ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
H.M.
Applicant
— AND —
N.M.
Respondent
Before Justice Melanie Sager
Heard on November 26-27, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on January 6, 2026
Natalia Crowe counsel for the applicant
Monika Goyal agent for the respondent
Introduction
1The court heard a two day trial to decide the parenting issues raised in the Application and Answer before the court.
2The Applicant (mother) was born in Eritrea and came to Canada in 2016 when she was 17 years old1. She currently has permanent resident status in Canada.
3In May 2023, the mother graduated from McMaster University with a Bachelor of Science Nursing degree. The mother is currently unemployed and in receipt of Ontario Works.
4The Respondent (father) is also of Eritrean origin and came to Canada as a young boy. He originally lived in Winnipeg, Manitoba and came to Toronto when the company that employs him moved to Mississauga, Ontario.
5The father is employed full time as the head chef for a company with a chain of restaurants.
6The parties met and began their relationship in or around November 2022. The mother became pregnant in December 2022, and they began living together in May 2023.
7The parties’ son, M.N.M. was born on […], 2023.
8The parties separated on November 2, 2023, when the mother left the parties’ home with the child and moved to a shelter.
9The mother lives in Toronto with M.N.M. and the father lives in Etobicoke with several family members including a brother and a sister.
10The father began paying the mother child support of $700.00 a month in December 2023.
Brief background of the litigation
11The mother commenced an Application on February 7, 2024, in which she seeks orders for decision making responsibility for M.N.M., child support, and the authority to obtain government issued documents for and travel with M.N.M. without the father’s consent. The mother also asks the court to order reasonable parenting time to the father on reasonable notice to her at her discretion, which discretion shall be exercised reasonably.
12The father’s Answer and Claim was signed on March 21, 2024. He agrees to the mother’s claim for child support but opposes her claims with respect to the parenting orders. He asks the court to grant him sole decision making responsibility for M.N.M., or in the alternative joint decision making responsibility, and the authority to obtain and hold government issued documents for and travel with M.N.M. without the mother’s consent. The father also requests an order for a shared parenting schedule provided the mother is a resident of Canada. If the mother is not a resident of Canada, the father asks for an order that M.N.M.’s primary residence be with him. Finally, the father seeks an order prohibiting the mother from removing M.N.M. from Ontario without a court order.
13As the father is seeking a shared parenting regime in his Answer and Claim, he requests that child support be determined in accordance with section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines).
14The parties resolved the issue of child support on a final basis on July 24, 2024. The father is paying the mother child support of $764.00 per month based on his annual income of $82,000.00 and the applicable table amount pursuant to the Guidelines.
15Four temporary parenting orders were made prior to trial. They provide for a incremental increase in the father’s parenting time over the four orders. On May 3, 2024, on consent, the father was granted parenting time of two hours twice per week to take place at Yorkdale Mall between May 4, 2024 and May 27, 2024. The mother was permitted to stay at the mall but to remain at a distance from the father and M.N.M. The order provides that the father shall provide his work schedule to the mother’s lawyer so that a parenting schedule for the father for June and July 2024 can be “arranged and agreed upon between the parties, with the assistance of Counsel.”
16On June 18, 2024, on consent, the court ordered the father to continue to have parenting time in June 2024, for two hours approximately twice per week but that the parenting time was no longer confined to Yorkdale Mall. The mother was ordered to leave the mall during the visits and both parties were prohibited from interfering with the other and taking pictures or videos of the other when the child is in their care.
17The parties were also ordered to negotiate make up parenting time for the father’s missed parenting time for the first two weeks of June 2024, agree on parenting time for July 2024, and to attend two online parenting courses
18On July 24, 2024, the parties consented to an order increasing the father’s parenting time from two hours to four hours twice per week for approximately one month when it would then increase to eight hours twice per week.
19On October 31, 2024, the parties consented to a temporary order increasing the father’s parenting time to include overnights, specifically on a two week rotation with one week being from Saturday at 6:00 p.m. to Monday at 10:00 a.m. and the second week from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 8:30 a.m. The parties also agreed to M.N.M. being in the father’s care for five overnights during the 2024 Christmas holidays.
20After being charged with driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol on October 20, 2024, while M.N.M. was in her care, the mother consented to a temporary order in this proceeding prohibiting her from operating a vehicle while M.N.M. is in her care
21In the course of the litigation leading up to trial, no orders were made granting either party sole decision making responsibility for M.N.M. On October 31, 2024, on consent, the court granted both parties the right to obtain information about M.N.M. from professionals working with or treating him and that only the party who schedules an appointment for M.N.M. shall attend with him. The order from October 31, 2024, provides that after attending a medical appointment for M.N.M., the parent who took him to the appointment shall provide a summary of the appointment to the other party as well as inform the health care provider that the other parent will be contacting them.
22As of the date of trial, the parenting orders made on October 31, 2024, continue in full force and effect.
The mother’s position at trial
23The mother says that since M.N.M. has been in her primary care since birth where he is doing well, this residential arrangement should be maintained. She asks that the temporary parenting order made on October 31, 2024, be made final but only for so long as M.N.M. is not in daycare or school. Once that should happen, the mother asks the court to order that the father’s parenting time shall be on alternate weekends from Friday after school until Monday morning before school or Tuesday morning if Monday is a holiday. While not included in her proposed draft order, the mother is also agreeable to a mid week visit for dinner.
24The mother asks the court to order the exchange of the child for the father’s parenting time to take place at 51 Division Police Station
25The mother says that she must be granted sole decision making responsibility for M.N.M. as the parties are incapable of communicating effectively as the father is controlling and aggressive. She says that the father escalates quickly, has threatened her in the past resulting in a significant amount of police involvement with the parties both during and after the relationship.
26The mother also says that the father cannot be entrusted with sole or joint decision making responsibility for the child given his history of domestic violence, specifically verbal and serious financial abuse and control. She says that towards the end of their relationship, the father was withholding money, food and baby formula from her and M.N.M. She says this is evidence of the father’s inability to put the needs and best interests of the child before his own needs.
27The mother also questions the father’s parenting skills saying he does not readily recognize the child’s cues, and she says he is not a loving or caring father.
28The mother requests an order requiring police enforcement of the final parenting orders as she says the father has a history of failing to comply with the court’s orders.
The father’s position at trial
29The father says the orders he is requesting are in the child’s best interests as he is a devoted, loving father who has been the stable and responsible caregiver to M.N.M. since he was born. He says the mother is unstable and unpredictable. He says she has made multiple false allegations against him and has involved the police in their lives unnecessarily on numerous occasions.
30The father also questions M.N.M.’s safety in the mother’s care given she was charged with a DUI when M.N.M. was with her.
31The father says the orders he requests are necessary to preserve and foster his relationship with M.N.M. as the mother is incapable of promoting his relationship with M.N.M. He says she threatened to remove the child from his life before they separated and then did so by moving to shelter without his knowledge or consent and then failed to facilitate any parenting time despite repeated requests for six months. He says that his parenting time, once it began, was unreasonably restricted and that the mother failed to comply with court orders when she cancelled his parenting time on several occasions.
32The father says the mother is attempting to manipulate the police, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) and the court to gain advantage in this litigation. He says this demonstrates poor judgment by the mother and her inability to put the needs of M.N.M. before her own.
33As the more stable parent who has demonstrate good judgment, the father says he should be the preferred decision maker for M.N.M.
Issues to be decided by the court
34The following are the issues to be decided by the court:
What decision making responsibility order is in M.N.M.’s best interests?
What parenting schedule is in M.N.M.’s best interests?
Should one or both parents be permitted to travel with M.N.M. on vacation without the other parent’s consent?
Should either parent be permitted to obtain government issued documents for M.N.M. without the other parent’s consent and who should hold these documents?
Should the court order the police to enforce the parenting orders?
Are there any other parenting orders the court finds should be made in M.N.M.’s best interests?
Analysis of the material facts in dispute that are relevant to the issues
Allegations of intimate partner violence by the father
35The mother says she took M.N.M. and left the father who was verbally, emotionally and financially abusive to her throughout their relationship. She said that the father often had angry outbursts and would yell at her in front of the child. She said small things like asking him to clean up after himself would trigger the father’s anger. The mother said the father engaged in foul name calling. She denies any physical abuse but describes him throwing objects.
36The mother says the father is “controlling and aggressive so things are volatile and escalate quickly with him.” She says the father has verbally threatened her life more than once. She says their relationship has been plagued with conflict and “a lot of police involvement”.
37The father denies the mother’s allegation that he was abusive towards her.
Verbal abuse
38The mother says during the relationship the father called her names such as “bitch”, “cunt” and “clown”. Her evidence is that the father called her a bitch on five occasions and a cunt on one occasion.
39The mother also says after M.N.M. was born, the father called her a “joke” and a “fake breast feeder” many times because she was having difficulty breast feeding the baby. She specified that this occurred in their apartment after lunch when the baby was between 1.5 to 2 months old.
40The mother’s evidence is that the father had “angry outbursts, with yelling and swearing, when I would ask him to clean up after himself or help me with the household tasks.” She said he also had angry outbursts when she offered him “parenting tips”.
41The father denies the mother’s allegations that he was verbally abusive towards her.
42The father said the mother began acting erratically in the third trimester of her pregnancy. On July 21, 2023, shortly before the child was born, the mother called the police when the parties had a disagreement, and the father would not allow the mother to remove the child seat from his car.
43On August 1, 2023, the mother also became upset with the father for inviting family members to stay at their home for two nights when they arrive from out of town for M.N.M.’s baptism.
44On […], 2023, six days before M.N.M.’s birth, the mother texted the father to tell him that she is giving the baby her name, “So I can do everything under my name…And you’re out of the picture”.
45The written communication between the parties provides the court with some insight into the dynamics of the parties’ relationship. The correspondence shows that the mother has no difficulty sharing her feelings with the father, telling him what she wants and expects from him. In writing, the mother did not suppress or dilute her feelings. She wrote to the father in strong words and left nothing to interpretation.
46The written communication between the parties included as evidence does not offer support to the mother’s claims that the father was abusive. Neither party provided the court with a single written communication between the parties in which the father was inappropriate or abusive. In fact, the correspondence between the parties, and in particular from the father, has been extremely appropriate and even polite.
47The father provided some examples of the way the mother communicated with him to support his claims that the mother was acting erratically. Included are text messages in which the mother uses profanity. On August 4, 2023, the mother wrote to the father,
“You know what?? It’s funny how you’re always busy to do things at home or to even clean up after your fucking mess at home But you’re never busy to go out or do the fucking lame shit you do.”
48In a text message from August 1, 2023, shortly before M.N.M. was born, the mother tells the father in very strong language what she expects from him and who shall be permitted to visit their home and for how long. She writes:
“Listen, what is happening in this house is totally wrong and not fair to me. I’ll repeat it again, and I honestly don’t want to have this conversation ever again. We’re about to become parents and I DO NOT WANT ANY guests staying over for more than 2 days and that’s ONCE IN A WHILE and YOU HAVE TO HAVE TIME OFF FROM WORK.”
