Court File and Parties

CITATION: C.A.K. v. E.A.W., 2026 ONCJ 381

DATE: February 26, 2026

Court File No. FO-24-0000100-0000

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

B E T W E E N:

C.A.K

Applicant

-and-

E.A.W

C.B.

Respondents

Reasons for Judgment

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE S.E.J. PAULL

On February 26, 2026, at WOODSTOCK, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

C.A.K. In Person

E.A.W. In Person

C.B. In Person

PAULL, J. (Orally):

These are the reasons for judgment in this trial which addressed the applicant’s contact with her grandchildren.

There are three children involved: L., born […], 2016; R., born […], 2019; and J., born […], 2024, who has just turned two.

The applicant is the paternal grandmother. The respondents are the parents.

There is a pre-existing final order of May 1, 2023 which gave the grandmother contact with L. She has brought an application seeking an order for contact with the other two children. The parents oppose the application and the grandmother having any court ordered right to contact with the other children.

The mother (E.A.W.)has also brought a motion to change the final order regarding L. to reduce the amount of the grandmother’s contact and remove other terms in the order. Father (C.B.) supports her position. The grandmother seeks to have the order regarding L. remain unchanged.

The court heard evidence from the parties, other family members and a friend, and from CAS worker, James Brown. The court also received evidence by way of affidavits from Child and Family Services Grand Erie worker, Candace Thomas, dated January 24, 2025 and Oxford CAS worker, Kimberly Samaroo, dated January 30, 2025. The parties consented to the filing of these affidavits as evidence in the trial with the worker, James Brown, providing updates.

The court also considered the Voice of the Child Report for L. dated March 17, 2025. None of the parties sought to cross-examine the OCL clinician.

By way of background, the parties have a long history of conflict, child protection and police involvement. The CAS history may be summarized as follows from the affidavits of the protection agencies filed.

Child and Family Services of Grand Erie had only brief involvement with respect to concerns related to mother and father. On July 29, 2024 Oxford OPP reported that father breached conditions tied to a June 2024 domestic mischief charge. Child and Family Services of Grand Erie reviewed the matter, did not verify concerns, and concluding that there was no information suggesting the children were adversely affected. The file was closed.

The verified protection concerns outlined in that affidavit relate primarily to the grandmother and document a long history of referrals and investigations between 2012 and 2021. The Child and Family Services of Grand Erie verified concerns between May 2014 and April 2015 including the impact of the grandmother’s mental health challenges on household hygiene, her inconsistent attention to one of her children’s psychoeducational needs, and household instability created by a pattern of introducing new partners to the children as father figures. Child and Family Services of Grand Erie concluded that these issues affected the caregiving environment, though noted improved stability during service engagement by file closure.

Subsequent referrals regarding the grandmother over the years prompted several investigations, but most allegations, such as the physical discipline, inadequate supervision, and sibling conflict were unverified. The affidavit establishes a child protection history featuring both verified and repeated unverified concerns, with verified findings centred on periods when the grandmother’s mental health functioning directly affected her caregiving capacity.

With respect to Oxford CAS involvement, it verified concerns with the grandmother related to a long history of issues including neglect, inadequate supervision, unsafe home conditions, and inappropriate physical discipline. Verified concerns included children being left unsupervised, unhygienic and unsafe home conditions, and physical discipline resulting in marks. These incidents spanned multiple investigations between 1996 and 2014.

Verified concerns regarding mother primarily arise from incidents of exposing the children to partner violence, caregiver stress affecting adequacy of care, and isolated concerns such as in March 2024 when the infant, J., was unfed for several hours due to a parental miscommunication. The Society also verified concerns related to mother’s participation in partner conflict that exposed the children to a risk of emotional harm.

Verified concerns regarding father include child exposure to partner violence, mental health instability, and inconsistent participation in recommended services. The June 2024 incident outlined in the affidavit of the Child and Family Services of Grand Erie involving verbally aggressive behaviour and property damage and threats of self-harm witnessed by the child, were verified by the Society as creating a risk of harm.

