Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Court File No.: FC-23-2041
Motion Heard: 2025-07-09

Re: Manjinder Singh, Applicant
– and –
Hardeep Kaur, Respondent

Before: Associate Justice Kamal
Counsel: Julie Gravelle, for the Applicant
Winifred Stow-Wilson, for the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

Overview

1. In this motion, the Court must consider allegations of family violence, including alleged family violence by the Applicant’s parents towards the Respondent. Family violence can be perpetrated by non-litigants, and its impact may still need to be considered by the Court.

2. The Applicant father brings this motion asking the court to make an interim parenting order that each parent shall have equal time with their daughter.

3. A Punjabi interpreter was present to assist the mother.

4. The Applicant father’s position is that each of the parents have two rotating days with the child and then each shall have a weekend on an alternating basis (2-2-3).

5. The Respondent mother opposes a 2-2-3 schedule because she says she has been the child’s primary caregiver during the marriage and since separation, and because of her concerns regarding family violence.

6. The Respondent mother’s proposal for the Applicant’s parenting time changed over the course of the motion. At the determination of urgency, the Respondent was only agreeable to supervised parenting time by the father. On her own initiative, she backed away from that position and started providing the Applicant father unsupervised parenting time, including overnights. In her affidavit dated May 30, 2025, the Respondent proposed that the Applicant’s parenting time be every weekend from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and every Wednesday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

7. At the motion, the Respondent’s position was that the child primarily reside with her and the Applicant father’s parenting time should be as follows:

   a. Alternate weekends, from Friday at 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m.; and
   b. One weekday overnight visit per week, from Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. until Thursday at 8:00 a.m.

8. There was no explanation provided for the Respondent’s most recent change in position, particularly a decrease from her previous position.

9. For the reasons that follow, the Applicant’s parenting time shall be every weekend from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and every Wednesday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

10. Additionally, this case raises the issue of family violence by extended family members. This Court condemns any behavior, including that of extended family members, that amounts to family violence and coercive control within a family unit.

Background Facts

During the Marriage

11. The parties were married on March 29, 2022 after being introduced through a “marriage broker”. They first separated on October 25, 2023, but reconciled in January 2024. They resided together as a family until April 11, 2025, when the Respondent left the home with the child. The Applicant’s parents resided in the home for a period of time, until February 2025.

12. The Applicant states that he has been a consistently involved and hands-on parent since the child’s birth. He cooked for her, fed her, changed her diapers, bathed her, soothed her to sleep, and arranged and attended to all her medical/dental needs. The Respondent frequently deferred to the Applicant when the child was unsettled, and on many occasions, she would call him to come home from work because the child would not eat, nap, or breastfeed unless he was there.

13. The Respondent says that she was the primary caregiver for the child and was solely responsible for meeting her day-to-day needs, including feeding, bathing, comforting, and managing her daily routine.

14. For a period of time during the marriage, the Applicant’s parents resided with the parties.

15. The evidence is clear that the extended family played a role in the child’s upbringing.

16. The Applicant’s parents left in February 2025 to reduce tension between them and the Respondent.

The Circumstances Since Separation

17. On April 11, 2025, the Respondent left the matrimonial home with the child, without informing the Applicant of her whereabouts. The Respondent submits that she left the home with the child because she was fleeing from domestic violence.

18. It is now known that the Respondent is residing at a shelter with the child, but she has not disclosed the shelter location or address.

19. Since the Respondent left the matrimonial home, the Applicant has had the following parenting time:

• May 10, 2025 – Two-hour supervised visit at McDonald's, supervised by the Respondent and her friend Keith.
• May 12, 2025 – A brief half-hour daycare visit attended by both parties, after which the Respondent refused to proceed with enrollment.
• May 14, 2025 – Two-hour supervised birthday visit at Bubblesea Adventures, supervised by the Respondent.
• May 18, 2025 – Two-hour visit supervised by the Respondent at McDonald’s.
• May 24, 2025: Three-hour unsupervised visit in the community.
• May 26, 2025: The parties attended the child's dental appointment at Shifa Dentistry (a dental appointment requested by the Applicant for the child).
• May 31–June 2: First overnight visit.
• June 3: Daycare visit (4:00–8:00 p.m.).
• June 4: Three-hour unsupervised visit.
• June 6–8: Weekend visit.
• June 11: Three-hour unsupervised visit.
• June 13–15: Weekend visit.
• June 18: Three-hour unsupervised visit.
• June 20-22, 2025: Overnight weekend parenting.
• June 24, 2025: Three-hour unsupervised visit.
• June 27-29, 2025: Overnight weekend parenting.
• July 4-6: Overnight weekend parenting.

