minicounsel

CITATION: K.T. v. R.D., 2025 ONCJ 721

Date: 2025-09-02

Toronto, ON File No.: 18/5412

B E T W E E N :

K.T.

Applicant

-and-

R.D.

Respondent

Before Justice Susan Sullivan
Heard on April 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on September 2, 2025

K. T. ........................................................................................... Applicant, on her own behalf

L. Speers................................................................................... Counsel for the Respondent

JUSTICE SUSAN SULLIVAN:

Part 1 – Introduction

1This trial was about the parenting time and child support arrangements for the child Z.T. born January XX, 2015. At the time of trial, Z.T. was almost 10.5 years old.

2The Applicant, K.T. is Z.T.’s mother.

3The Respondent, R.D. is Z.T.’s father.

4The Applicant requests the following final order:

(a) The Respondent shall have no parenting time with Z.T.

(b) The Respondent shall pay Table child support from the commencement of the application (March 1, 2018) to April 30, 2025 in the amount of $664 a month. This is the Guideline amount of support to be paid for one child based on an annual income of $71,053, which was the Respondent’s 2019 income:

i. The Applicant asks that the Respondent’s 2019 income be used when calculating his 2018 child support obligation as he did not provide financial disclosure for that year;

ii. The Applicant asks that the Respondent’s 2019 income be used for 2019; and

iii. The Applicant asks that there be no adjustment to Justice O’Connell’s temporary November 16, 2020 order which requires the Respondent to pay child support in the amount of $664 a month, commencing June 1, 2020, based on his 2019 income of $71,053.

(c) Commencing May 1, 2025 and on the first day of each month thereafter, the Respondent shall pay her Table child support in the amount of $700 a month, based on an imputed income of $75,000.

(d) The Respondent shall be given credit for the 21 payments of $374 he made from March, 2019 to November, 2020.

(e) Commencing May 1, 2025, the Respondent shall pay 61.4% of Z.T.’s future section 7 expenses based on him having an imputed income of $75,000 and she shall pay 38.6% based on her 2024 income of $47,106.

5The Respondent requests the following final order:

(a) He shall have in-person professionally supervised parenting time with Z.T., once or twice a week, which may have a therapeutic component, if the court deems this necessary.

(b) He shall be ordered to participate in counselling.

(c) The Applicant may directly obtain information from his counsellor (when he has one) and from Dr. Crouzat, his staff, and the drug-testing facility he attends.

(d) He shall create a safety plan on the recommendation of any of his counsellors.

(e) Commencing June 1, 2020, he shall pay Table child support based on his line 150 income.

(f) Any arrears of child support owing shall be adjusted to take into account that he paid the intake fees for both Inclusive Families and Side by Side in the amount of $350 and shall be payable at the rate of $100 a month.

(g) He shall be consulted prior to the Applicant incurring a section 7 expense for which she seeks his contribution; he shall not unreasonably withhold his consent to the expense.

6The following are the issues the court must decide:

(a) What parenting time order is in Z.T.’s best interests?

(b) With respect to Guideline child support:

i. What is the start date for child support?

ii. What is the Respondent’s annual income for each year he is required to pay child support? Should income be imputed to him in any of these years, and if so, how much?

iii. What amount does the Respondent owe the Applicant for Guideline child support?

iv. How should any child support arrears be paid?

Part 2 – Evidence

7The Applicant’s witnesses were:

(a) Herself.

(b) Claudia Spirito, child protection worker with Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, who was involved with the family in 2015.

(d) N.M, mother of Z.T.’s half-sister, J.M. (Ms. M.).

(e) A.M., maternal grandmother of J.M. (Mrs. M.).

(f) N.J., mother of Z.T.’s half-sister, A.D. (Ms. J.).

8The Respondent’s witnesses were:

(a) Himself.

(b) B.D., Z.T.’s paternal grandfather, (Mr. D.)

9The court’s witnesses were:

(a) Eva Casino, Office of the Children's Lawyer clinician who completed a report pursuant to section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act.¹ Her report is dated June 28, 2021 (the OCL’s 2021 final report).

(b) Ilena Bisgould, Office of the Children’s Lawyer clinician who completed a Voice of the Child Report. Her report is dated August 29, 2024 (the OCL’s 2024 VOCR).

10The Applicant was a credible witness. She presented her evidence in a clear and straight-forward manner. Her evidence was balanced; she readily acknowledged positives with respect to the Respondent and his parenting when there were opportunities to do so. When she made a statement, she provided sufficient detail to corroborate that which she said. She was child focused. Her evidence was not disturbed in cross- examination. The court has no difficulties accepting what she had to say.

11Ms. Spirito was a credible, but not reliable witness. She had limited recall about her involvement with the family as a child protection worker over 10 years ago.

12Mr. T. was a credible witness. He provided his evidence in a clear, balanced, matter of fact manner.

13Ms. M. was a very credible witness. She spoke with great clarity, compassion, and insight regarding the Respondent’s addiction issues and resulting behaviours. She readily acknowledged the Respondent’s redeeming qualities, and easily spoke of J.M.’s love for her father. It was evident that her focus was on Z.T. and not on portraying her ex-partner in a negative light. She was able to acknowledge events that were not necessarily favourable to her (such as not being as forthcoming as she could have been with the Office of the Children's Lawyer regarding the Respondent’s mental health and substance misuse); this enhanced the believability of all she spoke of.

14Mrs. M. was also a credible witness. She presented her evidence in a fair and balanced manner with meaningful detail. She was child focused. Her evidence did not change when questioned by the Respondent’s counsel.

15Ms. J. was a credible witness. She was unbiased. She demonstrated empathy for the Respondent and his struggles. There was a genuineness to her presentation and evidence; she didn’t embellish or overstate her experiences and when she couldn’t remember details she said so, which contributed to her authenticity. Like Ms. M., her focus was on Z.T. and not on being hurtful to the Respondent.

16There were issues with respect to the Respondent’s credibility. His evidence was often devoid of necessary detail on key issues. For example, he did not address Ms. M.’s statement that he provided the urine of others for his drug tests; he provided no real specific plan regarding the reintegration therapy he asks the court to consider; he did not call Dr. Crouzat as a witness or provide a report authored by him, notwithstanding that there is a court order requiring him to do so;² his evidence regarding his 2024 income was woefully deficient. The Respondent minimized his substance misuse, even though there was overwhelming credible evidence that this is a significant issue. The Respondent’s evidence also lacked consistency. For example, he made some general statements of accountability regarding the status of his relationship with Z.T., but then he spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to assign blame to the Applicant and others (such as supervised parenting time facilitators) for this. He made some positive statements regarding the Applicant’s parenting and their relationship, but then focused a lot of his evidence on attacking her character (for example, he tried to establish that the Applicant lied to Ms. Spirito in 2015 about the nature of the drugs he was using, and he also expended a lot of time attempting to establish that the Applicant misused the consent final restraining order dated April 4, 2019). Given that his brief, insightful statements were overshadowed by his protracted, deflecting comments, the genuineness of his evidence as a whole is questionable. The court’s impression is that on occasion, the Respondent said what he knew he had to say, but then he went on at length with his true, contrary beliefs.

17Mr. D. was not a credible witness. It was obvious that he very much supports the Respondent and would say anything to assist him reach his goals. For example, he testified that he would pay for the Respondent’s individual counselling and reunification therapy, without any indication as to what they may cost. Mr. D. also minimized significant events. For example, with respect to the 2014 incident in which the Respondent assaulted him in A.D.’s presence as he attempted to ensure the Respondent did not leave with the child as he had used heroin the day prior, he testified that the Respondent was protecting his daughter. He also readily dismissed the significance of the Respondent’s 2023 sexual abuse allegation regarding him. Mr. D’s evidence was also inconsistent. For example, he testified that when in a supervisory role, he constantly observes the Respondent, yet at a recent parenting time session between the Respondent and J.M. that he was supervising, he fell asleep in a separate room for one to one and a half hours. Mr. D. also minimized the Respondent’s substance misuse struggles. For example, when speaking about observing the Respondent to be consuming alcohol at the aforementioned supervised parenting time (when he woke up), he said that he guesses the Respondent had a bad day. Last, he noted that the Respondent is ‘not a raging alcoholic, drug addict every single minute of every single day.’ All this materially affected the trustworthiness of his testimony.

18Ms. Casino and Ms. Bisgould were credible witnesses. They presented their evidence in a factual and professional manner.

19Based on the foregoing, where the evidence of the Respondent and Mr. D. conflicted with that of the other witnesses, the evidence of others was preferred.

20In total, thirty-two exhibits were filed and given their due weight. This included, on consent:

(a) The Office of the Children’s Lawyer interim section 112 report completed by Triena McGuirk dated March 12, 2019 (the OCL’s 2019 interim report) and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer final section 112 report completed by Ms. McGuirk dated December 13, 2019 (the OCL’s 2019 final report). They were filed for the truth of their content, without Ms. McGuirk being cross-examined.

(b) A letter prepared by Nicole Horwitz, legal counsel for the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, dated April 14, 2025, which provided a summary of its involvement with the parties.