Oxford CAS also verified concerns including an emotional risk created by prolonged high conflict dynamics between the households of the grandmother and the parents, where L. was repeatedly placed in the middle of disputes. The Society verified that the children’s exposure to harmful caregiver dynamics, partner violence, and limited caregiver functioning placed them at risk.

As for the most recent involvement, the Society verified risks arising from the parents’ roles in exposing the children to conflict. Ongoing monitoring was necessary with requirements that father complete the MARC Program and that mother remain engaged in mental health supports before the file was closed.

The evidence of CAS involvement established that L. spent considerable time historically with her grandmother on a voluntary basis as mother addressed the protection concerns. At that time, the grandmother brought a CLRA proceeding seeking custody and primary residence. However, L. was transitioned back into mother’s care, and the parties resolved the proceeding on the basis of the final order of May 1, 2023 which only dealt with L.. It was a particularly detailed order which included the following:

Mother to have primary residence and decision-making.

Mother to consult with the grandmother on ongoing and major issues, and to advise of appointments and meetings.

The Grandmother was permitted to obtain information from third parties involved with the child.

There were travel and other notification terms as well as shared transportation.

The order granted contact to the grandmother including three out of four weekends from Friday to Sunday and a sharing of holidays, including the school summer holiday.

The Society’s evidence outlines that the voluntary arrangement regarding L. quickly devolved into a custody battle brought by the grandmother against the mother (the father was not participating in the court proceedings at the time). Both parties continued to make repeated allegations against the other before and after the final order. The Society investigated and, apart from the verifications noted, did not substantiate the concerns.

It is clear the concern became the conflict between the parents and the grandmother. Of note, the Oxford Society stated in 2021, when not verifying one of the multitude of allegations the parties made against each other, that a significant concern identified was that the family was embroiled in a heated and long drawn-out custody battle over L. and that there was a worry L. was caught in the middle of the dispute. That investigation was closed in January of 2021, but the cycle continued.

The viva voce evidence received from Jeremy Brown indicated that he was the most recent family service worker from Oxford CAS and worked with the family from March 2025 to October 2025 when the Society closed its file. During his most recent meeting with the parents, he observed that the children appeared healthy and happy. He confirmed that father had completed the MARC Program successfully and that mother continued to engage with her supports. There was no evidence of any other verified concerns with either the parents or the grandmother during his involvement. As a result, Oxford CAS closed its file at the end of October 2025.

The Voice of the Child Report for L., which was ordered to determine her views and preferences with respect to time with her grandmother, is clear that she enjoys her time with her and wishes it to continue it as it is.

During this proceeding, of Justice Neill made a temporary order dated February 19, 2025. All the parties were present. In addition to ordering the Voice of the Child Report for L., the order included a number of terms:

1. The parties were not to expose the children to conflict during exchanges.

2. Communications between the parties to be civil and child-focused.

3. No party is to speak to the children about the litigation.

While not part of the order, the endorsement notes the following:

The parents’ position is they want to build a relationship between the children and the paternal grandmother, but do not want to be bound by an order.

It was agreed to in court that the paternal grandmother would have contact as follows:

a) With R. on the third weekend that she has L. in her care being February 21-23 and March 21-23 and all other times as agreed on.

b) With J. when she attends for exchanges in Ingersoll to pick up and drop off L. from the home of the parents.

It was not disputed by the parents that this arrangement did not occur.

A further order was made by Justice Neill on August 20, 2025 which ordered on a temporary without prejudice basis that the grandmother was to have contact with all three children on the first and third Sundays that grandmother had L.. It was to be exercised in Oxford County from 4:00 to 6:30 p.m. The endorsement noted that the contact contemplated in the earlier endorsement did not take place. It was not disputed that this happened on two occasions for R., but not for J.

There was a dispute on R.’s birthday in 2024 when the grandmother attended the parents’ home and insisted it was her weekend with L.. The police were called by both parties and the grandmother later conceded she was in error. This incident is one of many examples illustrating the strained and conflictual relationship and the risk it poses to the children from their repeated exposure to it.

