say this to the site supervisor, again with his hands balled into fists.
d) The regional manager tried to calm him down because there were other families and children present. He continued to speak in a raised voice.
e) The father was in violation of APCO’s policies, and his behaviour showed he was unwilling to follow directives.
61This letter informed the father that effective immediately, his parenting time with APCO was terminated and the file was closed with no chance of reinstatement. It said:
From this day forward, you are prohibited from visiting any of APCO’s supervised parenting centres or contacting APCO staff directly. Doing so will result in police intervention. Any future communication with APCO must come directly from your counsel.
5.2 The case manager
62The case manager testified by zoom. She said she has been working with the father since June 2022. She has assisted him in being seen by a psychiatrist, helps him with life skills, budgeting, his relationships and does informal counseling with him. She said the father uses the agency’s food bank. She coordinates the father’s medications with his pharmacy.
63The case manager said the father is motivated to work on his mental health and has a strong desire to continue working with her. She finds him cooperative and has had no issues with his conduct. She feels that she has open communication with the father and that he has had considerable growth in the past three years.
64The case manager testified the father was on a waiting list to see a registered therapist. She hoped this would start in December 2025.
5.3 The father’s psychiatrist
65The father’s psychiatrist testified by zoom. He has been treating the father since 2022.
66The psychiatrist testified that the father has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. He said this can be manifested in paranoid delusions. He said it is treated with medication.
67The psychiatrist said the father is presently on two medications. He believes the father is compliant with taking them. He said he adjusts the father’s medications when he is struggling with his mental health.
68The psychiatrist said the father first saw him in August 2022 but did not return to see him until November 2022. He next saw the father in February 2023, and then regularly saw him once every month, or every other month, in 2023. He said the father’s condition was stable until he presented as paranoid in May 2024. In July 2024, the father presented better. However, in October 2024, the father was again presenting to him as paranoid. In January 2025, the father presented as more stable.
69The psychiatrist said he has seen the father in April, May and August 2025, and he has presented well.
70The psychiatrist said that when the father exhibits paranoid behaviour it could be due to a combination of factors, including stress and the need to adjust his medication. He said that marijuana use can exacerbate symptoms of schizophrenia, and he recommends patients not use it. He said he made this recommendation to the father.
71The psychiatrist testified that when paranoid the father would claim he was scared of people, scared for his own life and worried for the lives of people staying with him.
Part Six – The father’s evidence
6.1 The father’s narrative
72The father’s evidence can be summarized as follows:
a) He was an involved and loving father before the parties separated.
b) The mother has prevented him from having a relationship with the child.
c) The mother does not want him to have a relationship with the child.
d) The mother wants her husband to be the child’s father – not him.
e) The mother has breached several court orders and denied him court-ordered parenting time.
f) The mother and her family have “attempted to trigger him to make him look like the bad guy”.
g) His parenting time with the child went well. He and the child have a bond.
h) He is a better parent than the mother.
i) He is on ODSP for his mental health disability. His mental health is stable. He is getting treatment, and he takes prescribed medication. He sees the case manager weekly.
j) His marijuana use is not a problem. He uses it to calm his nerves. He said he uses it far less now – just once last week.
k) He sometimes gets loud but has learned many techniques to control this, including walking away and leaving “bad energy”.
l) He did not deny that he was “loud” at APCO when his visits were terminated in September 2024. L was about to give birth, and he wanted to leave the visit to go to the hospital. He became frustrated when APCO said he had to wait for the mother to pick up the child at the end of the scheduled visit. He acknowledged he should have controlled his temper better.
m) He did not deny that he became loud, angry and yelled profanities at the two Dawes parenting exchanges. He felt he had good reasons to act this way. He felt he was triggered by the mother and her husband. He was upset because the mother’s husband refused to hand over the child, was videotaping the exchange and was treating L improperly. The father deposed that he was not proud of his actions.
n) He loves the child and would never harm him. There is no reason why the visits need to be supervised. He feels he should have overnight visits.
o) He wants no contact with the mother’s husband. He wants to conduct parenting exchanges directly with the mother.
p) He believes that the mother and her family are targeting him and that he, L and his family are in danger from them.
q) He has made mistakes. However, he does not feel that supervised parenting time is an appropriate consequence for those mistakes.
r) He cannot afford to pay for an agency to supervise his parenting time.
