ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
S.D.
Applicant
— AND —
H.D.
Respondent
Before Justice Joanne Beasley
Heard on March 25, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on March 27, 2026
S.D................................................................................................................. on his own behalf
Deborah Adebayo counsel for the Respondent
1The Court heard motions from both parties to address the parenting schedule for two children: T.D-D. born […], 2024 and G.D-D. born […], 2026.
2The issues for the Court on the motions:
(1) What should the temporary parenting arrangements for both children be?
(2) Should S.D.’s medical records be disclosed?
(3) Should make-up parenting time be ordered for H.D.?
(4) Should a police enforcement order be made?
3The parties consented to an order for police records. I will make such an order.
4The parties consented to an order for the use of Talking Parents for their communication. I will make such an order.
Background
5H.D. is the Respondent mother. She is currently residing with her family in Bobcaygeon. S.D. is the Applicant father. He is residing in Brantford, Ontario. Bobcaygeon and Brantford are at least 2.5 hours drive apart.
6They are the parents of T.D-D., born […], 2024 and G.D-D., born […], 2026.
7The parents started living together in July 2023 and separated in September 2025 when H.D. was pregnant with the parties’ second child. S.D. commenced a court application on September 15, 2025. H.D.’s evidence is that she went to visit her parents for a week in September of 2025 with T.D-D. and S.D. insisted that she return to Brantford. At that point she had not separated or taken her belongings from the home. When she refused to return, he started the court action.
8H.D. is in receipt of Ontario Works and the CCB for T.D-D. She receives $704.70 from Ontario Works and $ 810 in CCB for T.D-D. She has sent half of the CCB to Mr. DeSouza. In February 2026, she sent $810 to S.D. to assist in repaying her share of the nesting costs, including rent, that is in arrears. The CCB is now on hold until the relationship dates are confirmed by both parties.
9H.D.’s 35.1 affidavit disclosed a peace bond between the parties where her contact with S.D. was the subject of a revocable consent and the PAR program. S.D. signed a consent allowing contact between the parties on August 29, 2024 with the London Police. The parties continued to reside together until September 2025 when they separated and agreed to a nesting arrangement with both using the new apartment for their parenting of T.D-D. This measure was expected to last about a month.
10S.D.’s 35.1 affidavit dated September 16, 2025 indicated that he had no criminal charges. This information was not accurate. S.D. reluctantly admitted at the hearing of the motion that he was charged with leaving the scene of an accident in August 2025 but expected that the criminal charge would be withdrawn. S.D.’s evidence is that S.D. was charged with careless driving and 3 other charges. I will make an order that S.D. serve and file an updated 35.1 affidavit within 7 days.
11On September 22, 2025, on consent, Justice K. A. Baker made an interim without‑prejudice order establishing a nesting arrangement for T.D-D. on a 3‑4‑4‑3 parenting schedule. Justice Baker’s endorsement indicated that the motion had been commenced and that the parties had agreed to a temporary without prejudice Order. The motion was scheduled for argument on October 16, 2025. The interim without prejudice minutes provided for T.D-D.’s residence to be at the Brantford apartment, for T.D-D. to be returned to the father and for S.D. to have parenting time with him until September 27th, and then a 2-2-3-3 nesting arrangement to commence. Exchanges were to occur at a Tim Hortons in Brantford. T.D-D. was not to be removed from Brantford without the parents’ consent. The parent who had care of T.D-D. was to take him to all scheduled doctor appointments and provide a written summary to the other parent within 24 hours. The consent included “on a without prejudice, and on the understanding that the Applicant disputes the Respondent’s claim that his medical history requires same, the Applicant’s parenting time shall be in the presence of a third party.”
12The parents had been residing in an apartment building in Brantford. They had moved to a different apartment in the same building in September 2025. The lease is only in the name of S.D. There are significant rental arrears.
13On October 16, 2025, the motion was confirmed but H.D. sought an adjournment to obtain counsel. Justice K.A. Baker indicated the matter was no longer urgent given the temporary without prejudice consent and ordered the September 22, 2025 Order to continue until further order of the Court.
14On November 24, 2025, I granted a temporary order addressing parenting time and the Christmas schedule on consent. S.D. did not attend court on that day. His counsel consented to an order changing the parenting schedule. His position is that he did not consent to the parenting time changes. That is an issue between his former counsel and himself. I also ordered that from mid‑February 2026 until August 15, 2026, H.D. was not required to do the driving for parenting exchanges involving T.D-D.
15For the purposes of the motions before the Court, I note that T.D-D. has had a shared parenting schedule from September 2025 until February 2026.
16On January 21, 2026, I set timelines for the parties to file motion materials to address parenting arrangements for T.D-D. and the unborn child. At that time, no orders were made regarding the residence of the unborn child. The matter was set to return to Court on April 21, 2026 for a motion
17On […], 2026, H.D. gave birth to G.D-D. in Lindsay, Ontario, which was the hospital closest to her residence in Bobcaygeon. S.D. attended at the hospital to meet the newborn. On February 26, 2026, S.D. returned to Brantford with T.D-D. for his parenting time.