21The parties did not challenge the drug test results cited in the Office of the Children's Lawyer reports filed and referenced by other witnesses. However, the court – in its gatekeeper role – did not assign weight to the actual test results, given that (a) there was no evidence presented regarding their reliability; (b) Dr. Sanchez told Ms. McGuirk when she spoke with him during the completion of the OCL’s 2019 interim report that the testing methods he employs are not the same tests employed for legal purposes; and (c) Ms. M. advised that she and others provided the Respondent with urine for testing, and the Respondent did not address this in his testimony. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the court received an abundance of reliable evidence regarding the Respondent’s addiction issues.

22Given that the Applicant was self-represented, the court was mindful of and guided by the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) established by the Canadian Judicial Council and endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Pintea v. Johns.³ The court did what it could to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to the Respondent. The Applicant required little assistance from the court; she was very well-prepared and presented as knowledgeable of both the procedural and substantive issues associated with the trial.

23The Respondent was given a fulsome opportunity to present his case. For example:

(a) On Friday, April 4, 2025 at 3:43 p.m. the Respondent served and filed a14B Motion in which he requested a one-day adjournment of the trial that was scheduled to start on Monday, April 7, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. (as his recently retained counsel was having laser eye surgery on April 7) and that he be permitted to late serve and file his trial affidavit (which, per the order of Justice O’Connell dated December 20, 2024, was to be served and filed by March 15, 2025). Per this court’s April 4, 2025 endorsement, the 14B Motion was adjourned to April 7, 2025. On April 7, 2025 an adjournment was granted, and the Respondent was given until that day at 2:00 p.m. to serve and file his trial affidavit.

(b) The Respondent’s trial affidavit was not accepted for filing by the court on April 7, 2025 as it was not sworn. The Respondent’s Exhibit Brief, which accompanied his trial affidavit, was also not accepted for filing as permission to late serve and file this brief had not been requested (and pursuant to the order of Justice O’Connell dated December 20, 2024 it was to be served and filed by March 15, 2025). On April 8, 2025 the Respondent was permitted to file a sworn copy of his trial affidavit and his Exhibit Brief.⁴

(c) During the trial, the Respondent was permitted to late serve and file his financial statement. Pursuant to the order of Justice O’Connell dated December 20, 2024, this was to be served and filed by March 1, 2025.

(d) The Respondent’s Form 35.1 Affidavit dated April 9, 2025 was served on the Applicant during the trial, after she had testified. Notwithstanding this, he was permitted to file and rely on this document at trial. The Applicant was given the opportunity to address its content, if she chose, in reply testimony.

(e) Justice O’Connell’s December 20, 2024 order provided that the Respondent may have 30 minutes to provide oral evidence to supplement that which he stated in his trial affidavit. At the outset of his testimony, the Respondent requested an additional 30 minutes to provide evidence regarding the Society’s most recent opening. This was granted. In the end, the Respondent was given close to 2.5 hours to provide oral testimony, in addition to his affidavit evidence.

(f) During trial, the Respondent was granted leave to call Ms. Oliver from Renew Supervision Services (Renew) to testify. In the end, he did not do so.

Part 3 – Background Facts

24The Applicant’s date of birth is November XX, 1981. She was 43 years old at the time of trial.

25The Respondent’s date of birth is May XX, 1984. He was 40 at the time of trial.

26The parties met in October, 2013 and started living together in January, 2014.

27The parties separated on March 1, 2017.

28Z.T. is the parties’ only child.

29The Applicant has no other children.

30The Respondent has two other children:

(a) A.D. (born September XX, 2008).

(b) J.M. (born May XX, 2019).

31The Applicant is a co-owner and teacher at XXX Inc.

32The Respondent works construction-related jobs.

33The Applicant’s Application is dated March 6, 2018 and was issued on March 8, 2018. With respect to the remaining issues, therein she requested:

(a) The Respondent have no access (as it then was) to Z.T. In the alternative, he shall have supervised access.

(b) The Respondent shall pay child support in accordance with the Guidelines, to be determined when full disclosure has been received.

34The Respondent’s Answer is dated November 27, 2018. With respect to the remaining issues, therein he requested:

(a) Unsupervised access, to include, but not be limited to alternating weekends, one evening overnight per week, and shared holidays with the particulars to be incorporated into a court order.

(b) The Respondent’s Answer is silent with respect to child support, both Table and section 7 expenses.

35On April 4, 2019 Justice O’Connell made a final consent order that includes:

(a) The Applicant shall have sole custody (as it then was) of Z.T.

(b) The Respondent shall be restrained from direct and indirect communication with the Applicant except (a) through text and email for the purpose of communicating issues related to Z.T., (b) through or in the presence of counsel, a clinical investigator from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, any children’s aid society worker, or this court, (c) to communicate medical or other emergencies involving Z.T. The restraining order also provides that the Respondent shall not come within 200 meters of the Applicant or any place where she may reasonably be expected to be, including her residence and place of work.

36The existing temporary parenting time order is the consent order made by Justice O’Connell on June 25, 2023. It provides that the Respondent shall have supervised in- person parenting time with Z.T., supervised by Renew, on every Sunday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

37The existing temporary child support order is the consent order made by Justice O’Connell on November 16, 2020. It states that commencing June 1, 2020 the Respondent shall pay monthly Table child support in the amount of $664. This is the Guideline amount of support to be paid for one child based on the Respondent’s 2019 income of $71,053.

38The Respondent has not had parenting time with Z.T. since February 4, 2023.

39The Respondent has not paid child support as ordered; the Family Responsibility Office’s Statement of Arrears filed states that the balance of child support owing as of March 1, 2025 is $18,512.21.

Part 4 – Parenting Time

4.1 Legal Considerations

40 Section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act⁵ sets out that the court must make parenting time decisions that are in the best interests of the subject children.

41Subsection 24(2) of the CLRA 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.

42 Subsection 24 (3) of the CLRA sets out a list of factors for the court to consider when determining a child’s best interests. It reads as follows:

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 cooperate 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.

43The child’s best interests are not merely ‘paramount’; they are the only consideration in this analysis.⁶

44The list of best interests considerations in the CLRA is not exhaustive.⁷ 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.⁸

45The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents.⁹ 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.¹⁰

46With respect to the weight to be given the views and preferences of children, in B.J. v. D.M.,¹¹ this court stated that it is important to consider the following:

(a) Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires state parties to ensure that children who are capable of forming their own views must be given the right to express those views in matters which affect them and that those views must be given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity.

(b) The factors set out in Decaen v. Decaen, 2013 ONCA 2018 at paragraph 42:

(i) Whether the parents are able to provide adequate care;

(ii) How clear and unambivalent the wishes are;

(iii) How informed the expression is;

(iv) The age of the child;

(v) The child's maturity level;

(vi) The strength of the wish;

(vii) How long they have expressed their preference;

(viii) The practicalities of the situation;

(ix) Parental influence;

(x) Overall context; and

(xi) The circumstances of the preference from the child's point of view.

(c) The degree to which the court will follow the wishes of the child will be subject to the judge's discretion as she seeks to determine the child's best interests.

(d) The question of whether a parent has made statements or engaged in conduct that might impact the independence of a child’s views and preferences can certainly be explored at any hearing.

(e) The court should give little weight to a child’s expressed wishes if the evidence indicates that those wishes have been tainted by negative influence, inducements, or alienation exerted by the other parent or any other individual.

(f) It is an error to give a child’s views any weight, if the evidence does not support the finding that they had reached their own conclusions free from influence.

47Subsection 24(6) of the CLRA 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.

48In resolving disputes over parenting time, emphasis must be placed on the critical importance of bonding, attachment, and stability in the lives of young children. The best interests of the child are generally met by having a loving relationship with both parents. Moreover, children have a right to have contact with both parents.¹² A child’s access to his or her non-custodial parent should only be forfeited in the “most extreme and unusual circumstances”.¹³ Termination of parenting time is a “remedy of last resort”.¹⁴

49The party who seeks to reduce normal parenting time 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.¹⁵

50Supervised parenting time 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.¹⁶

51In A.M. v. C.H.,¹⁷ the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the court has jurisdiction to make therapeutic orders, which includes reconciliation therapy.

52In determining whether the court should make an order for reconciliation counselling, the following principles are applicable:

(a) Such orders are to be made sparingly.

(b) At what stage is the therapeutic order sought (motion based on potentially incomplete evidence vs. trial based on full evidentiary record)?

(c) Is the cause for the family dysfunction (whether alienation, alignment or reasonable estrangement) clear based on expert evidence or otherwise? If not, does it matter in light of the type of therapy proposed?

(d) There must be compelling evidence that the therapy will be beneficial to the child.

(e) The request must be adequately supported by a detailed proposal identifying the proposed counselor and what is to be expected.

(f) Are the parents likely to meaningfully engage in counselling despite their initial resistance to the making of the order? Will a strong judicial recommendation compel participation and cooperation by the recalcitrant parent?

(g) Is the child likely to voluntarily engage in counselling therapy?

(h) Resistance to therapy is an important factor but is not the determining factor whether such an order should be made.

(i) Where a clinical investigation or assessment is underway, no order should be made pending their conclusion.

(j) Wherever practical, appropriate direction should be given to the counselor/therapist and a report made to the court.