Conclusion as to whether the father was verbally abusive to the mother
49Assessing the credibility and reliability of family violence allegations is a challenging exercise that requires a solid appreciation of the overall context within which family violence occurs.2
50Courts must also remain cognizant of the reality that some allegations are in fact fabricated or exaggerated. Being closed-minded to these possibilities poses an equally serious threat to the achievement of justice in cases where family violence claims are advanced, and the courts must therefore meticulously assess the evidence in its totality to ensure that family violence claims are credible and are not being maliciously advanced to obtain a litigation advantage.3
51The mother’s evidence does not support her allegation that she was the victim of intimate partner violence. The mother’s evidence was extremely vague with important details noticeably absent making it impossible for the father to respond other than to deny the allegations. She recalls how many times the father called her a derogatory name, but the mother provides no evidence of the dates and times the verbal abuse occurred and no contextual details such as where the parties were, what they were doing, what precipitated the abuse, and who was present if anyone.
52Given the lack of details of the alleged abuse, the court cannot find on a balance of probabilities that the father was verbally abusive towards the mother during the relationship.
Financial abuse
53The mother says that shortly after she became pregnant the father sent her e-transfers and gave her a credit card for her personal expenses. After moving in together in May 2023, the mother says the father began taking away the credit card he gave her and would “withhold money and food from me” “to punish” her. She says she became so desperate that on July 27, 2023, when she was pregnant, she had to attend a food bank.
54The mother says around September 10, 2023, the father “permanently took away his credit card from me” and was “withholding baby formula from [M.N.M.] and withholding food and money and [sic] me.”
55As she was entirely reliant on the father for her financial support, the mother says that his conduct amounted to financial abuse. She said after M.N.M. was born the father “was not providing food on a regular basis to me…which is the main reason I left the home with [M.N.M.] and went to a shelter at the time of separation.” She alleges that at times there was no formula for M.N.M.
56The mother says on November 1, 2023, she called a CAST worker and told her that the father “stopped providing baby formula on a regular basis.” A day later she permanently left the home with M.N.M. and moved into a shelter.
57The mother filed as evidence the CAST intake note from November 1, 2023, the day she says she called the CAST and reported that the father was failing to provide M.N.M. with formula. A review of the CAST notes does not support the mother’s version of events. The note states that the parties had been arguing about their finances and specifically that the mother asked the father for his credit card to do some shopping and when he questioned her about where she was going and what she was going to buy, the mother became upset finding his questions to be intrusive and controlling. No where in the note does it state that the mother advised the worker that the father is withholding baby formula from M.N.M. or food from her.
58The mother also gave evidence that on October 1, 2023, she told the police about the “credit card situation” and “the financial stress” she was experiencing. She filed the police report from that incident to corroborate her evidence, but the report does not include any statement by the mother that the father was denying her food and M.N.M. baby formula.
59The father denies the mother’s claim that he was financially abusive. He says that he began supporting the mother as soon as they learned she was pregnant. At first, he sent the mother e-transfers of $1000.00 per month for January, February and March 2023. The mother acknowledged the e-transfers as well as the father’s financial contributions towards the cost of her education. Then he gave her his credit card for her to use for groceries and personal items. He travelled frequently to the mother’s home in Kitchener to assist her until she moved in with him in May of 2023.
60The father says after M.N.M. was born they began to have disputes about financial matters. He said as he was the sole income earner in the family and at the time was also supporting his brother, “I had to put control over the expenses and this would upset [the mother].”He says that due to a “tight budget and a huge responsibility”, in mid September 2023, “I took away the credit card and started questioning [the mother] when she wanted to spend money.”
61The father says some of the parties’ disagreements over money was caused by the mother’s insistence on having laundry facilities in their rental apartment that the father said they could not afford and which the landlord would not permit. The mother advised the father in writing that she must have laundry facilities in the apartment and that she will be borrowing the money from her mother to make the purchase.
62The father says that the conflict over finances escalated to the point that on October 1, 2023, he called the police as the mother was threatening to remove M.N.M. from the home without his consent. The police attended at the home. The police and CAST records filed as exhibits confirm that the father reported that the mother threatened to leave the home with M.N.M. without telling him where she was going.
63The father says he ended the relationship on October 8, 2023, and moved to the couch.
64To dispute the mother’s claims that he was financially abusive, the father provided credit card statements for the credit card he gave to the mother for the months of February 2023 to September 2023; and evidence of grocery and baby formula purchases he made from June 2023 to November 2023.
65The father’s documentary evidence rebuts the mother’s claim that he withheld food and baby formula. He provided hundreds of dollars of receipts for food and baby formula for the period of June to November 2023. On November 1, 2023, the day before the mother took M.N.M. and moved to a shelter, the father spent $218.00 on baby formula.
Conclusion as to whether the father was financially abusive to the mother
66The parties agree that when the mother first became pregnant the father supported her financially. He sent her e-transfers and contributed to the cost of her education. He gave her a credit card for all her personal expenses.
67The father admits to discontinuing the mother’s use of his credit card in September 2023. The evidence demonstrates that the parties were having conflict over finances and other issues.
68Despite claiming she reported this to both the police and CAST before she left the relationship, their records do not disclose such reports or provide support for the mother’s allegation that the father was withholding food from her and baby formula from M.N.M.
69Conversely, the father’s evidence, including very persuasive documentary evidence, provides a strong basis for rejecting the mother’s claim that the father withheld food from her and their son.
70The father’s decision to take his credit card back from the mother in September 2023 may have been inappropriate or unreasonable. It may have contributed to the break down of the parties’ relationship. The parties’ financial disputes where just that, disputes.
71The evidence does not support a finding that the father was financially abusive to the mother or that he at any time withheld food from her and baby formula from M.N.M.
Other forms of abuse
72On October 4th, 2023, the mother called the police as the father would not give her M.N.M.’s birth certificate. The father said he took M.N.M.’s birth certificate out of fear that the mother would take M.N.M. away from him permanently. The police attended at the home. No charges were laid.
73In oral evidence the mother said the father withholding the child’s birth certificate from her is abusive behaviour.
74On October 29, 2023, the police attended at the parties’ home when the mother called over a dispute she was having with the father as to how to complete the application for the child tax benefit. The mother also believed this incident to be evidence of abusive behaviour by the father. The police attended at the home. No charges were laid.
75The mother gave evidence that the father’s call to police on October 1, 2023, described above, alleging that she was planning to leave the home with the baby, was also abusive behaviour by the father. The police attended at the home. No charges were laid.
76The court does not agree that the conflict between the parties that led to the police involvement described above, under any circumstances, can be considered abuse or intimate partner violence. In suggesting it is abuse, the mother is attempting to justify her calls to police for what are obviously not police matters. Her unwillingness to concede that in retrospect it was inappropriate for her to call police in those circumstances, impairs her credibility.
Are the parties able to communicate appropriately and effectively regarding their son?
77The mother says the parties cannot communicate effectively “for any extended period of time.” She says the father’s conduct has resulted in “a lot of conflict and a lot of police involvement.” The mother has a heading in her affidavit evidence in chief that reads, “Police Involvement”.
78The father says the mother’s conduct has led to conflict and that she has attempted to weaponize the police by calling them repeatedly for trivial matters that do not require or warrant police involvement. As a result of her behaviour, the father is worried about being alone with the mother without cameras or witnesses making him vulnerable to false allegations.
79The father says the mother’s repeated calls to police is evidence of her instability and unpredictable behaviour. He relies on the fact that no charges were ever laid against him because of the mother’s calls to police.
80The court heard evidence of no less than 18 calls made to police by the parties between July 2023 and November 15, 2025. The undisputed evidence is that the mother called the police on 11 occasions and the father called on 7. A review of the parties’ calls to the police is important given the allegations they make and the parenting orders they are requesting.
The mother’s calls to police
81Of the 11 calls made to police by the mother, one was because the father would not let her take the child’s car seat, another was because the parties could not agree on what relationship status to disclose on the application for child tax credits, another was due to the father withholding the child’s birth certificate from her and another when the mother alleged the father said he would ruin her life.
82As noted above, the mother believes her calls to the police were warranted as she felt the father’s behaviour was abusive.
83It should be self evident that police intervention is not required due to the withholding of a car seat or birth certificate. It is most definitely not appropriate to call the police when parents cannot agree on how to compete a government form or application. The court finds that the mother knew or ought to have known this.
84At least three calls to police by the mother were made alleging the child was unsafe or neglected in the father’s care. The mother called the police on October 15, 2024, to report neglect of M.N.M. in the father’s care because he was returned to her with a temperature of 39.5 degrees Celsius and without shoes.
85There is no evidence to support the mother’s allegations that the father neglects his son or that he is unsafe in the father’s care.
86The mother called the police on at least two occasions alleging the father was overholding the child. One call was made after the child was placed in his care the evening she was charged with a DUI and a second when the child was ill, and the father felt it was best to keep the child with him rather than transport him into the mother’s care.
87The mother also called the police on two occasions to report that the father had someone with him when he attended to pick up his son for parenting time claiming this to be contrary to a court order.
88Paragraph 8 of the order of Justice W. Kapurura dated July 24, 2024, provides that “Neither party shall bring anyone with them during the parenting time exchanges.” The mother called the police on July 4, 2025 and November 15, 2025, because the father had another adult in his car when he met the mother at the exchange locations for his parenting time.
89The father explained that when he met the mother to pick up M.N.M., he had another adult wait in his car from a distance he could be seen due to concerns of the mother making false allegations against him. He said the adult in the car never approached the mother at the exchange as is required by the court but rather always remained in the car. He said the mother walked up to his car to film the person inside.
90Once again, these calls to police by the mother were unnecessary and show poor judgment on her part.
91On October 11, 2024, the mother called the police when the parties were at the hospital with M.N.M. alleging the father assaulted her. The heading she uses in her affidavit evidence reads, “Father’s Arrest at Hospital on October 11, 2024.”
92On October 11, 2024, M.N.M. was scheduled to be transferred into his father’s care for his parenting time. The mother advised the father that M.N.M. was not well and she had been advised to take him to a clinic at the hospital. The father met the mother and M.N.M. at the hospital. The mother says that as soon as the father arrived at the hospital, he “took [M.N.M.] out of the stroller and held him for most of the clinic stay…refusing to allow me to hold [M.N.M.] for any long stretch of time (until [the father] was arrested by police at the hospital).”
93The mother provided the details of what occurred at the hospital. She says the father got upset in the examination room and after the doctor left told her that “I wish you were dead”. She said this “threw me into panic and fear.” She said she told hospital staff what the father said. She said in the examination room the father “insisted on holding [M.N.M.]” and upon leaving the examination room the father took M.N.M.’s bottle and tried to feed M.N.M. At this point, the mother says,
“When [the father] still kept trying to bottle feed [M.N.M.], it was at that point that I asked [the father] for the milk bottle. [The father] refused and walked away with [M.N.M.] When I approached him and [M.N.M.] to take the bottle, [the father] and I made physical contact, which I honestly perceived to be a push from [the father].” (emphasis mine)
94When M.N.M. was admitted to the hospital, the mother says the father refused to let her hold him until the hospital staff asked her to hold him so they could administer an IV for fluids and antibiotics. At that point, the father handed M.N.M. to her. Before this occurred, she said the father was swearing at her in front of the hospital staff.