18On February 28, 2026, H.D. contacted S.D. to arrange for T.D-D. to come to Bobcaygeon for her upcoming parenting time scheduled to begin March 1, 2026. She proposed that family members would assist with transportation and advised that she would ensure T.D-D.’s return to Brantford for S.D.’s parenting time. S.D. refused unless H.D. returned to Brantford with the newborn.
19Beginning March 1, 2026, S.D. refused to release T.D-D. to H.D. for her parenting time. He insisted that H.D. exercise her parenting time in Brantford. H.D. states that she has not exercised parenting time with T.D-D. since that date. She has missed 18 days of parenting time as of the hearing of the motion.
20Both parties had counsel in early March. S.D.’s counsel wrote: T.D-D can't leave Brantford, he will not be releasing T.D-D. and he will have her arrested for an assault charge that he has video evidence of.” H.D.’s counsel insisted that T.D-D. should return to Bobcaygeon for his parenting time with his mother pursuant to the November 2025 court order schedule as H.D. had given birth to G.D-D. 2 weeks earlier. H.D. refused.
21H.D. brought an urgent motion without notice seeking a CLRA s 36 apprehension Order authorizing Police, OPP and/or London Police Service to locate, apprehend, and deliver the child G.D-D. born […] 2026 to the Applicant S.D. or the grandfather S. D., for a police enforcement order under CLRA s 37 – Police Seek and Search any premises where they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe the child may be, using force if necessary and to bring G.D-D. to him.
22S.D.’s evidence included that there was an active arrest warrant for H.D. for a violent assault. S.D. asserted that the police advised that they could not recover the 14-day-old infant G.D-D. during the arrest without a section 36 apprehension order containing a police enforcement clause. He claimed that there was an immediate risk of foster care for G.D-D and that H.D. was a flight risk.
23On March 11, 2026, I declined to make an order on the urgent motion finding that the evidence did not establish immediate risk or urgency. The court date was brought forward from April 21, 2026 to April 7, 2026 with leave for motions to be brought.
24On March 11, 2026, the police attended at H.D.’s residence. She was charged and provided with an undertaking to appear. H.D. was not detained. A no‑contact condition between the parties was imposed. It is not clear on the record before me when the alleged assault occurred and whether the incident predates the charge that was resolved through the peace bond. She was advised by the police officers that they had not seen the video evidence and that the event was over a year old.
25On March 16, 2026, H.D. served and filed an urgent motion. She sought enforcement of existing parenting orders, restoration of her parenting time with T.D-D., make‑up parenting time for days missed since March 1, 2026, and termination of the nesting arrangement. She also sought a temporary week‑on/week‑off parenting schedule with exchanges at 2:00 p.m. on Mondays and supervised parenting time for G.D-D.
Father’s Position
26S.D. seeks an order that G.D-D. and T.D-D. be parented in a nesting arrangement at the Brantford apartment on a 2-3-3 schedule and a CLRA s 36 Order. S.D. seeks dismissal of the Respondent’s motion, enforcement of the Brantford geographic restriction, and the immediate return of the infant child, G.D-D., to Brantford to prevent sibling separation.
27S.D. asserts that H.D. is withholding G.D-D. from him and that the January 21, 2026 Order mandates Branford residency of G.D-D.
28The January 21, 2026, Order did not address the residency of either child, and G.D-D. was not born at that time.
29The September 22, 2025 consent order of Justice K.A. Baker included that neither party remove the child from the City of Brantford without written consent.
30S.D. states that H.D. is in breach of the September 22, 2025 term that T.D-D.’s residence is the Brantford apartment. S.D. asserts that he is the sole leaseholder of the Brantford residence, which is the children’s legal and physical habitual residence.
31S.D. notes that H.D.’s March 11, 2026 undertaking includes a mandatory 100‑metre no‑contact and stay‑away condition from S.D. and his residence, which renders the existing arrangement legally impossible, as allowing H.D. access to the residence would cause a breach of her criminal conditions.
32S.D. expresses concern about H.D.’s parenting and alcohol use. His evidence is that he left a hospital against medical advice due to his concerns that H.D. was intoxicated and aggressive while alone with five‑week‑old T.D-D. in December 2024. He provides one text to H.D.’s mother, without her response or the full conversation, to confirm that he was concerned about T.D-D.
33S.D. asserts that he is in possession of photographic evidence of expressed breastmilk labelled as bath milk and he suggests that this conceals alcohol use while nursing T.D-D.
34S.D. asserts that H.D.’s criminal release undertaking requires third‑party supervision of H.D.’s parenting time and that the supervisor is working and not available. The criminal undertaking does not prescribe any conditions on H.D.’s parenting time. S.D.’s paragraph 8 states: “Text messages from her coordinator, Scott Osborne prove he is at work and not providing the required supervision while the Respondent is with our newborn” suggests a requirement of supervision where none is prescribed.
35S.D. asserts without any proof that H.D. has created a false social media account to bypass communication restrictions.
36S.D. asserts that he manages his epilepsy through a strict and consistent medication regimen. A neurology report from Dr. Anita Dayal dated September 24, 2025, confirms that S.D. has reasonable seizure control, had seizures in March 2025 and July 2025 and is forthcoming regarding his breakthrough seizures.