20. The Respondent enrolled the child in an undisclosed daycare program. This is despite the fact that the parties had secured a spot at a culturally aligned daycare in the Barrhaven area, close to the matrimonial home. The daycare staff speak Punjabi, share the family’s cultural values, and are known in the community.

21. The Applicant’s parents have now returned to Canada and are once again living with him to assist with parenting responsibilities and the child’s well-being.

Allegations of Family Violence

22. The Respondent makes allegations of family violence against the Applicant and his parents.

23. The Respondent submits that the relationship was marked by a long-standing pattern of domestic violence, coercion, and manipulation.

24. On October 25, 2023, the Respondent called the police due to abuse by the Applicant and his parents. The Applicant was charged with assault and choking on October 26, 2023, and a restraining order was issued. The Respondent later supported the withdrawal of the charges due to family pressure and his promise to change. CAS was subsequently involved for a brief period of time.

25. The Respondent says the abuse continued after the parties reconciled in January 2024.

26. The evidence is also clear that there was tension between the Respondent and the Applicant’s parents. The evidence details incidents of verbal conflict between the Respondent and the Applicant's parents. They made caste-based insults towards the Respondent. At times, they threatened to seek 50/50 custody if the Respondent left, and told her that she had no right to stay in Canada. The Applicant's parents threatened the Respondent physically.

27. The Applicant baldly denies the allegations of family violence. However, the Applicant acknowledges that there was tension in the home between his parents and the Respondent. The basis of this tension, from the Applicant’s perspective, is a series of private messages he viewed between the Respondent and her family that made statements to the effect that she would obtain her permanent residence and then divorce the Applicant, and a discussion about the Respondent taking money from the Applicant.

Legal Principles

28. Any proceeding with respect to children is determined with respect to the best interests of the particular child before the court in accordance with the considerations set out in section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. The court has considered these factors, where relevant.

29. Subsection 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform 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.

30. The ‘best interests’ test is a flexible and fact-driven exercise, tailored to the needs and circumstances of the child whose well-being is under consideration. See: Lang v. Qureshi, 2025 ONSC 585.

31. Case-by-case consideration of the unique circumstances of each child is the hallmark of the process. Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60; O’Connor v. Duguay, 2023 ONSC 2374.

32. Subsection 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:

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;
(d) the history of care of the child;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

33. In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3)(j), the court shall take into account:

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;
(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;
(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;
(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;
(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;
(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;
(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
(h) any other relevant factor.

34. The list of best interests considerations is not exhaustive. The list does not prioritize any one criterion over another, with the exception of the primary consideration. No single criterion is determinative, and the weighting for each criterion will depend on the circumstances of the particular child. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41. 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. See: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480. An 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. See: Mokhov v. Ratayeva, 2021 ONSC 5454.

35. In S.S. v. R.S., 2021 ONSC 2137, the Court states “[a] human rights-based approach to the amended Divorce Act calls on the Courts to recognize, respect and reflect each child as an individual distinct from their parents, and to empower children to be actors in their own destiny. In practice, it requires judges to probe into each child’s lived experience, to meaningfully consider their views and preferences, and to craft an order that promotes that child’s best interests and overall wellbeing.” I also apply these considerations under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

36. Parenting orders are fact-specific. Each case turns on its own unique circumstances. Gordon v. Goertz; N.S. v. A.N.S., 2021 ONSC 5283. The court’s function is not to pronounce on what is in the best interests of all children in a general sense, but rather what is in the best interests of the child before the court. See: A.P. v. P.P., 2021 ONSC 6540.

37. Pursuant to section 24(6) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, in making an order for parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

38. This provision does not override the best interests analysis. Rather, it is part of the best interests analysis. Lang v. Qureshi, 2025 ONSC 585.

39. There is no presumption of equal time-sharing of children after parents separate. Bembenek v. Bembenek, 2019 ONSC 4050; K.M. v. J.R., 2022 ONSC 111; B. v. W., 2022 ONSC 934. There is no presumption that having as much contact as possible with both parents will necessarily be in the best interests of the child. Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22.

