Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: FS-24-00107954-0000
Date: 2025-03-24

Between

S.M.
Applicant
Represented by Serena Lein and Aleksandra Malinkowska

-and-

N.E.
Respondent
Self-Represented

Heard: May 16, May 29, June 10, June 20, July 18, September 9, and October 28, 2024; January 15 and March 3, 2025.

Reasons for Judgment
LeMay J

Introduction

[1] The Applicant and the Respondent were married on July 14, 2013, and separated on October 17, 2023. There is one child of the marriage, R.S., who was born in early 2016.

[2] This matter has been before me for some time. The Applicant had seen R.S. in person for less than four hours between October 17, 2023, and May 1, 2024. Therefore, he brought a motion for parenting time back in May of 2024. Although the Respondent was served with the materials for this motion, she did not attend at the motion. On May 16, 2024, I ordered parenting time to commence and set out a schedule. The Respondent ignored these Orders.

[3] The Respondent ignored two further Orders in respect of parenting time between May 16, 2024, and June 20, 2024, and failed to file an answer to the Applicant’s application in spite of being directed to do so. The Respondent ignored these orders in spite of the fact that the police served one of the Orders on her and told her about the importance of coming to Court. Finally, on June 20, 2024, I made an order giving the Applicant sole decision-making authority for R.S. and limiting the Respondent to supervised access. I also set out a process for the Applicant to receive exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. Finally, I ordered that an undefended trial was to take place on the financial issues.

[4] The Respondent brought a motion to set aside the undefended trial. She has also, at most of the appearances she has been at, been seeking an order returning R.S. to her care and returning exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to her.

[5] For the reasons that follow, the Respondent’s motion to set aside the order for an undefended trial and/or for leave to file her Answer and Financial statement is dismissed. The Applicant had already filed his materials for the undefended trial. As a result, I have addressed the financial issues based on the materials that I have before me. The Court will continue to manage the parenting issues between now and trial. However, it is anticipated that there will be no change to the fact that the Applicant has sole decision-making authority for R.S. prior to trial.

Background

a) The Parties and the Relationship

[6] The Applicant is currently 39 years old. He holds a commerce degree from a university in India and holds an active CPA licence from the State of Montana. He currently works as a contract employee in the accounting business.

[7] The Respondent is currently 40 years old. She holds an MBA and has worked in project management in a number of jobs in India, the United States and Canada.

[8] The parties were in a relationship for approximately six years before they got married on July 14, 2013. There is one child of the marriage, R.S., who was born in February of 2016. He is currently 9 years old.

[9] The parties separated on October 17, 2023. At the time of separation, the Respondent filed a criminal complaint against the Applicant, which resulted in him being charged. The Applicant was released on bail, and his bail conditions included not coming within 200 meters of the matrimonial home, or of anywhere that the Respondent lived, worked or is known to be.

[10] I should, at this point, briefly set out the allegations of domestic violence. The Respondent alleges that the Applicant engaged in domestic violence during the marriage. She has filed, in a number of Affidavits, pictures of holes in walls that she says were caused by the Applicant punching walls. She has also filed a picture of a clock that was pulled off the wall by the Applicant. There are no further specifics of these allegations.

[11] The Applicant denies the allegations but acknowledges that there was tension in the marriage. On his evidence, the tensions were caused by the Respondent withdrawing into herself after the COVID-19 pandemic had started and consuming cannabis edibles on a regular basis.

b) The Events Up to July 2024

[12] Given that, at the time of separation, R.S. was seven, the Applicant’s bail conditions made it difficult for the Applicant to contact him as well. However, the bail conditions permitted third-parties or legal counsel to contact the Respondent to arrange “child custody”.

[13] As a result of the criminal charges, the Peel Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) investigated. They concluded that R.S. had been exposed to conflict between the Applicant and the Respondent and observed that it was hoped that “with the support of the lawyers, the parents can have a separation agreement that will give them some peace, and peace to the child knowing how often he’ll spend time” with each of his parents. The CAS did not identify any child protection concerns, as far as I am aware.