73The father has a criminal record, although the court might not have the full extent of that record. In his Form 35.1 parenting affidavit, sworn on February 2, 2023, the father deposed he was convicted of Weapons Dangerous and Dangerous Driving on September 22, 2021, and that he was facing two charges of Obstruct Justice. In his Form 35.1, sworn on May 29, 2025, the father did not list the two 2021 convictions. He deposed that he was convicted of Dangerous Weapon, in 2019, and received a custodial sentence of 3.5 years and that he is facing charges of Mischief and Obstruct Justice.
6.2 The father’s strengths
74The court will enumerate many concerns it has with the father below. However, before it does so, it is important to set out its findings about his parenting strengths, being as follows:
a) He loves the child and wants to have a positive relationship with him. He described how he grew up without his parents and he does not want that to happen to the child.
b) He has shown commitment to the child by regularly attending the visits at APCO and pursuing orders for parenting in court.5 He has demonstrated this commitment in the face of the mother’s resistance to him forming a relationship with the child.
c) The father has shown commitment to improve his mental health and be a better functioning person. He has regularly seen the case manager. He is seeing a psychiatrist. He is on the waitlist for more intensive counseling. The psychiatrist believed the father is complying with taking his medication.
d) The APCO observation notes of the father’s visits with the child were mostly positive. The father was affectionate with the child and the child was affectionate with the father. The father engaged in activities with the child. He acted appropriately with the child. The child enjoyed the visits. The father and the child had a bond.
e) No concerns were noted in the APCO observation notes when the supervised exchanges took place until the final visit.
f) At times during his testimony, the father was polite, composed and focused on the child’s best interests. He talked about wanting to be a good father for the child and how important it was for the adults to work together in a respectful manner for the child. This is the version of the father that the case manager and the psychiatrist described.
75The father testified “I know I am not likeable”. The court wants to emphasize it does not make that finding. There are many things to admire about the father, as he struggles with his mental health issues.
6.3 Concerns about the father
76In making its observations below, the court recognizes that court is very stressful for anyone, and especially for someone with the father’s mental health challenges. This stress might have exacerbated his mental health symptoms.
77The father provided no evidence about parenting his child with L. He provided very little evidence about his life with L. She did not testify at trial, nor did any of the father’s family members who he claimed he often helps out. He proposed none of these people as potential parenting time supervisors.
78The father was not a reliable witness. He exhibited a poor memory and perceived events through his own narrative of being the victim in this case. This skewed his perception of events. When asked questions he perceived to be challenging, the father would just say, “I can’t recall”. The court treated his evidence with considerable caution.
79The father’s presentation at trial was the best corroboration of the mother’s evidence.
80The court made the following observations about the father during his testimony:
a) He often became emotionally unregulated. He would get loud and angry and start gesticulating. This frequently happened when he felt challenged or disrespected.6
b) He often became tangential and was unable to focus on or understand questions asked of him.
c) At points during his testimony, he rambled and made little sense.
d) He demonstrated some of the symptoms of paranoia described by his psychiatrist. He claims that he and his family are in danger. It is an organized group doing this. He believes it is the mother’s family doing this. They are trying to kill him and he almost lost his life. He testified, “I am a target – it has been done before – that is why people stay away from me – they don’t want a federal case. They have studied me, they watch me. They know where I go.” He said this is why he stays home.
He testified, “at APCO, it is rigged, now I have people watching me and my family”.
The father provided some evidence of these concerns in his trial affidavit. His allegations rapidly escalated when questioned at trial.
At another point, the father testified that he could not recall how long he was together with the mother after the child was born. He said, “I was on drugs. She and her sister gave me drugs. It was all over the news. She was all over the news. I had no information until my mother disclosed it”.
e) When angry, he became verbally aggressive with the mother. He had to be redirected not to speak directly to her. At one point, when discussing who should conduct the exchanges he yelled at her, “Be a woman enough to bring the child! You created this situation, now deal with it!” He yelled this, poking hard at her with his finger.
f) He was often argumentative, defensive and hostile, even when asked simple questions.
g) His presentation during much of his evidence would be frightening to the child. It was likely frightening to the mother.
h) He only paid lip service to accepting responsibility for his behaviour. He described his conduct, when he was suspended from APCO, as being a little bit loud. He claimed APCO staff was racist and deliberately provoked him. He blamed the mother and her family for always provoking and triggering him. He blamed the mother’s husband for triggering him at the aborted Dawes exchanges.
i) He was quick to disavow simple statements he made in his affidavit, blaming his lawyer or miscommunication.
j) He was obstructive when asked basic questions. He answered, “I can’t recall” to questions such as:
i) How long have you known L?
ii) When was your child with L born?
iii) What year was your child with L born?
iv) How long were you together with the mother after the child was born?
v) Why are you receiving ODSP?