40. A child-focused approach is required, with an important goal of achieving as much parenting time as possible with each parent, so long as it is consistent with the child’s best interests. It may end up being equal time. It may end up being some other division of time. Each family is different, and the principle is a general guide set out to benefit children. Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305; R.F. v. J.W., 2021 ONCA 528; Agboola v. Unoh, 2024 ONSC 6191.

41. Frequent and meaningful parenting time is necessary for the formation and continued development of healthy attachments between young children and their parents. P.C.P. v. L.C.P., 2013 ONSC 2564; Bazinet v. Bazinet, 2020 ONSC 3187; Burley v. Bradley, 2019 ONCJ 624; Rajani v. Rajani, 2021 ONSC 4784.

42. The allocation of time must address both quantitative and qualitative considerations. Parenting time entails more than simply one-on-one parent and child interaction. It includes parental responsibility and involvement with respect to all aspects of the child’s life - throughout the child’s schedule - including school-related matters, extra-curricular activities, and other events. S.K. v. D.P., 2022 ONSC 2359; B.M. v. D.M., 2023 ONSC 2068.

43. The most appropriate allocation of time in any given situation will depend on many factors, including the child's age, temperament, stage of development, the relevant schedules and commitments of the child and each parent, and any other considerations relevant to the determination of the child's best interests. The parenting schedule must accord with the child's best interests.

44. The Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22 made the following observations about family violence:

45. The recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis (par. 146).

46. 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 behavioral 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).

47. 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).

48. More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Dunmore v. Mehralian, 2025 SCC 20 that tactics and patterns of abuse such as “isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, micro-regulation of gender performance, economic abuse, intimidation, and threats” as well as acts of physical and sexual violence can undermine a victim’s autonomy, including the ability to freely express their intention. Furthermore, in any family law context, a court must also appreciate the evidence in light of the dynamics of the particular family, being especially alert to gender dynamics and the presence of family violence.

49. I have also considered the following principles established in the case law with respect to family violence as it relates to considering the best interests of the child:

a. Family violence is not limited to physical assault: it embraces a range of behavior which includes mental and emotional abuse, with implications that spill-over to children. See CCAS v. I.B. et al., 2020 ONSC 5498.
b. Family violence can be insidious. It can take many forms and frequently involves coercive and controlling behaviors, which are usually very difficult to prove because they often take place in private. Abusers, especially those of the coercive and controlling kind, are often skilled manipulators; they can be charming, they can be convincing liars, and they can be very persuasive. Victims of family violence are often the only witnesses who can attest to their abuser’s behavior, and unfortunately, they are sometimes not believed because of their inability to support their allegations with objective third-party evidence. See: Volgemut v. Decristoforo, 2021 ONSC 7382.
c. Violence need not be physical. Emotional and psychological abuse can have a devastating impact on a child. See: Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510; El Khatib v. Noun, 2023 ONSC 1667.
d. The court is also very aware that family violence is sometimes difficult for the victim to prove. It is often not reported. There may be many reasons for this. There will often be no medical, police, or Children’s Aid Society reports to corroborate allegations of family violence. Victims sometimes minimize and rationalize the abuse. Family violence can take place in private so that there are no witnesses. Control and coercion can be subtle and only evident to the victim. See: Wiafe v. Aboakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201.

47. It is particularly difficult to deal with allegations of family violence based only on conflicting affidavit evidence on a one-hour parenting motion. See Sadiq v. Musa, 2023 ONSC 1811.

48. In Ranjani v. Ranjani, 2021 ONSC 4784 at para. 17, Justice Glustein considered allegations of family violence against the father and commented that the court must be just as “cautious” not to deprive children of parenting from both parents unless satisfied that the presumption in favour of increased contact with the parent is rebutted on the evidence before the court.

49. The status quo is established by reference to the parents’ practice or the child’s routine prior to separation. See Batsinda v. Batsinda, 2013 ONSC 7869.

50. Interim orders should not provide an unnecessary advantage to either parent pending trial. The status quo is not established by any self-help actions taken by one parent. One party unilaterally taking matters into their own hands, without any consent from the other party, does not create a status quo. See Basley v. Basley, 2016 ONSC 5877.