[14] In November of 2023, the Applicant had some friends send text messages to the Respondent in order to try and arrange parenting time with R.S. The Respondent contacted the police and complained that the Applicant was breaching his bail conditions. The police advised the Applicant of this complaint and also advised him that he had not violated the conditions of his release.

[15] In her November 22, 2024, Affidavit, the Respondent states that her counsel had proposed 50/50 parenting time as far back as October of 2023. However, the Respondent did not, as far as I can see, provide any documentation to support that assertion. As will be seen, this assertion is inconsistent with the evidence I received, including e-mails from the Respondent, and I reject it.

[16] Given that the Applicant had not had any parenting time, he commenced this Application at the end of January 2024. The Respondent retained counsel, who accepted service of the Application. The Respondent did not file an Answer or a Form 13.1 or a Form 35.1 Affidavit. Her counsel consented to an early case conference date of March 25, 2024, having refused dates in February of 2024.

[17] However, on February 28, 2024, the counsel who had been acting for the Respondent wrote a disengagement letter and advised that they were no longer acting for her. She remained self-represented until shortly before the motion to set aside the order for a default judgment was brought. She had counsel who appeared on that motion on a limited retainer but has not otherwise been directly involved in this case.

[18] On March 12, 2024, the Respondent sent an e-mail to the Applicant about parenting time. Given the Respondent’s explanation for not participating in this process before September of 2024, it is worth reproducing the parts of this e-mail that deal with parenting time:

Parenting time has been sporadic due to the inability to have direct conversations with opposition and multiple third parties being involved proposing different schedules. As mentioned previously [R.S.] has full access to his iPad and is allowed to make calls when he feels like it.

I have been busy with multiple priorities on my end and I can respond to your clients notice by the 5th or 10th of April prior to the in-person case conference on the 16th of April. Since the early case conference is only to address parenting time hope this works. I would like to address all issues and then get to parenting time due to the pending charges against your client and his bail conditions. Let me know if you still would like to have the case conference on the 25th of March, since it would be futile in my opinion.

Ms. Priya Christy has been mediating on some of these open issues with your client and these points were communicated as well. Due to the assault, I am concerned with the place [R.S.] will be meeting your client and I would like to see where he will be staying and likes. Which is possible only after your client's bail conditions change. After other issues are discussed and resolved we could decide on how parenting time needs to be accommodated. I would appreciate it if this is clearly communicated to your client to avoid multiple back and forth on the same topic, since the meetings are dependent on the availability of multiple third parties it makes it difficult to coordinate with my current schedule and your client's frequent business trips.

If you do recall Ms. Janta did send over the proposed schedule that we could start with for parenting time way back in Nov if I am right, which your client disregarded and sent a whole new schedule. So, it is not like parenting time was disregarded all together. While your client is proposing a certain schedule through his legal counsel, I receive a whole new schedule from Ms. Priya who has been trying to mediate.

In order for [R.S.] to have a smooth transition I would appreciate it if we can resolve all matters at hand before going ahead with parenting time. I acknowledge that while this is still important, having the best interest of the child in mind it would be better if we can bin this for later, since he has been through a tough phase with the way the separation went.

[19] This e-mail makes numerous references to the other issues having to be resolved before parenting time could be discussed. The Respondent also suggested that the Early Case Conference would be a waste of time in spite of the fact that there had been almost no parenting time for several months. From this e-mail, it is easy to infer that the Respondent was not, at this point, prepared to permit any in-person parenting time.

[20] The Applicant had made significant efforts to attempt to obtain some in-person parenting time both through a friend of the Respondent’s and through the work of his counsel. It is sufficient for these reasons to note that these efforts were considerable, were within the Applicant’s bail conditions and were, with one exception, generally ignored by the Respondent.

