WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
The court has ordered the exclusion of the public from the hearing of this case under subsection 135(2) of the Courts of Justice Act and has expressly prohibited the disclosure of any information and all material filed in support of the trial in this matter heard from April 13-17, 2026. This subsection and subsection 135(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with subsection 135(2), read as follows:
135.—(2) EXCEPTION — The court may order the public to be excluded from a hearing where the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person justifies a departure from the general principle that court hearings should be open to the public.
(3) DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION — Where a proceeding is heard in the absence of the public, disclosure of information relating to the proceeding is not contempt of court unless the court expressly prohibited the disclosure of the information.
Subrules 31(5) and 31(6) of the Family Law Rules state as follows:
31.—(5) Contempt orders.— If the court finds a person in contempt of the court, it may order that the person,
(a) be imprisoned for any period and on any conditions that are just;
(b) pay a fine in any amount that is appropriate;
(c) pay an amount to a party as a penalty;
(d) do anything else that the court decides is appropriate;
(e) not do what the court forbids;
(f) pay costs in an amount decided by the court; and
(g) obey any other order.
(6) WRIT OF TEMPORARY SEIZURE — The court may also give permission to issue a writ of temporary seizure (Form 28C) against the person’s property.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
C.C.
Applicant
— AND —
S.C.
Respondent
Before Justice Melanie Sager
Heard on April 13-17, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on May 12, 2026
Pamila Bhardwaj counsel for the applicant
Jane North …………………………………………………………………………………...counsel for the respondent
SAGER, J.:
Introduction
1This trial proceeded over five days to determine the single issue of the Respondent’s (father) parenting time to the child of the marriage, namely R.C. born […], 2020.
Issues to be decided
2The court must decide what order for parenting time by the father is in R.C.’s best interests, supervised parenting time or no parenting time, or some other arrangement.
3If the court orders supervised parenting time, it must also decide if there shall be an automatic review of this order and when that review shall take place.
4If the father is granted supervised parenting time, the court must decide whether and for how long the Applicant (mother) can travel with R.C., and if make up parenting time must be provided to the father for any parenting time missed because of the travel.
5At trial the mother and her witnesses, C.S. (the father’s former partner) and K.H. (C.S.’s daughter) gave evidence in chief by affidavit and were subject to cross examination. The father, his current girlfriend and a longtime friend gave evidence in chief by affidavit and were subject to cross examination.
Background of the parties[1]
6The parties met online and began dating in March 2018. At that time, the mother was living in Vaughan, Ontario and the father was living in Guelph, Ontario.
7The parties began living together sometime between May and June 2018 and were married on July 7, 2018.
8The parties first separated in or around December 2021, but made efforts, unsuccessfully, to repair their relationship until the end of 2022.
9R.C., the only child of both parties, is 5 years old. At the time of trial, she is residing with the mother, attending senior kindergarten and is doing well.
10The parties had a tumultuous relationship plagued with regular arguments that included yelling, name calling, threats and physical altercations.
11On October 18, 2018, the father was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of K.H., the daughter of C.S., with whom he lived between 2007 and 2014. It is alleged these acts took place when K.H. was between 6 and 9 years of age.
12On October 18, 2018, the father was also charged with assaulting C.S. These charges were ultimately not pursued by the Crown.
13As a result of these charges, the father was prohibited from being in the presence of anyone who is 16 years of age or younger or going to any place that someone of that age would reasonably be expected to be.
14On November 13, 2020, the terms of the father’s release were varied to allow him to attend at the home he shared with the mother to retrieve tools required for his job and to allow him to visit with the mother and R.C. He was prohibited from being in a caregiving role to R.C. or to be around her unless in the presence of the mother or maternal grandparents.
15On November 23, 2021, following a trial by jury, the father was convicted of the charges that he sexually assaulted and sexually interfered with K.H. The father launched an appeal of his conviction.
16On December 4, 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted a release order which provided that the father was to reside with his surety (his father) in Ariss, Ontario, not be “in the immediate presence of anyone who is under the age of 16 or attend a public park or swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or any schoolground, playground, or community centre, unless you are in the presence of your surety.” The father was also prohibited from living with the mother and R.C.
17On January 24, 2024, the father’s appeal of his conviction was granted by the Ontario Court of Appeal, and a new trial was ordered.
18On January 6, 2025, the father pled guilty to simple assault of K.H. as a result of repeatedly touching her vulva when he applied rash cream without K.H.’s consent. For this conviction, the father received a conditional sentence for 12 months, which included terms requiring him to remain in his home for the first 6 months of his sentence subject to the listed exceptions which included to work, attend medical appointments, therapy or treatment, and for the purpose of compliance with Family Court orders. For the next 3 months, the father was required to remain in his residence each day from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. except for emergencies or overnight work for which he was to obtain advance approval.
19Prior to their final separation, the police were called to the mother’s home by both parties, and the mother was faced with being evicted from the home she shared with the R.C. that is owned by the paternal grandfather.
20The mother attended the Ontario Court of Justice in Guelph in June 2022, seeking a restraining order against the father because she said he kept attending at the home unannounced, but ultimately withdrew her claim.
21The mother sought a peace bond against the father and paternal grandfather in July 2022 because she said they were harassing and threatening her but decided not to pursue the claims.
22The mother said she did not pursue the restraining order or peace bond because the father told her that doing so would jeopardize his bail and if it was withdrawn, she believed the paternal grandfather would retaliate by evicting her from his house.
23The father commenced a Divorce Application in the Superior Court of Justice in Guelph in August 2021, only requesting a Divorce but later withdrew the Application in August 2022, without having served it on the mother.
24Family and Child Services of Guelph and Wellington (F&CS) became involved with the family in September 2020 after the mother made a disclosure to her therapist about an incident with the father that the therapist reported to F&CS. When F&CS learned about the criminal charges against the father, they instructed him to move out of the house he shared with the mother and R.C. and assisted him in obtaining a bail variation that permitted contact with R.C.
25The mother decided to vacate the paternal grandfather’s house on July 30, 2022, after receiving two letters of eviction from him. The mother and R.C. moved to the maternal grandparents’ home in Etobicoke. She commenced an action against the paternal grandfather in Landlord and Tenant court to retrieve her belongings which was resolved following a hearing on May 30, 2024.
26In June 2023, the father was charged with 10 counts of assault and two counts of strangulation of the mother relating to incidents the mother documented in writing following the events. These charges were stayed by the court on November 20, 2024, due to failure to prosecute in a timely manner.
27As a result of the criminal charges the father faced between 2018 and 2025, he was consistently bound by criminal conditions either from release orders or conviction.
28On January 15, 2025, the father reported alleged historical domestic violence by the mother against him to the Ontario Provincial Police for which charges were laid but eventually withdrawn by the Crown.
29R.C. has not had any contact with her father since October 30, 2022. The mother has been solely responsible for R.C.’s care since that time.
30There are currently no release orders or criminal conditions limiting the father’s contact with the mother or R.C.
31The mother is 44 years old, lives in Toronto and is currently unemployed and in receipt of Ontario Works.
32The father is 51 years old, lives in Guelph, Ontario and is a Master Electrician operating his own business.
33The mother commenced an Application on June 21, 2023, seeking parenting orders and child and spousal support. More specifically, she asked for orders that the child’s primary residence be with her and that she be granted sole decision making responsibility for the child. She asked the court to order that she be permitted to obtain government issued documents for the child and travel with her without the father’s consent.
34The father filed an Answer and Claim on October 19, 2023, which he amended on January 29, 2026, opposing the claims made by the mother. He asked the court to order that the parties shall share joint decision making responsibility and that the child shall reside equally with the parties. He also requested an order for a custody and access assessment or in the alternative, an order requesting the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to conduct an investigation and appoint legal counsel to represent the child.
35In his Amended Answer, the father asked the court to order the appropriate police force(s) to enforce the parenting order, order the parties to obtain written consent from the other before travelling with the child, and prohibit the mother from relocating the child’s permanent residence without the father’s consent or court order.
36On December 15, 2023, the parties attended in court on a Case Conference and the father was ordered to provide the mother with financial disclosure.
37On July 11, 2024, the parties consented to a temporary without prejudice order requiring the father to pay the mother child support in the amount of $304.00 per month based on the father’s annual imputed income of $35,000.00 and the Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines).
38On April 22, 2025, the Case Management Judge, Justice Danielle Szandtner, heard the mother’s motion for temporary child support and on May 1, 2025, released written reasons for her decision imputing income to the father of $85,000.00 annually and fixing his child support at $792.00 per month in accordance with the Guidelines.
39On June 12, 2025, the father was required to pay the mother her costs of the child support motion fixed at $5000.00, payable within 90 days.
40On October 31, 2025, the court was to hear the mother’s motion for security for costs for which she was granted leave to bring on July 11, 2025. The parties resolved the mother’s motion on terms including that the father pay the mother his arrears of child support at the rate of $1000.00 per month and her costs of the motion fixed at $3000.00.
41On October 31, 2025, the parties and the court agreed to plan for a trial of this matter in the April 12-20, 2026 trial sittings.
42Trial planning was carried out by the court on January 15, 2026 and March 9, 2026.
43On March 9, 2026, the parties obtained a final order on consent resolving the issues of child and spousal support.
44On March 23, 2026, the court ordered a publication ban with respect to all materials filed with the court for the trial of this matter.
45At no point prior to trial was the court asked to make a temporary order for the father to have parenting time with R.C.
46On the morning of the first day of trial, the court was provided with a consent to a final order resolving the issues of primary residence and decision making responsibility for the child as well as the issue of the mother obtaining government issued documents for the child. This court granted the orders requested in accordance with the consent.
47Prior to the commencement of the trial, the parties resolved all the issues raised in their pleadings except for the father’s parenting time and incidents of same and the terms upon which the mother may travel with the child.
48Due the father’s bail restrictions, the father has not lived with R.C. since September 2020, 3 months after she was born.
49From September 2020, until October 30, 2022, the father’s contact with R.C. occurred mostly during the day when he visited the mother and R.C. or the mother brought R.C. to see the father either in the community or at his residence.
50The father has had no contact with R.C. since October 30, 2022.
Position of the parties
51The mother asks the court to make an order that the father shall have no parenting time with R.C. The father asks the court to order supervised parenting time for six months following which there shall be an automatic review of his parenting time.
52The mother opposes the father having parenting time with their daughter as she believes that he sexually assaulted his former partner’s (C.S.) daughter (K.H.) when she was the same age as R.C., while he lived with them for approximately 6 years. The mother also said parenting time by the father would be contrary to R.C.’s best interests as he was verbally, emotionally and physically abusive towards her during their relationship and he has not seen R.C. since October 30, 2022, and introducing her to the father now will put her at risk of harm and destabilize her life.
53The father seeks supervised access to R.C. to commence immediately as he denies ever touching K.H. inappropriately and was not convicted of the crimes K.H. alleges. He said he has not seen R.C. for three and a half years because the mother unilaterally withheld her from him and he was subject to extremely strict release orders for over 7 years while his trial and appeal were adjudicated. Now that there are no longer any conditions, the father seeks supervised parenting time to re-introduce himself into R.C.’s life.