95The mother called the police “mainly because I was scared about the threats [the father] made. When the police arrived, the mother reported that the father had pushed her when she “took the milk bottle from him”.
96The father was arrested at the hospital and his evidence is that he remained in the police vehicle while the police reviewed the hospital surveillance. He was released without charges. The mother said she was informed later that evening that after reviewing the hospital surveillance no charges were laid against the father.
97The police report filed as an exhibit states that the police were called by the mother who alleged the father “assaulted her” at the hospital. The mother told the police that when she tried to take M.N.M.’s bottle from the father he shoved her with his left arm and she perceived this to be physical violence. The police report states that the video shows the mother “managed to rip the bottle away” from the father and “At no point was there any shoving motion observed”.
98In her oral evidence the mother said that the father did not assault her at the hospital on October 11, 2024.
The father’s calls to police
99The father called the police on October 1, 2023, when the mother allegedly threatened to remove M.N.M., who was two months old at the time, from the home they shared without telling the father where she was going. The mother denied the claim that she was going to take M.N.M. from the home without advising the father where she was going.
100A month later the mother did exactly what the father feared. On November 2, 2023, the mother took M.N.M. and left the father without his knowledge or consent. She texted him later that day advising that he took M.N.M. to a shelter but was not permitted to disclose the address of the shelter.
101The father called the police on December 2, 2023, when the mother attended at their apartment to retrieve her belongings. He had arranged for witnesses to be at the apartment, but the mother arrived late, and they could not wait. He was concerned about being alone with the mother and called the police who attended at the home.
102The father’s next call to the police was on May 26, 2024, during his scheduled parenting time with his son at Yorkdale Mall because the mother was following him around the mall and he felt she was intruding on his parenting time.
103The father also called police on June 2nd and 3rd, 2024, when the mother did not attend at Yorkdale Mall for previously agreed upon parenting time through the parties’ lawyers.4
104On October 20, 2024, the father called the police after he says the mother called him crying from her car. She had been drinking in a parking lot with friends and M.N.M. was with her. He says she told him that she was tired of court and tired of everything. She asked the father to pick them up in Mississauga. The father said he told the mother that he was concerned about being near her without witnesses or cameras given 9 days ago she falsely accused him of assaulting her at the hospital. The father said the mother then hung up on him but called right back and said she was going to kill herself. He told her she is forcing him to call the police.
105The father’s evidence is that he was in Toronto at the time so he called a friend in the area where the mother was located to see if he could get to her and M.N.M. When he could not reach his friend, he called the police and described the mother’s car. He said the police stayed on the phone with him until they located the mother and M.N.M. When the father arrived, he said he saw the mother being administered a breathalyzer and then being hand cuffed. M.N.M. was in the backseat of the mother’s car and was placed in the father’s care by the police.
106The father’s last call to the police was on November 29, 2024, when the mother refused to comply with the court order for his parenting time because she felt M.N.M. was too ill to leave her care.
Conclusions regarding police involvement
107The mother argues that the evidence of police involvement is relevant to the issue of decision making responsibility for M.N.M. She says it is evidence of an inability to cooperate and communicate and she places the blame squarely on the father.
108The mother’s claim that the parties’ relationship is plagued with conflict initiated by the father necessitating police involvement is not supported by the evidence and is rejected by the court. The mother’s willingness to access valuable police resources for trivial disagreements between her and the father, which she knew or ought to have known are not police matters, is convincing evidence that supports the father’s argument that the mother attempted to weaponize the police against him and anticipated police involvement would bolster her case in this litigation. The sheer number of times the mother’s calls to police amount to nothing more than tattling on the father is extremely troubling for the court.
109The court finds that the mother tends to exaggerate or dramatize her evidence to support her allegations and portray herself as the victim and the father as the villain.
110The mother’s false claim that the father assaulted her at the hospital on October 11, 2023, is evidence of the measures the mother is willing to take to harm the father and/or strengthen her claims before the court. What is also informative for the court about this incident is that the mother initiated the physical interaction between the parties by grabbing the milk bottle from the father’s hands. The significance of the mother’s admission that she made a false allegation of assault against the father cannot be overstated.
111This court must treat false allegations of intimate partner violence with utmost seriousness. The mother’s willingness to falsely accuse the father of assault is very concerning given the very serious implications this could have had on the father and M.N.M.’s relationship with him had the father been charged. There are consequences for this behaviour as this evidence has a devastating impact on the mother’s credibility. The analysis of the relevant evidence set out in this judgment is done in the context of this credibility finding.
112The father’s calls to police at times were also likely unnecessary but far less concerning than the mother’s involvement of police. It is not out of the ordinary for parents involved in family litigation to attempt to involve police in disputes over parenting time. Most of the father’s calls to police were to report the mother withholding the child from him during his scheduled parenting time. While there is certainly an argument to make that this too is not appropriate use of police resources, it is far more understandable than the reasons given by the mother for several of her calls to police.
113The court finds that the mother has fabricated, if not the conflict between the parties, the degree or extent of the conflict in order to support her claim for sole decision making responsibility for and primary care of M.N.M. The mother cannot rely on her own conduct as evidence that the parties cannot communicate effectively or that there is too much conflict to allow for an order of joint decision making responsibility for M.N.M.
What the other evidence of communication between the parties reveals
114The father provided evidence to refute the mother’s claim that the parties do not communicate effectively which the mother did not deny.
115After separation, the father’s evidence is that he attended at the hospital and at specialists’ offices on several occasions with the mother to address M.N.M.’s tremors. His uncontested evidence is that on six occasions between August 19, 2024 and October 11, 2024, “I managed to work with [the mother] cooperatively to ensure that [M.N.M.] is given the best care and his health concerns were addressed promptly” when they attended at the hospital or specialist appointments together.
116The father also says, and the mother admitted, that he and the mother celebrated M.N.M.’s first birthday together at a park for which the mother arranged a photographer and they went to Ripley’s Aquarium together with M.N.M. on September 21, 2024.
117The father says when he arranged a dentist appointment for M.N.M., he shared the information with the mother and provided her with the appointment details.
Conclusion regarding the parties’ willingness and ability to communicate with one another
118Courts do not expect communication between separated parties to be easy or comfortable, or free of conflict. A standard of perfection is not required and is obviously not achievable.5 The issue is whether a reasonable measure of communication and cooperation is in place, and is achievable in the future, so that the best interests of the child can be ensured on an ongoing basis.6
119While the father sometimes failed to provide the mother with as much detail as she would like from him, the evidence shows that he was cooperative and communicated appropriately with the mother and remained child focused.
120The mother has demonstrated that when she wants to or when it benefits her, she can communicate effectively with the father. There were several instances when the parties communicated effectively to address M.N.M.’s health issues following separation. They attended at the hospital together, discussed the medication given to M.N.M., exchanged information as needed, and cooperated to arrange follow up appointments. They also celebrated M.N.M.’s first birthday with a photoshoot in the park and went to the aquarium together with M.N.M.
121The court finds that while the mother has demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate effectively with the father, she is certainly able to cooperate with the father and put the needs of M.N.M. first when she chooses.
What is the status quo with respect to M.N.M.’s care and decision making responsibility for him and how does it impact the parenting issues the court must resolve?
The mother’s evidence
122The parties separated when M.N.M. was two months old. He has been in the primary care of the mother since that time. The mother says M.N.M. is a healthy child who is meeting all his developmental milestones in her primary care. She has located and secured M.N.M.’s doctors and she has notified the father of her choices. She says she has managed and addressed M.N.M.’s medical needs appropriately and provided the father with regular and timely updates about his health following medical appointments.
123The mother says that she has demonstrated since separation that she makes appropriate major decisions for M.N.M. She recognized when M.N.M. required medical attention and she ensured he obtained the care he needed. She said that when she noticed M.N.M. was having tremors, she took him to the hospital and made certain that he obtained the testing and referrals to specialists he needed to assess the issue.
124The mother says that the father is not as alert to M.N.M.’s needs as she is. She says he did not even notice the tremors M.N.M. was having, and she had to send him a video to show him. She said once M.N.M. experienced the tremors while sitting on his father’s lap but he did not notice. She said the father dismissed her claim that M.N.M. was having tremors or shaking saying it did not occur when M.N.M. was in his care.
125The mother says that the father has displayed behaviour that should disentitle him to sole or joint decision making responsibility such as failing to provide the dentist with her contact information, changing the insurance information with the pharmacy, failing to notify her of the outcome of hospital appointments with M.N.M., overholding M.N.M. from her on her parenting time and refusing to return M.N.M. to her when he is ill.
126The mother says the father does not recognize M.N.M.’s cues very well and has not prioritized M.N.M. health over his own needs, insisting M.N.M. be in the father’s care for his parenting time even when M.N.M. is ill. She also raises concerns about his physical care of M.N.M. referencing an incident when M.N.M. fell, hit his head and scratched his nose. From text message exchanges between the parties, it appears the mother was concerned that the father was giving M.N.M. too much freedom to do what he wants which led to his falling and hitting his head. Out of concern the mother took him to the doctor and was assured he is fine as the doctor had no concerns.
127The mother also says that the father did not act in the child’s best interests when he withheld information about M.N.M.’s health, did not follow doctor’s instructions and called the police when the mother had been drinking rather than coming to pick her and M.N.M. up like she asked.
The father’s evidence
128The father’s evidence is that from the moment the mother became pregnant, he was an involved and engaged father to be. He attended at every prenatal appointment with the mother except when he was out of town. When the mother began having complications during pregnancy, he was by her side at every hospital appointment. He was involved in purchasing all the items the baby needed before his arrival. He paid for the baptism. As the baby was delivered by caesarean section, the father says he was primarily responsible for caring for the mother after the birth and took two weeks off work to do so.
129Since separation, the father says he has shown he is a loving, caring father who provides excellent care for his son. He is engaged with his medical providers, he arranged a dentist for him, he ensured that the mother could access his extended health benefits for M.N.M., and he has done his best to work cooperatively with the mother as is in M.N.M.’s best interests.
130The father says once the mother brought M.N.M.’s tremors to his attention, he took the issue very seriously and was at every doctor’s appointment with the mother. He was able to describe what the parties were told about the apparent tremors and showed interest and understanding into what he learned.
131The father denies withholding important information from the mother. For example, the mother complains that he did not give the child’s dentist the mother’s contact information because he believed she would provide it to the dentist when the mother took M.N.M. to his first appointment. He also explains that he did not change the mother’s insurance information at the pharmacy as she claimed, rather he added his coverage so that it was available to M.N.M.