81The father has chosen not to make any child support payments since mid-2023, despite having some ability to do so. Paying child support is part of the responsibility that comes with being a parent. See: See: Jama v. Mohamed, 2015 ONCJ 619; L.B. v. P.E., 2021 ONCJ 114; McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610.
Part Seven – Discussion regarding supervised parenting time
82The evidence does not support the court making an order for unsupervised parenting time. The primary best interests factor in this case is that the child feel psychologically and emotionally safe and secure when exercising his parenting time with the father. At this point, the evidence shows that the father’s conduct is too volatile and unpredictable for the child to be emotionally or psychologically safe and secure with him without professional supervision.
83The father’s volatility, likely due to his mental health challenges, has been long-standing and remains a significant concern. It appears unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
84The father’s presentation and aggression towards the mother at trial left the court with little doubt that she has been the victim of family violence by him. The mother was very young and vulnerable when she had the child with the father – 17 years old. The family violence explains, in large part, her reluctance to support the father’s relationship with the child. She wants to escape from her past with him. She is afraid of him, with reason. He is enraged with her. He feels she has unjustifiably prevented him from having a relationship with the child. He feels she is behind a plan to stalk, intimidate and harm him and anyone associated with him. This perspective, together with his charged emotions and mental health issues, is a toxic combination. It poses very real risks to the mother.
85The mother is protective of the child and justifiably fears the child will be emotionally harmed, and perhaps even physically harmed, by the father.
86The court finds the father’s family violence has taken place in front of the child. The father was unable to regulate himself at APCO and at the aborted Dawes exchanges in front of the child. He gave the court no basis to believe that he can consistently control himself in front of the child now. The court finds that the father is unable to meet the child’s emotional need to feel safe and secure with him.
87It is rare for APCO to permanently suspend a parent from a program and deny appeals for reinstatement, even after being requested to do so by the court. This informs the court that the father’s outburst at APCO in September 2024 was severe and APCO did not feel it could safely protect their staff and the other families in the program from him.
88The court finds that the father was out of control and abusive during the two aborted Dawes exchanges in front of the child. He acknowledged yelling and using profanity in front of the child. He should not have been involved in the exchanges. He could not regulate his emotions despite being in a position where his options for supervision were narrowing because of his banishment from APCO.
89What was informative for the court was the father’s statement at trial that, “there is no telling what I will do, if he (the mother’s husband) acts this way again”.
90The father has a criminal record. He served significant jail time for a weapons offence. He has faced more recent criminal charges. He has exhibited anti-social behaviour when upset.
91The father was not consistently under control at trial. This was set out in detail in section 6.3 above. Stress was likely a factor. However, he will continue to encounter stressful situations, whether in conducting parenting exchanges or parenting the child.
92The court finds that the father minimized his marijuana use at trial. He explained how using marijuana relaxes him and smooths him out. His psychiatrist has recommended he not use it, as it can exacerbate his schizophrenia. The court is not confident that the father is reducing his marijuana usage. This increases the risk to the child.
93The father submits he should have unsupervised parenting time because his supervised parenting time and parenting exchanges at APCO went well. He omits from this submission that the parenting exchanges only went well until he had his outburst in front of the child and APCO terminated his visits. Based on his history, it is possible that the father could have several successful unsupervised parenting time visits with the child, without incident. However, the court’s concern is when he inevitably becomes stressed, triggered and unregulated. That is when the visits become unsafe for the child.
94The court is required to focus on the child’s best interests, not the parents’ best interests. Here, the child has not seen the father for almost 10 months – almost a quarter of his life. In the prior two months, he was exposed to two frightening adult confrontations. He was previously exposed to the father’s outburst during his last visit at APCO. It is likely that the child has heard the mother and her husband discuss their fears about the father exercising unsupervised parenting time. The child likely views the father as unsafe at this point. This might explain why he was distressed at the aborted Dawes parenting exchanges.7
95The child had several successful visits with the father when they were highly structured and supervised. He needs to be in a structured setting with the father to reestablish their relationship and to feel safe with him again. This is the father’s best opportunity to build a long-term relationship with the child.