54The father said that it is R.C.’s right to have a relationship with her father and he is proposing a child focused plan to reintroduce him into her life.
The law
55Subsection 21 (1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act Children’s Law Reform Act (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.
56Subsection 20(5) of the Act says about parenting time,
(5) 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
57Clause 28(1)(c) of the Act sets out the different types of parenting orders that a court can make.
58Subsection 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.
59Subsection 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) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;
(c) the history of care of the child;
(d) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(e) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(f) any plans for the child’s care;
(g) 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;
(h) 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;
(i) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(ii) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(j) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceedings, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
60The list of best interests considerations in the Act is not exhaustive.2 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.3
61An assessment of the best interests of the child must take into account all of the relevant circumstances with respect to the needs of the child and the ability of each parent to meet those needs.4
62The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents.5 Adult preferences or “rights” do not form part of the analysis except insofar as they are relevant to the determination of the best interests of the child.6
63A 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 a parenting time order that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe.7
64Subsection 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.
65The 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
66There is a presumption that regular access by a non-custodial parent is in the best interests of children. The right of a child to visit with a non-custodial parent and to know and maintain or form an attachment to the non-custodial parent is a fundamental right and should only be forfeited in the most extreme and unusual circumstances.9
67The party who seeks to reduce normal access will usually be required to provide a justification for taking such a position. The greater the restriction sought, the more important it becomes to justify that restriction.10
68Supervised access is not intended to be a long-term arrangement for a child. It is beneficial for children who require gradual reintroduction to a parent, or whose safety requires it until such time as the parent is sufficiently rehabilitated and a child is no longer in danger of physical or emotional harm.11
69Supervised access is usually a temporary arrangement. However, when the court does not expect the risks addressed by supervision to diminish, it is appropriate to order long-term supervision of access.12
70In V.S.J. v. L.J.G., 2004 CanLII 17126 (ON SC), [2004] O.J. No. 2238 (S.C.) at para. 135, Blishen J. provided a useful overview of the factors that have led courts to terminate access:
Long term harassment and harmful behaviours towards the custodial parent causing that parent and the child stress and or fear. See M.(B.P.) v. M.(B.L.D.E.), supra; Stewart v. Bachman, [2003] O.J. No. 433 (Sup.Ct.); Studley v. O'Laughlin, [2000] N.S.J. No. 210 (N.S.S.C.) (Fam.Div.); Dixon v. Hinsley, 2001 CanLII 38986 (ON CJ), [2001] O.J. No. 3707.
History of violence; unpredictable, uncontrollable behaviour; alcohol, drug abuse which has been witnessed by the child and/or presents a risk to the child's safety and well being. See Jafari v. Dadar, supra; Maxwell v. Maxwell, [1986] N.B.J. No. 769 (N.B.Q.B.); Abdo v. Abdo 1993 CanLII 3124 (NS C.A.), (1993), 126 N.S.R. (2d) 1 (N.S.C.A.); Studley v. O'Laughlin, supra.
Extreme parental alienation which has resulted in changes of custody and, at times, no access orders to the former custodial parent. See Tremblay v. Tremblay 1987 CanLII 147 (AB Q.B.), (1987), 10 R.F.L. (3d) 166; Reeves v. Reeves, [2001] O.J. No. 308 (Sup.Ct).
Ongoing severe denigration of the other parent. See Frost v. Allen, [1995] M.J. No. 111 (Man.Q.B.); Gorgichuk v. Gorgichuk, supra.
Lack of relationship or attachment between noncustodial parent and child. See Studley v. O'Laughlin, supra; M.(B.P.) v. M.(B.L.D.E.), supra.
Neglect or abuse to a child on the access visits. See Maxwell v. Maxwell, supra.
Older children's wishes and preferences to terminate access. See Gorgichuk v. Gorgichuk, supra; Frost v. Allen, supra; Dixon v. Hinsley, supra; Pavao v. Pavao, [2000] O.J. No. 1010 (Sup.Ct.).
71Blishen J. was also careful to remark at para. 136:
None of the above cited cases deal with one factor alone. In every case, there are a multitude of factors which must be carefully considered and weighed in determining whether to terminate access is in the best interests of the child.
72In M.K. v. T.R., 2014 ONCJ 54, the court denied access to a father and considered the following:
a) The father had been violent and controlling towards the mother during their relationship.
b) The father denied having been violent. This made him a poor candidate to change.
c) The mother's stress and anxiety over the prospect of reintroducing the father into the family life was a significant consideration as it risked destabilizing the children and causing them anxiety.
d) Access is only to be ordered in circumstances where it will benefit the child.
73This case was followed, in very similar circumstances, by Justice Robert Spence in Scarlett v. Farrell 2015 ONCJ 35. Justice Spence denied access to the father, finding that access would not add anything beneficial to the child's life, but rather that it would likely risk destabilizing the child, thereby resulting in significant emotional harm (par. 161).
74In I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615, the court wrote at paragraph 36:
A parent does not have an absolute right of access. Access is only to be ordered in circumstances where there will be a benefit to the child. It is not sufficient to show that access will not harm the child; that is far too low a threshold. However, refusing access should only be ordered in extreme circumstances. See: Worthington v. Worthington 2000 CanLII 22469 (ON SC), 2000CarswellOnt 4889 (SCJ).
75This approach was followed in T.P. v. K.L.S., 2018 ONCJ 785, where the court made an order that the father have no access to his 4-year-old child, and in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. I.A., 2019 ONCJ 49, where the court ordered that a mother have no in-person parenting time with her 3-year-old child.
76The lapse of time without seeing a child is a very important consideration in access decisions.13
Analysis of the evidence
A brief comment on the parties’ overall credibility
77Overall, the mother was a much more credible witness than the father. At times she was verbose and gave extraneous information not relevant to the question asked, but she was not being evasive or untruthful.
78The mother’s evidence largely withstood cross examination. Her evidence was supported by the documentary and audio evidence and to some extent by the evidence of the father and his witnesses.
79There are no serious examples of inconsistencies in the mother’s evidence, nor did she appear to fabricate evidence or attempt to mislead the court.
80While the mother certainly engaged in unbecoming behaviour towards the father, she did not deny her role in the conflict, nor did she minimize her behaviour. The mother was overall a believable witness.
81Conversely, the father was not a credible witness. There are endless examples of inconsistencies in his evidence and on several occasions, it was clear that he was not being honest. Many examples will be set out below.
82Overall, the court finds that the mother’s evidence is much more credible and reliable than the father’s evidence. Where their evidence conflicted, the court preferred the mother’s evidence.
The allegations by K.H. that the father sexually abused her when she was a child
83K.H. is now 22 years old. She gave evidence that she was very young when her mother began a relationship with the father. She recalls that over the 6 years she lived with the father he was very kind and showed her a lot of love. She said they watched movies and videos together, he bought her a dog, they cuddled together, and he tucked her into bed.
84She said her relationship with the father was very different than the one her brother shared with him. She recalls the father getting mad at her brother and not buying him gifts like he had for her. She said he treated her better than her brother. K.H. said that she remembers “as a child I got along more with [the father] than I did with my own parents… He made me feel special. I loved and trusted him.”
85She said that her mother and her continued to see the father on occasion after he and her mother ended their relationship and they moved out.
86K.H. said when she was around 6 years old, the father began sexually abusing her when her mother was working evenings. She said it occurred on many occasions, and the father would do the same thing each time while she laid on her back. She said “he would climb from the bottom bunk to the top bunk where I was lying down so that he could touch me. He would massage my chest. He would remove my pyjama bottoms and underwear. He would massage my vagina with his hand. Sometimes he would rub so hard that it hurt me. I did not know what to do when he would do this so I would just lay there.”
87K.H. said “I was confused by the touching because [the father] also touched my vagina to rub penaten cream on rashes that I suffered from a young age. Sometimes he would apply the cream earlier in the evening after my bath. I began rationalizing the touching that it was just like when [the father] put the rash cream on me.”
88K.H. said that when she first made a report to police she was 14 years old and “had never had a boyfriend or any willing sexual experience”. She said, “Now I am 22 years old and have had a partner. I realized as I matured that [the father] was rubbing my clitoris.”
89K.H. said that she agreed to give evidence at this trial, even though doing so is extremely difficult for her, because she is afraid the father will do the same thing to R.C. if he has contact with her.
The father’s evidence
90The father’s evidence on this issue is that he spent 7 years defending himself against “horrific charges” which he “vehemently deny and for which I was never found guilty.”
91The father “categorically deny these allegations, and I maintained my innocence throughout my criminal proceeding and to date. I have never touched [K.H.] (or any child) in a sexual manner, at any time. It breaks my heart that she would think this is possible.”
92The father acknowledged that during his relationship with C.S. and while he lived with K.H., he would sometimes apply diaper cream to K.H.’s “private areas” with her mother’s consent.
93Other than explaining the application of Penaten cream to K.H. when she was a young girl, the father provides no other evidence in response to her allegations.
94The father was asked if he believed K.H. would not confuse cream being applied to her rash and someone getting into her bed and touching her. The father responded, “I can’t comment on that.”
95The father said after his conviction was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal, he entered into a guilty plea for a “nonsexual simple assault charge for applying diaper cream on [K.H.] at ages 7-9 without her consent, but with [C.S.]’s consent. This charge did not form the basis of the alleged assaults for which I was on trial.”
96The facts that form the basis for the father’s guilty plea as read into the record on January 6, 2025, and accepted by the father are as follows:
“[The father] was in a relationship with the complainant, [K.H.]’s mother, [C.S.], from approximately 2007 to 2014. During that period of time, [K.H.] lived with [the father] along with her mother and brother. [K.H.] was four to nine years old during that time period.
During the time that the family lived with [the father], [C.S.] worked nights at a nursing home. When she worked in the evenings, [the father] could care for [K.H.] and her brother. [K.H.] would sometimes suffer from rashes in her groin, including her vulva. Throughout the time that [the father] cared for [K.H.], he would apply Penaten cream to her vulva as treatment for her rashes. This was done with the knowledge of her mother, though not always in her presence.
[The father] did not obtain [K.H.]’s consent to touching her vulva. He was reckless as to whether or not she consented to this touching. She did not consent to this touching.”
97The father confirmed that in his police interview on October 18, 2018, he told the police the following:
(a) He remembers having a conversation with C.S. in which he told her he did not think he should continue to apply cream to K.H.’s rash because “I think she’s starting to enjoy it”.
(b) K.H. would ask him to put the cream on her “and it started not to feel right why wouldn’t she want her mom to do it why would she want me to do it.”
(c) K.H. told him that she would rather he apply the cream to her rash than her mother.
(d) That he applied cream to K.H. even when she did not have a rash because she asked him to and that he did not understand why she needed it but “didn’t’ think anything weird” but added, “I thought maybe I shouldn’t be doing this”.
98In cross examination the father agreed that K.H. was enjoying the application of the cream and that he put the rash cream on her even when she did not have a rash, because she asked him to.
99The father acknowledged that K.H. never said it felt good when her mother applied the rash cream.