132The father says that while the mother is a smart woman who can meet the day to day physical needs of the child, her poor judgment and insight will create unnecessary conflict and instability in M.N.M.’s life. He points to the constant conflict the mother creates and the unnecessary involvement of police as an example of her instability. He says her willingness to interfere in his parenting time is further evidence of her poor judgment. He says the mother’s decision to get drunk in a parking lot with friends when she was driving and had M.N.M. was a serious lapse in judgment that worries him tremendously.
Conclusions regarding the parties’ care of M.N.M. and decision making capabilities
133Ultimately, the court must determine if a joint decision-making responsibility order, or an order allocating any decision-making responsibility between the parties, is in the child’s best interests. The court also has the option, if it is in the child’s best interests, to leave some or all aspects of decision-making responsibility silent.7
134At the date of separation, the mother was at home full time caring for M.N.M. and the father worked full time. It is fair to conclude that the mother was M.N.M.’s primary caregiver during the relationship for the brief period after he was born until the mother left the relationship and moved to a shelter with M.N.M. The mother’s unilateral actions resulted in her being M.N.M.’s primary caregiver at the date of the trial. For the period after separation until the date of trial, the court will put less weight on the fact that the mother is M.N.M.’s primary caregiver as she manufactured this status quo as opposed to it occurring naturally and because it was or is in M.N.M.’s best interests.
135The mother had almost nothing nice or positive to say about the father as a partner or a father. This was problematic for the court and impacted her credibility given that it is not disputed that after the mother became pregnant the father supported her financially; helped pay for her education; attended every medical appointment the mother had during pregnancy except when he was out of town; and, immediately upon separation, began paying voluntary child support of $700.00 per month. The father attended with the mother and M.N.M., and sometimes drove the mother at her request, for several hospital visits M.N.M. has had since separation. Surely the mother could have found something positive to say about the father, but she did not.
136The evidence reveals that the mother is hyper critical of the father and his caregiving skills. She always assumes the worst as she appears to have little to no confidence in the father’s ability to parent M.N.M. This is even though M.N.M. has been spending overnights in his father’s care for over a year since October 2024, and no serious issues or incidents have been reported by the mother.
137The mother’s criticism of the father is so severe that if justified, it brings her judgment into question given she consented to the father having M.N.M. in his care four overnights every two weeks when he was 15 months old. While the mother said the father is not a caring or loving father and only uses M.N.M. to get back at her, the court finds that her consenting to the father having M.N.M. in his care overnight every weekend is a more reliable indication of her true belief of the father’s caregiving skills.
138The mother gave evidence on the father’s parenting that is illogical and contrary to the undisputed facts before the court. As a result, at times the mother’s evidence came across as a manipulation of the truth.
139The court does not share the mother’s concerns about the father’s parenting skills. The evidence supports a finding that M.N.M. is safe in the father’s care. There is also no evidence to support the mother’s belief that the father’s interest in M.N.M. is not out of love for him but rather motivated by a desire to hurt her.
140Conversely, the father’s evidence was more focused on the child. He did not engage in gratuitous attacks of the mother’s character. He said she is a smart woman who can strongly advocate for their son when necessary. He acknowledged that she advised him when M.N.M. appeared to be experiencing tremors and sent him videos of the child displaying the behaviour. She called him when she took M.N.M. to the emergency room and he attended immediately. She involved him with the medical professionals and discussed reports with him. Despite having concerns about the mother’s conduct towards him, the father was able to acknowledge the mother’s strengths and the positive ways in which she interacted with him.
141The father also gave evidence that at times might be contrary to his interests which demonstrated honesty such as his discontinuing the mother’s use of his credit card and his refusal to assist her when she had been drinking and had M.N.M. in her care.
142The court finds that the mother loves M.N.M. very much. The mother has shown that she can meet M.N.M.’s physical needs. She has shown she is especially attentive to his medical needs and is very capable at ensuring that they are met. The father acknowledged that the mother is a good advocate for M.N.M. especially given her education.
143Part of being a good parent is protecting your child from conflict. The mother’s behaviour towards the father and chronic involvement of the police creates a risk of emotional harm to M.N.M. which undermines his stability in her care.
144The court finds that the father is a very loving and caring parent. He demonstrates extensive knowledge of his son’s needs and the medical issues he has faced in his young life. He made himself available to his son and the mother when there were emergencies or medical issues that required immediate attention. There is no evidence of his being unnecessarily critical of the mother or her parenting. In fact, he said she is a loving mother with good parenting skills. He shares information with the mother, communicates respectfully, shows a real and genuine interest in his son’s well being.
145The evidence supports a finding that both parents are capable, loving parents who can meet the day to day needs of their son and make major decisions for him.
Has the mother failed to support M.N.M.’s relationship with his father since separation?
146The father says that the mother’s conduct since separation is evidence of an unwillingness or inability to support M.N.M.’s relationship with him. He says in order to counteract the negative impact of her behaviour on his relationship with his son, he should have sole decision making responsibility for and care of him 50% of the time.
147The mother does not believe that she has interfered in any way with M.N.M.’s relationship with his father. She says despite the father’s conduct towards her and the conflict he has created between them, “I encourage [M.N.M.’s] relationship with his father. [The father’s] time with [M.N.M.] has incrementally expanded, on consent, throughout this litigation.”
148For the reasons set out below, the court finds that the mother has not in fact supported the development and maintenance of M.N.M.’s relationship with the father.
149As noted above, the mother removed M.N.M. from the home she shared with the father on November 2, 2023, without the father’s knowledge or consent. She did not advise him in advance where she was going. Once gone, she told him she was at a shelter with M.N.M. but shelter policy prohibited her from giving him the address.
150After removing M.N.M. from the home he shared with the father, the mother did not offer or make any arrangements for the father to see M.N.M., who was only two months old at the time. The father wrote to the mother on “at least five different occasions starting from November 18, 2023” to propose they pursue a mediated settlement and requesting to see his son.
151The best interests of the child have been found to be met by having a loving relationship with both parents and that such a relationship should be interfered with only in demonstrated circumstances of danger to the child’s physical or mental well-being. Moreover, the child has a right to have contact with both parents.8
152If the mother was not prepared to immediately facilitate meaningful contact between M.N.M. and his father after unilaterally removing him from his father’s care, it was incumbent on her to commence a court Application immediately explaining why denying contact or limiting it is in M.N.M.’s best interests. She did not do this.
153In fact, despite repeated requests by the father to see his son, the mother did not facilitate any contact between M.N.M. and his father for six months. When the parties arranged for the mother to attend at the apartment they shared to collect her belongings on December 1, 2023, the father asked her to bring M.N.M. so he could see his son. The mother wrote back advising the father that M.N.M. will be with a babysitter when she attends at the apartment and that “I’m not coming for a family reunion.”
154The father responded by reiterating his right to see his son and know he is well. The mother wrote that M.N.M. is well and doing “better than he did at your apartment” and that “you will see him because he’s your son but after the court and during the time pre-established by the Judge.”
155The father wrote to the mother on December 15, 2023, noting it was the second time he is requesting to see his son. He writes,
“It is crucial for both his well-being and my parental relationship to establish regular access. I respectfully urge you to consider the importance of fostering a healthy parent-child bond, which is fundamental to our son’s growth and development. I am open to discussing this matter further and am willing to explore amicable solutions, such as mediation, to find an arrangement that suits both of us and, more importantly, prioritizes our son’s best interests.”
156The father’s correspondence of December 15, 2023, is extremely polite and very child focused. He shows great maturity and insight into his son’s needs. Despite this, the mother’s response on the same date was:
“As per our last conversation and previous conversations, I’ll take the matter to family court. You will hear from my lawyer.”
157The mother’s email correspondence to the father makes no mention of arranging parenting time for the father or acknowledging how important it is for M.N.M., who was only two months old, to have physical contact with his father to foster their bond.
158The father’s response to the mother’s curt email repeats how crucial it is for M.N.M. for them to arrange parenting time for the father immediately. The father tells the mother he is even open to having a third party present “if that would provide reassurance and comfort.”
159After receiving no response to his last email sent on December 15, 2023, the father corresponds with the mother again on December 24, 2023. He once again urges the mother to engage in discussions to arrange for parenting time and reminds the mother that “it is within the child’s best interest and well-being to maintain a meaningful relationship with both of us, and I am committed to ensuring that our child receives the love, care, and nurturing support from both sides.”
160The father next wrote to the mother on January 28, 2024. This is the father’s fifth attempt to engage the mother in discussions about his parenting time. He notes that neither the mother or her lawyer have responded to his previous emails and that her conduct is contrary to the child’s best interests and right to have meaningful contact with both parents. He specifically notes how important contact with M.N.M. is given his young age.
161Once again, the mother responds to the father’s pleas to see his son with a short, emotionless response which reads, “Me and my lawyer are working on the proposal of your access to [M.N.M.] You will hear from her shortly.” When the father requests clarification on the timeline for a response from the mother’s lawyer as it has been three months since she removed M.N.M. from his care, she says, “You will hear from my lawyer in about a week.”
162The father’s written correspondence to the mother between November 2023 and February 2024, demonstrates that he understands M.N.M.’s needs and what is important, and he conveyed that in a thoughtful and mature manner. Despite being denied contact with his infant son, the father never allowed the discourse to degenerate into threats or derogatory or abusive language.
163On February 6, 2024, the mother’s lawyer introduced herself to the father via email and advised that on that date an Application would be issued with the court on the mother’s behalf. She asks the father to cooperate to arrange personal service of the court documents. No mention is made of parenting time for the father.
164No agreement or order providing for the father’s parenting time to M.N.M. was made until May 3, 2024, three months after the Application was issued with the court and six months after the mother took M.N.M and left the relationship.
165The court did not hear any evidence that justifies the mother’s self imposed absence of the father from M.N.M.’s life for 6 months. The mother’s lack of urgency in addressing M.N.M.’s right to have meaningful contact with his father, especially given his age, is worrying. Either the mother did not understand the importance of her son having regular contact with his father to foster a healthy bond or she does not consider her son having a healthy bond with his father important. Either way, her lack of insight into her son’s needs is an important consideration for the court when deciding the issues raised in this trial.
166The mother’s conduct following separation reveals that she does not consider M.N.M.’s relationship with his father to be one of importance that must be nurtured by her as his primary caregiver. Once the mother commenced litigation on February 7, 2024, it took three months for the father’s parenting time to commence and when it did it was for a paltry two hours twice a week in a mall. The mother praises herself for consenting to court orders increasing the father’s parenting time but what she agreed to is nothing to celebrate. She allowed her 2 month old son to go 6 months without any contact with his father. She then insisted that his contact be limited to two hours inside a mall he was not permitted to leave.
167The order of May 3, 2024, which provides for 7 two hour visits for the father at Yorkdale Mall, also states that the parties shall cooperate through counsel to agree on the father’s parenting time for June and July 2024.
168The father’s evidence is that the parties agreed on a schedule for June and July 2024 but when he attended at the agreed upon exchange location on June 2nd, 2024 for the first visit, the mother did not attend. She did not attend again on the second agreed upon date of June 3rd, 2024. This evidence was not contested by the mother.