I accept the evidence of the history as outlined by the CAS affidavits and the testimony of Mr. Brown, and the OCL Voice of the Child Report. They represent the only independent evidence before the court. The independent and professional status of the CAS and the OCL lend credence to the information provided. That evidence establishes that at one time, very early on in L.’s life, the parties appeared to get along. Mother acknowledged this and stated that this was why she agreed to the voluntary arrangement with the Children’s Aid Society that L. be in the temporary care of the grandmother. The relationship between the grandmother and mother clearly soured when the grandmother chose to commence an application for custody and primary residence of L. that ultimately resulted in the order under review. The parents are firmly of the view that the grandmother has continued to overstep the bounds of her role as a grandmother. For example, the grandmother acknowledged permitting L. to call her “mom” until relatively recently which was particularly upsetting to the parents.

The grandmother testified that she took L. to a health clinic during her contact time because of what she indicated was identified as croup. She acknowledged not notifying the parents and only told them when she dropped L. off after the visit and provided the medication. On another occasion since the order, the grandmother testified she took L. to a paediatric clinic to get her an inhaler, once again not advising the parents until returning L. and dropping off the medication.

The grandmother also testified that she moved recently and did not tell the parents her new address despite a term in the current order requiring her to do so. She acknowledged that her testimony was the first notice that they had. The grandmother was unable to recognize why these were issues for the parents and she showed limited insight and understanding regarding the consequences of many of her choices. The court was left with the impression that the grandmother was doing these things in a manner designed to instigate conflict in what appears to be a power struggle between her and the parents.

A further concern the court has with the grandmother’s evidence was that she failed to immediately disclose that she had new employment since September 2025 and now works part of the weekends. Also, she failed to disclose that there was an incident of conflict between two of her adult children when L. was there and she was at work that resulted in the police attending and removing and charging K., one of the children. This evidence came to light during the evidence of her other adult daughter, N., who was the victim of the assault and the person primarily responsible for caring for L. when the grandmother was working.

As a result of this omission, the grandmother re-took the stand and acknowledged that she now drives bus for the City of Brantford with a fluctuating schedule including nights and weekends. She used to drive a school bus during the weekdays. She acknowledged now working Friday nights to Saturday morning at 12:45 a.m. and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Her schedule will remain like this until the end of March 2026 when a new three-month schedule will begin. The schedules are chosen based on the seniority of employees.

The grandmother also acknowledged that while she was at work and L. was in bed on the weekend of February 20, 2026, that K., one of her adult children, assaulted her sibling N. and was arrested and removed from the home. K. is now under release terms, but she was unaware of what those terms were and whether she was prohibited from attending her home. The grandmother stated that she did not disclose this because L. remained asleep and was not affected. These are other examples of poor judgement on her part.

The concern for the court is that the grandmother chose not to disclose this to the parents previously, particularly her work schedule, and failed to disclose it in her evidence in-chief. It was only acknowledged after another of the grandmother’s witnesses provided the information. These were clearly relevant to the issues before the court, and I draw an adverse inference against the applicant for her failure to be forthright.

Having said that, I accept that the grandmother has a close and loving bond with L. and that she was spending time with R. and developing that bond with her before this time was cut-off by the parents in October 2023. Further, while all the parties, particularly the grandmother, have extensive child protection histories, there is no evidence that the applicant has not provided appropriate care for L. Despite the multitude of allegations made, the Society raised no concerns with the grandmother’s care of L. since the order, or with R. when it occurred in 2023.

The Voice of the Child Report for L. shows a child who enjoys spending time with her grandmother and the many appropriate activities while in her care. However, I agree with the Children’s Aid Society conclusion that the primary risk to the children is the level of conflict and mistrust between the parents and the grandmother which risks putting the children in the middle of the conflict and causing them emotional harm.