[21] Although I do not intend to review all of these e-mails, one will suffice to illustrate the problem. On January 12, 2024, through his counsel, the Applicant suggested the names of several third-parties who could facilitate parenting time. Several names were suggested. The Respondent facilitated one in-person parenting time visit on February 19, 2024, but otherwise did not agree to a parenting plan, as set out in her March 12, 2024, e-mail.

[22] An early case conference was held before Bloom J. on March 25, 2024. The Respondent did not attend that case conference and filed no materials. As a result, Bloom J. ordered that motions could proceed and noted that the Applicant intended to proceed with an urgent motion.

[23] There were then some problems with filing the Applicant’s urgent motion materials. Ultimately, Wilkinson J. ordered that an urgent motion could proceed as part of the regular motions list on May 16, 2024. That motion came before me as part of a regular motions list.

[24] The Respondent did not attend at that motion in spite of the fact that she was properly served with the Applicant’s materials. At that hearing, the Applicant was seeking sole decision-making authority for R.S., as well as a transference of R.S.’s primary residence to him. I declined to order that relief.

[25] However, I did observe that I had grave concerns with the Respondent’s approach to this case as, given the Applicant’s evidence, he and R.S. had a close relationship before separation, and it was in R.S.’s best interests to have parenting time with the Applicant. Further, although there were domestic violence allegations in this case, the Applicant denied them, and the Respondent had not filed any materials. Therefore, there was no evidence before me to substantiate any of the domestic violence allegations. Finally, the CAS had investigated the situation and had not substantiated any child protection issues.

[26] In making my orders, I also did not want to disrupt R.S.’s routine. However, it was essential that parenting time start as it had been months since the Applicant had had any parenting time. To that end, I ordered as follows:

a) A graduated parenting time schedule that would have had the Applicant have parenting time for a Tuesday evening and then overnights on Saturday night.

b) The transfers for the parenting time to be conducted through a friend of the Applicant who had a son who had played with R.S. in the past.

c) Orders directing the Respondent to provide the Applicant with information, and particularly information about R.S.’s extracurricular activities.

[27] In my endorsement, I also warned the Respondent that there was a real risk that, if she did not comply with my orders, I would be left with no choice but to give the Applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residency of R.S. and leave the question of how much parenting time the Respondent received in the discretion of the Applicant.

[28] I also directed that my endorsement, and the accompanying order, be served on the Respondent. I understand that they were duly served on the Respondent by both courier and e-mail. Finally, I directed that the matter come back before me on May 29, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.

[29] When the matter came before me on May 29, 2024, the Applicant had made further efforts to attempt to arrange the parenting time that I had ordered. The Respondent had not taken any steps to facilitate that parenting time. She also failed to attend the May 29, 2024, ZOOM hearing.

[30] In her responses to the text messages about parenting time for R.S., the Respondent accused the Applicant’s friend of harassing her. She then stated that “I will take care of [R.S.] and him meeting or not meeting his dad. Thank you.” At the point that she sent these messages, the Respondent had been served with my Order and endorsement of May 16, 2024. She was, at that point, well aware that I had ordered parenting time.

[31] At the hearing on May 29, 2024, I observed that the Respondent was no longer in a position where she gets to decide whether R.S. has parenting time with the Applicant or not. The amount of parenting time for the Applicant was now my decision. I reconfirmed the orders I had already made on parenting time (see paragraph 26). I observed that the Respondent had been given another opportunity to advance her claims of domestic violence and had provided no information. Finally, I advised that there would be another hearing on June 10, 2024.

[32] At my direction, counsel for the Applicant served the materials from the May 16 and 29, 2024, motion on the Respondent by personal service. There was no response from the Respondent, and parenting time did not take place. The Court also provided the endorsements to the Respondent by e-mail on the day that they were issued.