169On June 12, 2024, the case management Judge arranged a video conference to address two 14B Motions filed by the parties addressing the father’s parenting time in June and July 2024.
170An order was granted on June 18, 2024, detailing the father’s parenting time for June 2024 and provides that the parties shall cooperate to arrange make up parenting time for the missed visits on June 2nd, 3rd and 9th 2024.
171The order of June 18, 2024, is evidence which supports the father’s claim that the mother failed to facilitate previously agreed upon parenting time on three occasions in June 2024. After having no contact with his father for 6 months between November 2023 and May 2024, the mother’s conduct caused another interruption in the father’s parenting time for almost three weeks.
172On April 11, 2025, M.N.M. had been ill and in hospital resulting in the mother cancelling the father’s parenting time. The father wrote to the mother asking, “to have a call with [M.N.M.] tomorrow to see how he is feeling.” The mother’s response was, “Our interactions have to be through writing only. Therefore, we cannot have a phone call, let alone a video call according to the court order.”
173The mother refused to facilitate a video call between the father and M.N.M. on April 11, 2025, because the temporary order of October 31, 2024, provides that, “the parties shall communicate about the child in writing only.” Separate from the fact that it is obvious that this term of the order does not prohibit video contact between M.N.M. and his father, the ease at which the mother used the court order to justify limiting contact between M.N.M. and the father is a stark example of her unwillingness or inability to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with his father. Sadly, this is evidence of the mother’s willingness to use the child to hurt the father, something she accuses the father of doing but of which there is no evidence to support.
174The mother’s evidence at trial is consistent with her behaviour following separation and supports the court’s finding that she does not support M.N.M.’s relationship with is father. When asked if she agreed that the father is a loving, caring parent, the mother disagreed and said, “His mood always changes. If he’s in a bad mood he’s far away from a loving father.” When asked what kind of father the Respondent is, the mother said he does not put the child’s best interests first but rather uses the child to “get to me”.
175When the mother was reminded that she called the father on more than one occasion in an emergency, she conceded that he is a good father “when it came to emergencies”.
176The evidence demonstrates that the father is a loving, capable parent. The rate at which the father’s parenting time was increased was painfully slow and unjustified. Given the level of the father’s involvement in M.N.M.’s life, he should not have had to wait until M.N.M. was almost a year old before he was permitted to spend a full day in his father’s care. However, the court was not provided with an explanation for why the father did not bring a motion for an order that expanded his parenting time at a more appropriate pace.
177The mother’s animosity towards the father is palpable. On several occasions, it has impaired her judgment as to what is best for M.N.M. She has acted contrary to M.N.M.’s best interests.
178After the mother took M.N.M. and left the father, he behaved entirely appropriately. He remained focused on the child’s needs. He did not let any anger leak into his communication with the mother. He remained focused solely on M.N.M.’s best interests and his right to enjoy a loving and meaningful relationship with his father. Sadly, the same cannot be said about the mother.
179The mother has shown that she is able to meet the day to day physical needs of her son. She has demonstrated less ability to meet his psychological and emotional needs by unnecessarily limiting his contact with the father and undervaluing their relationship during a critical period of his life. Based on the evidence, the court is concerned that the mother’s negative opinion of the father and her willingness to let that cloud her judgment will negatively impact M.N.M.’s relationship with his father in the future, especially as he grows older, and therefore possibly harm M.N.M. emotionally.
Is there evidence of one or both of the parties being unable or unwilling to comply with court orders?
180In considering a child’s best interests it will often be important to determine if a parent will follow the terms of a court order.9
181Both parties allege that the other parent has repeatedly violated the court ordered parenting schedule when they overheld the child and did not transfer him into the other parent’s care pursuant to the order. For this reason, the mother asks the court to make an order requiring the police to enforce the final court order.
182The parties both described in great detail the occasions on which the other withheld the child and interfered with their parenting time. Every incident described except the occasion when the mother was charged with driving under the influence, involved M.N.M. being ill and the parties being unable to agree as to who should care for him. On more than one occasion the mother cancelled the father’s parenting time because M.N.M. was ill and the father felt he should have M.N.M. in his care and be able to care for him when he is sick. On one occasion, the father had M.N.M. in his care and did not return him to the mother for her parenting time claiming he was too ill to be moved around and should remain in the father’s care.
183Both parties have behaved inappropriately when M.N.M. was ill. The parties have displayed an unattractive level of immaturity on this issue as opposed to doing what is best for M.N.M. The parents were unable to agree when it is appropriate for M.N.M. to be transferred into the other parent’s care when he is ill and when it is not. Their inability to agree led to conflict, unnecessary police involvement and allegations at trial both anticipated would assist in furthering their positions. What the evidence highlights for the court is both parties’ stubbornness and inability to put their petty differences aside and act in their son’s best interests.
184As a result of the parents’ differences on this issue, the court will craft an order that addresses the problem.
Summary of the court’s findings on the material facts in dispute
185The court makes the following findings:
(a) Overall, the father’s evidence was more thoughtful and balanced. His explanations and accounts of what occurred between the parties is more believable than the mother’s version. In most instances where the parties evidence differs, the court accepts the father’s version over that of the mother.
(b) The father was neither verbally nor financially abusive towards the mother.
(c) The mother falsely reported a physical assault by the father to the police on October 11, 2024.
(d) The mother has consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to work cooperatively and communicate effectively with the father to make decisions for the child that are in his best interests.
(e) The father is more willing to communicate and cooperate appropriately with the mother on matters affecting M.N.M. than the mother is with the father.
(f) The mother has manufactured a situation of conflict between the parties that she says demonstrates that they cannot cooperate or communicate effectively. She has attempted to use the police and the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto in a manner that she believed would strengthen her case in this litigation.
(g) Despite the findings in (d) and (f) above, the parties have communicated effectively and cooperated when required to make major decisions for M.N.M.
(h) The mother has demonstrated an unwillingness to foster a healthy and meaningful relationship between M.N.M. and the father. She has created barriers to M.N.M. having regular and frequent contact with his father.
(i) Both parents are loving, caring and appropriate parents capable of meeting M.N.M.’s day to day physical needs. Both parents have demonstrated good judgement and decision making when M.N.M. was ill. They consulted specialists where necessary and followed up with all appointments scheduled for M.N.M. For the most part, they shared information appropriately.
(j) The mother has tended to most of M.N.M.’s regular medical care while the father took it upon himself to arrange for a dentist for M.N.M
(k) The father is better able and more willing to meet M.N.M.’s emotional and psychological needs than the mother who has consistently undermined the father’s relationship with M.N.M.
(l) The mother has at times demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of insight into her actions and how they have or could negatively impact M.N.M.
(m) The parties have both violated court orders setting out their parenting time. They acted immaturely and selfishly when they were unable to decide if M.N.M. should be moved between their homes when he is ill.
(n) The mother has attempted to use the court’s orders to justify restricting M.N.M.’s contact with his father.
(o) The mother has been M.N.M.’s primary caregiver since birth. Since separation, the mother’s unilateral actions have served to manufacture circumstances where she is the primary caregiver of the child.
(p) Both parties have shown poor judgment involving police in their interactions, but the mother has done so far more often and for circumstances that she knew or ought to have known did not require or necessitate police involvement.
The law
Parenting orders
186Subsection 18 (1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (the Act) defines decision-making responsibility as follows:
“decision-making responsibility” means responsibility for making significant decisions about a child’s well-being, including with respect to,
(a) health,
(b) education,
(c) culture, language, religion and spirituality, and
(d) significant extra-curricular activities;
187Subsections 20(1), (2) and (3) of the Act reads as follows:
Equal entitlement to decision-making responsibility
20 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, a child’s parents are equally entitled to decision-making responsibility with respect to the child.
Rights and responsibilities
(2) A person entitled to decision-making responsibility with respect to a child has the rights and responsibilities of a parent in respect of the child, and must exercise those rights and responsibilities in the best interests of the child.
Authority to act
(3) If more than one person is entitled to decision-making responsibility with respect to a child, any one of them may exercise the rights and accept the responsibilities of a parent on behalf of them in respect of the child.
188Subsection 20(5) of the Act addresses parenting time as follows:
The entitlement to parenting time with respect to a child includes the right to visit with and be visited by the child, and includes the same right as a parent to make inquiries and to be given information about the child’s well-being, including in relation to the child’s health and education.
189Subsection 21 (1) of the Act reads as follows:
21 (1) A parent of a child may apply to a court for a parenting order respecting,
(a) decision-making responsibility with respect to the child; and
(b) parenting time with respect to the child.
190Any proceeding with respect to children is determined with respect to the best interests of the particular child before the court in accordance with the considerations set out in section 24 of the Act. The court has considered these factors, where relevant.
191Subsection 24 (2) of the Act provides that the court must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests.
192Subsection 24 (3) of the Act sets out a list of factors for the court to consider related to the circumstances of the child. It reads as follows:
(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,
(k) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(l) 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
(m) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
193The list of best interests considerations in the Act is not exhaustive10. 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.11
194Section 28 of the Act sets out the different types of parenting orders that a court can make. The relevant subsections of section 28 for this case are (1), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8). They read as follows:
28 (1) The court to which an application is made under section 21,
(i) may by order grant,
(i) decision-making responsibility with respect to a child to one or more persons, in the case of an application under clause 21 (1) (a) or subsection 21 (2),
(ii) parenting time with respect to a child to one or more parents of the child, in the case of an application under clause 21 (1) (b), or
(iii) (iii) contact with respect to a child to one or more persons other than a parent of the child, in the case of an application under subsection 21 (3);
(b) may by order determine any aspect of the incidents of the right to decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, as the case may be, with respect to a child; and
(c) may make any additional order the court considers necessary and proper in the circumstances, including an order,
(i) limiting the duration, frequency, manner or location of contact or communication between any of the parties, or between a party and the child,
(ii) prohibiting a party or other person from engaging in specified conduct in the presence of the child or at any time when the person is responsible for the care of the child,
(iii) prohibiting a party from changing the child’s residence, school or day care facility without the consent of another party or an order of the court,
(iv) prohibiting a party from removing the child from Ontario without the consent of another party or an order of the court,
(v) requiring the delivery, to the court or to a person or body specified by the court, of the child’s passport, the child’s health card within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act or any other document relating to the child that the court may specify,
(vi) requiring a party to give information or to consent to the release of information respecting the child’s well-being, including in relation to the child’s health and education, to another party or other person specified by the court, or
(vii) requiring a party to facilitate communication by the child with another party or other person specified by the court in a manner that is appropriate for the child.
Allocation of decision-making responsibility
(4) The court may allocate decision-making responsibility with respect to a child, or any aspect of it, to one or more persons.
Allocation of parenting time
(5) The court may allocate parenting time with respect to a child by way of a schedule.
Parenting time, day-to-day decisions
(6) Unless the court orders otherwise, a person to whom the court allocates parenting time with respect to a child has exclusive authority during that time to make day-to-day decisions affecting the child.
Parenting plan
(7) The court shall include in a parenting order or contact order any written parenting plan submitted by the parties that contains the elements relating to decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact to which the parties agree, subject to any changes the court may specify if it considers it to be in the best interests of the child to do so.
Right to ask for and receive information
(8) Unless a court orders otherwise, a person to whom decision-making responsibility or parenting time has been granted with respect to a child under a parenting order is entitled to ask for and, subject to any applicable laws, receive information about the child’s well-being, including in relation to the child’s health and education, from,
(a) any other person to whom decision-making responsibility or parenting time has been granted with respect to the child under a parenting order; and
(b) any other person who is likely to have such information.
195Subsection 33.1 (2) of the Act addresses the importance of the parties protecting children from conflict. It reads as follows:
33.1(2) A party to a proceeding under this Part shall, to the best of the party’s ability, protect any child from conflict arising from the proceeding.
Joint Decision-Making Responsibility
196The Ontario Court of Appeal in Kaplanis v. Kaplanis 2005 1625 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 275 sets out the following principles in determining whether a joint decision-making responsibility order (formerly custody order) is appropriate:
There must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them.
It can’t be ordered in the hope that it will improve their communication.
Just because both parents are fit does not mean that joint custody should be ordered.
The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate does not preclude an order for joint custody.
No matter how detailed the custody order there will always be gaps and unexpected situations, and when they arise they must be able to be addressed on an ongoing basis.
The younger the child, the more important communication is.
197Mutual trust and respect are basic elements for a joint decision-making responsibility order to work effectively.12
198In paragraph 504 of Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 6451, 2011 CarswellOnt 12097 (SCJ), the court writes:
In the wrong family circumstances, a joint custody order can perpetuate hostilities, indecision, and power struggles. Children- particularly children already exposed to the upset of family breakdown- look to their parents for love, guidance, stability, protection, and consistency. They need to have confidence that adult decisions will be made quickly, properly and uneventfully.
Parenting time
199The test for determining parenting time is what order is in the best interests of the child.
200A starting point to assess a child’s best interests when making a custody or access order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. It is also in a child's best interests when making an access order that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe.13
201Subsection 24 (6) of the Act states that in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
202In Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305, the court set out that there is no presumption that maximum parenting time equates with equal-parenting time. Every family, it wrote, is different and the court must focus on the child’s best interests in determining the appropriate parenting time order.
203In Bressi v. Skinulis et al, 2021 ONSC 4874, Justice Andrea Himel wrote as follows:
21There is no presumption in favour of joint parenting and the term “maximal contact” is no longer found in the CLRA. The legislation states in that: “in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.”
22Clearly the idea of a presumption in favour of one type of parenting order is anathema to the court’s unrelenting focus on the child’s “best interests.” The most one can say is, all things being equal, the child deserves to have a meaningful and consistent relationship with both of their parents.
204An equal-parenting time plan requires a high level of communication and coordination between the parties, particularly when the child is very young. The parents will have to coordinate schooling, medical appointments and extra-curricular activities for the child. This should not be ordered where the evidence indicates that implementing such a plan, given the dynamics between the parties, would be an invitation to conflict and chaos, and would be destabilizing for the child.14
Issue #1 – What order for decision making responsibility is in M.N.M.’s best interests?
205The court has found that the mother has manufactured the conflict or at least the level of conflict she claims exists between the parents and cannot rely on this to argue that the father should not have decision making responsibility.
206Courts will order joint custody rather than sole custody where such an order is considered necessary to preserve the balance of power between the parties, particularly in cases where both parties are caring and competent parents, but one party has been primarily responsible for the conflict between the parties.15
207Where a conflict between parents (such as an inability to communicate effectively) is primarily the fault of one parent, that parent should not be able to use the conflict as justification to oppose a joint or shared parenting order. To do so allows an obdurate parent to engineer a result in his or her favour. However, where the conflict is extreme and there is substantial blame to be leveled against both parents, a joint or shared custody approach is not appropriate.16
208The mother has attempted to persuade the court that the conflict between the parties is extreme, but the evidence does not support that conclusion. The conflict has been a result of trivial matters to which mostly the mother overreacted. The conflict has also been fueled by the mother’s desire to exclude the father from the child’s life. Had she not done that, there likely would have been less conflict, if any.
209The court’s finding that the mother does not view the child’s relationship with the father as important is a significant factor in deciding the issue of decision making responsibility.
210The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a joint decision making responsibility order in the absence of reasonably effective communication between the parents where it has been necessary to sustain a child’s contact with a parent who has been subjected to a campaign of alienation. For example, such an order was upheld where a mother had laid down a pattern of resisting the father’s access and was found by the trial court to be unable to appreciate the importance of the father’s relationship with their children.17
211Courts have found that families that require constant intervention by Children’s Aid Societies and the police due to high conflict are poor candidates for joint decision-making responsibility or parallel parenting orders.18 As most of the police and CAST involvement with the parties was not truly required or necessary, or due to high conflict, the court finds that the parties’ past behaviour in this regard does not disqualify them from sharing decision making responsibility. Had the police involvement in this case been a result of truly serious issues that genuinely required police involvement, and which were actually the result of high conflict as opposed to immaturity and stubbornness, it would have been a valid consideration for declining to grant an order for joint decision making responsibility.
212The mother has attempted to exclude the father from participating fully in M.N.M.’s care and life. An order for joint decision making responsibility will provide the father with a shield against this type of conduct in the future.
213An order for joint decision making responsibility is in M.N.M.’s best interests. The evidence does not disclose a level of conflict that is “extreme” such that “a joint or shared custody approach is not appropriate”.
214Both parents have demonstrated that they are loving parents who are equipped to care for M.N.M. on a day to day basis. Both parents have been involved in his medical and dental care and have interacted with those responsible for M.N.M.’s care in a responsible and appropriate manner.
215While the mother has demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate and communicate effectively with the father, there is plenty of evidence that she is able to work with the father when she wants to and when M.N.M.’s needs require her to do so. The court relies on this evidence in support of an order for joint decision making responsibility as opposed to an order granting the father sole decision making responsibility as he requested.
216The court is mindful that an order for joint decision making responsibility in this case has the potential of exposing M.N.M. to parental conflict but finds that this order is necessary to ensure the mother does not use an order for sole decision making responsibility for the purpose of exerting control over the father. If the mother refuses to work cooperatively with the father when a major decision must be made for M.N.M., she risks the father being granted sole decision making responsibility on a Motion to Change.
Issue #2 – What parenting schedule is in M.N.M.’s best interests?
217The parties separated when M.N.M. was only two months old. After his birth, both parents contributed to his care, but the mother was undoubtedly the primary caregiver as she was home full time with the child and the father works full time.
218The mother’s plan is for M.N.M. to live with her in Toronto and go to daycare in the near future when she hopes to pursue employment. As she has not completed her nursing qualifications, it is unclear when she plans to pursue employment and arrange daycare for M.N.M. The mother gave very little evidence of her plan to complete her education and pursue employment as a nurse.
219The father’s plan is for M.N.M. to be in each parent’s care equally and for him to attend daycare where he lives in Etobicoke. He says he has M.N.M. on the waitlist for two daycares. Until then he said he would have the help of family to care for M.N.M. when he must work.
220The parties do not live close to one another. The father works in Toronto and currently meets the mother near her home to exchange M.N.M. for his parenting time. He said he works approximately 5-10 minutes from the mother’s home.
221Both parties own a vehicle and have a valid drivers’ license.
222The father said if he had to, he could pick up and return M.N.M. to a school in the mother’s area but that he preferred he attend school somewhere halfway between the parties’ homes. He did not say where that was or how M.N.M. could be enrolled in a school in a jurisdiction in which he does not reside.
223Neither provided the court with an overly detailed plan for M.N.M.’s care. The mother asks that the father’s parenting time continue to take place on weekends until he is in school or daycare. The father asks for a “2-2-3” schedule which would result in M.N.M. being in his care two weeknights per week and alternating weekends from Friday to Monday morning.
224M.N.M. has had his primary residence with his mother since the parties separated on November 2, 2023, when he was two months old, but the status quo was imposed upon the father by the mother. She removed M.N.M. from the father’s care without his knowledge or consent. She failed to provide the father with any contact with M.N.M. for 6 months and then only agreed to very short periods of parenting time for an excessively long period of time. The mother cannot rely on the status quo that she created, unfairly, as a basis for an order that M.N.M. continue to have his primary residence with her.
225The Ontario Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC-Ontario) prepared the AFCC Parenting Guidelines (the Guidelines) 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.
226Although it is not binding on the courts, the Guidelines provide a great deal of helpful information and reflects a professional consensus in Ontario about the significance of current child development research for post-separation.19
227In Tremblay-Chartier v. Blanchette, 2025 ONSC 6273, the Divisional Court considered the Guidelines and wrote that “If a judge departs from the established and widely accepted social science research, reasons are needed to depart from same.”
228The Guidelines state that an equal parenting schedule for children aged 18 to 36 months is appropriate “if parents have fully shared in the caretaking arrangements before the child has reached this age” and “as long as the separations from each parent are not too long (no more than two to three days or two nights for example).” The Guidelines also emphasize that “a parenting plan needs to be individualized to meet the needs of specific children and parents.”
229The Guidelines include a section entitled “Special Considerations in Making a Parenting Plan” which include subheadings such as “Parents Who Never Lived Together”, “Long Distance Parenting”, “Family Violence” and “Parental Substance Abuse or Mental Illness”. The inclusion of these considerations demonstrates that the authors of the Guidelines understand that there are circumstances where the proposed age-based parenting plans set out in the Guidelines are not appropriate.
230The Guidelines provide comments and guidance on how to approach the preparation of a parenting schedule for children when the stated “special considerations” are present. Not included in the Guidelines are the special circumstances present in this case and how they impact the proposed age appropriate parenting schedules.
231Under the “Family Violence” subheading, the Guidelines state that in some situations “the parents should not be developing their own plan” but rather the parenting plan should be “court-mandated”. While it is not entirely clear what “court-mandated means”, Merriam-Webster defines “mandated” as “officially required”. The reasonable presumption is that the authors of the Guidelines understand that in special circumstances, it is best for a court to determine what parenting plan is in the child’s best interests and make an order accordingly. This is a recognition of the family court judge’s expertise and extensive experience in making parenting orders that meet the child’s needs and promote their best interests in the absence of agreement by the parents.
232There are certainly many circumstances or “special considerations” other than family violence where a “court-mandated” parenting plan is in the child’s best interest. This case presents some of those circumstances.
233The court has found that the mother has engaged in a concerning pattern of excluding the father from M.N.M.’s life and minimizing the importance of M.N.M.’s relationship with the father. The evidence demonstrates that the mother does not fully support M.N.M. having a healthy and meaningful relationship with his father. She has put unreasonable limits on the father’s parenting time with M.N.M. and created obstacles to the father being fully involved in M.N.M.’s life. It is therefore in M.N.M.’s best interests for the court ordered parenting schedule to address these findings and the concerns they present, as opposed to defaulting to the AFCC Parenting Guidelines for children M.N.M.’s age.
234The court’s findings that the mother’s behaviour towards the father, her refusal to cooperate with him and her repeated and unnecessary involvement of the police creates a risk of emotional harm to M.N.M. which undermines his stability in her care, necessitates a court ordered parenting schedule that mitigates these risks and promotes M.N.M.’s best interests and well being.
235M.N.M. currently spends two overnights per week with his father every weekend. He currently goes between 5 and 6 days without seeing his father. Neither parent gave evidence that he has any difficulty spending two overnight in his father’s care.
236Neither party gave evidence that M.N.M. could not tolerate more than two consecutive overnights in his father’s care. The evidence is to the contrary as it supports an order that M.N.M. spend more time in his father’s care than he currently does.
237The court finds that it is M.N.M.’s best interest to implement a shared parenting regime to adequately address the court’s concerns regarding the mother’s behaviour and her unwillingness to support a relationship between M.N.M. and his father. As M.N.M. has spent primarily weekends in the care of his father, this arrangement will be maintained but altered to increase the time he is in his father’s care. The schedule is crafted to reduce the number of transitions for M.N.M. given the distance between the parents’ homes.
238The court finds that to foster and protect M.N.M.’s relationship with both parents and promote his emotional well being and stability, a departure from the AFCC Parenting Guidelines for children M.N.M.’s age is necessary. To protect the child from conflict and emotional harm that frequent transitions may create, M.N.M. will spend more than the recommended two overnights away from each parent.
239The parties have not presented sufficient evidence for the court to determine where M.N.M. should attend daycare or school. Given that he is only two years old, the issue of where he attends school does not have to be made for at least another year. As for daycare, the parties can arrange for his care for the days they are responsible for him until they agree on a daycare and school when he is school age. As the parties will be required to make major decisions jointly, they will have to agree on which school M.N.M. attends once he is school age.
240With respect to religious holidays, statutory holidays and school holidays, M.N.M. will spend equal time with his parents on these days.
241The parenting schedule shall be complied with and strictly followed as ordered even if M.N.M. is ill unless the parties agree otherwise, or it is unsafe for M.N.M. to travel between homes. The parties are being entrusted to make decisions that are in M.N.M.’s best interests. Once they are no longer under the microscope of the court, the court anticipates that they will be able to agree when M.N.M. can be transitioned between their homes even though he is ill and when he should not be moved.
Issue #3 – What orders regarding M.N.M.’s government issued documents and travel with M.N.M. are in his best interests?
242The court is requiring the parties to work together and make joint decisions for their son. Neither parent will be permitted to obtain government issued documents for the child without the other’s consent or signature on the application form.
243When M.N.M. requires a passport or other government issued documents, the parties shall cooperate to execute the necessary forms and shall share the cost of obtaining the document. The mother shall hold M.N.M.’s OHIP card, and the father shall hold his birth certificate and passport once obtained. The party holding the original document shall provide the other with a copy.
244If the mother is travelling with M.N.M., the father shall provide her with the passport at least 30 days in advance of travel or if the request to travel is made with less than 30 days prior to trial, the passport shall be provided to her immediately. The mother shall return the passport to the father immediately upon her return from travel with M.N.M.
245The same terms as set out in paragraph 244 above shall apply to any other government issued documents for M.N.M. If the parent who does not hold the document requires it, the other parent shall provide it to them upon request and it shall be returned within a reasonable amount of time after the document is no longer required.
246Both parents are responsible, involved parents and should have the opportunity to travel with M.N.M. for the purpose of a vacation but this should not occur without the other parent’s consent. M.N.M. leaving the country, even for a vacation, is a major decision that the parties must agree is in his best interest. Therefore, both parents shall be permitted to travel with M.N.M. outside of Canada on vacation provided they obtain the other parent’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Issue #4 – Should the police be ordered to enforce this order?
247Police enforcement is rarely in the best interests of children because it can be traumatizing to involve the police when conflict between parents arises.20
248The Court declines to grant the mother’s request for an order directing police enforcement of the terms of this order. Such enforcement is unnecessary, as the terms of the order are clear and require no further intervention. The parties are expected to exercise sound judgment and conduct themselves in a mature and responsible manner. Compliance with these expectations will avoid any difficulties or disagreements as to the interpretation of the court order.
Issue #5 - Are there any other parenting orders the court should make to promote M.N.M.’s best interests
249The father asks the court to make a final order continuing to prohibit M.N.M. from being in a vehicle operated by the mother. He says she should not be able to drive with M.N.M. until her criminal matter is resolved. The mother’s evidence is that her license was returned to her after the 90 automatic suspension, and it is very difficult to care for M.N.M. without a vehicle.
250The mother’s evidence on this issue revealed that she knew her decision to drink in a parking lot while her son was in her care was a bad one. She showed good judgment when she chose not to operate the car and called the father for help.
251There is no evidence to suggest the mother abuses alcohol on a regular basis or has ever put M.N.M. at risk of physical harm on any other occasion.
252The mother made a mistake. She has paid for that mistake since October 2024, as she has not been permitted to transport M.N.M. in her vehicle at all during her parenting time. She may endure even more punishment for her mistake if she is convicted of the DUI. Given all the evidence before the court, the order the father is requesting is not reasonable and is no longer required.
253It is not in M.N.M.’s best interests to continue to restrict the mother’s use of a vehicle given his age, how often he is in her care and his needs.
Orders to go as follows:
254The parties shall have joint decision making responsibility for M.N.M. for all major issues affecting him. Each parent shall be responsible for the day to day decisions for M.N.M. when in their care.
255The parties shall immediately notify the other parent of an emergency affecting M.N.M. when in their care.
256M.N.M. shall be in each parent’s care on a week to week basis on a four week cycle as follows:
Until M.N.M. is enrolled in school and commencing Monday January 12, 2026
Week #1 i) In mother’s care from Monday at 10:00 a.m. until Thursday at 5:00 p.m.
ii) in father’s care from Thursday at 5 p.m. until Monday at 5:00 p.m.
Week #2 i) In mother’s care from Monday at 5:00 p.m. until Thursday at 5:00 p.m.
ii) in father’s care from Thursday at 5 p.m. until Monday at 5:00 p.m.
Week #3 i) In mother’s care from Monday at 5:00 p.m. until Thursday at 5:00 p.m.
ii) in father’s care from Thursday at 5 p.m. until Monday at 5:00 p.m.
Week #4 i) In mother’s care from Monday at 5:00 p.m. until Thursday at 5:00 p.m.
ii) In father’s care from Thursday at 5:00 p.m. until Friday at 5:00 p.m.
iii) in Mother’s care from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until the following Thursday at 5:00 p.m.
257During the period before M.N.M. is enrolled in school, each party shall be responsible for childcare arrangements for M.N.M. as needed when in their care.
258If M.N.M. is not in daycare, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the father shall pick up M.N.M. at the beginning of his parenting time at Dark Horse Espresso Bar located at 416 Front Street East in Toronto and the mother shall pick M.N.M. up at the beginning of her parenting time either at the father’s home or a location close to his home chosen by the father. If M.N.M. is enrolled in daycare by either parent, the other parent may pick him up from the daycare at the beginning of their parenting time or drop him off at daycare at the end of their parenting time provided he is in daycare on the applicable days. The parent enrolling M.N.M. in daycare shall ensure the other parent is listed as a parent with the daycare and are authorized to pick him up.
259Once M.N.M. begins school, the following parenting schedule shall be implemented, and shall occur on a four week cycle:
Once M.N.M. is enrolled in school
Week #1 i) In mother’s care from Monday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends) until Thursday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends).
ii) in father’s care from Thursday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends) until Monday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends).
Week #2 i) In mother’s care from Monday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends) until Thursday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends).
ii) in father’s care from Thursday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends) until Monday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends).
Week #3 i) In mother’s care from Monday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends) until Thursday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends).
ii) in father’s care from Thursday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends) until Monday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends).
Week #4 i) In mother’s care from Monday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends) until Thursday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends).
ii) In father’s care from Thursday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends) until Friday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends).
iii) in Mother’s care from Friday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends) until the following Thursday at 3:30 p.m. (or when school ends).
260If M.N.M. is registered in daycare or after school care once he is school age, the parent who must deliver him to school for the beginning of a school day, may deliver him earlier to the daycare provider. The parent who has the responsibility of picking him up after school at the end of the school day, may pick him up later from the daycare or after school program.
261When M.N.M. is enrolled in either part time or full time daycare, as many exchanges as possible shall occur at the daycare.
262The parties will have reasonable telephone/video contact with M.N.M. during the other party's parenting time with the times for such calls to be agreed upon between the parties.
263The parties’ main source of communication regarding M.N.M. shall be through AppClose or any other agreed upon application. While AppClose shall be their main source of communication, they shall also be permitted to communicate by phone, email or text message.
264The parties shall not speak negatively of the other or allow others to do so around or near M.N.M.
265The parties shall ensure that M.N.M. is not exposed to any adult conflict.
266Both parties have the right to make inquiries and obtain information directly from M.N.M.’s daycare, school/teachers, doctors, and other professional about the education, health and welfare of M.N.M., in accordance with section 20(5) of the Children’s Law Reform Act.
267The parties shall always keep each other advised of their current address, telephone number, cell phone number and email address and shall advise of any change within 24 hours of the change.
268Neither party shall move their residence a distance that is further away from the other parent’s residence without the other parent’s consent or a court order.
269M.N.M. shall be in each parent’s care on holidays, which suspends the week to week parenting schedule, as follows:
(a) Mother’s Day: Every year, if M.N.M. is not otherwise with the mother on this weekend, he shall be with her on Mother’s Day weekend from Saturday at 5:00 p.m. until the start of daycare/school on Monday. The mother shall pick M.N.M. up from the father on Saturday at 5:00 p.m. and return him to daycare/school on Monday.
(b) Father’s Day: Every year, if M.N.M. is not otherwise with the Respondent on this weekend, he shall be with the Respondent on Father’s Day weekend from Saturday at 5:00 p.m. until the start of daycare/school on Monday. The father shall pick M.N.M. up on Saturday at the Dark Horse Espresso Bar and return him on Monday to daycare or school. If M.N.M. is not in enrolled in daycare/school yet, the exchange shall be on the Monday at 5:00 p.m. at Dark Horse Espresso Bar.