51. The onus is on the parent seeking to limit parenting time to establish on a balance of probabilities that the restrictions are in the child’s best interest. An order for supervised parenting requires evidence of exceptional circumstances. See V.S.J. v. L.J.G..

Analysis

Family Violence and Coercive Control – Allegations Against the Applicant

52. I will start with the allegations of family violence, as this will impact my analysis on the parenting issues.

53. The Respondent alleges physical violence and manipulation by the Applicant. I acknowledge that in considering the allegations of family violence on a parenting motion, I must proceed with caution because it is particularly difficult to deal with these allegations based only on conflicting affidavit evidence on a one-hour parenting motion. However, I do not view this to mean that family violence can never be considered based on affidavit evidence.

54. At this time, I am considering the “impact” of any family violence on the “ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and 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.” See Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1737.

55. There is some conflicting evidence between the parties regarding the Applicant’s conduct towards the Respondent.

56. The evidence before me, by either party, does not allege that there is a risk that the child would be physically harmed in the care of the Applicant father.

57. I am satisfied, based on the evidence before me, that the family violence alleged would not affect the ability and willingness of the father to care for and meet the child’s day-to-day needs.

58. In my view, it is in the best interests of the child to have a meaningful relationship with both parents and not to be exposed to conflict or family violence.

59. The Applicant father argued that there was a lack of corroborating evidence regarding violence from third parties like the police or a child protection agency. The father asked me to use this to undermine the Respondent’s allegations of family violence.

60. In Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, the Supreme Court acknowledged that allegations of family violence can be difficult to prove, particularly where they occur behind closed doors and lack corroborating evidence. In the case before me, the lack of corroborating does not entirely preclude me from making findings of family violence.

61. However, the allegation of family violence by the Respondent is not isolated to the conduct of the Applicant – the allegation includes the Applicant’s parents’ conduct towards the Respondent and the Applicant’s complacency in that behaviour. As discussed below, the Applicant remained apathetic in his parents’ negative treatment of the Respondent. As they now form part of his parenting plan, I must consider the involvement of the Applicant’s parents.

Family Violence and Coercive Control – Allegations Against the Applicant’s Parents

62. This is a family unit that lived as a multi-generational family under one roof for a period of time. Furthermore, the Applicant’s parents currently reside with him and form part of his parenting plan.

63. In deciding the issues in this case, evidence of cultural norms and family dynamics would have further assisted the Court.

64. However, the evidence from both parties is that there was conflict between the Applicant’s parents and the Respondent.

65. The broad and thorough definition of "family violence" included in the relatively recent amendments to the Divorce Act and Children’s Law Reform Act does not require the spouses to be named as victims or abusers. The legislation does not restrict the behavior to physical violence and recognizes the part extended family members play in these relationships.

66. Evaluating family violence allegations requires understanding the broader context, including the typical dynamics of violent relationships between family members, the impact of violence on the victims and their ability to disclose the violence, and other social, spiritual, economic and cultural considerations that may be preventing the victim from talking about the violence. See M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207 at para. 178.

67. Even before the changes to the Divorce Act and Children’s Law Reform Act, there had been recognition by this Court that violence against a parties’ parents (i.e., the child’s grandparents) can impact the parenting considerations for a party. See Salim v. Safdar, 2019 ONSC 200.

68. Family violence may not always be visible and can be perpetrated by extended family members. The Court of Appeal for Ontario has referred to family members or friends of a family law litigant who insert themselves into the litigation process as “invisible litigants.” Leitch v. Novac, 2020 ONCA 257 at para. 45.

69. The evidence before me outlined the following events:

a. There was conflict between the Respondent and the Applicant’s mother regarding the child’s care. This often occurred in the presence of the child.
b. On April 6, 2024, the Applicant’s father ordered the Respondent to cook in the garage and threatened her when she refused.
c. On August 28, 2024, the Applicant’s parents verbally attacked the Respondent, threatened to seek custody if she left, and told the Respondent she had no right to stay in Canada. The Applicant remained silent.
d. On November 15, 2024, during a visit to the Gurdwara, the Applicant’s father verbally assaulted the Respondent and threatened to break her teeth and blind her. The Applicant did nothing.
e. The Respondent was also subjected to caste-based insults.

70. This is a series of incidents in a short period of time. I note that the definition of 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. The Applicant’s parents conduct meets this definition.