[33] In my May 29, 2024, endorsement, I advised the parties that, in addition to the June 10, 2024, appearance, I would be tentatively scheduling a June 20, 2024, appearance. That appearance would only proceed if the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with parenting time. In my endorsement, I set out what I anticipated would happen if the June 20, 2024, hearing was necessary:

[22] I should explain what I anticipate happening at the June 20, 2024 hearing. If parenting time has not taken place in accordance with my directions by that point, then I will likely be granting the Applicant’s request for a change in [R.S.]’s primary residency.

[23] A lack of compliance on the part of the Respondent will also leave me with no choice but to conclude that the Respondent cannot act in [R.S.]’s best interests. If I am left with that conclusion, then I may be required to reduce parenting time with the Respondent to supervised parenting time.

[24] If these directions are made on June 20, 2024, then I will be enforcing them through both Peel Police and through [R.S.]’s school. The Respondent is STRONGLY encouraged to get counsel and participate in this proceeding.

[34] My May 29, 2024, endorsement also sets out the consequences if the Respondent did not serve, file and upload her Answer. I advised her that, if that was not completed by June 19, 2024, then I would direct that an undefended trial would take place before me shortly thereafter. I advised her that I would deal with equalization, NFP, disposition of the matrimonial home, her income for all purposes and spousal support without any further input from her if the Answer was not filed by June 19, 2024.

[35] I also requested that the CAS conduct a wellness check on R.S. The CAS was specifically authorized by me to advise the Respondent that this wellness check was being conducted at my request, “as the Court is concerned for [R.S.]’s well-being while in her care.” I had hoped that an unannounced visit from the CAS at the Court’s direction might have persuaded the Respondent to follow the Court’s direction. Unfortunately, that approach did not work.

[36] A further hearing was duly held on June 10, 2024. The Respondent failed to attend that hearing. There had been no communication between the Respondent and either the Applicant’s counsel or the Applicant’s friend in the intervening time. Needless to say, the parenting time had not taken place at that point.

[37] As a result, on June 10, 2024, I made further orders, as follows:

a) The parenting time orders I had made on May 16, 2024, continued to apply.

b) A further appearance would be held on June 20, 2024. It was to be in person.

c) The Peel Regional Police (“PRP”) were to attend at the Respondent’s residence, conduct a wellness check on R.S. and provide the Respondent with a bench warrant with discretion requiring her attendance on June 20, 2024.

d) I reminded the Respondent that, if parenting time had not taken place by June 20, 2024, I would likely be concluding that the Respondent could not act in R.S.’s best interests and that the changes set out at paragraph 33 must be made.

e) I reminded the Respondent in detail of the consequences of not filing her Answer.

f) I reminded the Respondent that, if she failed to adhere to the parenting time Order, I might be giving the Applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, pending its disposition.

[38] At my direction, the June 10, 2024, order and endorsement were served on the Respondent personally by the Applicant’s counsel. Personal service was necessary because, in addition to the various issues mentioned above, there was a real risk that the Respondent would be found in contempt of court if she did not comply with my Orders. This personal service was separate from the delivery of the Order and wellness check by the PRP.

[39] The PRP duly conducted the wellness check that I had requested on June 17, 2024, at approximately 10:10 p.m. They met with the Respondent and, based on the e-mail that was filed from the PRP, I am given to understand that the Respondent was given “the endorsed family case conference”, which I took to mean the Order I had made. The Respondent was also told about the importance of attending Court on June 20, 2024, and the potential consequences of not attending on that day. In response, she stated that she could not drop her child off and be there for 9:30 a.m. She was told to contact the Court office or send an e-mail to counsel for the Applicant.

[40] On June 20, 2024, the hearing proceeded as scheduled. The Respondent did not attend although she was paged to the Courtroom several times between 9:30 a.m. and 10:20 a.m. when I adjourned Court. There was also no communication of any type from the Respondent to the Court, at least that I am aware of.