(c) Christmas: M.N.M. shall be with the mother on December 24 (Christmas Eve), December 25 (Christmas Day) and December 26 (Boxing Day) in odd-numbered years and with the father in even-numbered years. The parent who has M.N.M. in their care from December 24th to 26th shall pick him up from the other parent if he is not already in their care on December 24th at 12:00 p.m. and the other parent shall pick him up at 6 p.m. on December 26th (Boxing Day) from the parent who had care of him from December 24th to 26th. M.N.M. shall be with the mother from December 26th at 6 p.m. until December 29th at 6:00 p.m. in even-numbered years and with the father in odd-numbered years. Unless the parties agree otherwise, when the father is responsible for pick up or drop off of M.N.M. from the mother, he shall meet her at Dark Horse Espresso Bar at 416 Front Street East. When the mother is responsible for pick up or drop off of M.N.M., she shall do so at the father’s home or the location close to his home chosen by him. Once M.N.M. is in school, the parties shall share the rest of the school Christmas vacation equally. If they cannot agree on a schedule, they shall follow the regular week to week parenting schedule as of 6 p.m. on December 29th. The parent who does not have M.N.M. in their care from December 26th to December 29th shall pick him up from the other parent at 6 p.m. on December 29th if it is their parenting time pursuant to the regular schedule or the agreed upon Christmas schedule. The mother shall pick up M.N.M. at the father’s home or the location close to his home chosen by him and the father shall pick up M.N.M., unless otherwise agreed, at the Dark Horse Espresso Bar.
(d) March School Break (once M.N.M. starts school):
(i) The parties shall share the March school break equally. If one party wishes to travel with M.N.M. for the entire break they shall have him in his or her care for the entire school break but may only do so every other year. If the parties cannot agree, the mother may travel with M.N.M. for the entire March school break in even numbered years and the father may travel with him in odd numbered years.
(ii) If neither party wishes to travel with M.N.M. during the March school break, he shall spend equal time with the parties with one party having him in their care from the end of the day/school on the Friday (or the last day of school) before the week break until 5 p.m. on Wednesday at which time the other parent shall have M.N.M. in their care until return to school/daycare on Monday morning.
(iii) If the parties cannot agree on when M.N.M. shall be in each parent’s care in a year where neither parent is travelling with him, the mother shall have him in her care the first half of the break in even numbered years and the second half in odd numbered years and the father shall have him in his care in the second half of the break in even numbered years and the first half of the break in odd numbered years.
(iv) A parent travelling with M.N.M. for the entire March school break shall pick him up at school on the last day of school before the break and return him to school on Monday following the break. When M.N.M. is not travelling during the March school break, the parent who has him in their care the first half of the break shall pick him up from daycare or school on the last day of school and the parent who has him the second half of the break shall pick him up from the other parent. The parent who has M.N.M. in their care the second half of the March school break shall deliver him to school on Monday morning. Unless the parties agree otherwise, when the father must pick M.N.M. up from the mother, he shall do so at the Dark Horse Espresso Bar at 416 Front Street East in Toronto and when the mother must pick up M.N.M. from the father, she shall do so at his home or a location close to his home that he chooses.
(e) Easter Long Weekend: M.N.M. shall spend the Easter weekend with each parent from Thursday afternoon pick up from daycare/school until Tuesday morning drop off at daycare/school with the Applicant in odd-numbered years and with the Respondent in even-numbered years. If M.N.M. is not in daycare or school and is not in the care of the parent who has the Easter long weekend as of Thursday evening at 6:00 p.m., the parent who has care of M.N.M. shall deliver him to the parent who is scheduled to spend the Easter long weekend with him and that parent shall return him to the other parent at 6:00 p.m. on the following Tuesday. If the father is returning M.N.M. to the mother on Tuesday following Easter, unless the parties agree otherwise, the father shall meet the mother at the Dark Horse Espresso Bar at 416 Front Street East in Toronto.
(f) Victoria Day Long Weekend: M.N.M. shall spend the Victoria Day Weekend with each parent from Friday afternoon pick up from daycare/school until Tuesday morning drop off at daycare/school with the Applicant in odd-numbered years and with the Respondent in even-numbered years. If M.N.M. is not in enrolled in daycare/school, the parent who has M.N.M. for the long weekend shall pick him up from the other parent if he is not already in their care at 6:00 p.m. If the father is picking M.N.M. up from the mother, unless the parties agree otherwise, the father shall meet her at the Dark Horse Espresso Bar at 416 Front Street East in Toronto. If the mother is picking M.N.M. from the father at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, she shall do so at his home or a location close to his home that he chooses.
(g) Thanksgiving Long Weekend: The child shall be with the Applicant in even numbered years and with the Respondent in odd numbered years from Friday afternoon pick up from daycare/school until Tuesday morning drop off at daycare/school. If M.N.M. is not in enrolled in daycare/school, the parent who has M.N.M. for the Thanksgiving long weekend shall pick him up from the other parent if he is not already in their care at 6:00 p.m. If the father is picking M.N.M. up from the mother, unless the parties agree otherwise, the father shall meet her at the Dark Horse Espresso Bar at 416 Front Street East in Toronto. If the mother is picking M.N.M. from the father at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, she shall do so at his home or a location close to his home that he chooses.
(h) Family Day Weekend: The child shall be with the Applicant in even numbered years and with the Respondent in odd numbered years from Friday afternoon pick up from daycare/school until Tuesday morning drop off at daycare/school. If M.N.M. is not enrolled in daycare/school, the parent who has M.N.M. for the Family Day long weekend shall pick him up from the other parent if he is not already in their care at 6:00 p.m. on Friday. If the father is picking M.N.M. up from the mother, unless the parties agree otherwise, the father shall meet her at the Dark Horse Espresso Bar at 416 Front Street East in Toronto. If the mother is picking M.N.M. from the father at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, she shall do so at his home or a location close to his home that he chooses.
(i) Summer:
(a) M.N.M. shall spend equal time with his parents during the summer months of July and August. The parties may agree to maintain the regular week to week parenting schedule during part or all of the summer months. Until 2027, each parent may elect to have two uninterrupted nonconsecutive weeks with M.N.M. in the summer with one week being in July and the other in August. The mother shall have first choice of her two weeks in even numbered years and the father shall have first choice in odd numbered years. The party who has first choice, shall notify the other parent of their desire to have two uninterrupted nonconsecutive weeks by March 1st. The parent having second choice shall notify the other parent of the uninterrupted nonconsecutive weeks they wish to have M.N.M. in their care by April 1st.
(b) Commencing in the summer of 2029, each parent may elect to have M.N.M. in their care for up to three nonconsecutive weeks each summer. They shall follow the process as set out in (a) above as to who has first choice and when they must notify the other parent by.
(c) Commencing in the summer of 2030, each parent may elect to have M.N.M. in their care for up to four weeks each summer, of which a maximum of two weeks may be consecutive on one occasion. They shall follow the process as set out in (a) above as to who has first choice and when they must notify the other parent by of their choice by.
(d) All exchanges following the week long parenting time in the summer shall take place at 7:30 p.m. on Sunday at an agreed upon location at roughly the halfway point between their homes. If the parties cannot agree on a location, they shall meet outside of SportCheck at Yorkdale Mall.
(e) Commencing in the summer of 2033, M.N.M. shall spend alternate weeks with each parent with the exchange taking place Sunday evening at 7:30 p.m. at an agreed upon location at roughly the halfway point between their homes. If they cannot agree, they shall meet outside of SportCheck at Yorkdale Mall.
(j) M.N.M. shall spend all other statutory holidays or non school days with the parent whose care he is in pursuant to the regular week to week parenting schedule.
270Neither parent shall cancel the other parent’s parenting time because M.N.M. is ill unless the parties agree or the parent with care of M.N.M. has a doctor’s note advising that it is not in M.N.M.’s best interests to be moved between the parents’ homes.
Travel and Documents
271The parties shall jointly apply for and renew all government-issued documents for M.N.M. Neither party may obtain a government issued identification or documents for M.N.M. without the other parent’s consent and signature on the application form.
272When M.N.M. requires a passport or other government issued documents, the parties shall cooperate to execute the necessary forms and shall share the cost of obtaining the document. The mother shall hold M.N.M.’s OHIP card, and the father shall hold his birth certificate and passport once obtained. The party holding the original document shall provide the other with a copy.
273If the mother is travelling with M.N.M., the father shall provide her with the passport at least 30 days in advance of travel or if the request to travel is made with less than 30 days prior to trial, the passport shall be provided to her immediately. The mother shall return the passport to the father immediately upon her return from travel with M.N.M.
274If the parent who does not hold a document of M.N.M.’s requires it, the other parent shall provide it to them upon request and it shall be returned to the parent who holds the document within a reasonable amount of time after the document is no longer required.
275Both parents shall be permitted to travel with M.N.M. outside of Canada for the purpose of a vacation provided they obtain the other parent’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
276The travelling party will give the non-travelling party a detailed itinerary before the vacation begins, including the name of any flight carrier and flight times, accommodation(s), including address(es) and telephone number(s) where the child can be reached.
277All temporary orders of the court shall terminate effective immediately.
278A party seeking costs of the hearing of this matter shall serve and file cost submissions of up to 5 pages, not including a Bill of Costs and Offer(s) to Settle, within 20 days of the date of this Judgment.
279A party responding to a request for costs shall serve and file their response within 20 days of receiving the other party’s cost submissions. The response shall not exceed 5 pages not including a Bill of Costs and Offer(s) to Settle.
Released: January 6, 2026
Signed: Justice Melanie Sager
Footnotes
- The father believes the mother was born in Italy.
- J.M.M. v. C.R.M, 2025 ONSC 3067 at paragraph 293.
- M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207 at paragraph 180, and J.M.M. v. C.R.M, 2025 ONSC 3067 at paragraph 295.
- The police report states that the father’s lawyer instructed him to call the police to create a record of the mother’s behaviour.
- Griffiths v. Griffiths 2005 ONCJ 235, 2005 CarswellOnt 3209 (OCJ).
- Warcop v. Warcop, 2009 6423 (ON S.C.).
- M. v. F., 2015 ONCA 277.
- Klymenko v. Klymenko, 2020 ONSC 5451.
- Wiafe v. Afoakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201.
- White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736.
- Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.
- G.T.C. v. S.M.G., 2020 ONCJ 511; T.P. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 6022.
- I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615. Also see: J.N. v. A.S., 2020 ONSC 5292; A.L.M. v. V.L.S., 2020 ONCJ 502; M.R.-J. v. K.J., 2020 ONCJ 305; Abbas v. Downey, 2020 ONCJ 283; N.D. v. R.K., 2020 ONCJ 266.
- L.B. v. P.E., 2021 ONCJ 114; L.I.O. v. I.K.A., 2019 ONCJ 962. V.P. v. D.M., 2019 ONCJ 289 M.R. v. A.R., 2023 ONCJ 214
- Roloson v. Clyde, 2017 ONSC 3642, par. 59 for a review of these cases.
- Geremia v. Harb 2008 19764 (ON SC), 200819764 (Ont. S.C).
- Andrade v. Kennelly, 2007 ONCA 898.
- S.A. v. Y.M., 2020 ONCJ 147.
- Hatab v. Abuhatab, 2022 ONSC 1560 at paragraph 61; McBennet v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, at paragraphs 92-93; Armstrong v. Garrison, 2021 ONSC 3986, at paragraph 38; Southorn v. Ree, 2021, ONSC 7819, at para. 401; Melbourne v. Melbourne, 2022 ONSC 2299 at paragraphs 19-21; Dupuis v. Dupuis, 2024 ONSC 4836 at paragraph 28.
- Patterson v. Powell, 2014 ONSC 1419