96It is in the child’s best interests to provide him with the stability that supervised parenting time will provide. Ordering unsupervised time risks compromising his emotional and physical security and might adversely affect his development and emotional welfare.
97The court is highly attuned to the parties’ financial limitations. The mother does not work and is supported by her husband. The father is on ODSP. The least expensive, publicly subsidized supervised access program is APCO. However, APCO is no longer an option due to the father’s conduct. Private agencies are expensive. The parties agreed that Braydon Supervision Services charges a one-time intake fee of $550 and charges $55 each hour for a visit with a 3-hour minimum.
98The court will order that one visit take place each month on a Sunday, fully supervised by a professional supervised parenting time agency chosen by the father. It can be one of Brayden Supervision Services, Renew Supervision Services or Side-By-Side Supervision Services. The court is ordering this level of frequency for visits due to the parties’ financial constraints. It is also considering that the parenting exchanges have been fraught with tension for the child. The order will set out a mechanism for determining which week in each month the visit will take place.
99The court will order that the visits take place for two hours. The one hour suggested by the mother is too short – particularly if the visits only take place once each month.
100The court has no concerns with the father taking the child to his home or out into the community, so long as he is fully supervised by the agency. This would give the child the opportunity to spend time with his paternal family and L and her children.
101The court gave considerable thought to how the agency’s costs will be allocated between the parties. It considered the following factors:
a) The parties’ respective financial circumstances.
b) The father deposed he is not paying rent.8
c) The father claims to be close to family members and with L. If the father exercises parenting time, they will have the opportunity to have a relationship with the child. They have provided financial assistance to the father in the past and can likely help him with some of the agency’s costs.
c) The failure of the father to pay any child support to the mother since the middle of 2023.
d) The additional costs of the agency are required because of the father’s conduct.
e) The mother’s failure to support the father’s relationship with the child and her breach of court orders.
f) Not creating barriers for parenting time taking place.
102The court will order the father to pay 75% of the agency’s costs and the mother to pay 25% of the costs. Those fees must be paid promptly when requested by the agency.
103The court will also relieve some of the financial pressure on the father by how it addresses his payment of support arrears, as will be set out below.
104The court will set out in its order terms and conditions regarding contact and communication between the parties to protect the mother and the child. Those orders will be made pursuant to section 28 of the Act. The order will set out that there is to be no direct communication between the parties. All communication shall go through the agency or their counsel, if still retained.
Part Eight – Child support
8.1 2023 and 2025
105The parties reached an agreement in closing submissions regarding the father’s child support obligations for 2023 and 2025.
106The parties agreed the father’s annual income for 2023 and 2025 should be imputed at $15,696. This is the father’s present annual income from ODSP.
107The guidelines table amount for one child up until September 30, 2025, was $92 each month. The guidelines table amounts changed on September 10, 2025. Starting on October 1, 2025, the father’s annual income no longer generates a child support payment under the tables.
8.2 2024
108The father’s 2024 income tax return shows income of $1,932 – well below the amount required to generate a monthly guidelines table payment. The father said he did not work much in 2024 and was only approved for ODSP towards the end of the year.
109The mother asks to impute the father’s 2024 income at $15,696.
110The court declines to impute income to the father for 2024. He had a legitimate medical excuse for not working – his mental health. The psychiatrist testified that the father would not have been employable when exhibiting paranoia. He found he was exhibiting these symptoms in May 2024 and in October 2024. The psychiatrist testified that he completed the medical portion of the father’s ODSP application, attesting that he could not work.
111The court has provided its observations of the father at trial. The court finds it is highly unlikely that an employer will hire the father. And, even if he was hired, it is highly unlikely he could sustain that employment for very long due to his mental health issues.
112The father will not be required to pay child support for 2024.
8.3 Calculation of support arrears
113The father’s total child support obligation since January 1, 2023, totals $1,516, calculated as follows:
2023
Accumulated - $96 each month
$1,152
Less paid - $250 x 2 months
$500
Balance owing in 2023
$652
2025
$96 accumulated each month for 9 months
$864
Total arrears:
$1,516
8.4 Payment of arrears
114The court will give the father time pay the arrears. It wants to assist him with his ability to pay the agency’s fees.