[41] As a result of the Respondent’s non-attendance, I determined that she had lost her ability to participate in the financial issues in this case, and I directed that an undefended trial could take place.

[42] In respect of R.S., I made the following orders:

a) The Applicant was to have interim sole-decision making authority for R.S.

b) The Respondent was required to turn over all of R.S.’s documentation to the Applicant and was to provide him with all information on R.S.’s extracurricular activities.

c) The Respondent’s parenting time was reduced to supervised parenting time at an access centre, with that time to be arranged and paid for by the Respondent.

d) The Respondent had restrictions on her ability to be near R.S., or any location where he would be known to be, outside of her supervised access because of the Applicant’s bail conditions.

e) The Orders became effective at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, June 21, 2024, and to ensure that the Respondent did not abscond with R.S., she was not to be notified of those orders until that time.

f) R.S.’s school was informed of these orders in advance and advised that they must implement the order by releasing R.S. into the Applicant’s custody only starting on June 21, 2024.

g) R.S. was to have his primary residency with the Applicant.

h) Effective July 3, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. the Applicant was to have sole possession of the matrimonial home.

i) Finally, I directed that a further appearance be held before me on July 18, 2024, at 9:45 a.m. for the purposes of addressing the undefended trial and the issue of the Respondent’s contempt.

[43] On June 25, 2024, I was advised that the Respondent was engaged in inappropriate efforts to contact both R.S. and the Respondent. As a result, on July 3, 2024, I issued an interim restraining order against the Respondent.

[44] That restraining order did not have any noticeable effect on the Respondent. Between July 3, 2024, and July 16, 2024, she sent the Applicant numerous text messages, visited his home unannounced and, on one occasion, demanded to know where R.S. was.

[45] On a separate occasion, she actually found R.S. in the house, took some of his belongings and put them in her car, and insisted that R.S. go for a walk with her alone. She also told R.S. that he should be coming with her. The PRP were contacted on more than one occasion but did not do anything about this as they understood, incorrectly, that the restraining order was not effective as it had not been issued by the Court.

[46] As a result of this conflict, the Applicant did not take possession of the matrimonial home prior to the hearing on July 18, 2024.

[47] The hearing before me proceeded on July 18, 2024. The Respondent did not attend at that hearing either. At the hearing on July 18, 2024, I ordered as follows:

a) A further hearing would be held on September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.

b) A bench warrant without discretion was to issue to compel the Respondent’s attendance on that day.

c) The bench warrant was to be executed at the matrimonial home, R.S.’s identification documents were to be seized when that warrant was executed and turned over to the Applicant.

d) The Applicant was to be given sole possession of the matrimonial home when the bench warrant was executed.

e) I extended the temporary restraining order that had been issued against the Respondent, as she had been very aggressive in her efforts to contact R.S. and the Applicant, contrary to both my directions and the Applicant’s bail conditions.

[48] There were no further appearances until September 9, 2024. At that point, the Respondent started to attend at these proceedings. However, in the intervening time, the Respondent was arrested on July 24, 2024, and the Applicant was given exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

c) The Events During and After September 2024

[49] On September 9, 2024, a further hearing was held. For the first time, the Respondent attended that hearing. She was self-represented. At that time, the Respondent had wanted to explain why she had not been attending Court or complying with the Court’s orders. I advised her that there was a prima facie basis for concluding that she was in contempt of court and that it would be in her best interests to obtain legal counsel before she provided an explanation for her conduct. I re-emphasized this caution once the Respondent began providing explanations that were inconsistent with the evidence the Applicant had already provided.

[50] At the hearing in September, I also adjourned the undefended trial to a date in October. This was done to afford the Respondent an opportunity to retain counsel, consider her position, and provide an explanation for her non-participation. I would then consider that explanation in deciding whether to set aside the order for the undefended trial.

[51] I also confirmed with the Applicant’s counsel that they were not seeking a finding of contempt per se but were seeking remedies under Rule 1.8(a)(1) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, as. am., which had come into effect on June 24, 2024. Those remedies included fines and costs.