53This list of considerations overlaps significantly and not surprisingly with the best interests factors outlined at section 24(3) of the CLRA.

4.2 Analysis

4.2.1 Z.T.’s views and preferences

54Z.T. does not want to have further contact with the Respondent, even if others are present.

55This was confirmed by Ms. Bisgould in the OCL’s 2024 VOCR.

56Ms. Bisgould is a registered social worker who holds a Master of Social Work degree. She has been doing work for the Office of the Children's Lawyer since 2012 and has completed approximately 30 VOCRs.

57Ms. Bisgould interviewed Z.T. twice. She described him as relaxed and comfortable with his responses to her inquiries; he did not hesitate during questioning.

58Z.T.’s above-noted position was consistent at the two meetings he had with Ms. Bisgould; he did not express any ambivalence regarding not wanting to see the Respondent.

59Ms. Bisgould observed that Z.T.’s emotional maturity was age appropriate.

60Ms. Bisgould was satisfied that Z.T.’s stated views and preferences were his own; she was not concerned he was influenced by the Applicant or by others. She noted:

(a) Z.T. told her that nobody told him what to say to her, other than the Applicant told him he needed to say what happened and be honest.

(b) The language Z.T. used when speaking with her was appropriate in that he did not use adult language.

(c) The fact that Z.T. said positive things about the Respondent (he is good at sports such as soccer and hockey and they sometimes played sports together, such as baseball) contributed to her findings of a lack of negative influence by others.

(d) Z.T. was asked how his mother feels about him spending time with his father and he said that his mother has said he can if he wants to, and she wouldn’t be mad. Z.T. said that his mother is not telling him what to do and he just doesn’t want to see his father and he doesn’t like him.

(e) Z.T. was asked what he thought his mother thought of his father, and he said that he didn’t know. When asked if his mother has talked to him about what she thinks of his father he said, “not really”. Z.T. was asked about how he thinks his mother would feel if he told her that he wants to see his father, and he said that he thinks she’d be okay with it, and she says to him that he can see his father if he wants to. Z.T. said that his mother tells him this every week.

61While meeting with Ms. Bisgould, Z.T. had negative things to say about the Respondent, which included:

(a) His father was sometimes dangerous, referencing how his father used to make big fires in a fire pit using gasoline. He said that it was dangerous as the fire was right in front of him.

(b) His father used to leave him alone; sometimes he was left with his sister A.D., and other times he was left with his sister J.M. He recalled a time his father left overnight and didn’t come back until the next day. He explained that he felt sad when he was left alone.

(d) The last time he saw his father, his papa (Mr. D.) brought him to his father’s home when he was not supposed to do so. Z.T. said that he was not supposed to be alone with his father because he didn’t want to be alone with him. He said that his father was asleep on the couch, and he had to put himself to bed.

(e) His father said bad things about his papa and told him that his papa was a bad father and was mean (he did not think his papa was mean).

(f) His father used to get drunk and fall asleep all the time.

4.2.2 Z.T.’s personality and maturity

62Z.T.’s personality and maturity has been described by others as follows:

(a) The Applicant advised that Z.T. has always been well-spoken and as he grows older, his maturity and confidence is becoming more pronounced.

(b) The Respondent said Z.T. was, “his own person, for sure.”

(c) Mr. T. described Z.T. as a smart, funny, intelligent kid. He went on to say that he is strong willed and knows what he wants and when he wants it; he can make up his mind for himself; it is difficult to get him to agree to something he does not want to do; he is unswerving in his mindset when he does not want to do something.

(d) Ms. M. described Z.T. as a confident, well-spoken, and highly intelligent child who knows what he wants.

(e) Ms. Casino described Z.T. as a really bright child.

63The Applicant’s uncontroverted evidence is that Z.T.’s continued stated desire is that he have no contact with the Respondent. Z.T. expressed this sentiment to the Applicant following parenting time with the Respondent in February, 2023 and has maintained this position since that time.

64To determine how much weight should be given to Z.T.’s wishes, they must be considered in context.

4.2.3 Contextual analysis of Z.T.’s views and preferences

A. The Respondent’s challenges

65Central to this contextual analysis is an understanding of the Respondent’s addiction issues. Generally stated, the Respondent has engaged in substance misuse most of his adult life. At times, he does better in this regard, but periods of improvement are not sustained. In large part, this is because the Respondent has not engaged in the intensive counselling/treatment he requires to address the multi-faceted nature of his difficulties.

66The Respondent started to consume marijuana in high school. His use of other drugs expanded in his 20’s. The Respondent told Ms. McGuirk while she completed the OCL’s 2019 interim report that at the height of his addiction, he needed to be high on heroin/opiates to feel normal.

67In early 2014 the Respondent went to detox for less than 24 hours. He agreed to attend NA, but then refused to do so.

68In May, 2014 the Respondent again went to detox, and again left within 24 hours.

69The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto became involved with the parties following Z.T.’s birth and remained involved for ongoing monitoring due to concerns with regards to the Respondent’s drug use. While the Society monitored the family, a protection plan was in place that the Respondent was not permitted to be unsupervised with Z.T.

70This involvement by the Society with respect to Z.T. was initiated because of the Society’s prior involvement with the Respondent as a parent to A.D. In August, 2014, the Respondent was charged by Toronto Police Service with assaulting the paternal grandfather and A.D. witnessed this occurrence. The Respondent had been under the influence of heroin the night prior to this incident. He attended the paternal grandfather’s home to see A.D. He wanted to take A.D. to the mall, and the paternal grandfather (who was caring for A.D. at the time) did not want him to do so. The Respondent left with A.D., on foot. The paternal grandfather followed them in his car. A.D. got into her grandfather’s car, and when the Respondent entered the vehicle, he and the paternal grandfather argued. The Respondent swore at the paternal grandfather and told him that he could not tell him not to take his daughter. The Respondent also punched the paternal grandfather and broke his rib.

71After Z.T.’s birth, the Respondent continued to use drugs. For example,

(a) The Applicant and the Respondent attended a family function Christmas Eve 2015 at the Respondent’s aunt’s home. The Respondent was high and aggressive. He got in a verbal altercation with his 80-year-old grandmother.

(b) At Z.T.’s second birthday party, the Respondent was high and his behaviour was erratic and abusive.

72In 2016, the Respondent started to seek support for his addiction to heroin (opiates) from Dr. Sanchez. Dr. Sanchez is a medical doctor with a focused practice on addiction medicine; he originally was a family physician. The Respondent initially started on methadone treatments, however, switched to suboxone as it was more effective for him.

73In the OCL’s 2019 interim report, Ms. McGuirk’s concerns included:

(a) The Respondent tends to minimize the impact of his addiction on persons around him.

(b) There is a therapeutic disconnect for the Respondent in his journey of recovery He has not completed any in-depth, clinical work to support his addiction recovery. There are significant clinical issues present.

(c) The Respondent advised that his ‘call to action to sobriety in 2018’ was solely motivated to get out of the system and return to a regular access schedule with Z.T. Any clinical issues that led to and/or contributed to maintaining his cycle of addiction have not been explored to not only complement his recovery but to also develop an awareness of triggers in an effort to maintain his sobriety with a relapse plan.

74In the OCL’s 2019 interim report, Ms. McGuirk concluded and recommended, in part:

(a) She required more clinical information about the Respondent’s journey with addiction and recovery prior to entertaining a recommendation of unsupervised access.

(b) The Respondent access the support of professionals at CAMH, and specifically, he participate in the Metro Addiction Assessment Referral Service (MAARS) program. Ms. McGuirk went so far as to include in her report the phone number for CAMH and directions how to navigate the automated telephone system to reach the right person to speak with regarding the MAARS program.

75The April 4, 2019 consent order of Justice O’Connell includes that the Respondent is to access the support of professionals at CAMH; he is to share his story and express interest in participating in the MAARS Program; and he is to participate and collaborate with the program and access services as per the recommendation of the MAARS program.

76The Respondent did not participate in the MAARS Program. He provided Ms. McGuirk, as she prepared the OCL’s 2019 final report contradicting reasons why not:

(a) He advised Ms. McGuirk that he did not feel it was needed and he did not want to engage in it simply to appease the courts.

(b) He also told Ms. McGuirk that he would like to see someone one on one, as he now has extended benefits through his employer; Ms. McGuirk advised that the counselling recommendations in the OCL’s 2019 interim report reflected individual sessions, as she was aware that he did not like group dynamics.

(c) He also explained to Ms. McGuirk that his doctor acts as his counsellor and covers all his needs. She advised that Dr. Sanchez is an important support for his care, however, there were gaps in his care.

(d) He also indicated that he was attempting to seek support through CAMH but they would not service him, as he was stable. He also reported that he attempted to seek assistance through Toronto Western Hospital, and they too could not provide clinical services, as he was stable in his recovery.

77At the time of the OCL 2019 final report, the Respondent’s addiction challenges seemed to have been somewhat managed; there seemed to be less drug use, and his choice of drug was no longer heroin. At this time, one of Ms. McGuirk’s main concerns was the Respondent’s lack of self-responsibility for his actions. In support of this, she noted:

(a) The Respondent acknowledged the reasons why he was having supervised parenting time. However, he then shifted to assign blame to the Applicant for this.