37On March 2, 2026, S.D. discovered that his prescribed epilepsy medication had been replaced with aspirin and codeine. He asserts that this occurred while H.D. was in the residence and accuses her of exchanging the medication.
38S.D. has had T.D-D. in his care for all of March 2026. It is his position that H.D. should be attending in Brantford to exercise her parenting time.
39He asserts that H.D. continues to receive and withhold child‑related benefits while providing no direct support. S.D. states that he is in dire financial straits and that his financial records show a zero-bank balance and significant rent and utility arrears.
40S.D. indicates that H.D.’s family has set up a crowdfunding campaign to support an unauthorized relocation. H.D. asserts that the GoFundMe page was set up some months ago to address an apartment fire that the parties experienced.
Mother’s Position
41H.D. seeks an order terminating the nesting arrangement, restoring her parenting time with T.D-D., providing make‑up parenting time for time wrongfully withheld, and implementing a parenting schedule that allows each parent to care for the children in their own residences, with exchanges structured to reduce conflict and travel.
42H.D. states that since March 1, 2026, S.D. has withheld T.D-D. and has refused to allow her to exercise her scheduled parenting time. This has occurred while H.D is less than three weeks postpartum and caring for a newborn. She states that this prolonged separation has caused significant emotional distress to both her and T.D-D.
43H.D. gave birth to G.D-D. on [...], 2026, at a hospital in Lindsay, Ontario. S.D. attended at the hospital and met the newborn before returning to Brantford with T.D-D. for his parenting time. When H.D.’s parenting time with T.D-D. was scheduled to recommence on March 1, 2026, she requested to have T.D-D. brought to Bobcaygeon, where she resides with her parents. She offered solutions for transportation, including having family members assist and ensuring T.D-D. would be returned to Brantford for S.D.’s parenting time.
44S.D. refused these proposals. He advised that T.D-D. would not be leaving Brantford and that H.D. must bring G.D-D. to Brantford and resume the nesting arrangement. H.D. explained that this was not feasible due to her postpartum recovery and because she is exclusively breastfeeding G.D-D. She advised S.D. that he was welcome to attend in Bobcaygeon to spend time with the newborn, but he declined.
45H.D. states that S.D. has relied on the nesting arrangement to deny her parenting time, despite having previously consented to parenting time occurring outside Brantford on several occasions. She says this refusal is not child‑focused and does not consider T.D-D.’s best interests or his relationship with his mother and newborn brother.
46H.D. describes herself as T.D-D.’s primary caregiver throughout the relationship. She was responsible for T.D-D.’s daily care, routines, and emotional needs. She states that T.D-D. has a strong bond with her and that the current separation is unprecedented in his life.
47H.D. further states that the nesting arrangement has become impractical and unreasonable due to a material change in circumstances, including the birth of G.D-D., her postpartum condition, financial hardship, and her inability to drive long distances during this period. She currently resides in Bobcaygeon with family support, which she states is necessary for her and the children’s stability.
48H.D. has offered, on a temporary and without prejudice basis, to be solely responsible for transporting T.D-D. to and from Brantford to facilitate parenting time for S.D. Despite this, S.D. has refused to cooperate.
49H.D. also raises concerns about S.D.’s conduct in bringing an urgent ex parte motion in March 2026. She states that S.D. swore an affidavit containing false and exaggerated claims, including allegations that she was fleeing criminal charges and that the newborn was at risk of foster care.
50H.D. states that she has been the primary caregiver for T.D-D. since birth and that the prolonged separation beginning March 1, 2026, is unprecedented. She asserts that the nesting arrangement has become impractical and that S.D. has relied on it to deny her parenting time rather than to facilitate shared parenting.
51H.D. also raises concerns regarding S.D.’s health, including epilepsy, licence suspension, and past seizure incidents while caring for T.D-D.. She seeks disclosure of medical information and confirmation of S.D.’s ability to care for the children unsupervised. She asserts that she attended medical appointments with S.D. and that she encouraged him to be forthcoming about his seizures and health issues. She indicates that S.D. was not consistent in taking medication and could experience 4-5 seizures per month as a result. The seizures involve S.D. pausing to completely passing out to unconsciousness. He loses all motor ability and interruption of activity, staring, excessive eye flickering/rolling back, loss of ability to speak or understand language, excessive sweating, stiffening of the body, lip-smacking/chewing, and this results in him biting his tongue/gum, resulting in blood pouring out of his mouth. Once the episode is over, he is severely confused, does not recognize that a seizure has occurred, is exhausted, and passes out post-episode for hours at a time.
52H.D. observed a seizure in December 2025 had a seizure while holding T.D-D. and going down a slide. The seizure caused him to involuntarily release T.D-D., causing T.D-D. to fall on the ground at the end of the slide.
53H.D. asserts that she can parent T.D-D. in Bobcaygeon during her parenting time, and S.D. can parent him in Brantford during his parenting time. On a temporary, without prejudice basis, she proposes her family be responsible for all the driving for the parenting exchanges.