With respect to L., Section 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act provides the statutory authority to vary an existing order on the basis that there has been a material change in circumstances that affects, or is likely to affect, the best interests of the child. This requires that a two-stage process be conducted on motions to change (Gordon v. Goertz (1996) , 19 R.F.L. (4^th) 177 S.C.C.).

Firstly, the party applying for the change must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in circumstances affecting the child. Secondly, if that threshold is met, the court must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child having regard to all the relevant circumstances related to the child’s needs and the ability of the parties to satisfy them.

The change must have arisen since the making of the order or the last variation of the order. A change alone is not enough to justify a variation (K.M. v. J.R., 2021 ONSC 111). The change must materially affect the child, the parents, or both. Worsening or sustained conflict can constitute a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the child (Wreggitt v. Belanger, (ONCA)).

With respect to grandparents’ contact with grandchildren, the law can be summarized as follows: Grandparents do not have a legal right of contact to their grandchildren. The onus is on grandparents to show that contact is in the best interests of the children. The starting presumption is that deference should be given to the parents’ decision whether to award grandparent access to the child. It is always important to defer to the decisions of parents regarding their children (Chapman v. Chapman, (ONCA)).

However, deference is only accorded to those decisions which are reasonable and when they are being made in the children’s best interests (McLaughlin v. Huehn, 2004 ONCJ 426). Deference should be given generally to the parents’ decision regarding access to grandparents unless the following three questions are answered in the affirmative (Giansante v. DiChiaro , [2005] O.J. No. 3184 (SCJ)):

1. Does a positive grandparent/grandchild relationship already exist?

2. Does the parents’ decision imperil that relationship?

3. Has the parent or parents acted arbitrarily?

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held in B.F. v. A.N., 2024 ONCA 94, that the three questions posed are now the first part of the test to be followed by a determination of whether a contact order is in the best interests of the children. The OCA stated that if a court determines it will not defer to the parents’ wishes, the second part of the test requires the best interests analysis taking into account many factors including: The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with the grandparents and the history of the child’s care; the child’s needs, special needs; the grandparents’ willingness and ability to meet the child’s needs; their willingness and ability to cooperate with the child’s parents; and other factors.

Courts still retain discretion to order contact even if the three questions are not answered in the affirmative. In the case of Kirshenblatt v. Kirshenblatt, 2024 ONSC 2896, it was agreed an older sibling should have contact, and the court found it to be in a younger child’s best interests also to have contact. The court concluded that it might also be in a baby’s interest to have contact in the absence of a positive pre-existing relationship. That court wrote the following:

164The grandparents’ earlier positions highlight their fundamental misunderstanding of grandparent contact, particularly where children are raised by an intact family.

165When children are being raised by both parents and the test for contact is met, one visit per month may be reasonable or even less. In some instances, grandparent contact may mimic the type of contact that often follows an adoption, perhaps two, four, or six times a year.

166The goal is to maintain the positive connection between the grandparents, or other family members, through to young adulthood. Care must be taken to maintain these bonds in a way that does not interfere with the parents’ ability to raise their children free from interference as they see fit.

Any order for contact is made based solely on best interests, including those factors found in sub-section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, which I have considered.

Additional principles outlined in the caselaw include that the best interests of children are not merely paramount - they are the only consideration. The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents. No one factor in the statutory definition is given pre-eminence. The court must also consider the level of hostility and the extent to which that hostility may undermine the child’s stability. A starting point to assess a child’s interests when making orders is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. It is also in the child’s best interests when making orders that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe.

The claims made concerning L. are in a motion to change brought by the mother. A material change in circumstances is required for L. only. I find that there has been a material change in circumstances since the order of May 1, 2023.

Since the order, the parents are now back together and have another child. L. primary family and primary caregivers have changed from mother alone to mother and father, and she now has another sibling. Further, the terms of the order under review have proved unworkable. The sharing of information and conferring on major decisions, the sharing of third-party information, direct access to the grandmother to these third parties, notification in the case of emergency, and other terms have either not been followed, or have been the source of ongoing conflict.