(b) The Respondent acknowledged why supervised access centres terminated their services for him, but then went on to state that he was treated unfairly by Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO) and Brayden Supervision Services (Brayden).

(c) He pled guilty to one count of assault in relation to a 2018 incident, and in conversation with his probation officer, Ms. Tuovinen, he advised that he took responsibility by doing so. However, he contradicted this statement by later informing Ms. Tuovinen that he was made to enter the guilty plea.

78Also, during the time of the OCL’s 2019 final report, the Respondent expressed frustration with his father’s behaviours. Ms. McGuirk wrote, “He noted that he can no longer trust to share information with his father, as despite what he says, his father will do as he pleases. XX [The Respondent] expressed a sadness associated with this reality, as this is not the relationship he wants to have with his father, however, it is his only recourse, as he is making things more complicated for him.”

79Ms. McGuirk was also concerned about the Respondent’s anger management. This concern was based in part on:

(a) He engaged in assaultive behaviour (as he pled guilty to doing so).

(b) The way he interacted with her on occasion (which included yelling and talking over her and sending her accusatory emails). Ms. McGuirk was sufficiently concerned that she employed safety provisions in preparation for a November, 2019 in-person meeting as she was not certain how the Respondent would respond to the conversation.

(c) The way he interacted with APCO staff on occasion; it was reported that he demonstrated abusive behaviour, such as raising his voice while speaking with staff.

80In the OCL’s 2019 final report, Ms. McGuirk’s recommendations included that the Respondent engage in individual counselling through a clinician who is versed in internal family systems, trauma informed care, addictions and anger management.

81On January 10, 2020 Justice O’Connell made a consent order that included these recommendations.

82In February, 2020 the Respondent started counselling at Canterbury Clinic Toronto. Christine Meikle, substance abuse counsellor, advised Ms. Casino during an April 20, 2021 phone interview that:

(a) The Respondent is diligent in attending and in phone calls once face to face contact could not occur due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

(b) The Respondent is “super involved in recovery” and that his addiction is under control.

(d) The Respondent has self-awareness and has better tools now, including walking away and taking time to cool down and thinking before he talks.

(e) The Respondent can access services at the clinic for as long as he wants.

(f) She recommends ongoing counselling as the Respondent needs support, and he recognizes this.

(g) The Respondent is open and willing to do things right and that his priorities have changed; his family is the center and focus of his being.

83At the time of the completion of the OCL’s 2021 final report, Ms. Casino found that the progress noted with respect to the Respondents addiction recovery in the OCL’s 2019 final report had been sustained. In part, Ms. Casino recommended that the Respondent continue to meet with Dr. Crouzat as often as recommended and that he continue to access support through his clinician at the Canterbury Clinic.

84The Respondent discontinued receiving assistance from the Canterbury Clinic. While it is not clear when he stopped, he did so sometime before early summer 2021; the Respondent’s evidence was that around the time that he and Ms. M. separated in early summer 2021, he tried to contact the Canterbury Clinic and learned it was closed.

85As already noted, Dr. Crouzat was to provide a report and testify at this trial, but he did not do so. As a result, very relevant evidence about a key issue is lacking.

86The Respondent’s stated reason for Dr. Crouzat’s attendance at trial was that he could not afford to have Dr. Crouzat prepare a report and attend court. It is difficult to accept this for two main reasons. First, the actual cost of Dr. Crouzat’s participation was not provided. Second, if the paternal grandfather is prepared to pay unknown sums of money for the Respondent’s individual counselling and reunification counselling, it is reasonable to conclude that he could and would assist with this cost as well.

87There is compelling evidence that the Respondent’s addiction issues have continued since 2021 and remain a valid concern. For example:

(a) In 2021, the Respondent and J.M. were at the park next to Ms. M.’s home. After 1.5 hours had passed and they had not returned home, Ms. M. went to the park to look for them. They were not there. The Respondent did not respond to her calls. It was getting dark, and they still had not returned. Eventually, two police officers attended her home. The Respondent and J.M. exited the police car. The Respondent was visibly intoxicated. A concerned citizen had contacted the police as they had observed the Respondent in a grocery store, with J.M. in his arms, unstable on his feet, and swaying.

(b) In the summer of 2022, the Respondent picked J.M. up from daycare. He was on his bicycle that had a trailer on it, where J.M. would be placed. Upon his arrival, Ms. M. noticed that the Respondent was intoxicated. He couldn’t lift his head up or open his eyes, his speech was slurred, his mannerisms were slow, and he blankly stared into space. Ms. M. tried to give the Respondent some food, but he couldn’t hold the spoon up. He fell asleep. Later, as Ms. M. tried to get the Respondent to leave, his energy was intense and he was on the brink of creating conflict in front of J.M. Following this, Ms. M. no longer permitted the Respondent to pick J.M. up from daycare.

(c) On December 20, 2022, Z.T. and the Respondent had plans to go skating. The Respondent did not arrive at the scheduled time and did not respond to phone calls or texts. Z.T. was disappointed. The Applicant contacted the paternal grandfather and Ms. M. to ask if they could do a wellness check. The Respondent contacted her several hours later and reported that he had a seizure in a convenience store after mixing Xanax and cocaine.

(d) When J.M. was around 3 years old (so in around 2022-2023), following overnight parenting time with the Respondent, J.M. did not attend school. Ms. M. called the Respondent but she did not receive an answer. Ms. M. asked her mother to do a welfare check. Upon her arrival (which was between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon), Mrs. M. knocked, but did not receive an answer. She could see through the window that the Respondent was in bed. She banged on the window and called his name, but the Respondent did not move. Eventually, J.M. came to the sliding door, which was locked. Mrs. M. motioned to J.M. to unlock and open the door, which she did. Mrs. M. was eventually able to wake the Respondent; she had to literally shake him to accomplish this. It was her impression that he was passed out.

(e) At A.D.’s mid-afternoon grade 8 graduation ceremony (which wasn’t long after the June 3-4, 2022 incident, which is described later in detail), Ms. J. observed the Respondent to not be sober. His speech was slurred. He was forgetful and repeated things. For example, he asked A.D. three times if she had dinner, and the plan was to go out for dinner after the graduation ceremony.

(f) When the court asked why the Respondent did not return to court (by way of motion) to address the fact that the supervised parenting time ordered June 25, 2023 was not occurring, it was explained that the Respondent had a lapse in the Fall of 2024, and he did not feel this would be looked upon kindly.

(g) The weekend before Ms. M. testified (so end of March/early April, 2025), the Respondent requested that he return J.M. home early. While Ms. M. agreed, she advised the Respondent that her expectation was that he would keep J.M. for the entirety of his scheduled parenting time. Her comment upset the Respondent, and he verbally berated her. When the Respondent did not bring J.M. back as he requested, or at the regularly scheduled end time, and given that neither the Respondent nor the paternal grandfather responded to her efforts to communicate with them, she attended the Respondent’s home. Upon her arrival, she observed the paternal grandfather to be leaving; he explained to her that he didn’t return her calls as he was not feeling well and had taken a nap. Ms. M. smelled a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the Respondent. His eyes were blood shot, his speech was slurred, and his mannerisms were slow. His apartment was in disarray. She observed marijuana and a bong on the kitchen counter amongst the activities that J.M. had direct contact with.

88Five months prior to trial, the Respondent started to attend AA and goes as often as he can. He has a sponsor.

89The Respondent advised at trial that he is now ready to be serious and engage in counselling. He further explained that he now knows what can happen if he ‘screws up a little bit’; he never thought that he would not be able to talk to his son.

90The Respondent has no specific plan regarding counselling.

91Ms. M., who has a social service worker diploma and works at XXX as a case worker, testified that it is her understanding that the Canterbury Clinic is open; in November, 2024 before she started her maternity leave, she referred a client to the clinic. Upon hearing this information, the Respondent called the clinic and left a message.

92The Respondent also plans to ask Dr. Crouzat to assist him with finding a counsellor the next time he sees him.

93The paternal grandfather stated he is prepared to pay for the Respondent’s counselling, without any indication of what that cost may be.

B. Parenting time

94Also central to a contextual analysis of Z.T.’s views and preferences is an appreciation of what parenting time with the Respondent has entailed since his parents separated.

95By way of general overview:

(a) From March 1, 2017 to February, 2021 the Respondent’s parenting time, when it occurred, was supervised by many professionals associated with multiple supervised parenting time facilities, family members, and friends. Since the court proceeding started, this included the following:

i. From April, 2018 to September, 2018, the Respondent’s parenting time was supervised by Mr. T. or his designate.

ii. From September, 2018 to August, 2019, the Respondent’s parenting time was supervised by APCO, until it decided to terminate services for the Respondent and Z.T.

iii. From September, 2019 to October, 2019, the Respondent’s parenting time was supervised by Brayden, until it decided to terminate services for the Respondent and Z.T.

iv. From the Spring of 2020 to December, 2020, the Respondent’s parenting time was supervised by Side by Side.

v. From January, 2021 to February, 2021, the Respondent’s parenting time was supervised by Renew.

vi. There was a gap in the Respondent’s parenting time from October, 2019 to March, 2020. There was a further gap following two March, 2020 parenting time sessions (one in-person on March 8, 2020 and one via video on March 28, 2020); the Respondent did not have contact with Z.T. until May 30, 2020.