54She is seeking an Order for T.D-D.’s parenting schedule for T.D-D. to be on a week-on/week-off basis, with exchanges at 2 pm on Mondays, to reduce the frequent exchanges and driving time. For G.D-D., she is seeking an order that S.D. have parenting time in her home with an adult other than her present.
Issue: What should the temporary parenting arrangements for both children be?
55I find that the parenting schedule for the children should be:
(1) S.D. shall have parenting time with T.D-D. from Monday at 2:00 p.m. until Thursday at 2:00 p.m.;
(2) H.D. shall be responsible for delivering T.D-D. to Brantford, Ontario on Mondays at 2:00 p.m..
(3) S.D. shall be responsible for delivering T.D-D. to Oshawa, Ontario on Thursdays at 2:00 p.m.
(4) At all other times, T.D-D. shall reside with H.D.;
(5) On Thursdays in Oshawa, Ontario, S.D. shall have parenting time with G.D-D. on a supervised basis for up to 2 hours; The parenting time shall occur at a supervised parenting time centre or at an early years center or public library supervised by a designate of H.D.;
(6) S.D. shall confirm that he will be returning T.D-D. to H.D.’s care and exercising parenting time with G.D-D. on Thursdays by Tuesday at noon of each week in writing through the Talking Parents App.
(7) The times and location may be varied in advance in writing to accommodate transportation schedules.
56Currently, S.D. is not able to drive. There is no evidence that his family can assist. He may need to use public transit such as Flix bus, Ryder transportation or GO Transit. The times will need to be flexible to accommodate the available transportation.
57I have considered that transporting G.D-D. from Bobcaygeon to Oshawa for parenting time is onerous for such a young child. I have weighed this with the need for G.D-D. to start a relationship with his father. I have tried to share the burden of transportation in the best interests of G.D-D. and T.D-D. If a different city is more convenient, the parties may agree to change the city in writing.
58There shall also be an order for video parenting time for the non-care parent each day at 9:00 a.m., unless transporting the child for the parenting time conflicts.
59The sole consideration is the best interests of the children. All factors are assessed from the children’s perspective, with primary emphasis on their safety, security, stability, and developmental needs. Parental preferences or “rights” play no role except in so far as they are necessary to ensure the best interests of the child: Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at p. 63-65.
60In Ontario, there is no presumption of a shared parenting schedule or equal parenting time: Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22, at paragraph 135. Schedules are determined with the sole focus of the best interests of the child.
61Section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act sets out factors to assist judges in determining what is in the best interests of the child. While ss. 24(2) to (6) are not an exhaustive list of factors, failure to consider the listed factors is an error in law. A judge need not address each of the factors in their decision, but it must be apparent that they have turned their mind to them.
(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
62T.D-D. is approximately 15 months old. He is a very young child with strong attachment needs, limited capacity to understand prolonged separation, and a developmental requirement for consistent caregiving and emotional reassurance. Since the September 2025 separation until the end of February 2026, T.D-D. has been in the care of his parents on a shared basis, transferring every few days. The Brantford apartment has been his main home since September 2025. He has been in the care of his mother at her parents’ home with the consent of S.D. on numerous occasions since September 2025 for her parenting time.
63G.D-D. is a newborn. As an infant, he is entirely dependent on his primary caregiver for feeding, comfort, and regulation. He is breastfed at this time. S.D. objects to breastfeeding being a consideration for the parenting schedule for G.D-D.
64Both children are at stages where routine, predictability, and stable caregiving relationships are critical to healthy emotional and psychological development.
(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;
65H.D. asserts that she has been the primary caregiver for T.D-D. since birth. She has been responsible for his daily care, routines, feeding, and emotional regulation. The evidence indicates a strong attachment relationship between T.D-D. and H.D. S.D. asserts that he has been equally involved in T.D-D.’s caregiving.
66G.D-D. has resided continuously with H.D. since birth.
(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;
67The nesting arrangement previously agreed to was intended as a temporary measure. Since the birth of G.D-D., the criminal charge and H.D.’s postpartum recovery, the nesting arrangement has become impractical.
68T.D-D. has experienced a complete interruption of contact with H.D. since March 1, 2026. S.D. has unilaterally withheld T.D-D. from H.D. S.D. has allowed video calls every 2 days. He states that the video calls are upsetting for T.D-D.
69Stability favours arrangements that allow each parent to care for the children in their own residence, with clear and predictable exchanges.
70H.D. currently resides with her parents in Bobcaygeon, providing a stable, supportive, multigenerational household. This environment offers practical assistance, emotional support, and continuity for both children, particularly during the postpartum period.
71S.D. resides in an apartment in Brantford.
72A significant challenge is the distance between the two parents’ residences at this time. The driving time is at least 2.5 hours. S.D. does not currently have a licence due to his epilepsy. At the motion, he advised he expects to be allowed to drive in April or May 2026.
73H.D. has demonstrated an ability to meet the children’s physical, emotional, and developmental needs. She has proposed practical solutions to maintain parenting time, including assuming responsibility for transportation on a temporary basis despite medical and financial constraints. Her family is willing to assist with transportation.