71. The evidence is undisputed that there was tension between the Applicant’s parents and the Respondent. The Applicant only baldly denies that such conflict amounted to family violence and did not provide evidence to specifically rebut the Respondent’s evidence on the specific events outlined above.

72. Furthermore, the Applicant attempts to provide a justification for his parents’ negative conduct towards the Respondent. He states that the source of the conflict is a series of private messages he viewed between the Respondent and her family that made statements to the effect that she would obtain her permanent residence and then divorce the Applicant, and a discussion about the Respondent taking money from the Applicant. It is concerning that Applicant is trying to justify the family violence and appears to have no insight into the impact of his parents’ behaviour.

73. As multi-generational families grow in our society, the sources of abuse must be considered in that context. Where a spouse may be an observer, this still contributes to overall family violence and coercive control.

74. The Respondent immigrated to Canada without any family support and relied on the support of the Applicant and his family. She is now living in a shelter. There was an imbalance of power within the family unit between the Respondent and the Applicant as well as his parents during the marriage. That power imbalance continues. Vulnerable family members, like the Respondent, must be able to live free from violence perpetrated by family members who hold more power.

75. There is an abundance of caselaw to remind us all that the Court must take into account the victims' disadvantage as well as how family violence's subtle and insidious characteristics significantly influence the family's dynamics and politics. The experience of family violence at the hands of extended family members can be exacerbated by their multiple vulnerabilities. In this case, the Respondent was vulnerable in her living arrangement with the Applicant and his parents.

76. While the grandparents’ conduct towards the Respondent does not pose a physical risk to the child regarding the father’s parenting time, the caselaw is clear that family violence is not limited to physical violence. This consideration of family violence within the multi-generational family unit is to be considered within the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

77. As the Applicant’s parents are a key part of his parenting plan, and they live with him, their conduct is a key consideration. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that family violence, whether physical, emotional, or psychological, must be considered in parenting determinations as it affects the child’s safety and the perpetrator’s caregiving capacity. 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. See Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22 at para. 22.

78. The evidence before me establishes a serious concern of family violence and coercive control towards the Respondent by the Applicant’s family, including his parents. The Applicant did nothing to prevent this or to protect the child from such conflict.

79. I have concerns that the Applicant and his parents will undermine the relationship between the child and the Respondent.

80. As a result of the conflict between the Applicant’s parents and the Respondent (to which the Applicant remained a bystander), it is not in the child’s best interests for the Applicant to have a 2-2-3 parenting schedule.

81. The Applicant’s parents’ conduct towards the Respondent also provides some explanation as to the mother’s reluctance and fears in expanding the father’s parenting time. It may also impact other issues in this litigation, for example, decision-making. The Court denounces any behaviour amounting to coercive control and family violence within an entire family unit, including by extended family members.

Parenting Time

82. Parenting orders are made under section 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

83. The test for determining parenting time is what order is in the best interests of the children. This includes the considerations of family violence outlined above.

84. In considering the list of best interests factors, the following are most relevant based on the child's age, needs, and circumstances (in addition to the considerations of family violence outlined above):

a. the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
b. the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
c. each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
d. the history of care of the child;
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; and
g. the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child.

85. The child is two years old. She requires stability. I have not considered the parenting time arrangement after the separation as developing a status quo. I have considered the parents’ respective involvement with the child prior to the separation (in April 2025).

86. The evidence before is that both parents were involved in meeting the child’s day-to-day needs, including feeding, bathing, comforting, and managing her daily routine.

87. The evidence demonstrates that before and after the separation, the Applicant father was responsible for organizing appointments for the child. This was not disputed by the mother.

88. One of the metrics of parenting time with each parent often used by Canadian courts is the parenting plan guide produced by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts - Ontario (“AFCC-O guide”). Kraft J. in Hatab v. Abuhatab, 2022 ONSC 1560 said that the AFCC-O guide:

“……has been found by many courts to be of great assistance in determining parenting schedules that are in a child’s best interests, depending on the age of the child and his/her developmental stage. While not binding on the courts, the Guide provides a great deal of helpful information and reflects a professional consensus in Ontario about the significant of current child development research for post-separation parenting: McBennet v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, at paras. 92-93; Armstrong v. Garrison, 2021 ONSC 3986, at para. 38; Southorn v. Ree, 2021 ONSC 7819, at para. 401.”