115The court will order that the father pay 10% of his ODSP payments each month towards the arrears. This comes to $139 each month.
Part Nine – Conclusion
116A final order shall go on the following terms:
a) The father shall have supervised parenting time with the child on the following terms and conditions:
i) The father shall choose one of three agencies, being Braydon Supervision Services, Renew Supervision Services and Side-By-Side Supervision Services to conduct the supervised parenting visits.
ii) All communication regarding the supervised parenting visits shall be between the selected agency and the parties (or their counsel, if still retained). The parties are not to contact each other directly.
iii) The father shall have one supervised visit with the child each month on a Sunday for two hours, the hours to be coordinated between the parties and the agency. In the event of dispute, the agency will choose the hours.
iv) The father shall notify the agency by the 15^th^ day of the prior month which weekend he will exercise parenting time in the following month.9 If the father fails to do this, then the visit in the following month shall not take place.
Once the father selects the date, the agency shall notify the mother of the date selected.
If the child has a special event, or the mother plans to be away on vacation on the date selected by the father, the mother shall notify the agency of this within 7 days. The father will then have parenting time on either the preceding or the following Sunday, as selected by the mother.
The father shall not select a Sunday on a long holiday weekend or on a weekend during the two-week winter holiday school break or the school March break.
v) The parties shall fully comply with the intake procedures of the agency in a timely manner.
vi) The parties shall follow the rules and guidelines of the agency.
vii) The father shall pay 75% of the fees charged by the agency and the mother shall pay 25% of the fees charged by the agency. The fees shall be paid promptly upon receiving notice of payment by the agency.
viii) The father’s parenting time may take place in the community or at the father’s home, subject to the discretion of the agency to require the visits to take place elsewhere. The court is not limiting who may be present at the visits.
ix) The agency shall be provided with a copy of these reasons for decision.
x) The father shall not discuss this court case or the mother with the child.
xi) The agency has the authority to terminate any visit if the father acts inappropriately or breaches any of its rules or guidelines.
b) The father owes the mother child support arrears of $1,516, as calculated in this decision.
c) The father shall pay the support arrears at the rate of $139 each month, starting on January 1, 2026.
d) The father shall not be required to pay ongoing child support at this time, based on his present annual income of $15,696.
e) A support deduction order shall issue.
f) The father shall provide the mother with complete copies of his income tax returns and notices of assessment by June 30^th^ each year.
g) The Director or administrator of Ontario Works, the Ontario Disability Support Program or any income support program shall deduct from any income support paid or payable to the respondent father, the maximum prescribed amount, currently 10%, on account of the respondent father’s child support obligation for the child, to be paid to the Director, Family Responsibility Office for the benefit of the applicant / support recipient.
h) Nothing in this order precludes the Director, Family Responsibility Office from collecting the support arrears from any government source (such as income tax returns, GST/HST returns), inheritances, or lottery or prize winnings.
117If either party seeks costs, they are to serve and file written costs submissions by December 8, 2025. The other party shall have until December 22, 2025 to serve and file their written response (not to make their own costs submissions). The submissions shall not exceed three pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs.
118The court thanks counsel for their highly professional presentation of this case.
Released: November 24, 2025
Justice Stanley B. Sherr
Footnotes
- In her draft order for trial, the mother asked to start child support on March 1, 2022, and to base it on an imputed annual minimum wage income to the father. The father asked that no child support be paid. Both parties modified their positions in closing submissions.
- Access Boundaries was described as an ethno-racial mental health centre that provides a range of support and services to racialized people in the Greater Toronto Area who are experiencing severe mental health and/or addiction challenges.
- The parties twice adjourned the matter on consent.
- Justice Sager also ordered costs of $150 against the mother for not filing a case conference brief. The mother has not paid those costs.
- The father missed six visits at APCO. However, most of those missed visits were in 2023. His attendance record in 2024 was good.
- The mother’s counsel questioned the father in a quiet and very respectful manner. The court is very appreciative of the approach he took.
- There was little evidence of the child’s views and wishes. He enjoyed the supervised visits with the father. However, he was distressed during the aborted Dawes parenting exchanges. Given his young age, his views and wishes are a minor factor in this analysis.
- In his October 27, 2025 financial statement he deposed he was paying rent of $1,950 each month.
- This means that the first visit will take place in January 2026, provided that the father informs the agency about what date he selects by December 15, 2025.