ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
Diana Lee Nauffts
Applicant
— AND —
Stefan John Vonherrath
Respondent (moving party on Summary Judgment Motion)
— AND —
Aimy Nauffts
Respondent
Before Justice Joanne Beasley
Heard on November 27, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on December 23, 2025
Nigel Smith counsel for the applicant
Timothy J. Bucci counsel for the respondent
Respondent Aimy Nauffts noted in default on February 19, 2025
1Mr. Vonherrath is the father of the two children, Brooklyn Skye Vonherrath, born […], 2013 and Alivia Grace Vonherrath, born […], 2014. He has brought a Summary Judgment Motion in this proceeding seeking an order that the Application be dismissed. This is a grandmother contact case.
2Ms. Diana Nauffts is the maternal grandmother of the two children.. The children have resided with their father, Mr. Vonherrath since 2021. Ms. Nauffts brought an Application for decision-making, access to information, communication, contact and to be able to attend the children’s events. All claims other than contact have been withdrawn.
3The parents separated in 2017. The children were in the primary care of their mother after separation. In 2021, Ms. Aimy Nauffts experienced mental health and drug addiction issues. She has not been in the children’s lives for several years.
4On December 5, 2022, Mr. Vonherrath was granted sole decision-making for Brooklyn and Alivia. The children’s mother, Ms. Aimy Nauffts was granted supervised parenting time. Her whereabouts are unknown and no parenting time is being exercised. She is obligated to pay child support for the two children based upon an imputed income of $13,000 (ODSP benefits) at the CSG monthly amount of $95 commencing January 1, 2022. Support is not being paid.
5Both parties filed affidavit material.
Father’s Position
6Mr. Vonherrath seeks the dismissal of Ms. Diana Nauffts’ Application on a summary judgment motion and that Ms. Diana Nauffts must have leave of the Court prior to filing any further Application and/or Motion to Change.
7Mr. Vonherrath, opposes any contact between the children and their maternal grandmother, Ms. Diana Nauffts. He relies on the children’s expressed wishes, the Voice of the Child Report, and safety concerns arising from the January 8, 2024 incident.
8He asserts that Ms. Nauffts attended at a school unannounced, attempted to locate the children by questioning other students, and later followed him to his parents’ home, where she blocked his vehicle, banged on doors, and attempted entry, requiring police intervention. The school that Ms. Nauffts attended was not the children’s current school. Mr. Vonherrath states that these actions caused significant emotional distress to the children, particularly Alivia, who displayed trauma responses such as locking doors and sleeping near the front door for safety. He argues that the children have regained stability and emotional well-being since contact ceased and that reintroducing contact would undermine their sense of security.
9Mr. Vonherrath expresses concerns about Ms. Diana Nauffts’ conduct. Ms. Nauffts sent hostile and threatening texts, including statements about suing Mr. Vonherrath and telling the children “the truth” about court matters. He cites her history of involving the children in adult conflict and threatening to manipulate them with her version of events. Mr. Vonherrath cites a significant child protection history involving Ms. Diana Nauffts and her own children and notes that her judgment and inability to prioritize the children’s best interests are concerning.
10The children are thriving academically and emotionally in Mr. Vonherrath’s care, with no exposure to violence, substance abuse, or adult conflict. He argues that reintroducing contact would undermine their sense of safety and stability.
11Mr. Vonherrath seeks an order dismissing Ms. Nauffts’ application and barring further motions without leave of the court. He argues that contact is contrary to the
children’s expressed wishes, their emotional well-being, and their best interests, given the grandmother’s past conduct and the trauma caused by her actions.
Grandmother’s Position
12Ms. Diana Nauffts states she was deeply involved in the children’s lives from birth, providing extensive care and financial support. She has not seen them since November 2023. She regularly visited, cared for the children for extended periods, and contributed to major expenses such as cribs, diapers, clothing, counselling, dental and eye care, and music lessons. After Mr. Vonherrath obtained sole decision-making in 2022, she continued to have regular contact with the children and maintained a positive relationship with both Mr. Vonherrath and his partner, Angie, until late 2023. It is her position that in November 2023, Mr. Vonherrath abruptly stopped all contact without explanation.
13She denies allegations in the Voice of the Child Report that she “almost kidnapped” Alivia or made negative comments about Mr. Vonherrath. She believes Mr. Vonherrath influenced these statements.