The order requires a level of cooperation and communication that has not occurred and is not possible given the family dynamics. The level of distrust and conflict has remained high and has increased now that the power struggle between the parents and the grandmother includes all three children.

Further, the current schedule denies L. a reasonable opportunity to engage with her siblings, her parents and other family members and school friends. She is often not able to attend her school friends’ birthday parties or engage in extracurricular activities in her home or in her home community given the level of contact the parties agreed to in the order under review. She has other extended family who, along with her parents, get only one weekend per month together and half of holidays. For all these reasons, I find that a material change in circumstances has occurred.

Next, the court must determine what order, if any, is supported in the circumstances. As extended family, the applicant does not have a legal right of contact with her grandchildren. The parents’ decisions are entitled to deference, and the grandmother must displace this presumption. The test is always best interests, and the court will not lightly interfere with a parents’ decision on extended family contact unless it is satisfied there has been a wilful disregard of those interests. The onus is on the grandmother to establish that the parents’ decision should not be given deference and that the contact order she seeks serves the children’s interests. As the children have different needs, circumstances and histories of care, they will be addressed individually.

With respect to L., it is not disputed that she has a positive relationship with her grandmother. She lived with her for a period of time and spent significant time in her care pursuant to a voluntary service agreement with the Children’s Aid Society. The court order for contact from May 1, 2023 was made on consent and has continued. The Voice of the Child Report makes it clear that L. enjoys time with her grandmother and wants it to continue. The parents are not seeking to terminate the contact with L. but reduce it to one weekend per month.

It is clear the grandmother has a close and loving relationship with L. and that it is a relationship that L. values. They engage in extracurricular activities and outings with family and friends. Despite the risks to L. of the conflict between the grandmother and the parents, it is a relationship that benefits L. and should be maintained. However, the order under review contains extensive terms including contact for three out of four weekends and a sharing of holidays including the summer holiday which is not appropriate for L. at this time for the following reasons.

Three of four weekends per month is no longer appropriate for L. given the continuing dynamics between the households and her parents’ and siblings’ circumstances. Her parents are now together, and she has two siblings. Being away three of four weekends and half of all holidays does not appropriately balance the benefit she receives from her relationship with her grandmother and the opportunities for her to spend time with her parents and siblings as well as the maternal and paternal family that are estranged from the grandmother.

Despite the status quo and L.’s views and preferences as outlined in the Voice of the Child Report, the current order is no longer in L.’s best interests. Grandparents are not on an equal footing as parents. The applicant fails to appreciate L.’s needs with respect to her parents and siblings.

It is in L.’s best interests that she have one weekend per month with the grandmother. This will be Friday at five to Sunday at five. If she is working Friday night, it will commence Saturday morning at 9:00 a.m. The grandmother shall also have two days over the Christmas holiday from December 27to December 29, and one week in July with the regular weekend being extended from the Friday to the following Friday.

The grandmother will provide confirmation of her work schedule directly from her employer every three months, or when her schedule changes, and there will be other times as may be agreed between the parties.

The inclusion of the extensive terms for consultation, information sharing, and travel have proved unworkable and are, in fact, a source of conflict. The grandmother has overstepped her authority in the order by taking the child to medical appointments and then not notifying the parents right away. She does not have decision-making authority. If she felt that it was an emergency, it was incumbent upon her to forthwith contact the parents instead of waiting until she returned L. I find that the grandmother’s approach in this way has not been reasonable and was designed to provoke and instigate conflict, as part of her power struggle with the parents that appears to have persisted for most of L.’s life.

Further, I find that the grandmother either encouraged or did not address early on that L. called her “mom”. This was unfortunate and was likely confusing for L. and created ongoing conflict and mistrust with the parents. The grandmother should have handled that better and had L. call her “Nan”, as she does now, from the beginning. She knew or ought to have known that this would create conflict and I find that she did this, or failed to address it earlier, with the intention of upsetting the parents to support her in her power struggle that has been ongoing for several years. She has failed to accept the differing roles of a parent and grandparent. The collateral terms in the order of May 1, 2023 shall be rescinded in their entirety. It is not in L.’s best interests that the grandmother have further involvement in these areas.