[52] At the hearing on September 9, 2024, the Respondent also expressed concerns that she had not seen R.S. since July. I pointed out to her that she had unilaterally withheld R.S. from the Applicant for a period of some months and, more importantly, I did not have her Form 35.1 setting out information about parenting time and decision-making. All of these issues were adjourned to October 28, 2024. A timetable for the exchange of further materials was set.

[53] On October 24, 2024, the Respondent swore an Affidavit that was subsequently filed with the Court. This Affidavit stated as follows (at para. 4):

4. Although it is my own actions which has caused the circumstances in this proceeding to be escalated to this point where I may be found in contempt and/or for an undefended trial to proceed without my participation, I am seeking permission from this Honourable Court to allow me to serve and file my Answer, Financial Statement and Form 35.1 Affidavit in whatever timeframe this Court deems acceptable in order for me to actively participant in this proceeding.

[54] The Affidavit goes on to advise that the Respondent is currently unemployed and that she will advise the Applicant when she gets a job. She also asks for the ability to purchase the matrimonial home and for parenting time with R.S. At this point in her Affidavit, the request is for equal parenting time and joint decision-making authority. The Affidavit does not explain why the Respondent unilaterally prevented the Applicant from having parenting time for eight months or why she ignored numerous Court orders and endorsements.

[55] On October 28, 2024, a further hearing was held. At that time, I pointed out the deficiencies in the Respondent’s explanation for her failure to follow Court orders. The Respondent was represented by counsel on a limited scope retainer at this hearing. The Respondent’s counsel has not appeared, or otherwise been involved in this matter, since. At this hearing, I did not determine the issue of whether the Order undefended trial should be set aside. I noted that the Applicant had provided a Statement of Law and I determined that the Respondent should be given that entitlement as well. A timetable for written materials was established.

[56] At this hearing, the parties adjourned the parenting issues and agreed on a schedule for supervised parenting visits for the Respondent at Brayden Supervision Services. The parties were advised that they could contact my judicial assistant if there were any issues in respect of parenting time between appearances.

[57] I did not receive the Respondent’s submissions on the undefended trial in accordance with the timetable I had set. Instead, my judicial assistant received a series of e-mails from the Respondent, many of which were not copied to the other side. The first e-mail was sent November 6, 2024, not copied to the other side, and asked for an extension without explaining why an extension was sought. The next e-mail was sent on November 8, 2024, again not copied to the other side. This e-mail stated “I don’t think I have any arguments to submit. Please inform LeMay.”

[58] Then, just before noon on November 18, 2024, the Respondent sent two e-mails. The first one was not sent to the other side. It asked for directions as to how to file her materials. In this e-mail, the Respondent also indicated that she had been victimized and that she had lost access to her property and her child as a result of that victimization. This was followed up with a second email on the evening of November 18, 2024, that stated, in part:

I would like to give you a quick brief on this case and point out that opposition is using unacceptable means to gain custody of my son Reyan and property and my ex is withholding my child from me.

Opposition is filing restraining orders at court to withhold my child from contact me and from parenting time baselessly without any background.

They have also requested for restraining orders against accessing my joint property at 2717 Lindholm Crescent and my ex's property at 4291 Phesant Run (the property at which the applicant was residing in after the separation) and from my child's school. I would like to know the grounds on which these restraining orders have been issued.

[59] The e-mail goes on to note that the Respondent wants to move back to the matrimonial home and that “only the police can file restraining order at the time of an assault.” She also noted that the Applicant was “unavailable from Dec thru April for proposed parenting time on multiple occasions due to his frequent business trips and higher education.” This comment is inconsistent with the other evidence that I have, including other e-mails from the Respondent such as her March 12, 2024 e-mail, reproduced at paragraph 18. I will return to that inconsistency below.