89. The ACC-O Guide “has been found by many courts to be of great assistance in determining parenting schedules that are in a child’s best interests, depending on the age of the child and his/her development stage.” Although it is not binding on the courts, the Guide provides a great deal of helpful information and reflects a professional consensus in Ontario about the significance of current child development research for post-separation.”: Melbourne v. Melbourne, 2022 ONSC 2299 at paras. 19-21; Dupuis v. Dupuis, 2024 ONSC 4836 at para. 28.

90. Chappel J., in McBennet v. Davis, held at paragraph 92 that:

“The AFCC-O Guide summarizes basic social science knowledge about the effects of parental separation on children, provides suggestions and guidance to help improve communications and cooperation between separated parents and offers valuable guidance about formulating parenting arrangements that meet the needs of children.”

91. This child is in the “toddler” category.

92. The AFCC-O Guide suggests that if parents have fully shared in the caretaking arrangements before the child has reached this age and the child has an easy temperament, parenting time can be shared equally as long as the separations from each parent are not too long (no more than two to three days or two nights for example).

93. Alternatively, if the parents are unable to effectively communicate with each other about the child, it may be better for a child this age to have a primary residence with one parent and frequent contact, including some overnight parenting time, with the other parent.

94. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that both parents were engaged in the care of the child, as well as the paternal grandparents, who are part of the Applicant’s parenting plan.

95. In my view, a parenting arrangement in which the Applicant father has parenting time every weekend and every Wednesday evening aligns with the AFCC-O Guide and the evidence on this motion.

96. The mother originally resisted the father’s request because the child is breastfeeding. However, in oral submissions, the mother’s counsel confirmed that there is no issue with the child going three days without breastfeeding. She currently has parenting time with the father from Fridays to Sundays without being breastfed.

97. With respect to the breastfeeding consideration, I note that the child is 2 years old, in daycare all day, and eats solid food.

98. With respect to the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent and the grandparents, I find that both parents and the paternal grandparents played an important role in the child's life, and they all have a strong relationship with the child.

99. I have concerns about the Respondent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the Applicant. This is because of the mother’s reluctant positions taken since the separation. This is one of the reasons frequent contact between the child and the Applicant is appropriate.

100. Moreover, I also have concerns about the Applicant’s parents’ (who are part of the Applicant’s parenting plan) willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the Respondent. This is one of the reasons a 2-2-3 schedule is not appropriate in my view.

101. As a result of both parties’ conduct and the Applicant’s parents’ conduct, it is necessary for the Court to make an order that neither parent shall speak negatively about the other parent in the presence of the child, nor shall they allow anyone else to do so.

102. The child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage, must also be considered. It is concerning to me that the Respondent unilaterally removed the child from a daycare that supported the child’s culture. However, in my view, both parents are able to support the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing and heritage.

103. The evidence also demonstrated that since the separation, the parties have done exchanges and supervision between themselves. They have collaborated with respect to the exchanges. I commend the parties for this, and the Court encourages this collaborative approach.

Conclusion

104. Having considered the proposals and the applicable legal principles, in my view, it is in the best interests of this child to grant an interim parenting order that the Applicant’s parenting time shall be every weekend from Friday at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and every Wednesday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

105. Neither parent shall speak negatively about the other parent in the presence of the child, nor shall they allow anyone else to do so. [1] I recognize that the child is only two years old, but it is important for the parents to immediately recognize that they need to support the other parent in the presence of the child.

106. The location and specifics of the parenting time exchanges shall be as agreed upon between the parties.

107. If either party seeks costs and the parties are unable to agree on costs, the party seeking costs may file costs submissions of no more than 3 pages plus a costs outline and any offers to settle within 20 days of the release of this decision, and the other party may file responding costs submissions on the same terms within a further 15 days. A Reply, if any, is limited to one page, to be filed within a further 5 days. All submissions shall be sent to my attention to the Office of the Associate Judges at ottawafamilyassociatejudges@ontario.ca.

Associate Justice Kamal
Date: July 10, 2025

[1] Section 28(1)(b) and (c)(ii) allow the court to make incidental orders regarding parenting time, including prohibiting a party or other person from engaging in specified conduct in the presence of the child or at any time when the person is responsible for the care of the child. Rule 42(8)6 and 16 allow me to make parenting orders and an order that is necessary and incidental to the power to make a temporary order that is within the jurisdiction of the associate judge.