100The father gave evidence that at his lawyer’s instruction, he did not cooperate with the investigation by the F&CS nor was he aware that they verified the sexual abuse and that his name was added to the child abuse registry.
101The father never specifically denied getting into bed with K.H. when she was a child, rubbing her chest and removing her pajama bottoms and underwear and rubbing her clitoris.
102The bulk of K.H.’s cross examination was focused on four areas of concern:
Alleged inconsistencies in her evidence as to where the rash cream was applied as given by her at the criminal trial and in this case.
What type of bed K.H. slept in at the time of the alleged assaults.
What type of pajamas K.H. wore at the time of the alleged assaults.
Is K.H. being pressured or influenced by her mother to provide a certain narrative to have the father punished.
Alleged inconsistencies in K.H.’s evidence regarding the application of rash cream
103In her evidence in chief, K.H. said that the father “touched my vagina to rub penaten cream on the rashes that I suffered from at a young age.”
104In cross examination [K.H.] was asked where her mother and the father applied the rash cream. She said, “on my upper thigh, my lower thigh, and my butt” and “very close to my vagina”.
105At the criminal trial, K.H. gave evidence that the father put rash cream on her behind. She said this is how she distinguished between the application of the cream for the rash and the sexual assault.
106In this proceeding and at the criminal trial, K.H.’s mother, C.S., gave evidence that the rash cream was applied to K.H.’s vagina. It was put to K.H. in this trial that the inconsistencies in hers and her mother’s evidence posed a problem for the re-trial, and she agreed.
107When it was suggested to K.H. that she was changing her evidence now at this trial to address the inconsistencies in her and her mother’s evidence, she said.
“It hasn’t changed. I just didn’t feel comfortable explaining the fact that it was on my clitoris and that the reason why it, I didn’t want to explain that was because it felt good and I didn’t want to say that it felt good. And that’s why the cream was different.”
108K.H. acknowledged the inconsistencies in her evidence and explained that when she gave evidence at the criminal trial, “I didn’t truly know what a clitoris was, and I think that was the biggest difference for me was, was the touching on my clitoris versus the cream that could have touched the rest of my vagina. So I think that was the differentiation I didn’t know how to make.”
109At this hearing K.H. said,
“I couldn’t understand what the difference was between the clitoris and the vagina, and that whole area…I didn’t quite understand the difference. And the only difference I truly knew was how it felt. And as I got older, I understood what the clitoris like, like what sensation happened from that, so that’s how I finally understood what the difference was between the two.”
What type of bed K.H. slept in at the time of the alleged assaults
110K.H. reported that the father sexually abused her when she slept in a bunk bed. It was suggested to her that she did not have a bunk bed at the time in question. K.H. said she could not recall when she got bunk beds.
111K.H.’s mother gave evidence that K.H. had bunk beds for a short time around 2012. She said in 2014, she got K.H. a day bed which she set up just a few months before they moved out.
112Three different pictures were identified by K.H. as photographs of her bedroom when she was a child. All three photographs had single beds. K.H. was unable to provide dates for the photographs or how old she was at the time.
113The father said he got the photographs from C.S.’s computer which he shared with her during their relationship. C.S. does not remember taking the photographs but remembered all the beds and described when they were each in K.H,’s bedroom and that all of them were there before she had bunk beds.
114The father was also asked about the photographs and specifically when K.H. had a single bed. He said that in 2013 K.H.’s brother got bunk beds, and she got his single bed. K.H. was 9 years old in 2013.
115In the notes of the police interview on October 18, 2018, the father said K.H. would sometimes sleep on the top bunk of her brother’s bunk bed. When asked about rubbing K.H.’s back when she was in bed, he referenced it “being too hard to get up there I would stand on the lower bed and take the rail off and rub her back.”
116The father was asked about the discrepancies in his statements regarding when K.H. had bunk beds and he said, when he referenced her having bunk beds between the ages of 8 and 9 years in the police interview, “I was slightly confused with the time frames then.”
117The father told the police, and K.H. and C.S. both gave evidence that at some point in time K.H. slept in a bunk bed. What is clear from the evidence is that at some point K.H. had a bunk bed and slept in the top bunk.
118The evidence before the court regarding the type of bed K.H. slept in when she alleges the father sexually abused her does not amount to inconsistencies in her evidence. While there may be different accounts as to when K.H. had bunk beds, K.H.’s evidence on this issue is consistent while the father’s is not.
119The evidence regarding when K.H. had bunk beds and when she had a single bed are peripheral issues and did not weaken K.H.’s evidence as to what she said the father did to her.
What type of pajamas K.H. wore at the time of the assault?
120It is K.H.’s evidence that she recalls wearing pajamas, a top and bottom when the father sexually abused her. She said he took off her bottoms and her underwear. It was suggested to her that she slept in nightgowns and not a separate top and bottom. K.H. said she wore nightgowns and pajamas as a child and specifically remembered a Tinkerbell nightgown as well as pajama pants.
121When questioned by the police, the father was told that K.H. said he would take her pajama pants and underwear off and rub her vagina. The father said, “I would give her a bath and put her pjs and underwear on her.” He made no mention of a nightgown.
122K.H.’s evidence of her bedtime attire was not inconsistent. The father recalled putting on her underwear and PJs when he got her ready for bed. The possibility that she sometimes wore a nightgown to bed does not undermine her evidence that at times she wore a top and bottom and that she remembered the father removing her bottoms and underwear.
123Once again, the type of pajamas K.H. wore to bed is a peripheral issue and had no serious impact on the veracity of K.H.’s evidence.
Is K.H. being pressured or influenced by her mother to provide a certain narrative to have the father punished?
124C.S. is angry. That is very clear. She wants justice for her daughter which means the father must be punished. She admits unequivocally that it has been her mission to hold the father accountable for what she believes he did to her daughter. While giving evidence her pain and guilt was palpable.
125C.S. admitted to monitoring the father to ensure that at all times he was complying with the terms of his release conditions, specifically the condition that he shall not be around children under the age of 16 years. She admitted to scouring social media for any evidence that he was in noncompliance with the terms of his release. She also obtained information from third parties that she pursued.
126When C.S. believed the father was in breach of the terms of his release, she reported it to the police. She also made a complaint to the governing body for electricians that the father might be in violation of the terms of his release if he worked in homes where children are present.
127When it was suggested to her that she is obsessed with punishing the father and that she will go so far as to take matters into her own hands, she disagreed in part. She said if one must categorize her behaviour as obsessed, she accepts that, but she has not taken matters into her own hands. She said that she followed the “proper channels” and reported the father to the police if he violated his conditions. She said he must be held accountable if he is in breach. She expected him to comply with the court’s order and if did not, she believed he should be held accountable.
128K.H. admitted that her mother is the one who has taken the lead in pursuing the criminal charges against the father. Her mother was the first person to report the allegations to the authorities and wants justice. K.H. knows that her mother feels she let her down.
129K.H. acknowledged that her mother was quite involved in the criminal proceedings and urged her not to accept a plea deal after the successful appeal of the conviction. She also knew her mother had reported possible breaches by the father of his release terms to the police.
130K.H. readily admitted her mother’s desire to see the father punished but she never once said she shared that desire. She said she gave evidence at this trial to protect R.C.
131When asked if her mother has “spoken with you about your need to testify in family court”, she said, “not my need, but we’ve talked about it and how I felt about it.”
132When asked if her mother encouraged her to testify at this trial, she responded “yes” but said “no” when she was asked if her mother pushed her to testify.
133When asked if her mother spoke to her about the evidence she should give at this trial and whether her mother “helped her craft your answers to prospective questions”, she said that she’s spoken to her mother about her stress and concerns about testifying but not her evidence or what she should say.
134When K.H. was asked if her mother “told you how important it is to tell a particular story with respect to those allegations” or to “convey a particular story to the court”, she said, “She just told me to, to tell the truth and just be honest, like just to tell my story.”
Conclusions regarding K.H.’s evidence
135K.H was a very credible witness. She was very calm and polite throughout her evidence. She answered every question thoughtfully and without hesitation. Her evidence was coherent and sincere. She was confident and never became rattled.
136K.H. admitted when she could not remember a detail asked of her and she acknowledged the inconsistencies in her reporting of where the father applied Penaten cream when she was a child. She also provided a reasonable and understandable explanation for the inconsistency.
137K.H.’s evidence was largely unchallenged. Her evidence was not undermined by the father’s evidence or by cross examination. The whole of her evidence was believable and credible.
138K.H. explained what had changed since the criminal trial that enabled her to better explain how the application of the rash cream by the father was different from what she felt when he came into her room at night, took off her pajamas and rubbed her clitoris. She explained how she did not know the difference between her clitoris, vagina and vulva when she was younger and could not articulate as she can today, how she knows what the father was doing when he rubbed her clitoris as it felt very different from his applying cream to her rash.
139K.H. also explained how difficult it was for her to give evidence at the criminal trial that she knew the difference between the father applying rash cream and rubbing her clitoris, because it felt good and she did not want to admit that it felt good.
140There was no evidence to suggest K.H. was motivated by malice or that she wished harm to the father. The court believes her evidence that she did not particularly wish to attend in court on this matter, but she did so to protect R.C. She did not say or suggest in any way that she gave evidence at this trial to punish the father or hold him accountable for what she said he did. Her mother’s desire for that result was not at all evident in K.H.’s evidence. In fact, there was a very stark contrast in the evidence of K.H. and her mother in that regard.
141Any differences in the evidence given by the witnesses regarding what type of bed K.H. slept in or pajamas she wore when she claimed she was sexually abused by the father does not amount to inconsistencies in K.H.’s evidence. At some point she slept in a bunk bed. The father admitted this much to police. The court accepts that she sometimes wore two-piece pajamas as even the father admitted this to the police. Even if there were inconsistencies in K.H.’s evidence on these issues, as stated above, they are peripheral issues and would not amount to a major inconsistency negatively impacting K.H.’s credibility.
142The court finds that K.H. was an extremely credible witness whose evidence is believable. The court finds that given that her evidence was largely unchallenged by cross examination, it is reliable.
143The inconsistencies on the application of the Penaten cream is somewhat irrelevant to the court as K.H. is not alleging that the application of the cream was an assault. She said that the father sexually abused her when he entered her bedroom at night, removed her pajama bottoms and underwear, and rubbed her breasts and clitoris. There was no change to this evidence at all by K.H. She was consistent in her description of what she said the father did to her.
The parties’ relationship and allegations of family violence
144The parties agree that they had an extremely tumultuous relationship but disagree as to why.
145The mother said that the parties’ relationship progressed quickly. She moved from Vaughan to Guelph to live with the father where she had no friends or family. Shortly after they were married, the mother said she learned that the father “impregnated a woman while we were engaged”. She said this was devastating and she began to distrust the father.
146The mother said the father “forced” her to go to therapy to address her trust issues. She was in therapy throughout the marriage.
147Three months after the parties married, the father was charged with sexual assault of K.H. The mother supported the father, believing him to be innocent and continued their relationship.
148R.C. was planned and conceived by the parties after the father was charged with sexual assault of K.H.
149The mother said that the father was verbally, emotionally and physically abusive towards her throughout their relationship. In September 2018, she began keeping a journal of all the incidents that occurred which she describes as abusive behaviour by the father. The mother gave evidence of the details of several incidents between the parties during which she said she was assaulted, which the court will go into more detail below.
150The mother said that after R.C. was born, she felt alone and isolated as the father was required to live with his surety. She had no help caring for their new baby and felt that the father showed little interest in R.C. She said they fought frequently about the father’s absence from the home even after his bail was varied to allow him to visit her and R.C. She felt he did not come to their home regularly and his absence was a significant source of stress for her and conflict with the father.
151The father said that the marriage was “hard” as the parties “were both under immense stress”. He said the parties argued frequently. He said the mother “struggled with her mental health, and looking back, I struggled to manage it appropriately”.
152He said the mother would always “come at me” and “yell in my face” and “call me horrible names”. He said he felt provoked by the mother when she would call him a “convicted sex offender”, a “terrible father” and a “terrible spouse”. He said it was unbearable and would result in him responding with insults and name calling. He admits to being physical with the mother on two occasions. He admits to kicking her in the shin on one occasion and pushing her up against a wall and briefly putting his hand on her neck on another.
153The father said that when the mother was attacking him verbally, he would try to leave the home, but she would try to stop him by taking his wallet or keys or trying to block the door so he could not leave the home. He said she even stood in front of his car and grabbed onto his car door and mirror to try to keep him from leaving. He said this happened a lot.
154The father admits to pushing or moving the mother out of the way so he can leave the house or drive off but does not consider this to be violence or abusive behaviour as described by the mother.
155The court heard recordings made by both parties who tried to document the conflict they had with one another. In the recordings, the court heard heated and loud arguments, with vile language used by both parties and physical altercations. In one video, the parties exchanged loud, verbal attacks while the mother was feeding R.C., who can be seen in a highchair. This video was particularly disturbing given that the parties were oblivious to the risk of harm they were exposing their very young child to.
156It was also apparent in the recordings that both parties were prompting the other to make admissions of wrongdoing while they were being recorded. The mother asked the father repeatedly in the audio recordings and in text messages to admit he was physically abusive towards her. The father even shared that he purchased a special “pen camera” to put in his pocket that would provide superior recording quality.
Was there family violence and if so, who committed it?
157Subsection 24(4) of the Act requires the court to consider factors relating to family violence. Family violence is defined in subsections 18(1) as:
“family violence” means any conduct by a family member towards another family member that is violent or threatening, that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, or that causes the other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person, and, in the case of a child, includes direct or indirect exposure to such conduct;”
158Subsection 18(2) of the Act provides as follows:
(2) For the purposes of the definition of “family violence” in subsection (1), the conduct need not constitute a criminal offence, and includes,
(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or another person;
(b) sexual abuse;
(c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;
(d) harassment, including stalking;
(e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life;
(f) psychological abuse;
(g) financial abuse;
(h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and
(i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property.
159The Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22 made the following observations about family violence:
The recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis (par. 146).
The suggestion that domestic abuse or family violence has no impact on the children and has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s parenting ability is untenable. Research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives: Department of Justice, Risk Factors for Children in Situations of Family Violence in the Context of Separation and Divorce (February 2014), at p. 12. Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath, or hearing about it: S. Artz et al., “A Comprehensive Review of the Literature on the Impact of Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence for Children and Youth” (2014), 5 I.J.C.Y.F.S. 493, at p. 497. (par. 145).
Domestic violence allegations are notoriously difficult to prove. Family violence often takes place behind closed doors and may lack corroborating evidence. Thus, proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim or may overlap with and enhance the significance of other factors, such as the need for limited contact or support (par. 145).
160In M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207, the court outlined a process of determining family violence claims as follows:
Assess the credibility of the allegations.
Determine whether the conduct constitutes “family violence” within the meaning of the legislation.
If the behaviour amounts to family violence, determine the impact of the family violence in accordance with clause 24 (3) (j).
In determining the impact of the family violence, take into account all relevant considerations, and specifically consider and weigh the factors listed in subsection 24 (4) of the CLRA.
161The mother gave evidence of the abuse she claims to have suffered by the father, including instances of verbal, emotional and physical abuse as well as threats of violence, and the dates on which she said it occurred. The allegations are for the period of September 2018 to October 30, 2020. These allegations formed the basis upon which the father was charged with 10 counts of assault and two counts of strangulation of the mother which were eventually stayed due to delay in prosecution.
162The mother gave detailed evidence of the family violence she said was inflicted on her by the father. The physical abuse includes kicking, pushing, grabbing, throwing her down, grabbing her by the head and her hair and pushing her up against a wall. Some of the alleged abuse took place when she was pregnant. The verbal abuse includes name calling such as “cunt”, “bitch”, “ignorant”, “stupid”, “mental case”, “stupid fucking cow” and “moron”.
163The father acknowledges the name calling and said it went both ways. He said he felt provoked by the mother’s behaviour but is not proud of how he responded and regrets it.
164The father admits to being physical with the mother on two occasions only and denies any other physical abuse or interaction with the mother.
165While the mother did not acknowledge her contributions towards the toxicity of the parties’ relationship in her examination in chief despite relying on audio recordings in which her behaviour is distasteful and provocative, she did acknowledge in cross examination that she contributed to the conflict by yelling, swearing, and extremely hurtful name calling some of which took place in front of R.C.
166The mother also admitted to trying to prevent the father from leaving their home during an argument by blocking the door, standing in front of or grabbing onto his car. She explains that she acted this way because she relied on the father for everything including money and support with R.C. and he would leave for days at a time, not respond to her calls and block her phone number.
The first incident the father admits to being physical with the mother
167The father said there were two occasions where he “admittedly snapped and responded physically during an argument”. The first incident occurred in the fall of 2019 when the mother was pregnant. He said the mother and him were arguing and yelling at each other and that she “yelled in his face”. He said he tried to go in another room, but the mother followed him and grabbed his arm and pulled him towards her while “yelling in my face”. He then tried to go into the garage, but the mother followed him. He said in his affidavit evidence in chief that “When [the mother] tried to follow me through the entrance to the garage, I kicked her shin to try to move her back from the door so that I could close it and put some space between us.”
168The father was asked about the incident when he kicked the mother and provided a different description than he did in his evidence in chief. He appeared to be downplaying what he did. He said, “it wasn’t so much a kick, I used my foot to keep her from letting me close the door.” The change in the father’s testimony on this serious issue is troublesome. The father’s attempt to downplay what occurred and what he did is inconsistent with his claim that he “deeply” regrets his actions.
169When asked for an explanation as to why he once told the police he has “never touched” his wife when he now admits to kicking her, he said that he was being asked if he ever assaulted his wife, such as “punching” or “battery” which he did not do.
170The father does not consider kicking the mother in the shin to be an assault or family violence.
The second incident where the father admits to being physical with the mother
171The father also admits in his evidence that during another argument in October 2021, the mother called him a “convicted sex offender” and “terrible father” which “triggered” him causing him to “put my forearm against [the mother’s] chest/collarbone”. He said, “For a moment I did place my hand on her neck, but I immediately released my grip and walked away as I instantly knew it was inappropriate.” (emphasis mine)
172When cross examined on the issue of physical violence, the father said, “you will not find a text where I ever agree to putting my hands on her neck”. The father’s evidence was contradicted by his own text message to the in which he wrote,
“Did I grab you by the shoulders and push you against a wall and put my hand on your neck yelling at you to stop verbally going at me in the garage? Yes I did I have said that before. I didn’t grab you by the throat I put [a]sic hand on your neck and the other across your chest. Anything to get you to stop. Am I proud of it no.”
173The father was asked to explain exactly what he did during this argument. He said that the parties were fighting, and the mother followed him to the garage. He said she was calling him horrible things, and he could not handle it anymore. He describes having used his left forearm to push the mother up against the wall by her chest. He said he then put his right hand on his left forearm which was pinning her to the wall and it “slipped up under her chin”. He said as soon as that happened, “it scared the crap out of me” and he took both his hands off her and stepped back and screamed for her to stop.
174This version of events is different from what he described in the text message to the mother and what he claimed occurred in his evidence in chief.
175In his affidavit evidence in chief, the father said he put his hand on the mother’s neck and “immediately released his grip” while in his oral evidence he said his right hand “slipped up under her chin”. The explanation provided in his oral evidence of his hand slipping up onto the mother’s throat as he pinned her to the wall is highly improbable especially given that in his evidence in chief and in his text message to the mother, he admits to putting his hand on her throat/neck and then releasing his “grip”.
176There were noticeable changes to the father’s testimony regarding the two incidents during which he admits to being physical with the mother. In his oral testimony the father attempted to whitewash what he admitted to having done in his affidavit evidence in chief.
177The inconsistencies in the father’s evidence regarding these two incidents negatively impacts the reliability of his version of events and his overall credibility.
Is there evidence of other instances of family violence?
178While the father said he only responded physically to the mother on two occasions, that is incorrect. The father admits to physically moving or pushing the mother out of the way on several other occasions when she blocked him from leaving the home during an argument. Evidently, he does not consider this to be a physical response.
179The father also gave evidence that on another occasion when the parties were arguing and he tried to leave in his van, the mother stepped up on the runner outside his door while the door was still open. He admits to pushing her off the runner so he could close the door and leave.
180The father also said that on one occasion when they were arguing and he was “fed up with everything she said….I stood up and got in her face and she fell back against a retaining wall.” He admitted that the way he approached the mother caused her to fall back into a wall.
181The father also provided his version of events that occurred on December 24, 2021, that led to a physical altercation between the parties. The mother said that while arguing about their Christmas plans, the father took her keys and attempted to leave the home. She said he took all her keys including her house and car keys. The mother recorded the incident. The court listened to the recording.
182In the recording, the parties are arguing, and the mother can be heard engaging in name calling, including calling the father an “abusive father”. Abruptly, the mother says, “don’t take my fucking stuff”. The father can be heard telling her to calm down and asks her to move. The mother’s voice gets louder, and she says repeatedly “give me my fucking keys”. Suddenly there is a loud noise and a scuffle, and the mother is crying, breathing heavily and clearly in distress. She says, “Look, I’m fucking bleeding you asshole.” The father says in response, “you don’t think I am?”
183The mother said the father threw her to the ground in the garage during this exchange and she hurt her hand which was bleeding and required medical attention the next day. The mother provided photographs of her injury and the hospital report.
184The father was asked to describe what occurred on December 24, 2021. He said the parties were arguing about who would be invited to their Christmas dinner. The argument escalated and the mother cancelled the dinner and started to take the food that had been prepared to the driveway. The father said that he took the mother’s keys as he had recently installed a new digital lock on the front door and both of the keys to the lock were on her key chain. He knew if he asked her for a key she would not give him one, so he took her key chain in an attempt to remove one of the keys to the house for himself.
185The father said as the mother was yelling at him not to take her keys, he went out to the garage, and she followed him. He said he was leaning up against a car trying to get the key off the ring and the mother grabbed a nylon lanyard attached to her key ring and pulled so hard that he “spun around” and “lost his balance” and “we both fell”. He said the key chain broke and the keys cut the mother’s hand. He denies throwing the mother to the ground.
186The father was asked if the mother appeared badly injured and he said, “I didn’t know because I left right after it happened”.
187The father was asked about his weight and height and answered that he is 6 foot and weighs 240 pounds. He said the mother is 5 foot 4 inches and weighs approximately 134 pounds.
188The father’s version of events is implausible. He weighs over 100 pounds more than the mother. The court rejects his version of events, specifically that the mother’s tug on a lanyard attached to the key chain caused him to spin around and lose his balance and fall. Furthermore, the photograph of the mother’s hand shows scrapes on her fingers that are consistent with being rubbed along the concrete. The cuts do not look like they were caused by keys.
189The physical incident described by the mother that occurred in front of R.C. the last time the father saw her on October 30, 2022, was also recorded. The mother said that the father shoved her and caused her to hit her head on the car window. The father said the mother would not let him reach inside her car to say goodbye to R.C. who had just been secured into her car seat. The father admits to “simply moving her out of the way” and using his arm to block the mother so that he could lean inside the car to say goodbye to R.C.
190In the audio recording of this incident, the parties are arguing and the mother comments that the father has “kicked them out of the house”. They are yelling at one another in front of R.C. The mother can be heard yelling “don’t touch me” and the father says, “let me say goodbye to her”. There is another scuffle. The mother can be heard saying that he banged her against the car and he responds, “I moved you out of the way.”
191The mother was recording her interactions with the father to obtain evidence of his behaviour towards her. In some of the audio recordings she asks the father over and over to admit that he is abusive towards her. In one particular recording the mother asks the father why he puts “his arms around my neck”. He responds as follows:
“Because you won’t let me fucking leave. You wanna keep coming at me, you won’t let me fucking get out of this house. I will physically come after you, yes I will and I don’t feel bad about it in any way shape or form.”
192In another recording where the mother is clearly trying to get an admission from the father that he is abusive, she says, “Do you grab me by the neck [father]? He responds as follows:
“Instead of playing the fucking victim, listen to what I’m saying. I don’t need to say it [mother] because my psychiatrist says I have every god damn right to lash out at you however the fuck needs be if you are going to drive me insane. Everybody has a breaking point and I’ve told you this since I met you. You have surpassed mine.”
193In an audio recording where the father admits to kicking the mother, he says she has to look at why he acted the way he did as “everything I have ever done is in response to how you are treating me”.
194In his affidavit evidence in chief, the father explains his behaviour towards the mother as a response to feeling “provoked” and “triggered” by her.
195The father also gave evidence that on one occasion during his relationship with his former partner, C.S., he pushed her, and she fell and tripped over a stair and hit the side of her face on the floor leaving a mark. He explained that he was blocking C.S. from leaving their house with her car keys as he felt she was drunk and should not be permitted to drive. He explained that when he was blocking the doorway so that she could not leave, she “barreled at me and struck me in the chest”, although he said she did not hit him forcefully. He then said he pushed her back and she tripped on a stair and hit the left side of her face on the carpet which left a mark. He said she dropped her keys when she fell. He grabbed her keys and said, given that she could not drive, he went to bed.
196The father believes that the mother is responsible for his behaviour towards her. He made that very clear. The audio recording of the father telling the mother that he is justified in lashing out at her is chilling.
Conclusion regarding allegations of family violence
Credibility of the allegations of family violence
197The mother’s own evidence discloses that she was verbally abusive towards the father on several occasions. The name calling she engaged in was extremely mean spirited and humiliating. She was clearly attempting to provoke the father. This was family violence. Her attempts to restrict his ability to leave the home demonstrate poor judgment, especially given R.C. was always nearby when they were arguing. The mother’s behaviour was selfish and immature.
198The mother’s conduct does not diminish the credibility of her evidence of the father’s physical violence and threats directed towards her. Her evidence of family violence committed by the father is extremely detailed and includes dates and where the incident occurred. Her evidence is supported by documentary and audio evidence. Her evidence is also supported in large part by the father’s own evidence.
199The two audio recordings where the father justifies using physical force are extremely compelling evidence.
200The mother’s evidence of the physical violence perpetrated by the father was clear, strong and consistent and largely unchallenged by cross examination.
201The father’s evidence on the issue of physical violence towards the mother was inconsistent and at times wholly unbelievable. He provided explanations for some of his behaviour that are extremely improbable. In other instances, he admitted to the mother’s allegations. While the mother’s evidence was consistent and believable the father’s evidence was not credible.
202The father admits to physically pushing or grabbing the mother on several occasions in addition to the two incidents in which he kicked the mother on her shin and put his arm across her chest and hand on her throat to pin her to a wall. The father is incorrect in stating that the two incidents he admits to “are the only times I have ever been physical with [the mother].” In fact, he has been physical with her on many occasions, but he just does not consider his actions to be physical or believes his actions are justified as he was provoked by the mother.
203The father does not believe that pushing, pulling, grabbing or physically moving his spouse or partner is abusive or wrong. He took no responsibility for the injuries his partners (the mother and C.S.) suffered because of what occurred. What struck the court was the father’s lack of emotion or concern when he described his behaviour and what took place in a very cold and businesslike manner. He showed no distress at the mother bleeding from cutting her hand when they had the scuffle over the key chain in the garage and said quite casually that he did not know if she was badly hurt because he left. With respect to C.S. falling and hitting the side of her face after he pushed her, which left a mark, the father said with the same level of indifference, that he took her car keys and went to bed.
204The evidence demonstrates that when the father felt provoked by the mother, he chose to be physical with her, he was not acting in self defense.
205The court does not believe the father’s assertion that he regrets his actions, or he is not proud of what he did. The father showed no remorse for anything he did. He did not say in retrospect that he should have walked away from the mother and left rather than fighting with her over her key chain. He could have simply left and not engaged with her when he wanted to reach in her car and say goodbye to R.C. In both instances, he insisted on engaging and becoming physical, and even violent. He felt provoked and justified and he said as much to the mother in two recordings of their arguments. In his oral evidence, the father tried to walk back admissions he made in his evidence in chief which demonstrated a lack of remorse and inability to accept responsibility for his actions.
206A consideration of the father’s admissions to having pushed, kicked, grabbed and moved the mother as well as putting his hand on her throat/neck, the audio recordings of him threatening the mother and pronouncing his right to be physical with her, and his improbable and inconsistent explanations for incidents that occurred between the parties, supports a finding by the court that the mother’s claims of family violence are credible and that the father perpetrated significant family violence against her.
The impact of family violence on R.C.’s best interests
207The verbal abuse committed by both parties had a significant impact on the parties’ relationship. Both parties admitted that they frequently engaged in arguments that led to yelling and name calling. This is an extremely unpleasant and unhealthy environment for a child to grow up in.
208The physical violence committed by the father occurred on several occasions. The number of times the mother describes the father being physical with her is significant given the parties did not live together as of September 2020. Most of the father’s physical aggression amounted to pushing, grabbing and moving the mother. On a few occasions his behaviour escalated. The mother disclosed minor injuries from the father’s conduct.
209The father made verbal threats to the mother that the court accepts would cause the mother to be concerned for her own safety around the father.
210Thankfully R.C. was so young during the parties’ relationship and hopefully will show no effects of what she experienced as she grows older.
211The impact of family violence in this case will be experienced by the mother. She is fearful of the father and interacting with him in any manner will likely cause her stress and anxiety. The court is mindful of this reality for the mother when deciding the issues raised in this trial. This issue will be addressed further in this judgment below.
R.C.
212R.C., who has been in the primary care of her mother since birth, is five years old. She is a happy and healthy child. She has no medical, behavioural or education issues.
213R.C. is described by the mother as a trusting little girl who wants to help people. She loves animals and nature. The mother said she is thriving in school where she has lots of friends and regularly attends birthday parties and playdates. R.C. also participates in lots of extracurricular activities.
214The mother said R.C. has no memory of her father and does not ask about him. The mother does not raise the topic of her father with R.C.
215It is not disputed that R.C. has not seen her father since October 30, 2022.
216The level of the father’s involvement in R.C.’s life prior to October 30, 2022, is disputed. The mother said his involvement was minimal and that he did not show much interest in parenting R.C. The father said that he continued to spend a significant amount of time with the mother and R.C. at their home until September 2020 when F&CS informed the parents that he was not permitted to be in the presence of R.C. and that he would have to obtain a bail variation.
217After the bail variation was obtained, the father was permitted to be in the presence of R.C. provided the mother or maternal grandparents were present, otherwise he was not permitted to live at the house.
218After the bail variation was granted, the father said he was at the house and involved in R.C.’s care almost daily. The mother said that the father came and went as he pleased and often was absent from their lives for days, weeks or even months at a time. She said his attendance at the home was irregular and she would ask him to attend more consistently.
219Resolving the parties’ dispute as to how much time the father spent with R.C. from birth in […] 2020 to October 30, 2022, is unnecessary given that it will have little impact on the issue before the court. Between September 2020 and October 30, 2022, the father was not permitted to live with R.C. and he has not seen her at all since October 30, 2022. From R.C.’s perspective what has occurred since October 30, 2022, is much more important. In other words, the last three and a half years of R.C.’s life are more important to the court’s analysis than the first two.
220While the parties cannot agree on how much time the father spent in the home with the mother and R.C., they do agree that when they were together, they argued frequently.
221Prior to October 2022, the father would see R.C. when he visited the mother’s home or the mother brought her to his home or met him in the community. The last time the father saw R.C. was on October 30, 2022, when the parties met to carve a pumpkin but got into an argument that resulted in yet another physical altercation between them.
222After the October 30, 2022 incident the father made a few requests to see R.C. that the mother was either unable or unwilling to facilitate. She told the father on one occasion that R.C. was not available and on a second occasion that after what occurred on October 30, 2022, she does not feel safe with him. She said she told the father in the spring of 2023 to retain a lawyer to address the issue of his parenting time.
223The father said the parties had an agreement to work on their marriage until the end of 2022. He said in the spring of 2023 the mother failed to respond to his repeated requests to see R.C. and then in June 2023, he was served with the mother’s Application.
224Once the family court proceedings began, the father said he could not pursue parenting time with R.C. as his criminal conditions prohibited him from having contact with R.C. other than in the presence of the mother or her parents. He also said he did not pursue a variation of his release terms as he was not willing to take the risk that he would be in breach again.
225The father did not seek to vary his criminal conditions to allow him to have parenting time with R.C. pursuant to a family court order. In July 2025, the father retained new family counsel who corresponded with counsel for the mother requesting her consent to the father having supervised parenting time with R.C. but the mother refused because by this time she had connected with C.S. and K.H. and believed that the father had sexually assaulted K.H. when she was a young girl.
226The mother did not provide the father with any information about R.C. or photographs of her until requested by the father’s new counsel in the spring of 2025.
227The mother has not and does not consent to the father having supervised parenting time to R.C. as she fears for her physical and emotional safety given her belief that the father sexually assaulted his former partner’s daughter and has not taken responsibility for his actions or obtained any treatment/therapy. Until this occurs, the mother said it is not in R.C.’s best interest for the father to have parenting time.
228The father said that he poses no risk at all to R.C. as he was not convicted of any crimes and denied any wrongdoing. He said that supervised parenting time should commence immediately but in a manner that is child focused and in accordance with her needs. He also said he wants the mother to be comfortable with his parenting time which is why he is agreeable to supervision. He believes that a review of his parenting time should occur in 6 months.
229The mother is not satisfied that supervised parenting time will be sufficiently protective as she said that she expects R.C. will quickly develop a close and trusting bond with the father which she said will make R.C. more vulnerable to abuse once the parenting time is unsupervised, which she believes would be inevitable if supervised parenting time is ordered.
The father’s lack of contact with R.C. for three and a half years.
230The father has not seen R.C. since October 30, 2022. She was two years old at that time. Now she is 5 years old and will be six years old in […] 2026. She has lived most of her life without her father’s involvement.
231R.C. does not know her father, does not talk or ask about him and the mother does not speak about him to her.
232The mother does not deny that she withheld R.C. from the father shortly after the incident on October 30, 2022. She told the father that she did not feel safe around him and that he should retain a lawyer to address the issue of his parenting time. It is not disputed that he did not do so.
233The mother did not offer parenting time to the father as she does not believe parenting time with him is in the child’s best interest. Conversely, the father gave different reasons for his failing to ask for parenting time between June 2023 and June 2024. He said repeatedly that his strict criminal conditions made it very difficult if not impossible for him to have parenting time. He also said that he could not communicate with the mother after he was charged with assaulting her and could not ask for parenting time as he did not have a lawyer at the time.
234After the mother commenced litigation in June of 2023, the father did not bring a motion for parenting time. In fact, the court endorsed the record on September 3, 2024, that the father advised the court that he wanted to resolve his criminal matter before pursuing parenting time.
235It is not disputed that the father had varied his release conditions in the past and he admitted that he knew that this was an option for him if he felt the mother was withholding R.C. from him.
236The father did not move to vary his release conditions at any time to allow him contact with his daughter pursuant to a family court order.
237The father said varying the release conditions “was not worth it” as he was worried about being found in breach of his conditions and the consequences that could flow from that.
238The father issued a Divorce Application that made no request for parenting time with R.C.
239Despite his failure to take any steps to vary his release terms for over three years, he blames the mother claiming she is withholding R.C. from him.
240The father’s explanations for his failure to seek parenting time with R.C. prior to trial appear to be constructed to fit his narrative. In other words, his evidence appears fabricated. His evidence often had this tendency. When the father knew the truth would not be favourable to him, he provided sensational answers.
241The father has been through a criminal jury trial in the Superior Court of Justice, an appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, commenced his own Application for a Divorce and by June of 2024 had been in litigation in this court for a year. It is inconceivable that he did not pursue parenting time with R.C. between 2023 and 2024 because he was prohibited from having contact with the mother. He is a sophisticated litigant. His claim that he could not pursue parenting time because he could not have contact with the mother, who has been represented by counsel continuously since June 2023, is incredulous.
242Even if the court accepted the father’s explanation as to why he did not pursue parenting time, his conditions with respect to the mother and R.C. terminated as of January 2025, yet he still took no action until October 17, 2025, when his current lawyer sent a letter to the mother’s counsel asking if she would cooperate to facilitate supervised parenting time. The mother refused.
243Furthermore, the father could have pursued a family court order for parenting time as of January 6, 2025. The father’s Adult Conditional Sentence Order following his guilty plea on January 6, 2025, included as one of the exceptions to the requirement that he remain in his residence for the first 6 months,
EXCEPT
-for the purpose of compliance with family court orders.
244Of particular significance to the court is what the father was doing when he was not pursuing parenting time with R.C.
245The father’s current girlfriend, A.A., testified that she and the father began dating at the end of March 2024. He met her two sons, ages 8 and 12, in January 2025.
246A.A. testified that the father is a “devoted and nurturing father figure and role model to my children” and “He makes a deliberate effort to spend meaningful, quality time with them and to appreciate their unique personalities”. She said her sons “adore” the father.
247In oral evidence, A.A. acknowledged the following about the father:
(a) He has made himself indispensable to A.A.
(b) He has integrated into her family unit.
(c) He has developed close emotional bonds with her sons.
(d) He is a father figure to her sons.
(e) He has gained her sons’ trust.
(f) He is fun and attentive to her children.
(g) He has met everyone in A.A.’s family, including those on her mother’s side, her stepfather’s family, her sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins.
248The evidence of the father and his girlfriend demonstrated the father’s priorities. While he was cultivating a new relationship with A.A. and developing such a close bond with her sons that they considered him a father figure, he was neglecting his own daughter and her needs.
249The father provided no explanation for his conduct and the choices he made, which preferred his girlfriend and her sons to R.C. This is very strong evidence of an inability to make R.C. a priority in his life.
250It is significant for the court that the father prioritized his own needs by pursuing a new romantic relationship with a woman and directing his time and attention to her children while simultaneously ignoring his own daughter.
251The court finds that the father shows no insight into his choices or judgment, and he has failed to take any responsibility for the lack of contact with R.C. for over three years. He blames the mother and his release conditions for his lack of contact with his daughter. This is simply not true. Unfortunately, there are serious consequences to not having had contact with his daughter between the ages of 2 and 5 years, the least of which is the fact that she does not know him.
252The father is unaware of the possible emotional and psychological consequences for R.C. of introducing him into her life. As she has no bond with him, it is difficult to determine how she will react to the father if she were to meet him. Supervised visits might not be successful. There are so many different possible outcomes that the father has not considered.
The father’s behaviour demonstrates an inability to put R.C.’s needs before his own
253The father’s failure to pursue an order for parenting time to R.C. is not the only decision he made that is contrary to R.C.’s best interests.
254As noted above, before the father was required to live with his surety, he and the mother shared a home owned by the paternal grandfather. After the parties’ relationship began to fail in late 2022, the mother’s evidence is that the paternal grandfather was harassing her to leave the home with R.C., who was two years old at the time.
255As a result of the conflict with the paternal grandfather, the police were called and the mother started proceedings for a peace bond against him but did not follow through.
256Eventually, the mother felt she had no choice but to vacate the paternal grandfather’s home and move with R.C. to her parents’ home in Etobicoke. When she left the home she left some of her belongings in the garage which the paternal grandfather had previously locked her out of.
257The mother commenced a proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board to obtain her belongings. The father admits to being aware of the proceeding and gave evidence that he obtained a bail variation to permit him to attend the final hearing on May 21, 2024, when his father was ordered to return the mother’s belongings within 30 days.
258The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the paternal grandfather “harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered” with the mother “as a result of the repeated attempts to unlawfully pressure” the mother into vacating the rental unit.
259The father denied at the trial of this matter that he was cooperating with his father to force the mother out of the paternal grandfather’s home. He said it was between them, yet in his evidence in chief he said that his father asked the mother to move out of his house “because her behaviour towards both me and him had become increasingly inappropriate.” He also gave evidence that at the end of the parties’ relationship he told the mother he could have her removed from the house
260In cross examination the father denied having a good relationship with his father despite living with him for several years as he was his surety, his paying his bail, his paying his legal fees, and his supporting him financially.
261The father could not admit that forcing the mother and R.C. out of the house owned by his father was not in R.C.’s best interests and would result in her being homeless. His response was that it had nothing to do with him, and the mother was making things unbearable for him and his father, and “she had to go”. He was also oblivious to the stress the situation must have caused the mother and how that impacts R.C. given that she is cared for solely by the mother. It did not dawn on the father that causing R.C.’s primary caregiver undue stress does not promote the child’s best interests, especially given her young age. He ought to know that the extremely stressful situation the mother was in due to his father’s, and likely his, conduct was adversely affecting R.C.’s welfare.
262The court notes that the father’s trial affidavit discloses his current residence to be the home owned by his father, with whom he claims not to have a close relationship.
263The court rejects the father’s claim that he had nothing to do with the mother and R.C. being forced from their home. He did nothing to try to persuade his father to refrain from harassing the mother or forcing her and R.C. to leave his house. He said, “she had to go”. As a result, his daughter lost her home and had to move into the maternal grandparents’ home in Etobicoke.
Child support
264Financially supporting one’s children in a responsible manner is an important part of being a parent. The failure to do so demonstrates poor judgment and an inability to prioritize the child’s interests.14
265The father did not pay the mother child support between August 2022 when she vacated the paternal grandfather’s home and December 2023.
266The father was asked why he did not voluntarily pay child support after the mother commenced her Application in June 2023, which included a claim for child support. He explained that he “instructed” the mother to use their joint account to provide for R.C. and he had to retain a lawyer to “understand how the process worked”.
267The father did not pay the mother child support after being served with the mother’s Application in June 2023 until July 2024 when the issues was addressed in court.
268On July 11, 2024, the parties consented to a temporary without prejudice order requiring the father to pay the mother child support for R.C. in the amount of $335.00 per month based on an annual imputed income to him of $35,000.00 and the Guidelines.
269The father does not deny that he failed to comply with this order. He said that at the time he did not understand that he was supposed to comply with the court order and pay child support.
270The father was asked about the court’s endorsement dated September 3, 2024, in which Justice Stanley Sherr noted that the father had yet to comply with a disclosure order made 10 months earlier and warned the father of the consequences of non disclosure.
271The father blamed his former lawyer for his failure to provide financial disclosure and advised he terminated his retainer with her as a result. He also said his former lawyer had difficulty uploading the documents to the court through the portal.
272The father acknowledges not complying with the child support order made by Justice Szandtner on May 1, 2025, either, requiring him to pay child support in the amount of $792.00 per month based on an annual imputed income to him of $85,000.00 and the Guidelines. He said he could not remember exactly why the support was not paid but made a connection to his failure to pay with the fact that he had recently ended his relationship with his lawyer.
273The father explained that once he retained new counsel in mid to late 2025, she was able to better explain what he was required to do, and arrangements were made to pay all the arrears.
274The father said support has nothing to do with loving his daughter.
275Once again, the father was incapable of admitting poor judgement on his behalf. He refused to take any blame and instead blamed his previous lawyer for not paying child support. He sees no link between loving your child and providing for them financially.
Other issues with the veracity of the father’s evidence
(i) The father’s alleged breach of his criminal release conditions
276A significant amount of evidence was called on the issue of whether the father breached any of his criminal release conditions. The mother tried to demonstrate the father’s inability to follow court orders while the father’s focus on this issue was to demonstrate that his former partner, C.S., had engaged in vigilante justice and made several attempts to have him charged with breaching the terms of release.
277When the father was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference in October 2018, he was released on bail and was subject to many conditions including a prohibition from being “in the presence of anyone who is 16 years of age or younger or going to any place that someone of that age would reasonably be expected to be.”
278Both the mother and C.S gave evidence of what they describe as the father’s blatant disregard for the condition that he is not to be “in the presence” of children under the age of 16 years.
279The court heard evidence of the father attending a wedding and a ‘Jack and Jill’ party where children were present. The court also heard evidence of the father attending places of business in Niagara Falls and a bowling alley where children would reasonably be expected to be present.
280The father admits to attending his friends’ ‘Jack and Jill’ party and her wedding in October 2023, while being subject to the condition that he must not be in the presence of anyone under age 16.
281When asked about being at the ‘Jack and Jill’ party and in the presence of children contrary to the terms of his release, the father said he stayed outside the building and only went inside to sing for his friend, the bride to be. When he was shown a picture of young boy at the party, he said he did not know his age or if he was in the building when he entered to perform the song.
282The father admitted attending the wedding in October 2023 despite children being present. He said there were minors present but “not around me.” When questioned how he could be at the wedding but not around children he said, “they had one hall for the adults and a separate room for the children”.
283When the father was shown a picture of a young boy walking down the aisle, he identified him as his friend’s (the bride) son. When shown a second photograph of the young boy at the reception, the father said after that photograph was taken her son “went to the hall with the children”.
284The father persisted with his bizarre account when asked why he would go to a wedding knowing a child would be present given his release terms, he said, “It was a late wedding and I didn’t expect children to be there and when I saw the children were there, I stayed in my seat and stayed away from the children.” The father was unable to simply admit that he should not have attended either of these gatherings given his release order.
285The father was charged with breach of his release order for attending the wedding. He said he was incarcerated for four days. He said this charge led to tighter wording of his release terms to provide that he cannot be in the “immediate presence” of children under the age of 16. The father said he did 20 hours of community service for the breach of attending the wedding and entered into a peace bond.
286The father was also questioned about charges to his credit card at establishments in Niagara Falls on April 29, 202415, that by their name, would obviously attract children. When asked about his attendance at places such as Movieland Museum, the Falls Incline Railway, the Hershy Store, Niagara Skywheel and Niagara Parks, places where a reasonable person would expect children to be, the father said, “I went in the evening when children are likely to be in bed.” The father’s evidence on this issue is absurd and inherently untrue.
287The father’s evidence of these breaches of his release terms was outlandish and completely implausible. He also contradicts himself by saying the children were taken to a separate room at the wedding, but then he said he stayed in his seat away from the children.
288His evidence on this issue is also problematic given his evidence that he did not move to vary his release terms to allow for parenting time with R.C. out of fear that it could lead to a breach of those terms but he was willing to risk a breach when he attended his friend’s Jack and Jill party, her wedding and several locations in Niagara Falls.
289This was a disturbing pattern in the father’s evidence. He provided inexplicable explanations that defied logic rather than admitting something that obviously occurred. His evidence was demonstrably untruthful. His lack of candour will result in more damage to his credibility than if he had just admitted to his mistakes.
(ii) Other contradictions and inconsistencies in the father’s evidence
290There are other instances of the father contradicting himself. The mother gave evidence of an argument the parties had on August 9, 2020, which she said resulted in him throwing a bottle at her. The father said on that day she wanted to leave R.C. with him to go pick up a pizza but he would not agree because he would be in breach of his conditions of release.
291The father’s evidence is that until September 2020, both he and the mother did not realize that the condition in his release order prohibiting him from being near children under the age of 16 applied to his own daughter. He gave evidence that they did not know this until the F&CS became involved in September 2020 and told him that his release terms prohibited him from being at home when R.C. is present. Therefore, the father could not have been telling the truth about the incident in August 2020.
292The father also contradicted his evidence when explaining that the parties’ joint bank account was used only by the mother who “was the sole card holder”. The father explained that all the highlighted transactions were completed by the mother.
293In cross examination, the father clarified that he used the joint bank account to transfer funds between that account and his business account and when he referenced all the transactions belonging to the mother, he meant the card purchases and withdrawals.
294Another example of an inconsistency in the father’s evidence is his claim that he has been diagnosed with Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) because of his marriage to the mother. When further explanation was requested of the father, it became apparent that he was not formally diagnosed but that an on-line therapist not qualified to diagnose him felt he showed symptoms of CPTSD and designed his therapy around this disorder.
295With respect to the father’s therapy, his evidence on this issue was disjointed. The father said that he has been engaged in therapy since 2021, including two years of intensive psychotherapy beginning in June 2022. He gave evidence of engaging in therapy to learn how to better handle stressful situations and not react physically. He also said he was in therapy because of the mother’s narcissistic abuse. He said that the therapist determined the mother was a “narcissistic abuser” from listening to audio and video recordings the father sent him.
296At other points in his evidence, the father said he is engaged in cognitive therapy to learn strategies on how to walk away from conflict and not engage. He said he learned a lot of therapies on how to calm your mind and not be defensive and react.
297While the father claims to have been engaged in therapy from 2021 to 2023, he provided no documentary evidence to corroborate his oral evidence. Given that the father engaged in many verbal and physical arguments with the mother and was unable to walk away and avoid conflict between 2021 and October 2022, evidence from his therapist(s) to explain his behaviour and the work he was doing with them may have helped to clarify his evidence on this issue.
Credibility findings
The mother and father
298As stated above, the mother was a credible witness, and the court has found that her evidence on all issues is more reliable than that of the father.
299The father’s evidence was rife with inconsistencies and fabricated narratives. He relied on conjecture rather than facts. He admitted to two instances of being physical with the mother but blamed her for his behaviour. He minimized his physical actions towards the mother and justified putting his hands on her repeatedly to move her aside so he could leave the house or in one instance to lean inside the mother’s car to say goodbye to R.C.
300The court also finds that he committed acts of family violence that he did not admit including, the incident in the garage on December 24, 2021, which resulted in the mother injuring her hand. His version of what occurred is not plausible. The court accepted the mother’s account of what happened.
301The father was untruthful to the court about his breaches of his release terms and his failure to pay child support. He fabricated evidence on these issues rather than admit wrongdoing.
302The father’s claim that he had no ability to stop his father from evicting the mother and R.C. from his house was not persuasive given the facts about their relationship and his involvement in the proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board.
303The court also rejects the father’s evidence that he believed he could not pursue parenting time with R.C. because of his criminal release terms. The father did not believe this to be true or at least he ought not to have believed it as his release terms were varied on multiple occasions, including in November 2020 to allow him to have contact with the mother and R.C. In addition, as of January 6, 2025, he was permitted to leave his house to comply with a family court order which would include an order for parenting time to R.C.
304The father’s explanation for not actively pursuing parenting time with R.C. until now is inconceivable and not supported by the evidence. Despite their being options available to the father to pursue parenting time with R.C. as early as October 2022, he blames the mother and his criminal conditions for their lack of contact. The father’s evidence on this issue seriously undermines his credibility.
305Rather than directing his time and energy towards pursuing a court order for parenting time with R.C., he chose instead to pursue a serious relationship with A.A., her sons and their extended family. It is hard to take the father’s claims that he loves R.C. very much and wants to be a part of her life seriously given his conduct to date and his inability to put her needs before his own.
306The father not only changed his evidence on the witness stand, but he was also repeatedly untruthful about his behaviour directed at the mother. The court also finds the father was not truthful about his behaviour towards C.S. He denies assaulting C.S. but admitted to pushing her which caused her to trip over a stair and hit her face on the floor. His actions involved intentional force and threatening behaviour.
307The father’s evidence regarding his application of cream on K.H. is disturbing. He readily admitted to applying cream to K.H.’s vagina when he thought she was experiencing pleasure from his touch, when she did not have a rash, when he knew that she preferred the father to apply the cream rather than her mother, and, when he knew that she did not express pleasure at her mother applying the cream. This evidence is inherently concerning.
308The sheer number of inconsistencies in the father’s evidence, as well as his tendency to fabricate evidence or provide absurd explanations for his conduct calls into question the veracity of his entire testimony.
309The father was not a believable witness. His evidence lacks reliability and therefore he is not credible witness.
K.H. and C.S.
310K.H. and C.S. were very good witnesses. They were exceptionally honest, C.S. to a fault. C.S. was completely honest about her efforts to ensure that if the father failed to comply with a term of his release, he would be held accountable. She owned her behaviour and made no excuses. This made her extremely believable. She is an angry mother who is in pain. She directed that anger and pain at holding the father accountable for his actions but within the law. She did not take matters into her own hands.
311K.H. gave evidence on an extremely difficult issue. She was composed, consistent and measured. She explained how aging and learning more about her body helped her to better understand and articulate what the father did to her. Her explanations and account of what occurred were highly plausible and logically sound given that she is 5 years older than when she gave evidence at the trial in 2021. She was stoic during cross examination and readily admitted something that was adverse to her claims. When asked about her mother’s involvement in pursuing the criminal charges and attending in court on this trial, her answers were unprompted, plainly honest and credible.
312K.H. was an extremely credible witness. Her evidence was convincing and mostly consistent. Where there may have been alleged inconsistencies, she provided frank and direct responses and explanations. Her evidence did not change from 2021 when she was 17 years old but rather it was delivered in a manner that was consistent with her current age of 22.
313Given that the father is not a credible witness and the court has rejected his evidence on most issues and found him to be untruthful, the court does not believe his evidence in relation to K.H. K.H. was a very credible witness and the court believes her evidence.
314The father’s guilty plea to a simple assault of K.H. was the result of negations between him and the Crown. This court does not know why the Crown accepted a guilty plea to a lesser charge.
315The court finds that the father groomed K.H. when she was a child by showering her with love and affection which made her feel special. The father created a bond with K.H. who trusted him. He took advantage of her trust.
316Based on the evidence heard by this court, the court finds on a balance of probabilities that the father sexually abused K.H. as she described in her evidence. He entered her bedroom on several occasions and removed her pajama bottoms and underwear and rubbed her breasts and her clitoris.
Conclusion on the issue of parenting time
The Relevant section 24 Best Interest Factors
317The test for determining parenting time is what order is in the best interests of the child. In making this determination, the court has considered the relevant “best interests” factors set out in section 24 of the Act, as well as all other relevant considerations.
318R.C. has been in the primary care of her mother since birth. She has been cared for solely by her mother since October 30, 2022. She enjoys a stable, loving and safe home where all her physical, emotional and psychological needs are being met.
319R.C. has no relationship with her father nor does she display behaviour suggesting she has any memory of him given he has been absent for over half of her life.
320The parties had a toxic relationship plagued with conflict and violence. Both parties committed family violence during the relationship, but the father’s behavior was much more serious. The mother was verbally and emotionally abusive towards the father. The father admitted to name calling and yelling, and to pushing, grabbing, moving and kicking the mother and putting his hand on her throat during an argument. He admitted to pushing the mother off the runner of his car and moving towards her in a manner that caused her to stumble backwards into a wall. He told her more than once that her behaviour justified his physical response.
321The court has found that the father was physical with the mother on several more occasions than he admits. The father is capable of being violent. He said that he has been in therapy to learn strategies to control his responses when he finds himself being provoked but he provided no independent evidence of this therapy and given the court’s concerns about the veracity of his evidence, it will not take his word for it.
322The court accepts the mother’s evidence that the father punched, kicked pushed, grabbed, shook, and pinned her during their relationship. He also put his hands on her neck and chocked her. The family violence committed by the father was pervasive.
323The father’s failure to admit that he has acted inappropriately towards the mother and engaged in family violence makes him a poor candidate for change.
324The father’s plan for parenting time is not child focused. It is based more on his needs than those of R.C. He asks the court to order supervised access by Brayden and Associates for 6 months. He seems to expect the mother to drop R.C. off with a stranger where she will be introduced to someone she does not know and told he is her father. This is not a well thought out plan.
325The father’s belief that his proposal is child focused and appropriate is evidence of his poor judgment and lack of parenting skills.
326The evidence demonstrates that if the father had parenting time, he would be able to meet R.C.’s basic day to day needs. The evidence does not support the same conclusion with respect to her emotional and psychological needs. The father blames the mother for the conflict in their relationship, the failure of their marriage and for having no contact with R.C. for three and a half years. Given the father’s conduct and lack of remorse and insight, the court is concerned that he might expose R.C. to his negative feelings and opinions of the mother.
327The court has no illusions that these parents will ever be able to engage in appropriate and effective communication about R.C. or be able to cooperate on matters affecting her life. Given the evidence, it is not in R.C.’s best interests to require these parents to communicate directly at all.
328Now that the parties are separated and the mother has engaged in therapy, R.C. benefits from the stability of having an emotionally stable and physically safe caregiver.
329The mother does not support R.C. having a relationship with the father as she fears for her safety when in the father’s care, even if supervised. The court must consider this factor but in doing must consider the reasons for her unwillingness to support the development and maintenance of a relationship between R.C. and the father.
330The mother believes that the father sexually assaulted his former partner’s daughter when she was R.C.’s age. She believes that he groomed her by showering her with love, affection and gifts to gain her trust and then violated that trust. For these reasons, the mother does not support R.C. having a relationship with her father.
331If it is true that the father groomed K.H., gained her trust and then sexually assaulted her, the mother’s unwillingness to support R.C. having a relationship is understandable and justified.
332The court grapples with the impact a parenting order will have on the mother. Justice Deborah Chappel wrote about the importance of family violence as a best interests factor in paragraph 86 of McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, as follows:
The broad definition of family violence and the specific inclusion of this factor as a mandatory consideration in determining the best interests of children recognize the profound effects that all forms of family violence can have on children. These consequences can be both direct, if a child is exposed to the family violence, or indirect, if the victimized parent’s physical, emotional and psychological well-being are compromised, since these consequences in turn often negatively impact their ability to meet the child’s physical and emotional needs.
333The mother fears for the safety of her daughter in the father’s care and while she said she would comply with an order for supervised parenting time, the court cannot ignore the possibility that such an order would cause the mother severe stress and anxiety. R.C.’s well being is directly connected to the mother’s emotional, psychological and physical safety. Therefore, in this case, the impact of an order for supervised parenting time by the father on the mother must be a consideration for the court.
334The court is required to consider any criminal proceedings that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of R.C. The father’s guilty plea with respect to K.H. weighs heavy on this court. He pled guilty to repeatedly touching K.H.’s vulva without her consent. The judge on the sentencing said it was a very serious violation of trust and was an especially concerning fact scenario given it involved a young child.
335The father said the simple assault charge was not sexual in nature. When this court considers all of the evidence including, the father’s concerning statements to the police in his interview on October 18, 2020, the facts which formed the basis for his guilty plea to assault, K.H.’s testimony and the father’s evidence overall and his lack of credibility, the court believes K.H.’s evidence and finds on a balance of probabilities that the father came in her room and removed her pajamas and underwear and rubbed her breasts and clitoris.
Summary of the court’s findings
336The following is a summary of the court’s findings that forms the basis for the orders being granted:
(i) The mother was verbally abusive towards the father during the relationship and her conduct amounts to family violence as defined by the Act.
(ii) The father perpetrated physical violence against the mother on many occasions. His conduct amounts to family violence as defined by the Act.
(iii) The father was not honest with the court about the number of times he was physical with the mother and the extent to which he was physical.
(iv) The father made threats of physical violence to the mother.
(v) The father has shown no insight into his violent behaviour towards the mother or remorse for his actions.
(vi) The father made the unilateral decision not to have parenting time with R.C. since October 30, 2022.
(vii) The father preferred his needs to those of R.C.’s by making little to no effort to have parenting time with her since October 30, 2022. He shows no insight into the effect his judgment has had on R.C. and his relationship with her.
(viii) The father was not honest with the court about his failure to comply with his release terms.
(ix) The father was not honest with the court about his failure to pay child support to the mother in accordance with two court orders.
(x) The father was not honest about his involvement in having the mother evicted from the home she shared with R.C. which was owned by the paternal grandfather.
(xi) The father was not honest with the court about the therapy he has been involved in since 2021 or the reasons for his engaging in therapy.
(xii) The father groomed K.H. by gaining her trust over time and then sexually abused her repeatedly when he lived with her and her mother between 2007 and 2014.
Should the court order supervised parenting time by the father to R.C.?
337The court must consider whether an order for supervised parenting time with R.C. would be appropriate given that an order denying any parenting time should only be made in the most extreme cases.
338The court must be satisfied that if the father has supervised parenting time with R.C., she will be safe.
339In closing submissions counsel for the father provided the court with a number of cases in which a parent was granted parenting time despite criminal charges or past misconduct. These cases are all distinguishable from the case at hand for reasons including there was no finding of wrongdoing following the trial, they are temporary orders made following a motion, where the parties were not subject to cross examination and findings were not made as to whether the violence had occurred, and/or the child had an ongoing relationship with the accused parent that the court found should be preserved.
340For example, in Batsinda v. Batsinda, 2013 ONSC 7869, the court heard a motion for temporary parenting time and cautioned against treating outstanding criminal charges as determinative. In V.S.J. v. L.J.G., 2004 CanLII 17126, the mother sought to terminate the father’s parenting time due to concerns the father sexually assaulted their six and a half year old daughter. The court ordered parenting time on the basis that it did not find on a balance of probabilities that the child was sexually abused by her father. The orders made in the cases of V.K. v. A.K., 2018 ONSC 7290, Habuda v. Habuda, 2023 ONSC 1954, and Hunt v. Hunt, 2023 ONSC 5411 were all temporary orders made following motions. In the cases of M.M. v. N.M., 2018 ONSC 6994, A.B. v. S.M., 2017 ONSC 1596, and A.D. v. A.B., 2024 ONSC 4299, the motions judges had to decide the issue of a father’s parenting time on a temporary basis in the face of outstanding sexual assault charges or historic sexual assault convictions. In these three cases the children all had an existing relationship with their father. Finally, in K.A.T. v. D.L.T., 2014 ONSC 5011, following a trial, the court ordered supervised access by the father to his 12 year old son after he was convicted of sexual exploitation and child pornography and diagnosed with pedophilia and a personality disorder. The court found that the child was connected to the father and enjoyed his time with him and would be sufficiently protected by an order for supervised parenting time.
341All of the caselaw provided by counsel for the father are not on point and distinguishable in a significant way from the facts in the case at hand.
342In this case, the court has found that the father sexually abused K.H. between the ages of 6 and 9 years while she was in his care between 2007 and 2014. R.C. does not have a relationship with her father, nor does she disclose having any memories of him. She is only 5 years only and extremely vulnerable. These facts alone distinguish this case from the majority of the cases cited by father’s counsel.
343Given the uncontested evidence that R.C. has not seen her father for over three and a half years and does not know him and the court’s findings that the father groomed K.H. and sexually abused her during the period of 2007 to 2014 when he lived with her, the court finds that an order for supervised parenting time with R.C. would not be sufficiently protective and is not in her best interests.
344An order for supervised access by the father to R.C. would not provide tangible benefits to her but rather would likely be destabilizing and disruptive. In addition, the stress it will cause the mother given the parties relationship, the father’s violence towards her and her fear of R.C. being sexually abused, is not in R.C.’s best interests as she benefits from a stable, and emotionally healthy primary caregiver.
345The court finds that the mother has shown exceptional circumstances that dictate that supervised parenting time is not in R.C.’s best interest. R.C. will not be physically or emotional safe if the father is granted supervised parenting time. The extreme circumstances required to make an order terminating a child’s relationship to a parent exist in this case.
346For all the reasons set out above, the court finds that parenting time exercised by the father to R.C. is not in R.C.’s best interests.
Travel without parental consent
347Without a dispensation order from a court, the consent of an access parent is usually required for a child to travel out of Canada with the other parent. This is an important parental right that is not to be dispensed with lightly.16
348Given the findings made above and the denial of parenting time to R.C. by the father, it is not in R.C.’s best interest to put any restrictions on her right to travel with her mother for the purpose of a vacation. The court has no confidence that the father would consistently provide his consents to the mother in a timely manner. Further, it is not in the child’s best interests to require the mother to engage with the father.
Order to go as follows:
349The Respondent father shall have no parenting time with R.C.
350The mother shall be permitted to travel with R.C. for the purpose of a vacation on 7 days notice to the father. Such notice shall include the travel dates, the destination, mode of transportation and an emergency contact number.
351If either party is seeking their costs of the trial, they shall serve and file cost submissions within 20 days of the date of this Judgment. The cost submissions shall not exceed 5 pages not including Offers to Settle and a Bill of Costs. The party responding to the cost submissions shall serve and file their response within 20 days of receipt of the other party’s cost submissions which shall not exceed 5 pages not including Offers to Settle and a Bill of Costs.
Released: May 12, 2026
Signed: Justice Melanie Sager
Footnotes
- White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736.
- Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.
- Mokhov v. Ratayeva, 2021 ONSC 5454 (SCJ).
- Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC).
- Young v. Young 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC); E.M.B. v. M.F.B. 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510.
- I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615. Also see: Armstrong v. Coupland, 2023 ONSC 5451; 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.
- Klymenko v. Klymenko, 2020 ONSC 5451.
- Jafari v. Dadar [1996] N.B.J. No. 38 (NBQB), D.G. v. A-G.-D., 2019 ONCJ 43 at paras. 127-131; Ayub v. Al-Haq, 2022 ONSC 7054.
- M.A. v. J.D. 2003 CanLII 52807 (ON CJ), [2003] O.J. No. 2946 (OCJ).
- I.O. v. I.G., 2023 ONCJ 520.
- Tuttle v. Tuttle, 2014 ONSC 5011; A.B. v. K.S., 2025 ONCJ 614.
- H.P. v. P.L.C., [2013] O.J. No. 3377 (OCJ) and Grube and Grube v. Binks and Grube-Binks, 2003 CanLII 67751 (ON CJ), [2003] O.J. No. 1530 (OCJ).
- Jama v. Mohamed, [2015] ONCJ 619; T.P. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 6022; McBennett v Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610; Pinda Pankiw, 2018 BCSC 190.
- The father’s release conditions were varied prior to this date to provide that he is not to be in the “immediate presence of anyone under the age of 16 years unless in the presence of his surety but he did not provide this explanation in cross examination. It was offered in re-direct.
- R.B.J. v. B.N.R.J., 2020 ONCJ 399; D.E.S.A. v. N.B., 2025 ONCJ 279.
- The facts in this section of the Judgment are not contested as they are either contained in the Amended Statement of Agreed Facts dated April 6, 2026, or there was no disagreement between the parties in their evidence.