(b) In February, 2021 the Respondent began to have unsupervised daytime only (no overnights) parenting time with Z.T. (Initially, supervised exchanges occurred at Renew, and later, the exchanges were carried out by the paternal grandfather).

(d) Following the events that transpired during parenting time the night of June 3, 2022 the Respondent’s parenting time reverted to being supervised (not professionally).

(e) The Respondent last had parenting time with Z.T. on February 4, 2023.

(f) On June 25, 2023 Justice O’Connell ordered, on consent, that the Respondent shall have in-person parenting time, supervised by Renew, on Sundays from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

(g) Z.T. refused to attend the first supervised parenting time session at Renew on July 9, 2023.

(h) Subsequently, there were discussions (but no court order and no implementation) regarding reunification therapy.

96There have been positive observations made regarding the quality of the Respondent’s parenting time with Z.T., For example:

(a) The paternal uncle, who supervised the Respondent’s parenting time per the April 3, 2018 order of Justice O’Connell until APCO was able to do so, observed the Respondent and Z.T. be spontaneously affectionate with each other. His impression was that Z.T. enjoyed his time with the Respondent.

(b) While completing the OCL’s 2019 interim report, Ms. McGuirk observed Z.T. to be connected with the Respondent; Z.T. to be engaged in play with him; and that Z.T. was spontaneously affectionate with his father. She further wrote, “When Z.T. initially saw XX [the Respondent] at APCO, the reciprocal excitement between Z.T. and XX [the Respondent] to see each other was palpable as they ran to each other and embraced in a hug.”

(c) While completing the OCL’s 2019 final report, Ms. McGuirk observed the Respondent’s interactions with Z.T. to be child focused, engaging, and fun. She further noted that Z.T. was able to articulate his needs to the Respondent and his father was able to respond to him in an age-appropriate and supportive manner. She also saw that Z.T. and the Respondent shared laughter, made eye contact, presented to have a bond and enjoy their time with each other.

(d) While completing the OCL’s 2021 final report, Ms. Casino observed the tone of the interactions between Z.T. and the Respondent were warm, playful, and comfortable. The Respondent was noted to be very child focused and attentive to Z.T.

97Pursuant to the December 20, 2024 order of Justice O’Connell, the Respondent was to include in his Exhibit Brief all supervised parenting time notes. He did not do so:

(a) The Respondent provided no notes regarding his parenting time at APCO (which covers the period from the Fall of 2018 to August, 2019) and Brayden (which covers the period from September, 2019 to October, 2019). His explanation was simply that he did not have them. Ms. McGuirk reviewed the 22 notes that covered visits from September 30, 2018 to July 7, 2019. With respect to the quality of the interactions between the Respondent and Z.T., her summary included that interactions between the Respondent and Z.T. were documented to be playful, interactive, and engaging and that the Respondent comforted Z.T. when he was accidentally hurt during play. The OCL 2019 final report does not provide a summary of the quality of the interactions observed between the Respondent and Z.T. while parenting time briefly occurred at Brayden.

(b) The Respondent provided the notes for 12 of the 16 parenting time sessions that were supervised by Side by Side; its employees supervised parenting time from March, 2020 to February, 2021 (with a two-month gap from March 28, 2020 to May 30, 2020, as noted above). However, Ms. Casino included a summary of the supervision notes for this period in the OCL’s 2021 final report. From a review of those summaries, the in-person parenting time that happened from March 8, 2020 (after no parenting time since October, 2019) was positive: Z.T. ran to the Respondent; there were lots of hugs; there were many compliments and active play; there was lots of laughter; there was a warm and affectionate goodbye. During the video calls on March 28, 2020; May 30, 2020; June 6, 2020; and June 13, 2020 there were warm interactions, laughter, and talking between Z.T. and the Respondent. During the 11 in-person parenting time sessions that occurred between July 4, 2020 and December 24, 2020, there were many positive, fun, loving, and relaxed interactions noted.

(c) The Respondent provided the notes of all 6 parenting time sessions supervised by Renew from January 17, 2021 to February 17, 2021. The supervisors observed close and comfortable interactions that involved talking, laughing, and hugging observed between the Respondent and Z.T.

98Unfortunately, the Respondent’s professionally supervised parenting time was also problematic.

99The Applicant’s unchallenged evidence is that on occasion, when the paternal grandfather was to be supervising Z.T. with the Respondent, he allowed the child to be with the Respondent, unsupervised.

100While access occurred at APCO, the Respondent was late for 14 of 22 sessions. In the OCL’s 2019 final report, Ms. McGuirk provides helpful guidance as to the impact of this on Z.T. She wrote, “...from the perspective of the child, there is concern that XX [the Respondent’s] tardiness can be perceived as a form of rejection by Z.T. APCO has documented statements made by Z.T. when his father was late for access. An example of this was on September 30, 2018, XX [the Respondent] was documented to be 26 minutes late for his time with Z.T., and upon arrival Z.T. stated, ‘I was waiting for you’. One could argue that Z.T. did not recurrently express this concern; however, through the perspective of the child it is not the child’s responsibility to do so. In addition, children more often internalize the actions of the parents rather than identify them and challenge them in the manner that Z.T. did on this date.”

101On August 22, 2019, APCO terminated services for the Respondent, citing the following violations as the grounds for their decision:

(a) a pattern of lateness despite several verbal warnings and a written warning provided on October 28, 2018;

(b) frequently ignoring instructions from the centre staff and management;

(d) demonstrating abusive behavior such as raising his voice while speaking with staff regarding APCO’s emergency closure on short notice; and

(e) arriving at the same time as the custodial party, violating terms of the restraining order and the program’s letter of agreement.

102The Respondent advised Ms. McGuirk that he recalled arriving at APCO at the same time as the Applicant and standing behind her while they awaited entry into the facility. He was aware that this was a direct breach of his conditions and rules of APCO but did not perceive this to be an issue as he did not say anything.

103The Applicant’s uncontroverted evidence is that the Respondent’s arriving at the same time as the Applicant and Z.T. caused both she and the child anxiety.

104Brayden terminated its service, in writing, on October 23, 2019. This was the result of three incidents that had to do with safety:

(a) The paternal grandfather being present in the parking lot at the end of a visit, getting out of his car, approaching the Applicant, and staring at her. The Applicant then sought safety in the office, which resulted in the Respondent having to leave first;

(b) The Respondent not waiting the 15 minutes at departure for safe staggered arrivals and departures; and

105There were also concerns regarding overnight unsupervised parenting time that occurred between December, 2021 and June, 2022. For example, Z.T. would return with dirty clothes, often unwashed, and with his teeth not brushed. When the Applicant asked the Respondent to ensure Z.T.’s personal hygiene, he berated her and told her she was being mean. Further, Z.T. had told his mother and his grandmother that he was being left home alone. In response, the Applicant spoke with the Respondent, and he assured her that there was nothing to worry about.

106The events of June 3-4, 2022 are particularly relevant to a contextual analysis of Z.T.’s views and preferences.

107On June 3, 2022 all the Respondent’s 3 children (aged 13, 7, and 3 at the time) joined him at his home for overnight parenting time. The Respondent was not present when they woke up the next morning. The paternal grandfather arrived on the scene after A.D. called him and reported that the Respondent was not at home and not answering his phone.

108Mrs. M. arrived at the Respondent’s home around 10:20 a.m. on June 4, 2022 to pick up J.M. shortly after Ms. M. received the call from the paternal grandfather that the children were home alone. Mrs. M. observed Z.T. to be disturbed, upset, and to state he was scared. Prior to the Respondent’s return, he was asking where their father was, and was repeatedly asking, “why would he leave?”

109The paternal grandfather said that he tried to console the children when he arrived on June 4, 2022.

110Mrs. M. testified that at approximately 10:45 a.m. the Respondent arrived home with his bicycle. A.D. and Z.T. asked him where he was; why did he leave; why he didn’t answer his phone. He responded, in the children’s presence, that around 3:00 a.m. he left to get cigarettes, got into a fight, and fell asleep on a park bench. Mrs. M. observed the Respondent to, ‘look disheveled, tired, not okay.” She further noted that she did not notice any physical injury to him.

111It is not entirely clear what transpired the night of June 3-4, 2022:

(a) The Respondent testified that he left around midnight to get milk for breakfast the next morning; Mrs. M. testified that he stated on his return that he left at 3:00 a.m. to get cigarettes.

(b) The Respondent testified that when he was jumped, his attackers stole his bike; Mrs. M. observed him arrive home June 4, 2022 with his bike.

(c) The Respondent testified that his jaw was broken during this incident. Mrs. M. did not notice any physical injury to him. Ms. M. testified that when she spoke with the Respondent as to what transpired, he was inconsistent with respect to whether his jaw was broken or not. The Respondent stated that he attended Western Hospital on June 4, 2022 but no report from the hospital was provided.

(d) When the paternal grandfather was questioned by the Respondent’s counsel about the events of June 3-4, 2022, she asked him about what he did when he heard the Respondent had relapsed. The paternal grandfather’s response included that he was upset; that he wanted to help the Respondent, but he has to learn to help himself; that he knows the Respondent will get better because he wants to for his children; and that he told the Respondent that he fucked up real bad and he’s going to have to prove to everyone that he’s going to get better and wants to get better, because trust doesn’t get a second chance, but sometimes it does.

112However, what is evident is that the events of June 3-4, 2022 profoundly impacted Z.T.’s sense of safety and security while in the Respondent’s care.

113As already noted, following the June 3-4, 2022 incident, the Respondent continued to have parenting time with Z.T., but it was supervised.

114On February 4, 2023, Z.T. came home from supervised parenting time that had occurred at the home of friend, B.H., Z.T. said he no longer wanted to see his father. He said his father had promised to stop drinking, but he hadn’t, and he said that his father was saying ‘bad things about papa.’

115On February 5, 2023, the Applicant was advised by Ms. M. that the Respondent had made a sexual abuse allegation to her regarding the paternal grandfather, suggesting that he could not be trusted alone with his grandchildren. The Respondent later recanted and explained that he was angry with the paternal grandfather for siding with the mothers of his children regarding the supervision of his parenting time and made the allegations in bad faith. The troubling nature of the Respondent’s careless behaviour is magnified by the fact that the paternal grandfather himself had been a child victim of sexual abuse. As Ms. M. so aptly noted, ‘to weaponize the father’s trauma against him and to use the children to do so is one of the most reckless things he has ever done.’ The court cannot help but wonder that if the Respondent had followed the recommendations made in the OCL’s 2019 final report and received professional assistance regarding his anger and his relationship with his father, might this unfortunate event have been avoided.

116Following the sexual abuse allegation, the Applicant decided that it was necessary for the Respondent’s parenting time to be professionally supervised. She was concerned that the Respondent would make allegations about her and the others who supervised. She suggested to the Applicant that his parenting time occur at Renew; the Respondent didn’t accept this offer. However, eventually, as noted above, on June 25, 2023 Justice O’Connell ordered, on consent, that the Respondent shall have in-person parenting time, supervised by Renew, on Sundays from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

117The Applicant took Z.T. to Renew on July 9, 2023. Z.T. refused to get out of the car. The Applicant, the supervisor, and the Respondent (via phone) encouraged him to attend his parenting time, but he refused. The visit supervisor’s note includes that she could see that Z.T. was crying and at times shaking in his seat. The Applicant advised that Z.T. was curled up in a ball, shaking and crying. The visit supervisor recommended to the Respondent that he speak with his lawyer about reunification therapy.

118There were discussions about reunification therapy following Z.T.’s refusal to attend parenting time on July 9, 2023. In August, 2023 the Applicant agreed to this counselling, provided the Respondent provided her with a clean drug test. He did not do so. The Respondent did not bring a motion regarding therapeutic reintegration.

C. Influence by Applicant

119With respect to a contextual analysis of Z.T.’s views and preferences, the court must consider whether he has been influenced by the Applicant. The court has no concerns regarding the Applicant’s behaviour in this regard:

(a) Ms. Bisgould’s findings regarding this issue, as noted above, were not disturbed in cross-examination.

(b) Ms. McGuirk noted in the OCL’s 2019 interim report that the Applicant did not make statements to suggest that she did not support Z.T. having access with the Respondent. She further noted that the Applicant sees Z.T.’s connection to his father and recognizes the Respondent’s positive parenting attributes and that all the Applicant wants is for Z.T. to be safe in his father’s care.

(c) While Ms. McGuirk completed the OCL’s 2019 final report, Z.T. told her that the Applicant does not allow him to go to the Respondent’s house, however, he does not know why. Ms. McGuirk indicated that this was a ‘small but incredibly important detail.’ She went on to explain that the fact that Z.T. did not know why he is in supervised access with his father demonstrates that his emotional well-being was being protected.

(d) The Applicant faithfully took Z.T. to scheduled parenting time. She did not cancel unless the child was ill, and this wasn’t a common occurrence.

(e) The Applicant sent things with Z.T. for his parenting time with the Respondent.

(f) In 2021, when the Respondent seemed to be doing better than he had at other times with respect to his addiction issues, the Applicant agreed, without the necessity of a court order, for his parenting time to become unsupervised.

(g) In 2021, the Applicant tried to increase Z.T.’s comfort level with overnights by having him sleep at the maternal grandparents’ home.

(h) Ms. M. advised that she has seen gifts she and the Respondent gave to Z.T. in the Applicant’s home.

(i) Even after the serious incident of June 3-4, 2022 the Applicant engaged with the Respondent to ensure parenting time occurred and supervised some of this herself. After the February 9, 2023 incident, she suggested that the parenting time be supervised at Renew, so as to facilitate ongoing contact between the Respondent and the child.

(j) The Applicant arranged for and took Z.T. to 4 sessions at the FAMEkids Program at Reconnect Community Health Services regarding the Respondent’s mental health concerns. These sessions occurred between May, 2023 and August, 2023. This program is directed towards children ages 7-12 who have/had a family member or loved one with mental illness. The psychoeducational program aims to educate and equip children with coping skills through artwork, discussion, and games in a safe environment.

(k) At trial, the Applicant convincingly explained how it is important to her that Z.T. knows that the Respondent and his family loves him; how she would never want him to feel unloved. She went on to describe what she does to facilitate this: she tells Z.T. all the time that they love him; she talks about them; she shows him pictures of them; and she recently played a video of the Respondent playing a guitar so Z.T. would know that he is cool. She persuasively indicated that she doesn’t want things to be the way they are.

(l) The Respondent’s persistent efforts at trial to establish that the Applicant inappropriately used the April, 2019 restraining order to thwart parenting time and Z.T.’s relationship with him were not successful; I do not find that she engaged in misconduct as the Respondent claimed.

4.2.4 Conclusion

120When Z.T.’s reality – from his perspective – is considered, it is easy to appreciate his strong, clear, consistent, and longstanding preference to not have contact with the Respondent.

121In sum, Z.T. has had a meaningful relationship and positive interactions with the Respondent, however the unfortunate reality is that due to the Respondent’s untreated challenges, the Respondent has not been able to consistently meet Z.T.’s physical, emotional, and psychological needs:

(a) The multiple changes to the location and supervisors of the parenting time have likely created feelings of instability and uncertainty for Z.T.

(b) The Respondent’s inability to comply with the rules of the parenting centers has created anxiety for Z.T.

(c) As noted by Ms. McGuirk, Z.T. likely experienced feelings of rejection due to the Respondent’s chronic lateness at supervised access in 2019. It stands to reason that similar feelings resulted from the gaps that have occurred in the Respondent’s parenting time.

(d) Z.T.’s primary needs have not always been met by the Respondent, as evidenced by him returning home with visible signs that his basic hygiene needs were neglected.

(e) Z.T. has been scared in the Respondent’s presence while he has been intoxicated.

(f) Z.T. has felt scared and abandoned when the Respondent was not present the morning of June 4, 2022.

(g) Z.T. has been negatively impacted by the Respondent ‘s inappropriate comments regarding Z.T.’s papa.

122The totality of Z.T.’s experiences with the Respondent establishes a reasonable foundation for his wish to not have contact with him; there is a logical and rational reason for Z.T.’s rejection of the Respondent. In addition, given Z.T.’s maturity and that there are no concerns regarding inappropriate parental influence, the court has given Z.T.’s views and preferences significant weight.

123The court has also considered that Z.T. requires and deserves stability in his life. The Respondent’s absence is not causing him difficulties in this regard; he is doing well socially and academically. The court is concerned that if parenting time is recommenced prior to the Respondent taking meaningful steps to address the personal issues that prevent him from being a consistently positive presence in Z.T.’s life, the instability that Z.T. experienced while having to deal with the Respondent’s limitations in the past will resurface.

124With respect to the Respondent’s request that there be a therapeutic component associated with his in-person parenting time:

(a) The Respondent has not provided adequate evidence to support this request; he has not provided a detailed proposal identifying the proposed counsellor and what is to be expected. It was generally submitted by counsel that the counselling could be carried out by Renew or other professionals such as Risa Ennis, Shely Polak, or Merrill Barber, but no specifics at all were provided.

(b) Prior to there being a consideration of counselling regarding the relationship between Z.T. and the Respondent, it is imperative that the Respondent address his multi-layered personal issues. The Respondent requires much more assistance with his addiction issues than that which is given by occasional attendance at AA, and it is not known what assistance he receives from Dr. Crouzat, as he did not testify. The Respondent has no current concrete plans for personal in-depth counselling. In addition, it does not appear that the Respondent has progressed much, if at all, with respect to the issues related to self-responsibility, as identified in the OCL’s 2019 final report. Much of his testimony at trial was focused on his view of the Applicant’s behaviour and how this has impacted his relationship with Z.T. He also testified that, “The APCO staff did not like me.”, and “Brayden was not much better...” The Respondent has had the benefit of the multiple recommendations made by OCL clinical investigators to address these (and other) issues, but he has not followed through. Without having done so, the efficacy of reunification therapy is compromised.

(d) Given Z.T.’s strong-willed nature, it is doubtful he would participate in reunification therapy

125Based on the totality of the foregoing, this is one of those extreme and unusual circumstances where no form of contact between child and parent, and no efforts at reconciliation, is the child focused decision to make.

4.2.5 Other issues

126With respect to the Respondent’s other parenting related issues:

(a) The court will not order that the Respondent attend counselling. First, the Respondent should not require a court order to undertake this process. Second, Justice O’Connell has made such an order on two occasions, and they were not complied with.

(b) The court will not order that the Applicant may directly obtain information from his counsellor (when he has one) or from Dr. Crouzat, his staff, or the drug- testing facility he attends. First, it is not the Applicant’s responsibility to gather information about the Respondent; it is his responsibility to provide it in proper form. Second, the court must not be seen to endorse the validity of the drug test results as the reliability of same is not known.

(c) The court will not order that the Respondent shall create a safety plan on the recommendation of any of his counsellors. This is a moot request given that parenting time is not ordered, and he does not have a counsellor.

Part 5 – Child Support

5.1 Guideline

127The parties spent very little time on the issue of Table child support at trial.

128Child support claimed after an application is issued is prospective support, not retroactive support and is presumptively payable.¹⁸ This presumption was not rebutted by the Respondent. Therefore, Guideline child support shall be payable as of March 1, 2018 as the Application was issued on March 8, 2018.

129For the court to be able to determine the proper quantum of child support to order, full financial disclosure is required. The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information. This requirement is immediate and ongoing.¹⁹

130The Respondent was under a legal obligation to provide financial disclosure from 2018 to date. Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules²⁰ outlines the particulars of the Respondent’s disclosure obligations and the Child Support Guidelines.²¹

131When a parent fails to provide proper and full disclosure of financial information, the court may draw an adverse inference and impute an income to them.²²

132 Subsection 19(1)(f) of the Child Support Guidelines provides the court with the authority to impute such an amount of income to a parent it considers appropriate in the circumstances when a parent fails to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so.

133 Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines is not an invitation to the court to arbitrarily select an amount as imputed income. There must be a rational basis underlying the selection of any such figure. The amount selected as an exercise of the court’s discretion must be grounded in the evidence.²³

134The onus is on the person requesting an imputation of income to establish an evidentiary basis for such a finding.²⁴

135Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking.²⁵

136The Respondent did not provide financial information regarding his 2018 income. He was obliged to do so.

137The Applicant seeks that for 2018 the Respondent be imputed the gross income he earned in 2019, namely $71,053. This is a reasonable request, and a prima facie case was established. The Respondent did not defend this. Thus, the Respondent’s child support obligation for the period of March 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 shall be based on an imputed income of $71,053.

138When calculating the Respondent’s child support obligation for 2019, his actual income of $71,053 will be used.

139The Applicant does not specify what income amount should be used when calculating the Respondent’s child support obligation for the first five months of 2020. However, she asks that there to be no adjustment to Justice O’Connell’s temporary November 16, 2020 order, which requires the Respondent to pay child support in the amount of $664 a month, commencing June 1, 2020, based on his 2019 income of $71,053, until May 1, 2025.

140There is no rational foundation for the Applicant’s request for the years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. The Respondent has provided financial information for those years, and the quantum of income listed therein not been challenged.

141In his trial affidavit, the Respondent suggests that the court use his income the year prior when calculating child support. Subsection 2(3) of the Child Support Guidelines states that, where, for the purposes of the child support guidelines, any amount is determined on the basis of specified information, the most current information must be used. To follow the Respondent’s requested approach in all subject years would be contrary to this requirement. Therefore, when calculating the Respondent’s child support obligation for the years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, the following income shall be used:

(a) 2020: $55,238

(b) 2021: $43,820

(d) 2023: $40,770

142With respect to 2024, the Respondent has not met his financial disclosure obligation.

143In his trial affidavit, his evidence with respect to his 2024 income is as follows, “My income for 2024 has not yet been calculated but I estimate it will be roughly similar. I am still working part-time for both my employers. I have a meeting to dast o [sic] my taxes next week Friday. I was to receive letters from them stating what I have earned in 2024, but I have not gone to work since my mother’s hospitalization last week to collect them. I will file the letters from my employers this week with the court, but this has been an extremely hard last week.”

144Attached to his April 9, 2025 financial statement are the following two letters:

(a) April 9, 2025 letter from A.C., CEO of XXX Contracting Inc which states:

i. The Respondent has been employed with XXX Contracting Inc. on an on- call basis for over 2 years.

ii. The Respondent works as ‘night premium’ as a taper/finisher. He has been working about 10-15 hours weekly at a rate of $40 an hour and earned $22,840 in 2024.

iii. Due to a lack of consistent industry demand, full time work is currently unavailable.

iv. He is aware that the Respondent has more time available now than last year and he is putting him on all the projects where he needs assistance. He hopes to be able to put the Respondent on the payroll for the upcoming busier spring and summer seasons.

(b) Letter dated April 9, 2024 (presumed to be a type-o as the letter refers to the Respondent’s work to September, 2024) from R.S. of R.S.S.D. It states:

i. The Respondent was employed as an artist’s assistant and custom finish installer with his company until September 20, 2024.

ii. He made $6,800.

145The above-noted evidence is contradictory. The total of the incomes noted in the two letters is $29,640; this is not ‘roughly similar’ to his 2023 income of $40,770.

146The court has also been provided inconsistent evidence as to whether the Respondent is a T4 employee or self-employed. In his trial affidavit, he stated he is working part-time for both his ‘employers’. However, in both his April 9, 2025 and September 6, 2024 sworn financial statements, he said that he is self-employed and carrying on business under the name “R.D., XXX XXX Avenue, Apartment 1, Toronto ON XXX XXX.” In both financial statements, he went on to declare that his employment income (before deductions) is “$1,000 to $4,000” a month and that his self-employment income (monthly amount before expenses) is “N.A.”

147If the Respondent is self-employed, he has an inherent obligation to put forward not only adequate, but comprehensive records of income and expenses, from which the recipient can draw conclusions, and the amount of child support can be established.²⁶ This includes the obligation to present information in a user-friendly fashion. The Respondent provided no information of this nature.

148Based on the foregoing, it is appropriate to impute an income to the Respondent, and the quantum deemed to be appropriate is $48,000, the top end of the range of income stated in the Respondent’s two most recent sworn financial statements.

149In sum, for the period of March 1, 2018 to August 31, 2025 the Respondent’s

Guideline child support obligation has been as follows:

(a) For the period of March 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant Table child support each month in the amount of $664. This is the Guideline amount of child support to be paid for one child based on an imputed annual income of $71,053. (10 X $664 = $6,640).

(b) For 2019, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant Table child support each month in the amount of $664. This is the Guideline amount of child support to be paid for one child based on his actual annual income of $71,053. (12 X $664 = $7,968).

(c) For 2020, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant Table child support each month in the amount of $509. This is the Guideline amount of child support to be paid for one child based on his actual annual income of $55,238. (12 X $509 = $6,108).

(d) For 2021, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant Table child support each month in the amount of $404. This is the Guideline amount of child support to be paid for one child based on his actual annual income of $43,820. (12 X $404 = $4,848).

(e) For 2022, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant Table child support each month in the amount of $283. This is the Guideline amount of child support to be paid for one child based on his actual annual income of $33,060. (12 X $283 = $3,396).

(f) For 2023, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant Table child support each month in the amount of $368. This is the Guideline amount of child support to be paid for one child based on his actual annual income of $40,770. (12 X $368 = $4,416).

(g) For the period of January 1, 2024 to August 31, 2025, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant Table child support each month in the amount of $445. This is the Guideline amount of child support to be paid for one child based on an imputed annual income $48,000. (8 X $445 = $3,560).

150The court will defer to FRO to calculate the total amount of child support owing, to ensure that all payments made by the Respondent and diversions received are accounted for.

151The Respondent requests that any arrears owing shall be adjusted to take into account that he paid the intake fees for both Inclusive Families and Side by Side in the amount of $350 and shall be payable at the rate of $100 a month.

152The court is not prepared to make this order:

(a) On November 16, 2020 Justice O’Connell ordered, “Any arrears for the increased support owing shall be adjusted to take into account the father’s costs of paying for the intake fees for both Inclusive Families and Side by Side in the amount of $350.” Thus, the requested order has already been made.

(b) The payment of $100 a month is not an appropriate rate of payment.

153The court finds that it is appropriate to order the arrears owing to be paid at a rate of $305 a month. In reaching this amount, the court has considered:

(a) The Respondent has considerable monthly expenses from which he can draw to satisfy this debt. According to his April 9, 2025 financial statement, the Respondent’s monthly expenses include $120 on meals outside the home; $300 on alcohol and tobacco; $400 for entertainment / recreation (including children); $75 on children’s activities; and $100 a month on gifts (pro-rated birthdays and Christmas).

(b) The Respondent’s monthly payments to his existing debts are minimal. According to his April 9, 2025 financial statement, the Respondent pays $100 a month towards his Capital One credit Card balance of $1,860; he does not make payments towards his child support obligations for Z.T.; he does not make payments towards his child support obligations for A.D.; he does not state whether he makes payments towards the $734 he owes Ms. M.; he does not state whether he makes payments towards the $5,136.86 he owes in legal fees.

(c) The rate of $305 provides the Respondent with a very fair period of time to pay a debt he could have avoided if he regularly paid support over the years.

154The court further finds it is fair to provide the Respondent some time to ready himself for the payment of arrears. Thus, the payments will commence November 1, 2025.

155With respect to ongoing support, commencing September 1, 2025 and on the first day of each month thereafter, the Respondent shall pay Guideline child support to the Applicant for the subject child in the amount of $445. This is the Guideline amount of child support to be paid for one child based on an imputed annual income $48,000.

5.2 Section 7

156The parties spent very little time on the issue of section 7 expenses at trial.

157There are no current or past section 7 expenses for which the Applicant is seeking contribution from the Respondent.

158The guiding principle when determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection 7(1) of the Child Support Guidelines is that the expense is shared by the parents in proportion to their respective incomes.

159The difficulty with applying this general principle to this case is that the court is unable to determine the Applicant’s appropriate income. While the Respondent did not question the appropriateness of applying the Applicant’s 2024 T4 income to the determination of her portion of section 7 expenses, the Applicant is a co-owner of XXX Inc. Her financial disclosure obligation goes well beyond simply providing a copy of her T4.

160Where a party is a shareholder in a company, their income tax returns will generally not be sufficient to establish income, or the value of the business.²⁷ The obligation to produce sufficient information to satisfy a court as to the value of assets and the quantum of annual income rests with the party whose assets and income are called into question.²⁸

161The Applicant did not meet her financial disclosure obligation. The court has no evidence as to what an appropriate amount of income is to impute to her. As such, the appropriate approach to the sharing of Z.T.’s future section 7 expenses is that they be shared equally between his parents.

162The Respondent requests an order that he shall be consulted prior to the Applicant incurring a section 7 expense for which she seeks his contribution; he shall not unreasonably withhold his consent to the expense. The Applicant’s position regarding this request is not known. In the circumstances, this is a fair request and allowable pursuant to the terms of the existing restraining order and will be ordered.

Part 6 – Order

There shall be no parenting time between the Respondent, R.D. and the subject child Z.T., born January XX, 2015.
Commencing September 1, 2025 and on the 1st day of each month thereafter, the Respondent, R.D. shall pay the Applicant, K.T. Table child support for the subject child Z.T. (born January XX, 2015) in the amount of $445. This is the Guideline amount of child support to be paid for one child, based on the Respondent having an imputed annual income of $48,000.
For the period of March 1, 2018 to August 31, 2025 the Respondent’s Guideline

child support obligation shall be as follows:

Commencing November 1, 2025 and on the first day of each month thereafter, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant $305 towards the arrears of child support, until the amount owing is paid in full.
The Applicant and the Respondent shall each pay half of the net cost of Z.T.’s future section 7 expenses. The Respondent shall only be required to contribute to expenses that he has consented to, in writing, in advance of the expense being incurred. The Respondent shall not unreasonably withhold his consent to section 7 expenses for Z.T.
If costs are sought:

(a) By September 23, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. the requesting party shall serve and file their written costs submissions (which shall not exceed 5 pages; be prepared using 12 pt. font and 1.5 spacing; and not include more than 3 cases), all Offers to Settle (with proof of service), and a Bill of Costs.

(b) By October 7, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. the responding party shall serve and file their written responding costs submissions (which shall not exceed 5 pages; be prepared using 12 pt. font and 1.5 spacing; and not include more than 3 cases); all Offers to Settle (with proof of service), and a Bill of Costs.

September 2, 2025

Justice Susan Sullivan

ONSC 6510.

Dayboll v. Biyag, 2022 ONSC 6510 .

Najjardizaji v. Mehrjerdi , 2004 ONCJ 374, [2004] O.J. No. 5472 (OCJ).

Footnotes

R.S.O. 1990, c C43.
The Respondent indicated most recently at the December 20, 2024 trial management conference (and at the June 26, 2024 and August 15, 2024 trial management conferences) that he intended to call Dr. Crouzat as a witness and that his evidence would include opinion evidence regarding addictions management. As a result, Justice O’Connell ordered that he was to serve and file a report (expert or medical) and an updated curriculum vitae of Dr. Crouzat no later than February 7, 2025.
2017 SCC 23.
The Applicant confirmed that she did not require additional time to review the Respondent’s trial affidavit and Exhibit Brief prior to her testifying.
R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.
Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 641.
White v. Kozun , 2021 ONSC 41 ; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736.
Phillips v. Phillips , 2021 ONSC 2480 .
Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC).
Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC); E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022
2023 ONCJ 515, at para. 44.
Klymenko v. Klymenko , 2020 ONSC 5451 .
Worthington v. Worthington, 2000 CanLII 22469 (ON SC), 2000 CarswellOnt 4889 (SCJ).
Jennings v. Garrett, 2004 CanLII 17126 (ON SC), 2004 CarswellOnt 2159 (SCJ).
M.A. v. J.M., 2003 CanLII 52807 (ON CJ), [2003] O.J. No. 2946 (OCJ);
I.O. v. I.G.,2023 ONCJ 520 ;
2019 ONCA 764.
Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331ONCA.
Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, at paras. 36-37.
O. Reg. 114/99.
O. Reg. 391/97.
Woofenden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4583, at para. 38.
Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] CarswellOnt 3228 (ONCA).
Homsi v Zaya, 2009 ONCA 28, 2009 ONCA, at para. 28.
Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663, 15; Charron v. Carrière, 2016 ONSC 4719, at para. 66.
Meade v. Meade, (2002) 2002 CanLII 2806 (ON SC), 31 R.F.L. 5th 88 (SCJ).
Blaney v. Blaney, 2012 ONSC 1777, at para. 5; Marcoccia v. Marcoccia, 2009 ONCA 162, at para. 10.
Blaney v. Blaney, supra.

Footnotes

R.S.O. 1990, c C43.
The Respondent indicated most recently at the December 20, 2024 trial management conference (and at the June 26, 2024 and August 15, 2024 trial management conferences) that he intended to call Dr. Crouzat as a witness and that his evidence would include opinion evidence regarding addictions management. As a result, Justice O’Connell ordered that he was to serve and file a report (expert or medical) and an updated curriculum vitae of Dr. Crouzat no later than February 7, 2025.
2017 SCC 23.
The Applicant confirmed that she did not require additional time to review the Respondent’s trial affidavit and Exhibit Brief prior to her testifying.
R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.
Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 641.
White v. Kozun , 2021 ONSC 41 ; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736.
Phillips v. Phillips , 2021 ONSC 2480 .
Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC).
Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC); E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022
2023 ONCJ 515, at para. 44.
Klymenko v. Klymenko , 2020 ONSC 5451 .
Worthington v. Worthington, 2000 CanLII 22469 (ON SC), 2000 CarswellOnt 4889 (SCJ).
Jennings v. Garrett, 2004 CanLII 17126 (ON SC), 2004 CarswellOnt 2159 (SCJ).
M.A. v. J.M., 2003 CanLII 52807 (ON CJ), [2003] O.J. No. 2946 (OCJ);
I.O. v. I.G.,2023 ONCJ 520 ;
2019 ONCA 764.
Mackinnon v. Mackinnon, 2005 13 R.F.L. (6th) 331ONCA.
Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, at paras. 36-37.
O. Reg. 114/99.
O. Reg. 391/97.
Woofenden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4583, at para. 38.
Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] CarswellOnt 3228 (ONCA).
Homsi v Zaya, 2009 ONCA 28, 2009 ONCA, at para. 28.
Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663, 15; Charron v. Carrière, 2016 ONSC 4719, at para. 66.
Meade v. Meade, (2002) 2002 CanLII 2806 (ON SC), 31 R.F.L. 5th 88 (SCJ).
Blaney v. Blaney, 2012 ONSC 1777, at para. 5; Marcoccia v. Marcoccia, 2009 ONCA 162, at para. 10.
Blaney v. Blaney, supra.

K.T. v. R.D., 2025 ONCJ 721

Case Summary

B E T W E E N :

JUSTICE SUSAN SULLIVAN:

Part 1 – Introduction

Part 2 – Evidence

Part 3 – Background Facts

Part 4 – Parenting Time

4.2 Analysis

4.2.2 Z.T.’s personality and maturity

4.2.3 Contextual analysis of Z.T.’s views and preferences

B. Parenting time

C. Influence by Applicant

4.2.4 Conclusion

4.2.5 Other issues

Part 5 – Child Support

5.2 Section 7

Part 6 – Order

Footnotes

K.T. v. R.D., 2025 ONCJ 721

Case Summary

B E T W E E N :

JUSTICE SUSAN SULLIVAN:

Part 1 – Introduction

Part 2 – Evidence

Part 3 – Background Facts

Part 4 – Parenting Time

4.2 Analysis

4.2.2 Z.T.’s personality and maturity

4.2.3 Contextual analysis of Z.T.’s views and preferences

B. Parenting time

C. Influence by Applicant

4.2.4 Conclusion

4.2.5 Other issues

Part 5 – Child Support

5.2 Section 7

Part 6 – Order

Footnotes