[60] As a result of these e-mails, I set a follow-up appearance for January 15, 2025. I provided the Respondent with the Guide for Self-Represented Litigants. I also extended the time limits for submissions on the undefended trial to early December 2024. As a result of the Christmas holidays, I did not get an opportunity to make a decision on the undefended trial issues before the appearance on January 15, 2025. However, on December 18, 2024, my assistant received an e-mail from the Respondent in which she indicated that she was “scheduling a zoom conference to pass a motion as requested by Justice LeMay” and asked for my contact information. My assistant declined to provide her with any contact information.

[61] On January 13, 2025, the Respondent uploaded an Affidavit and a Notice of Motion to CaseLines. The notice of motion requests:

a) An order for shared decision-making authority.

b) An order for the Respondent to decide on the parenting schedule for R.S. based on R.S.’s schedule.

c) An order for the Respondent to “regain access” to the matrimonial home.

d) An order for the Applicant to cover child support and living expenses and to cover the expenses for the matrimonial home until the Respondent finds a job.

e) An order for the Applicant to attend and pay for mediation services to resolve the property issues.

[62] This notice of motion was accompanied by an Affidavit. I will return to the relevant portions of the Affidavit in my analysis of the issues below.

[63] This notice of motion was discussed at the case conference on January 15, 2025. We considered the issue of parenting time as well as the relief the Respondent was seeking in respect of the matrimonial home. I indicated that, since the Applicant and R.S. had travelled (with Court permission) to India over Christmas, there was not a sufficient body of reports from the third-party supervisors to ensure that access was proceeding smoothly. As a result, supervised access would continue until the next appearance on February 28, 2025.

[64] The relief in respect of the matrimonial home was dismissed for the reasons set out in my previous endorsements. I advised the parties that I viewed the remainder of the relief as a motion to set aside the decision to grant an undefended trial, and that I would duly consider the materials in this motion in making my decision on the undefended trial. I also set a further timetable for materials, even though I had previously set a timetable that had not been complied with by the Respondent.

[65] Throughout my discussion of the undefended trial, I had also advised the parties that, if I did not permit the Respondent to participate in the financial issues in this case, I would be proceeding to make a decision on the financial issues as the Applicant filed his Affidavit for an undefended trial back in the summer of 2024.

[66] In spite of my January 15, 2025, endorsement, the Respondent served another notice of motion. This was for a motion that was purportedly returnable on February 4, 2025, and appeared to be before any judge of the Court. The motion sought the same relief as was sought in paragraph 61, above with one exception. The exception was that the Respondent sought sole decision-making authority over R.S.

[67] As a result of this motion, I released an endorsement on January 21, 2025. In that endorsement, I noted that the Respondent either misunderstood my rulings on this matter or that she was attempting to circumvent them. Either way, I determined that her motion would not proceed and that she required leave from me to bring any further motions. I also advised the parties that the hearing scheduled for February 28, 2025, would need to be moved. It was moved to March 3, 2025.

[68] I received materials from both parties in respect of the undefended trial. At the hearing on March 3, 2025, we established a process for unsupervised access. Given the Applicant’s bail conditions, a third party is required to be involved in the access exchanges. The Applicant advised that, given the events that have happened in this case, his friends were not prepared to act as supervisors for the exchange visits. The Respondent was asked to provide an Affidavit from a friend who was prepared to supervise the exchanges.

[69] This Affidavit was not provided in a sworn and useable format. All that was provided was a name and a contact number for a friend of the Respondent’s who might be prepared to facilitate the exchanges. However, the Applicant worked with the Respondent’s friend to ensure that unsupervised parenting time could proceed. He was not obligated to do this, but unsupervised parenting has begun. A further hearing is scheduled for April 28, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

[The remainder of the judgment continues with detailed analysis, findings, and orders as in the original text, with all original wording preserved and formatted for clarity and readability.]

Released: March 24, 2025

LeMay J