Applying the law to R., as this is not a motion to change, a material change in circumstances is not required. This is an application in the first instance.

Firstly, does a positive grandparent/grandchild relationship exist? For the following reasons, I accept that there is. R. spent weekends with the grandmother and L. in 2023. I accept the grandmother’s evidence of the amount of time that she had.

Mother’s evidence on this point was inconsistent. She acknowledged in her testimony that when she stated in her pleadings that the grandmother only had one sleepover with R., that she was mistaken and that there may have been six visits.

Further, the mother acknowledges that there were times earlier on when R. asked to go with L. to visits with the grandmother. As of the date contact was cut-off in October 2023, R. had a positive relationship with the grandmother and she was able to engage in the activities that L. enjoyed with her grandmother, including family camping and other outings.

Secondly, I accept that the parents made decisions which imperiled that relationship. Mother was candid in her evidence that she allowed contact, including overnights, in an effort to convince the grandmother that they could make arrangements without a court order. She also acknowledged that she terminated all contact after October 2023. Further, the parents agreed on the record with Justice Neill on February 19, 2025 that they wanted to build a relationship with the children and the grandmother and agreed to terms which were not followed. They also acknowledged not following the further without prejudice order of Justice Neill in August 2025. This was not reasonable behaviour.

Finally, with respect to R., I find that the decision to terminate the contact with her grandmother was arbitrary. As previously noted, the volume of concerns raised by each party about the other over many years are largely unverified and I have not accepted them.

The issue then for R. is whether an order for contact with the grandmother would be in her best interests. I have no independent evidence of R.’s views and preferences. However, mother acknowledged that earlier on she asked if she could go with L. to the grandmothers. This is not unreasonable given that L. and R. are of similar age and have a close relationship. I am also satisfied that the grandmother can provide appropriate care for R. during her periods of contact as she does for L.. While there is a long history of allegations and verified protection concerns, there is no evidence from the CAS that substantiate that since the order of May 1, 2023 for L., and for when R. was visiting, that they were not appropriately cared for.

There are two primary concerns which militate against an order for contact:

1. The level of conflict; and

2. The examples of the applicant overstepping the bounds of a grandparent thereby undermining the parents.

The issue of the grandmother overstepping the bounds with respect to L. would also be a concern for R.. The grandmother engaged in a prolonged custody battle and has clearly had a hard time letting that go. She needs to recognize that she is a grandparent, not a primary caregiver, or decision-maker. As I said, if there is an emergency, she may need to take steps which must include contacting the parents without delay.

The level of conflict between the parties is also a particular concern for this court. The level of hostility is to an extent that could and likely has undermined the children’s best interests. The evidence was clear as family member after family member testified to a level of dysfunction, anger and mistrust that has spanned multiple generations in father’s family. There is no question on the evidence that the relations between the parties have been seriously strained. While I am of the view that all the parties share some level of responsibility, the nature, complexity and extent of the contact order for L. have made this worse. The current order has, in fact, had a destabilizing effect on the children’s home and has contributed to conflict, although I note that animosity does not necessarily preclude an order for contact.

I am of the view that contact arrangements for L. and R. may proceed without conflict if the schedule is fixed and simplified and the remaining terms related to information sharing and communicating are removed. To some extent all parties, particularly the grandmother, have let their emotions cloud their judgment in a manner that has not served the best interests of the children and has strained relationships within this family. However, it may also be said that the evidence was equally compelling that all the parties share a great love for the children. The applicant can offer R. the same opportunities as L. They are two years apart in age, seven and nine presently, and I find that the best interests of both children would be served by visiting the applicant together for that one weekend per month and the other times.

With respect to J., I come to a different conclusion. The following additional considerations are relevant: The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with the grandmother; the history of the child’s care; the child’s specific needs; the grandmother’s willingness and ability to meet those needs; and the grandmother’s willingness and ability to cooperate with the parents.