74S.D. has declined proposals that would permit T.D-D. to maintain contact with H.D. outside Brantford. The refusal to facilitate parenting time during a period of medical recovery raises concerns about flexibility and child‑focused decision‑making.
75The best interests analysis favours parents who demonstrate a willingness to prioritize the children’s needs over positional or logistical disputes.
(d) the history of care of the child;
76T.D-D. has had a shared parenting schedule since September 2025. H.D. asserts that prior to separation, she was T.D-D.’s primary caregiver and was solely responsible for his daily living activities, including showers, feeding and toileting. She asserts that S.D. did not wash baby bottles or bathe T.D-D. during the first 10 months of his life.
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
77The children are too young to ascertain their views and preferences.
78T.D-D. has had minimal opportunity to develop a relationship with his newborn brother. Facilitating a sibling bond is an important developmental consideration and supports the long‑term emotional well‑being of both children.
79Arrangements that permit regular, meaningful time with both parents and allow the children to know one another as siblings are strongly aligned with their best interests.
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
80Neither party addressed this issue.
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
81H.D. seeks to have her parenting time occur in Bobcaygeon. S.D. seeks to continue a nesting arrangement but acknowledges that this is impractical given the criminal release conditions.
(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;
82I find that H.D. is capable of parenting T.D-D. and G.D-D. Any concerns with respect to H.D.’s parenting stem from T.D-D.’s first few weeks and the allegations are not established as credible on the record before me.
83The September 22, 2025 temporary and without prejudice nesting arrangement agreed to by the parties included a term: “on the understanding that the Applicant disputes the Respondent’s claim that his medical history requires same, the Applicant’s parenting time shall be in the presence of a third party.” There is no evidence before me that S.D. has complied with this term.
84The evidence includes a letter from Child and Family Services of Grand Erie dated January 29, 2026 confirming that a child protection file would be opened and that T.D-D. has been exposed to verbal conflict during the September 2025 separation.
(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;
85The parties have a high level of conflict. The January 2024 peace bond prohibited contact unless S.D. consent and S.D. signed a revocable consent which allowed the parties to continue residing together. There is no evidence that his consent was revoked at any time.
86S.D.’s reliance on the nesting arrangement to deny parenting time, and his refusal to consider temporary alternatives, has escalated conflict rather than reduced it.
87S.D. has withheld T.D-D. from H.D. since March 1, 2026. He has insisted that her parenting time occur in Brantford even though she gave birth to G.D-D. on [...], 2026. He attended at the hospital to meet G.D-D. and to pick up T.D-D. for his parenting time and has not visited with G.D-D. since despite invitations to do so.
88S.D. did attend at the London Police station on March 11, 2026 and provide video evidence of an alleged assault on him by H.D. He has not provided the date of the alleged assault. It is not clear if the event precedes the previous peace bond or occurred during the period of the peace bond. I note that H.D. is not charged with a breach of the peace bond conditions.
89I am concerned that S.D.’s choice to attend the London Police Station about a historical assault on March 11, 2026, was an effort to gain a litigation advantage as he filed a 14B motion, without notice, seeking police assistance to obtain possession of G.D-D. on the same date.
90S.D.’s evidence includes an email to a child protection worker dated March 12, 2026 with a copy to his father, indicating that he would not be part of a smear campaign against H.D., he indicates that he stopped being represented by his previous lawyer as he felt the situation was being framed with a level of negativity that does not reflect his hear or his respect for H.D. as a mother. His focus is on the sibling relationship. He does indicate that the boys need their mother and he wants to honour the relationship between mother and son. The email goes on to say that he supports H.D. having supervised parenting time at her parents’ home with the children. Some of the email is illegible although it is typed.
91There is no evidence to suggest that H.D.’s parenting time should be supervised.
92In high‑conflict cases, the children’s best interests are served by clear, structured parenting arrangements that minimize contact between parents and reduce opportunities for dispute.
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
93The record before me does not contain details of the date of the alleged assault or the seriousness of the conduct. I am not aware if T.D-D. was present.
94The September 22, 2025 nesting arrangement prescribed that each parent would have exclusive parenting time at the apartment. H.D. has left the apartment during S.D.’s parenting time. S.D. has not. He has remained at the apartment during H.D.’s parenting times. Her evidence is that this has caused a toxic and heated environment and interfered with her parenting time. H.D. is concerned that S.D. has not accepted the permanence of the separation.
95S.D.’s March 23, 2026 affidavit does not deny or address H.D.’s assertions that she was T.D-D.’s primary caregiver, his refusal to allow her exclusive parenting time at the Brantford apartment, the December 2025 seizure or description of his epilepsy condition, etc..
96The determination of the parenting schedule for G.D-D. and T.D-D. is difficult because of G.D-D.’s infancy and the distance between the parents’ residences at this time.
97I do not consider this a situation of self-help by H.D. in residing with her parents at this time. She needs a place to live and her parents have offered her the use of their home with the children. She is on Ontario Works and has limited resources. Also, S.D. did not abide by the nesting arrangement in that he failed to allow H.D. exclusive parenting time during her times with T.D-D. I find that the nesting arrangement is unworkable given the current release conditions. Even without the release conditions, I do not find a nesting arrangement to be in the children’s best interests. H.D. has no ties to Brantford. H.D. resided in London before her relationship with S.D. Her family supports are in the Bobcaygeon area.
98The AFCC-O Guidelines summarize basic social science knowledge about the effects of parental separation on children, provide suggestions and guidance to help improve communication and cooperation between separated parents, and offer guidance about formulating parenting arrangements that meet the needs of children. The use of the AFCC-O guidelines are discussed in Tremblay-Chartier v. Blanchette, 2025 ONSC 6273 by the Divisional Court, starting at paragraph 41. The Court’s approach to the AFCC-O Guidelines was summarized by McGee J. in Melbourne v. Melbourne, 2022 ONSC 2299, 72 R.F.L. (8th) 84, starting at para. 19:
19The AFCC Parenting Guidelines were prepared by the Ontario Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC-Ontario) to assist parents and their professional advisors in specifically developing the best, child-focused, and realistic parenting plans. As set out in its preamble,
This Guide combines knowledge gained from developmental research on the impact of parental separation and divorce on children, with practical insights about the needs of children with parents living apart. This Guide is intended to be used in conjunction with the AFCC-Ontario Parenting Plan Template, which offers suggestions for specific clauses that can be used or adapted for a parenting plan.
20I agree with Justice Chappel in McBennett v. Davis, 2021 ONSC 3610, when she states in paragraph [92]:
The AFCCO-O Guide summarizes basic social science knowledge about the effects of parental separation on children, provides suggestions and guidance to help improve communications and cooperation between separated parents and offers valuable guidance about formulating parenting arrangements that meet the needs of children.
21And as further stated by Justice Kraft in H. v. A., 2022 ONSC 1560at para. 61:
The parenting plan guide produced by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts - Ontario ("AFCC-O") has been found by many courts to be of great assistance in determining parenting schedules that are in a child's best interests, depending on the age of the child and his/her developmental stage. While not binding on the courts, the Guide provides a great deal of helpful information and reflects a professional consensus in Ontario about the significant (sic) of current child development research for post-separation. [Emphasis added.]
The AFCC-O Parenting Guide includes the following comments about infants and toddlers:
Infants: Birth to 9 months
A caretakers’ consistency, sensitivity, and capacity to respond to an infant’s needs helps the child develop the ability to self-soothe, trust others, and explore their world to learn from it. It is important that infants are not stressed by absences from known, warm, responsive and predicable caregivers. Caregivers must be emotionally available and have the necessary skills and knowledge, such as the ability to notice signs of hunger and fatigue, mirror the baby’s efforts to make contact, respond to the baby’s smiles and babbles or gestures, and have knowledge of developmentally appropriate play.
It is now widely accepted that infants can build strong relationships with more than one caregiver. While it is clear that responsive, warm and consistent care during the first months and years of life are critical for emotional and brain development, it is also well established that infants can develop strong positive relationships to more than one caregiver, provided that each caregiver can provide “good enough parenting”. In fact, having multiple strong relationships is a protective factor. These relationships build through frequency of contact and quality of interactions.
Many mothers want to follow the recommendations of the World Health Organization for breastfeeding for infants (exclusively for the first six months, and with the introduction of other foods through the next 18 months). However, parenting time with the other parent can be accommodated even if a child is breastfeeding with the mother. The non-breastfeeding parent can feed an infant expressed milk from a bottle, particularly after nursing routines are established. While infants may be resistant to bottle feedings by a mother who can breastfeed (and they can recognize their mothers by sight and smell), almost all infants adjust to also taking a bottle of expressed breast milk or formula from another regular caregiver. If parents have different views regarding this topic, a consultation with the child’s pediatrician or a lactation specialist may be of assistance.
Schedules for infants, birth to 9 Months: If one parent is the infant’s primary caregiver in this period (perhaps a breastfeeding mother) and the parents separate or did not live together after the infant was born, the child will normally continue to primarily reside with that person. It will be important for the non-residential parent to develop child care capacity and a relationship with the child before having sole care of the infant.
If the non-residential parent has not been significantly involved in caregiving for this infant, it is important for familiarity to develop between the infant and that parent, starting with frequent contact for short periods. This will require support from the child’s primary caregiver. The primary caregiver may have concerns about giving care of “her child” to anyone else. However, it is important that the primary caregiver does not become a “restrictive gate-keeper,” but rather takes the long-term view in promoting healthy child development by supporting the other parent’s relationship with “their child,” unless there are legitimate concerns about the other parent’s capacity to care for the infant.
The process of developing parenting skills and connection with an infant may start with regular short parenting time of a few hours at the home of the primary caregiver. There may at first be frequent and regular contact that includes opportunities for all caretaking activities, such as feeding, playing, soothing, bathing, and putting the infant to sleep for naps. As caregiving skills are mastered and the parent-child bond develops, this should evolve to longer visits that may include taking the child away from the primary residence.
If the parents cannot communicate effectively about the infant, or if one parent is unable to gain the necessary caregiving skills, consideration should be given to having the child remain in the care of the primary parent, with frequent, short contacts with the other parent. Infants are sensitive to conflict between their parents and may become difficult to soothe during transitions. A third party familiar with the child may be helpful to transition the infant if parents are unable to do so without conflict.
To develop healthy relationships to both parents, an infant should not be away from either parent for more than a few days. Many infants in the first year of life demonstrate a caregiver preference; extended separation from that primary caregiver should be avoided. However, overnight parenting time with a non-residential parent may be appropriate, preferably in surroundings familiar to the infant, if that parent has become an actively involved caregiver. Before having sole care or an overnight, the infant should be comfortable with that parent, and should be able to be soothed, fed and cared for by that parent….
Babies: 9 to 18 Months
Between the ages of 9 and 18 months there is rapid skill development including motor accomplishments (crawling, standing and walking), communication, starting with sounds and developing to simple words, deliberate expression of emotions (hugs, kisses, fear, anger and anxiety), and increased understanding of the functions of people and things.
A consistent and predictable schedule of waking, eating and sleeping is necessary to allow the baby’s development of self-regulation and self-soothing. The baby’s normal routines should be a primary consideration when parents are making a parenting plan for children of this age. While multiple caretakers can provide this schedule, some babies have more difficulties with multiple transitions and changes. Those babies may do better with one primary caretaker and frequent contacts with the other parent.
Schedules for babies 9 to 18 months: Developing a parenting plan for babies of this age is dependent on:
· the amount of prior involvement of each parent with the baby, including caretaking routines and experience with childcare functions such as feeding, bathing, playing, soothing, getting ready for bed, and waking;
· the ability of each parent to be attuned and responsive to the baby’s needs;
· the baby’s emotional, social, physical, and cognitive development, which includes ability to self-regulate and to understand that when someone is out of sight they still exist; and · the baby’s temperament….
If the parents only separate when the child is in this age range, and both parents have had consistent, good quality involvement in all aspects of care of the child before separation, it may be appropriate for a shared parenting arrangement to continue with regular overnights with both parents. The child should see each parent every two to three days…..
As with younger infants, a communication log is essential. This log, whether hand-written or digital, should include information about eating, sleeping and elimination, as well as health, developmental changes and new milestones. It is important that parents avoid arguments in the presence of the child, as even pre-verbal babies will be stressed by the tension between their parents.
Toddlers: 18 to 36 Months
Toddlers are becoming independent as they develop more control over their environment through walking and starting to talk. They try to explore their environment, though usually returning to their caregivers for comfort and support. They have an increased capacity for observation and imitation. Most toddlers are starting to say their first few words by 18 months and are asking for what they want to get their needs met. Toddlers have better memory than infants, and most are able to tolerate longer separations from a primary caregiver without too much distress. If separations are too long, toddlers may show less independence or less interest in exploring their environment or may exhibit behavioral problems.
Toddlers are sensitive to arguments between caregivers, and they become distressed when their parents argue.
Toddlers need predictable and consistent routines and clear structures that help them develop a sense of limits to help them feel safe and secure. While they need to be closely supervised and have little sense of danger, they should have opportunities for exploration.
Healthy toddlers are starting to assert their independence and may express themselves by saying “No” and resisting even the most reasonable parental requests (the “terrible twos”). Some children at this age become fearful of separations and may cling or cry at separation from one or both parents (including when left at daycare). Resistance to parental exchanges is normal for many toddlers and should not be taken as a sign that the child is rejecting a parent. At this age, transitions are easier if the parent with care of the child gets the child ready and takes the child to the other parent. Alternatively, transitions that occur at neutral locations, such as the child’s daycare, may decrease levels of distress often associated with transitions.
Schedules for toddlers, 18 to 36 months: If parents have fully shared in the caretaking arrangements before the child has reached this age and the child has an easy temperament, parenting time can be shared equally as long as the separations from each parent are not too long (no more than two to three days or two nights for example). If there are older siblings, they are often part of the security system for toddlers and they should normally be on the same parenting schedule.
If the child has some trouble with transitions, or is not particularly adaptable or flexible, or if the parents are unable to effectively communicate with each other about the child, it may be better for a child this age to have a primary residence with one parent and frequent contact, including some overnight parenting time, with the other parent (for example three contacts during the week, made up of one or two 4 to 6 hour blocks and one or two non-consecutive overnights)….
99H.D. suggests a week on/off arrangement for T.D-D. I find that T.D-D. is too young for such a shared parenting schedule. She suggests supervised parenting time with G.D-D. for S.D., supervised by an adult in her home in Bobcaygeon. She does not suggest how the 2 schedules would interact with each other. For example, if her family transported T.D-D. back and forth between Bobcaygeon and Brantford on Mondays, when would S.D. attend in Bobcaygeon to see G.D-D., and why would that drive not involve a parenting exchange for T.D-D.? I appreciate a week on/off schedule would make transportation and exchange easier for the adults. I do not agree that it is an appropriate schedule for T.D-D., and it does not address how G.D-D. would see his father.
Issue: Should S.D.’s medical records be disclosed?
100Yes. S.D.’s seizures and symptoms are relevant to his ability to care independently for the children. While a neurologist cannot opine with respect to his parenting capacity, the management of his epilepsy is relevant to his parenting time.
Issue: Should make-up parenting time be ordered for H.D.?
101I find that T.D-D. should be returned to H.D.’s care immediately, today or at the latest Saturday March 28th, 2026 at noon. H.D. shall arrange for pick up of T.D-D. from S.D.’s apartment in Brantford. The time shall be communicated by email through H.D.’s counsel. The parenting schedule set out earlier in this decision shall commence Monday April 13, 2026. Until April 13, 2026 at 2:00 p.m., T.D-D. and G.D-D. shall remain in H.D.’s care. Video calls shall occur daily with S.D. at 9:00 a.m.
102The two-week period will allow H.D., G.D-D. and T.D-D. time to bond. The sibling relationship is significant, and T.D-D. has been deprived of his mother’s care for the past month.
103T.D-D. has not been in his mother’s care for the month of March 2026. I find that this situation was not in his best interests. One must always consider what an intact family might do. The birth of a child is a significant event in a family's life. Special arrangements should be considered. If S.D. had chosen to allow T.D-D. to spend time with his mother during March, S.D. could have seen G.D-D. Instead, he chose to retain T.D-D. in his care and to insist that H.D. exercise her parenting time in Brantford, even though there was a court order absolving her of transportation responsibility until August 2026.
104The parties were aware of the pending birth of their second child. A motion date was set for April 21, 2026. The parents were cautioned by the Court that there would be about 6 weeks after G.D-D.’s expected birth without a court order specifying parenting arrangements for him but were unable to agree at the January court attendance on terms. I have ordered the production of Child and Family Services of Grand Erie records by May 15, 2026 as the next step in this matter is the June 5, 2026 settlement conference.
Issue: Should a police enforcement order be made?
105I decline to make such an order. If either parent fails to exchange T.D-D., this matter shall be returned to court to my attention by a 14B motion with notice by email, and I will consider making a police enforcement order immediately.
106Both parties seek a police enforcement order under the Children’s Law Reform Act, s 36. Such orders should be used sparingly. In this case, S.D. unilaterally withheld T.D-D. from Ms. Durkee since March 1, 2026 and insisted that her parenting time occur in Brantford despite G.D-D.’s birth on [...], 2026.
107I considered requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. Given that there is an open protection file, I am not going to do so at this time.
ORDER
108Commencing April 13, 2026, the parenting schedule for the children shall be:
(1) S.D. shall have parenting time with T.D-D. from Monday at 2:00 p.m. until Thursday at 2:00 p.m.;
(2) H.D. shall be responsible for delivering T.D-D. to Brantford, Ontario on Mondays at 2:00 p.m..
(3) S.D. shall be responsible for delivering T.D-D. to Oshawa, Ontario on Thursdays at 2:00 p.m.
(4) At all other times, T.D-D. shall reside with H.D.;
(5) On Thursdays in Oshawa, Ontario, S.D. shall have parenting time with G.D-D. on a supervised basis for up to 2 hours; The parenting time shall occur at a supervised parenting time centre or at an early years center or public library supervised by a designate of H.D.;
(6) S.D. shall confirm that he will be returning T.D-D. to H.D.’s care and exercising parenting time with G.D-D. on Thursdays by Tuesday at noon of each week in writing through the Talking Parents App.
(7) The times and location may be varied in advance in writing to accommodate transportation schedules.
109T.D-D. should be returned to H.D.’s care immediately, today or at the latest Saturday, March 28th, 2026, at noon. H.D. shall arrange for pick up of T.D-D. from S.D.’s apartment in Brantford. The time shall be communicated by email from H.D.’s counsel.
110There shall also be an order for video parenting time for the non-care parent each day at 9:00 a.m., unless transporting the child for the parenting time conflicts.
111London Police, Brantford Police and OPP unredacted police records after January 1, 2023, shall be disclosed to both parties. Order in usual form.
112Child and Family Services of Grand Erie records to be produced to both parties by May 15, 2025. Order in usual form.
113The Applicant S.D. and the Respondent H.D. shall use the Talking Parents App to communicate about the children T.D-D. born […], 2024 and G.D-D. born […], 2026.
114The Applicant S.D. shall serve and file an updated 35.1 affidavit within 7 days.
115The Applicant S.D. shall provide an updated letter from his neurologist addressing his epilepsy condition and disclosure of all symptoms, including seizures, since September 2025 within 60 days to the Respondent H.D.
116All previous orders are rescinded.
117This matter is adjourned to June 5, 2026 at […] a.m. courtroom # X for a settlement conference.
118Courts Administration is to send endorsement to Child and Family Services of Grand Erie.
Costs
Any party seeking costs may make written submissions to the court, to be submitted no later than 14 days from today.
Responding submissions may be submitted no later than 14 days after being served with the submissions.
Submissions shall be a maximum of two pages – double-spaced, 12-point font, normal margins. A Bill of Costs and an Offer to Settle may be attached to the costs submission without counting toward the page limits.
No reply submissions permitted
Parties are to file electronically and send submissions to chambers upon expiry of the two deadlines.
Released: March 27, 2026
Signed: Justice Joanne Beasley