14She relies on the Voice of the Child Report that Alivia loves her and would agree to contact under strict conditions, such as respecting decisions already made, avoiding pressure, gifts, negative comments, or discussion of court matters, and having visits near home with her father nearby.
15She acknowledges Brooklyn currently does not want contact but hopes to rebuild trust gradually.
16Ms. Nauffts emphasizes her long-standing role and love for the children and expresses willingness to comply with conditions for contact, including supervised visits if necessary.
17She argues that the Respondent’s motion to dismiss her Application is inappropriate because there is a genuine issue for trial, given the relationship history and Alivia’s stated openness to contact.
18She opposes any order requiring leave for future proceedings, asserting she is not a vexatious litigant.
19She seeks dismissal of the Respondent’s motion and an order for costs.
20Ms. Diana Nauffts maintains that her involvement was beneficial and in the children’s best interests. She denies wrongdoing, attributes negative allegations to Mr. Vonherrath’s influence, and seeks a gradual, structured reintroduction of contact, starting with supervised visits if necessary.
Issues
21The issues before the Court are:
(1) Should this matter be resolved on a summary judgment motion?
(2) What legal test should be applied to grandparent contact with a child?
(3) What contact should Brooklyn have with Ms. Diana Nauffts?
(4) What contact should Alivia have with Ms. Diana Nauffts?
(5) Should there be an order be made requiring Ms. Diana Nauffts to seek leave of the Court prior to a future court action?
22Before addressing the issues, I will discuss the January 8, 2024 incident and the Voice of the Child Report.
January 8, 2024 Incident
23On January 8, 2024, Ms. Diana Nauffts attended a Brantford school unannounced, entered the playground, and asked children where Brooklyn and Alivia were. The school principal escorted her off the property and warned the children’s actual school. Ms. Diana Nauffts had not seen the children since November 2023.
24Later that day, Ms. Nauffts followed Mr. Vonherrath to his parents’ home, blocked his car in, screamed Alivia’s name, and attempted to enter the home through the backyard. The children were in the house. The Police were called; officers advised adding Ms. Nauffts to the school’s unauthorized pick-up list and reported the incident to child protection authorities.
25Ms. Diana Nauffts acknowledges that on January 8, 2024, she attempted to see the children at school and later at Mr. Vonherrath’s home. She admits this was a mistake but denies allegations that she acted aggressively or tried to intimidate the children. She asserts that Mr. Vonherrath fabricated these claims to alienate the children from her.
26Mr. Vonherrath asserts that after the incident, Alivia displayed trauma responses: locking doors, closing blinds, and asking to sleep near the front door for safety. This lasted nearly a month.
27Mr. Vonherrath asserts that the children have regained emotional stability since contact ceased and now live in a safe, conflict-free environment.
Voice of the Child Report – May 14, 2025
28The family has benefited from a Voice of the Child Report. A Voice of the Child Report is a summary of the child's impressions from their frame of reference.
29The OCL Voice of the Child Report dated May 14, 2025 indicates that both children expressed strong and independent views. Brooklyn was clear that she does not wish to have contact with her maternal grandmother. Alivia expressed hesitancy and stated it would take a long time to feel comfortable around her grandmother again, even if contact were considered.
30Alivia presented as a thoughtful, expressive, and insightful child. She was friendly and engaged throughout the meetings, providing information in a free narrative manner.
31Brooklyn presented as an articulate, self-assured, and emotionally aware child. While she presented as more reserved than Alivia, she also freely shared information without hesitation.
Should this matter be resolved on a summary judgment motion?
32I have determined that this matter can be resolved by Summary Judgment Motion.
33Summary judgment motions are governed by Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules. The moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial (Rule 16(4)). The responding party must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial (Rule 16(4.1)), but this does not shift the ultimate burden of proof. Even if the respondent’s evidence is weak, the court must still be satisfied that the moving party has met its burden.
34The Supreme Court in Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014 SCC 7] established that summary judgment is appropriate only where the process:
(1) Allows the judge to make necessary findings of fact,
(2) Enables application of the law to those facts, and
(3) Is a proportionate, fair, and just alternative to trial.
35Rule 16(6) provides that if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or defence, the court shall make a final order accordingly.
36Rule 16(6.1) provides that in determining if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties, and the court may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be only exercised at trial:
Weighing the evidence.
Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.
Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.
37In Hryniak the Supreme Court of Canada set out a two-step process for determining whether summary judgment should be granted. Hryniak sets out that the judge must first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based on the evidence without using the additional fact-finding powers set out in r. 16(6.1). If, after this initial determination, there still appears to be a genuine issue for trial, the judge may resort to the additional fact-finding powers to decide if a trial is required.
38There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact,
(2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result (see: Hryniak, at para. 49). As the Supreme Court stated, at para. 50 of Hryniak, “the standard for fairness is not whether the procedure is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives the judge confidence that she can find the necessary facts and apply the relevant legal principles so as to resolve the dispute”.
39Ms. Diana Nauffts resists the summary judgment motion. She asserts that she has not had an opportunity to cross-examine the OCL VOC clinician. I note that there has been no request for cross-examination. The Voice of the Child Report process is typically two interviews of a child, with the clinician reporting on the child’s views and preferences that the child is comfortable in providing in the Report. The child has the option to vet their statements and confirm what can be shared with the adults in the litigation. I am not satisfied that a trial is needed for the cross-examination of the OCL clinician.
What legal test should be applied to grandparent contact with a child?
40The test for contact between a non-parent and a child is whether such contact is in the child’s best interests. The onus is on a grandparent to show that contact is in the children’s best interest. See Chapman v. Chapman, 2001 CanLII 24015 (ONCA).
41The best interests factors are set out in the Children’s Law Reform Act, s, 24(2). The child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being must be the court’s top priority. The court considers various factors, including: the child’s needs based on age and development (e.g., need for stability); relationships with parents, siblings, grandparents, and others; parental support for the child’s relationship with the maternal grandmother (in this case); history of care provided to the child; Child’s views and preferences, considering age and maturity; cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing, including Indigenous heritage; care plans for the child; the ability and willingness of each person to care for the child and cooperate and family violence and its impact.
42The Court must weigh a parent’s right to make decisions for their child, the parental autonomy approach, and a pro-contact approach. In Giansante v Di Chiara 2005 CanLII 26446 (ON SC), [2005] OJ No 3184 (QL), Nelson J said:
15Over the years judges have had to grapple with two competing views of best interests of the child vis-à-vis grandparent access. Is it in a
child’s best interests to ensure contact with grandparents, or is it in a child’s best interests to respect parental decisions? In her article To Grandmother’s House We Go? An Examination of Grandparent Access,[3] Professor Shaffer refers to these competing approaches as the pro-contact approach and the parental autonomy approach. She describes them as follows:
The dominant approach embraces as its background norm the assumption that contact with grandparents is generally in the child's best interests. Under this “pro-contact” approach, courts start from the premise that contact should occur unless the parents have compelling reasons to displace this assumption. While the courts adhere to this approach in the vast majority of cases, in a minority of cases courts adopt a “parental autonomy” approach that takes as its background norm the notion that it is generally in the child's best interests to respect parental decision making [emphasis added].
16In Ontario it appears that this issue has been resolved in favour of the parental autonomy approach by the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Chapman v. Chapman. The proper way to approach the best interests of the child in the context of grandparent access applications is to defer to parental autonomy:
22[The parents] Larry and Monica Chapman, not [the grandmother] Esther Chapman, are responsible for the welfare of the children. They alone have this legal duty. Esther Chapman, as a grandparent, loves her grandchildren and, understandably, wants to maintain contact with them. Nonetheless, the right to decide the extent and nature of the contact is not hers, and neither she nor a court should be permitted to impose their perception of the children's best interests in circumstances such as these where the parents are so demonstrably attentive to the needs of their children. The parents have, for the moment, decided that those needs do not include lengthy, frequent visits with their grandmother. Although the parents' conflict with Esther Chapman is unfortunate, there is no evidence that this parental decision is currently detrimental to the children. It should therefore be respected by the court and the children's best interests left in the exclusive care of their parents [emphasis added].
17Yet despite the fact that the court favours parental autonomy, it also acknowledges that courts can step in when a parent has acted in a way that arbitrarily imperils a positive grandparent-grandchild relationship:
19A relationship with a grandparent can - and ideally should - enhance the emotional well-being of a child. Loving and nurturing relationships with members of the extended family can be important for children. When those positive relationships are imperiled arbitrarily, as can happen, for example, in the reorganization of a family following the separation of the parents, the court may intervene to protect the continuation of the benefit of the
relationship (Shendroff v. Bruhand, a judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, released September 8, 1999 (unreported); Chabot v. Halladay, [1992] O.J. No. 2636 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Padbury v. Lee, [1994] O.J. No. 1075 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Peck v. Peck, [1996] O.J. No. 755 (Ont. Prov. Div.); McLellan v. Glidden (1996), 1996 CanLII 18917 (NB KB), 23 R.F.L. (4th) 106 (N.B.Q.B.); Young v. Young, supra) [emphasis added].
18In summary, Chapman provides that courts should generally defer to a parent’s decisions about grandparent access unless all three of the following questions are answered in the affirmative:
(i) Does a positive grandparent-grandchild relationship already exist?
(ii) Has the parent’s decision imperilled the positive grandparent- grandchild relationship?
(iii) Has the parent acted arbitrarily?
43The case law generally requires the following elements to constitute a “positive” relationship between a relative and a child; one that may supersede the right of the parent(s) to decide whom the child sees;
a. There must generally be a substantial pre-existing relationship between the relative and child. Strong loving and nurturing ties must exist between them based on time spent together that enhances the emotional well-being of the child.
b. That relationship must be a constructive one for the child in the sense that it is worth preserving. If relations between the parties are too poisoned, a previously positive relationship may not be capable of preservation.
c. The determination must include consideration of the age of the child and the time since the child last saw the relative.
d. A fourth factor may apply in the exceptional circumstance of a young child who has lost a parent. In that event, the existence of a strong pre-existing relationship may not be necessary when the relative(s) of the lost parent applies for access.
Reference: Torabi v. Patterson, 2016 ONCJ 210 para 74
44Ms. Diana Nauffts asserts that Aimy Nauffts’ complete non-involvement with her children is similar to a situation where a parent has died. Ms. Diana Nauffts submits that, while Aimy may not have died, she has withdrawn from her role as a parent and, for all intents and purposes, the children have lost their mother. Given that the whereabouts of the children’s mother is unknown, it is likely that the maternal grandmother is the only avenue through which the children can maintain a relationship with their maternal family.
45I find that there were challenges in the grandparent-child relationship before the January 8, 2024 attendance at the school. It is clear that the relationship is important to Ms. Diana Nauffts and that she cherishes the children.
46Best interests needs to be determined from the child’s perspective. From the children’s perspective, their grandmother has not respected their feelings of safety and security with their father. She has not respected appropriate boundaries and has attempted to influence them. The January 8, 2024 incident made the situation worse.
47The January 8, 2024 impacted the children’s feeling of safety and well-being. Ms. Diana Nauffts acted inappropriately and erratically, without apparent thought to the impact on the children. It was not appropriate to attempt to visit children at school. Ms. Diana Nauffts attended at a school that the children did not actually attend. For the purposes of determining if her actions were reasonable or child-focused, that does not matter. She then went to the home, banged on windows, etc. The children were present in the home. Police were called.
Alivia explained that her Grandma Didi came to the home, banged on doors and windows, and called out her name, attempting to see her without prior arrangements, and the police were called. In addition, her father told her that her Grandma Didi attempted to locate her at another school by asking kindergarten children about her whereabouts, which involved school and police intervention.
48In determining the best interests of the children under section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court must give primary consideration to the children’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. The evidence demonstrates that both children have achieved stability in their father’s care and are thriving academically and emotionally. Brooklyn’s views are unequivocal: she does not wish to have any contact with her maternal grandmother. Alivia’s views, while expressing love for her grandmother, are cautious and conditioned upon strict safeguards, including supervision and clear boundaries. These preferences are strong, consistent, and appear independent, as confirmed in the Voice of the Child Report.
What contact should Brooklyn have with her Ms. Diana Nauffts?
49There should be no contact between Ms. Diana Nauffts and Brooklyn. I find no genuine issue for trial on the issue of Brooklyn’s contact with her grandmother.
50In determining the best interests of the children under section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court must give primary consideration to the children’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. The evidence demonstrates that both children have achieved stability in their father’s care and are thriving academically and emotionally. Brooklyn’s views are unequivocal: she does not wish to have any contact with her maternal grandmother. These preferences are strong, consistent, and appear independent, as confirmed in the Voice of the Child Report.
51I find that Brooklyn’s best interests require no contact at this time.
52Brooklyn’s position on contact was clear. She wants no contact with her grandmother. The Voice of the Child report included:
Brooklyn expressed feeling happy and secure in her current home with her father, stepmother (whom she considers her "real mom"), and siblings. She enjoys school, has supportive friendships, and feels proud of her father. Her views and preferences were consistent and appeared independent related to contact with her maternal grandmother, Grandma DiDi. She noted that she also no longer trusts or wants a relationship with her due to past concerning incidents. She expressed interest in reconnecting with her maternal Uncle and cousin, but not her Aunt.
53The father’s position aligns entirely with Brooklyn’s views.
What contact should Alivia have with her Ms. Diana Nauffts?
54I find that there should be limited contact between Ms. Diana Nauffts and Alivia. Every second month, Alivia may have a phone video call with her grandmother that will be supervised by her father or her stepmother. During that phone call, Alivia can be asked if she wishes to have a supervised visit with her grandmother during the next month. I find no genuine issue for trial on the issue of Alivia’s contact with her grandmother.
55In Hryniak the Supreme Court of Canada set out a two-step process for determining whether summary judgment should be granted. Hryniak sets out that the judge must first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based on the evidence without using the additional fact-finding powers set out in r. 16(6.1). If, after this initial determination, there still appears to be a genuine issue for trial, the judge may resort to the additional fact-finding powers to decide if a trial is required.
56The Voice of the Child Report, dated May 14, 2025, reflects strong and consistent views expressed independently by both children. Brooklyn reported feeling happy and secure in her current home and stated unequivocally that she does not wish to have any contact with her maternal grandmother in any form. She described past incidents involving Ms. Nauffts as manipulative and unsettling and rated her desire for contact as 3 or 4 out of 10, noting that this would not improve even with trusted persons present.
57Alivia expressed that she loves her grandmother but described past manipulative behavior, negative comments about her father, and safety concerns, including what she perceived as an attempted “kidnapping” and police involvement. Alivia stated that she would only consider limited, supervised contact at a visitation centre under strict conditions: no pressure, gifts, or negative comments; no discussion of court; and no contact with her mother during visits. She emphasized that visits should be short, occur near her home, and include her father and sister. Alivia rated her comfort level for a supervised visit as 5 out of 10 (6 out of 10 if her sister were present) and for phone or virtual contact as 7 out of 10.
58Alivia was interviewed by the OCL clinician at school and was not aware that she would be interviewed. She spoke positively and appropriately for her age with respect to her home life with her father, step-mother and siblings. In speaking about her mother and grandmother, Alivia said:
Alivia explained that she has not had contact with her mother since she was about seven years old. During the time leading up to that, she described her mother as inconsistent, possibly using drugs, and spending time with unsafe individuals. She recalled visits with her mother as chaotic and stated that she was not consistently provided basic care items (e.g., toothbrush, toothpaste). Alivia shared a specific memory of a car accident while her mother was driving, which she described as one of the scariest moments in her life.
Alivia also shared that at times, her mother and Grandma Didi would pressure her and her sister to say things such as "I want to live with mommy" and have them repeat it multiple times. She reports feeling manipulated during these interactions.
….She noted that while she loves her Grandma Didi in "every way possible", she would not want to see her unless she was okay with the decisions that have already been made instead of asking questions such as "who do you want to live with?".
Alivia described a once-regular visitation schedule with her Grandma Didi, typically on long weekends at a home in Northern Ontario (approximately a 3- 4-hour drive) and explained that she no longer visits her because she went "kind of went crazy" and tried to kidnap her once.
Alivia advised that when she used to speak with her Grandma Didi on the phone, she made negative comments about her father, which she did not like.
59Ms. Diana Nauffts relies on her past positive relationship with the children and her willingness to adhere to the guidelines set out by Alivia shows a clear indication that she has the children’s best interest at heart.
60The children’s views and preferences have been ascertained. Alivia may be willing to see her grandmother on strict conditions. Alivia indicated that while she loves her Grandma Didi, she does not want to visit with her unless specific rules are followed:
Don't ask me where I want to live.
Don't pressure me to do or say anything I do not want to. Don't give me any gifts.
Don't speak negatively about people in my family.
Don't contact my mom when I am there. Don't talk about Court.
She would like to see her Grandma Didi in a supervised setting, such as a visitation centre. When asked how she thought of a supervised centre, Alivia explained that her Grandma Didi used to talk to her about a visiting centre in relation to her (Alivia's) visits with her biological mother.
Alivia described a centre as a place with staff who ensure the visit goes well. She expressed interest in "testing out" a visit, but expressed being worried that it might not go well. She also expressed being worried that, without supervision, her Grandma Didi might attempt to take her somewhere unknown, referencing past fears of being kidnapped or taken far away.
Alivia shared that if visits at a centre went well, she might consider additional visits, but only at her own home or her other grandmother's home.
Alivia also recalled her Grandma Didi coming to the home uninvited, banging on windows and doors, blocking their cars, and refusing to leave which resulted in the police being called. Alivia explained that this happened at her other grandmother's house and left her feeling scared to the point of almost crying.
61Any contact with Alivia must be highly controlled and supervised to respect her boundaries and sense of safety.
62The father opposes any contact and his position aligns substantially with Alivia’s concerns, emphasizing safety and stability.
63Alivia explained that she would only feel safe visiting her Grandma Didi if the visit was close to her home (no more than 30 minutes away) and if her father and sister were also present. She noted that she would also want any visits to be short (a couple of hours), and if her Grandma Didi follows the rules, she would consider occasional visits (once a month at most). Alivia said she would also consider talking to her Grandma Didi on the phone if her father was present.
64A visit with her grandmother at a supervised centre: 5 out of 10. It would be a 6 out of 10 if her sister was also present.
65Phone or virtual call: 7 out of 10. Alivia explained that this would be safer, but she is concerned about the possibility that her grandmother might make negative comments or pressure her. “It's okay to talk about how I'm doing, including school, friends, and hobbies”.
66Accordingly, the court finds that the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Application in its entirety is not appropriate as it relates to Alivia, given her openness to limited contact under controlled circumstances. However, the court accepts that Brooklyn’s best interests require no contact at this time.
Should an order be made requiring Ms. Diana Nauffts to seek leave of the Court prior to a future court action?
67I decline to make this order.
68This is the first court application by Ms. Diana Nauffts to seek contact time with her granddaughters.
ORDER
69The Applicant Diana Lee Nauffts shall have contact with Alivia Grace Vanherrath born […], 2014 as follows:
a one phone/video call every 2 months with the first one occurring in December 2025 and the supervisor shall be the Respondent Stefan John Vonherrath, his partner or a paid supervisor through Renew or Brayden at the Applicant Diana Lee Nauffts’ cost. The Respondent Stefan John Vonherrath shall advise when the phone/video call is arranged, if he or his partner will supervise; otherwise the Applicant Diana Lee Nauffts shall arrange for a supervisor from Renew or Brayden. After the third phone/video call, the Applicant Diana Lee Nauffts may have a first option to arrange for a supervisor through Renew or Brayden.
b during the phone/video call, Alivia Grace Vanherrath may be asked once if she would like a visit with her grandmother in the next calendar month, for example, in December 2025 for January 2026
i if Alivia’s answer is no, two months later, a phone/video call may be arranged.
ii If Alivia’s answer is yes, a supervised contact visit may be arranged through Renew or Brayden or other supervised centre, at the grandmother’s cost in Brantford, Ontario for up to one hour. After 3 visits, the visits may be up to 2 hours at Alivia’s discretion.
c the conditions of the phone/video calls and the visits shall be:
i Alivia may end the contact at any time
ii the supervisor shall end the contact if:
a The communications are not appropriate
b Inappropriate conversation includes but is not limited to pressure for Alivia to do or say anything that she is uncomfortable with, any negative discussion of her family members, discussion about Court, asking her where she wants to live, etc..
c No gifts shall be exchanged
d Aimy Nauffts shall not participate in the contact
70All other claims shall be dismissed.
Costs Submissions
Any party seeking costs may make written submissions to the court, to be submitted no later than 21 days from today.
Responding submissions may be submitted no later than 14 days after being served with the submissions.
Submissions shall be a maximum length of two pages – double spaced, 12 point font, normal margins. Bill of costs and Offer to Settle may be attached to the costs submission without counting to the page limits.
No reply submissions permitted.
Parties are to file electronically and send submissions to chambers upon expiry of the two deadlines.
Released: December 23, 2025
Signed: Justice Joanne Beasley