The applicant has no pre-existing relationship with J. and no history of caring for the child. She appears to have met him on a few occasions in the parents’ presence. He has just turned two and was born with significant health issues which required numerous blood transfusions and brain surgery. It was very clear during their evidence that both parents were under considerable stress with respect to J. given his vulnerable age and needs. Their level of vigilance is understandable in the circumstances.

I find that the level of conflict is manageable for the older children given their different ages and circumstances and provided that the appropriate schedule and terms are in place. However, I find that the level of conflict and distrust is not manageable for J. given his age and circumstances.

While I am not finding that the grandmother is incapable of providing care for J., I am finding that she, despite her assertions to the contrary, has a significant unwillingness and inability to cooperate and communicate with the parents. Given J.’s age and needs, cooperation and communication become more important and is simply not present in sufficient measure. This is not one of those cases where a contact order for a very young child would be in his best interests in the absence of any positive existing relationship with the grandmother.

In these circumstances I find that a contact order for J. would destabilize his family unit. A contact order for J., and even the prospect of an order, has and would cause anxiety and stress for the parents which would likely have a deleterious impact on J. The parents’ anxiety and hypervigilance regarding J. is legitimate given the following: His young age; his serious health complications; and the level of conflict and distrust with the grandmother. It would not be in J.’s best interests to have a contact order. His interests are best served by promoting his ongoing stability with his parents.

The applicant has not displaced the burden of establishing that the parents’ decision is not entitled to deference. Her claim for a contact order for J. is dismissed.

I am mindful that J. will not be on the same schedule as his older sisters. While not an issue now for him given his age, it may become an issue for him in years to come when he is older and starts asking questions similar to what R. has done. This future possibility does not support the making of a contact order for J. now when his circumstances, needs and the high level of conflict and mistrust between the parents and grandmother strongly militate against it.

The parties are encouraged to address these issues between them with professional assistance so that relationships may be mended. It must start with the grandmother recognizing her fundamental misunderstanding of her present role, particularly in circumstances where the children are being raised by an intact family. If she wants things to change, the grandmother needs to approach these matters differently and engage in the long process of reconciliation with the parents.

For oral reasons given, a final order shall issue as follows:

1. The order of May 1, 2023 is hereby rescinded in its entirety.

2. The applicant shall have contact with the children, L. and R., as follows:

a) The second weekend of each month from Friday at five to Sunday at five.

b) If the second weekend of the month falls on a holiday or a special occasion, the contact shall be moved to the following weekend at the sole discretion of the respondents.

c) If the applicant is working nights or during Friday evening, the contact shall commence Saturday morning at 9:00 a.m.

d) As the applicant is presently working nights, the contact shall commence Saturday morning at 9:00 a.m. until Sunday at 5:00 until the end of March 2026 and until such time as the applicant has provided confirmation from her employer of her new schedule.

e) The applicant will provide confirmation from her employer every three months and at any other time her work schedule changes.

f) The applicant shall have additional contact with the children in December each year from December 27^th at 4:00 p.m. to December the 29^th at 4:00 p.m.

g) The applicant’s contact in July each year shall be extended from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to the following Friday at 5:00 p.m.

h) Such further and other times as the parties may agree in advance.

3. The applicant’s contact shall be subject to the following terms:

a) The applicant shall be responsible for transportation to and from her contact and ensure that the children are dropped off at the times directed.

b) The applicant shall not attend the home of the respondents unless pursuant to the terms of this order or previous arrangements agreed to in advance by the parties.

c) The parties shall not expose the children to adult conflict or negative comments about the other party or their family.

d) The applicant will advise the respondents in advance of any change in her contact information.

e) The applicant will immediately advise the respondents of any emergency while the children are in her care.

4. The remainder of the claims, including the applicant’s claim for contact with J., are dismissed.

Given the divided success and the fact that the parties are self-represented, I am not inclined to order costs and there shall be no order as to costs.

...WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED