Riaz v. Ul Islam, 2019 ONCJ 108

CITATION: Riaz v. Ul Islam, 2019 ONCJ 108

DATE: February 26, 2019

COURT FILE: 25/17

Ontario Court of Justice

at 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton, Ontario

Endorsement

Justice L.S. Parent

Applicant: Sarosh Riaz (Present) Counsel: (Present) Duty Counsel: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Present)

Respondent: Faraz Ul Islam (Present) Counsel: Sukhwinder Singh Samra (Present) Duty Counsel: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Present)

Order to go in accordance with minutes of settlement or consent filed.

Proceeding For Determination

[1] On February 22nd, 2019, I heard a motion by Mr. Ul Islam, the Respondent/Father in this matter, seeking to expand his access to his child and to remove the condition of supervision as contained in the existing temporary order granted on consent of the parties on April 26th, 2017.

[2] The parties are the biological parents of one child, namely F. who is currently two (2) years old.

[3] On January 12th, Ms. Riaz commenced an application seeking an order providing for sole custody to her, table child support to be paid by Mr. Ul Islam, permitting her to obtain a passport and travel with the child without Mr. Ul Islam’s consent, prohibiting Mr. Ul Islam from removing the child from the Region of Peel and Canada, a restraining/non-harassment term and a police enforcement clause.

[4] On April 26th, 2017, Mr. Ul Islam filed an Answer opposing the order sought by Ms. Riaz. He further requested that he be granted an order for sole custody, access terms, prohibiting Ms. Riaz from travelling with the child outside of Canada without his consent, an order permitting him to travel with the child and a police enforcement clause.

[5] On April 26th, 2017 an initial case conference was held, even though briefs were not filed by either party.

[6] The parties, with the assistance of counsel for Ms. Riaz and Duty Counsel for Mr. Ul Islam, consented to an order for the filing of pleadings and terms of supervised access. Specifically, the order granted supervised access between Mr. Ul Islam and F. through the Supervised Access Centre for a period of two (2) hours from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. every other Saturday.

[7] A further case conference was held on June 19th, 2017. The parties consented to a variation of the April 26th, 2017 order by adding a term which permitted Mr. Ul Islam to initiate a Skype communication with the paternal grandparents during his supervised access visits.

[8] A further case conference was held on July 27th, 2017. On consent of the parties, I terminated the access terms between Mr. Ul Islam and F. as contained in my order of April 26th, 2017.

[9] I also granted leave, during the case conference, for the following motions, with filing deadlines, to be heard on October 13th, 2017:

(a) a motion brought by Ms. Riaz for child support and travel without notice to or the consent of Mr. Ul Islam; and

(b) a motion brought by Mr. Ul Islam for unsupervised access.

[10] On October 13th, 2017, the parties consented to a temporary order regarding child support. Furthermore, Ms. Riaz withdrew her motion regarding travel.

[11] Mr. Ul Islam’s motion for unsupervised access was adjourned to be considered by another judge given that he had filed materials for this motion which resulted in my inability to hear the motion. The motion, for reasons outlined in my endorsement, was adjourned to November 20th, 2017.

[12] On November 20th, 2017, Dunn, J. dismissed Mr. Ul Islam’s motion for unsupervised access. In his order however, Dunn, J. permitted Mr. Ul Islam to send gifts to F. by registered courier at Ms. Riaz’s home. Dunn, J. also requested the involvement of the OCL in this matter.

[13] The matter returned before me on January 31st, 2018. At that appearance, the parties consented to an order for disclosure to be provided by Mr. Ul Islam and also an amendment to the April 26th, 2017 order so as to provide for more flexibility in the scheduling of the access visits through the Supervised Access Centre. The order also permitted Mr. Ul Islam to speak Urdu with F. during his access visits in the presence of a certified translator.

[14] On May 3rd, 2018, a further case conference was held. Discussions focused on the commencement of a Divorce Application, seeking corollary relief, by Mr. Ul Islam in the Superior Court of Justice. Following discussions, Mr. Ul Islam proceeded to sign a Notice of Withdrawal regarding his request for corollary relief in the Divorce Application.

[15] On May 3rd, 2018, I also granted an order requesting the re-involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL). The involvement of the OCL had been previously requested pursuant to the order of Dunn, J. dated November 20th, 2017.

[16] My endorsement of January 16th, 2017, noted that the OCL had filed a discontinued report on the basis that an observational visit could not occur involving Mr. Ul Islam and his child as he had relinquished his right of access. This relinquishment by Mr. Ul Islam resulted in the consent order terminating his access with F. on July 27th, 2017.

[17] Given that the access between Mr. Ul Islam and his child, had resumed pursuant to a consent order granted on January 31st, 2018, I granted an order requesting the re-involvement of the OCL in this matter.

[18] The matter was adjourned on June 11th, 2018 and September 17th, 2018 to await the filing of the report of the OCL as they accepted to become re-involved.

[19] The matter proceeded to a further case conference on November 23rd, 2018 following the completion and filing of the OCL report dated September 12th, 2018. The matter was thereafter scheduled for the motion which proceeded on February 22nd, 2019.

Position of the Parties

Mr. Ul Islam

[20] Mr. Ul Islam is seeking a variation of the existing order dated April 26th, 2017. Specifically he is requesting the following order:

1. A temporary order that the Respondent father, Faraz Ul Islam, shall have unsupervised access to the child…….:

(a) Commencing Saturday, March 2, 2019, the next five visits be on every Saturday from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

(b) Commencing Saturday, April 6, 2019, the following four visits be on every Saturday from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

(c) Thereafter, commencing Saturday, May 4, 2019 on every Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

(d) Commencing Wednesday, April 3, 2019, on every Wednesday thereafter from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

(e) Any additional access as mutually agreed between the parties in writing in advance.

(f) The pick up and drop off shall be done by the Respondent father and shall take place from a public place close to the residence of the Applicant mother.

[21] In support of his position, Mr. Ul Islam has filed and relies on the following documents:

(a) his Notice of Motion at Tab 2, Volume 4 of the Continuing Record; and

(b) three (3) affidavits with exhibits sworn November 15th, 2017, January 23rd, 2019, and February 18th, 2019 located at Tab 1, Volume 2; Tab 3, Volume 4, and Tab 3, Volume 5 of the Continuing Record.

[22] Counsel on behalf of Mr. Ul Islam submits that the “time has come to move from supervised to unsupervised visits” given the positive relationship, as evidenced by the supervised access notes and his client’s own evidence, between F. and his client over the last twelve (12) months.

[23] Counsel submits that it is this evidence which should be given weight by the Court and not the report of the OCL, as it is biased and therefore cannot be relied upon in determining the order which are in the best interest of F. Counsel submits that the OCL report should be given no consideration in this motion as its contents have yet to be tested through cross-examination.

Ms. Riaz

[24] Ms. Riaz opposes the request by Mr. Ul Islam. She is prepared to accept the recommendations of the OCL report such that access visits could be increased in time but remain supervised and every second week. She submits that the OCL report has provided recommendations which, although not tested, confirm the concerns she raises in her evidence regarding Mr. Ul Islam and unsupervised visits.

[25] In support of her position, Ms. Riaz has filed and relies on two (2) affidavits and exhibits sworn October 25th, 2017, located at Tab 3, Volume 2 and February 7th, 2019, located at Tab 1, Volume 5 of the Continuing Record.

Issues

[26] Mr. Ul Islam seeks a variation of the existing order granted, on consent of the parties, on April 26th, 2017 which provides for his access to his child to be supervised through the Supervised Access Centre.

Analysis

Review of the Evidence Filed

Report of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer

[27] The author of the OCL report dated September 12th, 2018 is Ms. Claudette Bled.

[28] Ms. Bled’s recommendations, at page 15, are as follows:

1. Custody: Ms. Riaz shall have sole custody and primary residence of F……;

2. Access: Mr. Islam access to F. is as follows:

(a) Mr. Islam shall have access to F. alternate weekends to include Saturday and Sunday from 10-2 p.m.;

(b) Mr. Islam shall have fully supervised visits at an access center or by an agreed third party as agreed upon by Ms. Riaz and Mr. Islam

(c) Any additional access is agreed upon by Ms. Riaz and Mr. Islam

3. Additional Recommendations:

(a) Mr. Islam shall have independent access to information pertaining to F.’s medical, dental, education and extracurricular activities.

(b) Ms. Riaz shall sign all required consents to allow Mr. Islam such access.

(c) Mr. Islam shall attend and complete a parenting course and follow through with any recommendations made by the parenting facilitator.

(d) Ms. Riaz and Mr. Islam are encouraged to communicate via an online communication tool such as Our Family Wizard.

[29] It is clear that Mr. Ul Islam disputes the recommendations of the OCL report while Ms. Riaz accepts them.

[30] Counsel, on behalf of Mr. Ul Islam, submits that the court should give no weight and no consideration to the OCL report and its recommendations as Ms. Bled has yet to be questioned on its contents.

[31] Counsel further submits that Mr. Ul Islam believes that the report is biased and therefore its recommendations should not be accepted by this Court.

[32] Counsel further submits that Mr. Ul Islam’s own evidence and the Supervised Access Centre notes support the order his client is requesting regarding access being unsupervised.

[33] Counsel submits that the Court should accept Mr. Ul Islam’s evidence and consider it within the principles in the caselaw that support maximum contact between a child and his/her parent and that supervised access should not been seen as a permanent arrangement.

[34] Counsel submits that the Supervised Access notes and Mr. Ul Islam’s evidence support a finding that his client’s relationship with his child is loving, nurturing and caring and therefore, should be permitted to continue to develop in an environment outside of the supervision by a third party.

[35] Ms. Riaz submits that consideration should be given to the OCL report, even at this temporary stage, given that it has been prepared following a thorough investigation by an independent person. She further submits that her own evidence and the Supervised Access notes continue to raise concerns regarding Mr. Ul Islam’s conduct. This evidence supports her position that the access should remain supervised.

Supervised Access Notes

[36] It is not disputed that Mr. Ul Islam has been exercising access to his child for two (2) hours every two (2) weeks through the Supervised Access Centre in the Region of Peel pursuant to the order dated January 31st, 2018 which resumed supervised access pursuant to the April 26th, 2017 order.

[37] Both parties have attached Observation Reports as Exhibits to their respective affidavits. I have reviewed these reports as submitted by the parties. I further note that Ms. Bled references in her report that she has also reviewed the Supervised Access Observation Reports made available to her during her investigation.

[38] My review of the notes do confirm each party’s evidence that there has been consistent attendance by the parties and their child at the scheduled visits since January 2018. There have not been any critical reports arising from these visits and only slight non-adherence on the required arrival/departure requirements by both parties.

[39] I find that overall, the reports do describe the activities engaged in by Mr. Ul Islam and F. during these visits as being quite positive and enjoyed be each of them.

[40] The Observational Reports however do note behaviour engaged in by Mr. Ul Islam during the visits which are not child focused. These behaviours include the questioning of the child, reframing of questions to the child until a response is received, the insistence that the child display affection physically and/or verbally towards him and the questioning of the care the child receives while with her mother. The Observational Reports support the finding that this behaviour engaged in by Mr. Ul Islam is consistent throughout all of his visits with F.

Direct Evidence of the Parties

[41] A review of each parties’ affidavits confirms that they continue to have difficulties in communication, trust, motivation and acceptance of the other’s role in the life of their child.

[42] Both parties recite in detail historical facts, both during and after the end of their relationship, that they each wish the court to accept as wrongs committed by the other towards each of them.

[43] Mr. Ul Islam continues to believe that Ms. Riaz is trying to control him and his contact with his child. His materials set out in detail how he feels Ms. Riaz’ interfered with his immigration application so as to ensure he remain outside of Canada and therefore be unable to have a relationship with F.

[44] Ms. Riaz continues to believe that Mr. Ul Islam is a bad role model for their child. She has stated in her affidavits that Mr. Ul Islam is a racist and will do whatever is necessary to discredit her so that she will be seen as an inappropriate parent. Ms. Riaz also believes that Mr. Ul Islam will abduct F. is given the opportunity to do so.

Legislative and Legal Framework

[45] Although not specifically referenced in submissions, the variation of the existing temporary order is governed by section 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, (CLRA) which provides as follows:

A court shall not make an order under this Part that varies an order in respect of custody or access made by a court in Ontario unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child.

[46] In determining the issue of (a) whether or not a material change in circumstances has occurred since the granting of the existing order and (b) if so, what order is in this child’s best interest, I must consider the totality of the evidence presented by each party including the relevance and the weight to be given to each aspect of it.

[47] Both parties have relied upon the Supervised Access Observational Reports in support of their respective positions. There is, therefore, no dispute between the parties that they each wish for me to consider these reports in my determination of whether the material change in circumstances threshold has been met and if so, what order is in their child’s best interest.

[48] The parties however do not agree on the weight to be given to the OCL report.

[49] The caselaw supports the general principle that recommendations through an assessment, which definition captures OCL section 112 reports, are generally not to be relied upon by the court at an interim proceeding as the author of the report has not been subjected to cross-examination on her credentials, observations, investigation process, determinations and recommendations.

[50] Although not cited in submissions, this principle is stated in the court’s decision in Genovesi v. Genovesi, (Ont.Ct. (Gen. Div.)) 1992 CanLII 8562 (ON SC), [1992] O.J. No. 1261.

[51] The question for determination therefore is whether or not circumstances exist in this matter which support consideration of the OCL recommendations in whole, in part or not at all.

[52] Ms. Riaz in clear in her position that she supports the recommendations of the OCL that Mr. Ul Islam’s access remains supervised. Ms. Riaz has submitted that the concerns she has regarding Mr. Ul Islam’s behaviour have also been noted in the observations and evidence of the OCL clinical agent as set out in her report. She submitted therefore that her concerns have been verified by Ms. Bled as shown by her report and recommendations.

[53] Mr. Ul Islam states at paragraph 54 of his affidavit sworn January 23rd, 2019 located at Tab 4, Volume 4 of the Continuing Record that the OCL report “…is defective and based on incomplete facts, information and documents.”

[54] A review of the file reveals an endorsement made on September 17th, 2018 confirming Mr. Ul Islam’s intention of filing a dispute to the OCL report.

[55] The endorsement on November 23rd, 2018 indicates Mr. Ul Islam confirming that he has provided a copy of his October 18th, 2018 affidavit to the OCL as his dispute to the report. A review of the file confirms that this affidavit has not been filed with the court and was not relied upon by Mr. Ul Islam in this motion. Also the file does not contain an affidavit of service on the OCL and a response from them.

[56] The absence of a dispute which provides specific details supporting Mr. Ul Islam’s position that the OCL report is defective is problematic as the result is that he has not provided any details to support his conclusion that the OCL report is biased and therefore that no consideration be given to it at this motion.

[57] Given the parties’ respective positions, it is evident that Ms. Bled’s evidence will be seriously weighed by the trial judge.

[58] The question today is whether or not, at this temporary stage, I should consider the observations and recommendations of the OCL, without the benefit of direct and cross-examination of Ms. Bled, and given the other evidence submitted by each party.

[59] In his decision in Bos v. Bos, 2012 ONSC 3425, [2012] O.J. No. 2704, Mitrow, J. reviews the caselaw adopting the approach in Genovesi and concludes at paragraphs 23 and 24 as follows:

[23] … In my view, the jurisprudence has evolved to the point that although the general principle enunciated in Genovesi continues to be well founded, it is not so rigid and inflexible as to prevent a court on a motion to give some consideration to the content of an assessment report where that assessment report provides some additional probative evidence to assist the court, particularly where the court is making an order which is not a substantive departure from an existing order or status quo. In such circumstances, the court may consider some of the evidence contained in an assessment report without having to conclude that there are “exceptional circumstances” as set out in Genovesi.

[24] The court has a duty to make orders in a child’s best interests and it would be counter intuitive to this principle to impose on the court an inflexible blanket prohibition against considering any aspect of an assessment report (absent exceptional circumstances) on an interim motion, especially when the only independent objective evidence before the court is from an expert assessor.

[60] I agree with the approach stated by Mitrow, J. when tasked with the responsibility to make an order in the best interests of a child, all evidence should be considered. Accordingly, I do not accept the position advanced on behalf of Mr. Ul Islam that the court should not consider the OCL report at a temporary stage.

[61] In arriving at this decision, I note that counsel, once retained, could have sought an adjournment of the motion to permit out of court cross-examination of Ms. Bled to occur. There is no evidence before me that such a request was sought by or on behalf of Mr. Ul Islam.

[62] At this stage of the matter, I have no evidence about Ms. Bled’s education, training, and experience. My knowledge is limited to the fact that Ms. Bled is an accepted clinical agent by the OCL and identifies her qualifications following her signature on the report as “BSW, MSW, RSW”.

[63] I note however that counsel for Mr. Ul Islam did not raise an issue regarding Ms. Bled’s qualifications.

[64] Ms. Bled highlights in her report each parent’s position regarding the other parent’s recital of their marital relationship, events leading up to their separation, their post-separation relationship, parenting abilities, the involvement of other members of their family and friends and other concerns.

[65] In reviewing the report, I do not find that Ms. Bled only accepts without further investigation and/or repeats the allegations raised by both parents against the other. Rather she seriously considers the concerns raised by both parents and investigates them through discussion with each parent and collateral sources. An example of this is found on page 14 of her report wherein she writes:

Both parents’ personal collaterals have commented that F. does need both of … parents involved in his/her life. Ms. K., Ms. Riaz’s cousin, commented that her worries are related to the content of the emails and the negative and insulting comments Mr. Islam makes towards her cousin. She comments that although she did not see Mr. Islam parent F., it did not surprise her that Ms. Riaz would attend to all of F.’s needs, due to their cultural expectations. Ms. K. commented that in Pakistan, men do not really care for young children. It is also expected of a wife to attend to her husband’s needs, such as cooking and putting food on their place (sic). Ms. K. stated that she knows that F. remembers …. father. It is evident when [F.] sees red cars or when they drive near the route to the access center, [F.] will mention him. Ms. K. has indicated that currently she supports Ms. Riaz’s request for fully supervised visits, primarily based on the content of the e-mails she receives from Mr. Islam. She added that she has seen Mr. Islam go from 0-300 in terms of anger, and feels that visits with F. should remain supervised until F. gets older. Mr. J.Q., a family friend, stated that he met the family at the home of Ms. Riaz’s uncle when he came to visit his [family] in August, 2015. He stated that he saw the family on a daily basis as he did some accounting work for Ms. Riaz’s uncle. Mr. J.Q. commented that “Mr. Islam is committed to his family.” Although, Mr. J.Q. was unable to provide examples of Mr. Islam’s parenting of F., he commented that as a father he “is very good” “he loves his [child].” Mr. J.Q. confirmed that Mr. Islam is only remaining in Canada due to his [child] and stated that he returned to Pakistan to resign from his job, sell some property and return to Canada. Mr. J.Q. commented that the reason why Ms. Riaz did not want to return home was the common complaint of women in Pakistan; she would have to go home and cook for the entire family and care for her child. He stated that Mr. Islam had told her that they would only return home after he had resigned and come back to Canada. Mr. J.Q. strongly suggests that the parents attend joint counselling. Ms. Riaz has requested that Mr. Islam attend an anger management course and Mr. Islam has indicated that he does not see a need for attending an anger management course.

[66] Having made this determination, I note the following from Ms. Bled’s report:

It is evidence after meeting with F.’s parents and speaking to both professional and personal collaterals that F. is loved by …. parents. The parents speak fondly of F. and their love for [their child] and F.’s well-being is their priority. During both of the parent’s observation visits I observed affection by hugging, sitting in close proximity and laughing. F. did not exhibit any fear when….with either parent. If F. was in any distress during the observation visit it was noted the Ms. Riaz addressed this issue. For children of separated and divorced parents, the existence of positive factors such as cooperative parenting, stability and the ability to communicate with each other is imperative for children who transition between both parents. Throughout the assessment period it became evident to the Clinician that there were areas of concern for both parents.

A major issue between Ms. Riaz and Mr. Islam is the lack of communication. Communication between both parents is vital in ensuring that F.’s well-being is addressed. A lack of communication between parents could result in situations where parenting roles are being undermined and/or issues related to F. remain unanswered. The Clinician has reviewed emails Ms. Riaz received from Mr. Islam in which the content of the email failed to demonstrate an ability to remain child focused. The email included insults of the other parent; if the essence of the email was about F. it was lost. The Clinician has reviewed with both parents that in order for the Clinician to recommend joint custody both parents need to demonstrate that they are able to communicate with each other. This would ensure that decisions related to F.’s education, medical care and wellbeing are made in a timely fashion. Mr. Islam has indicated that he communicates with Ms. Riaz but she has decided not to communicate with him. Ms. Riaz has indicated that she does not communicate with Mr. Islam as the communication becomes confrontational and aggressive and she does not want to speak to him or email him anymore. As communication is critical for parents to exchange information related to F., the Clinician has spoken to both parents about exploring Our Family Wizard. This software will assist both parents in remaining child focused, and the Our Family Wizard has features to limit the length of messages. Through the assessment period the Clinician has noted that Mr. Islam is passionate in talking about his child and asserting his viewpoint. However, Mr. Islam also needs to take into consideration that the opinion and position of others does not minimize or validate his view point. This will become more relevant when F. enters the school system and attends extra-curricular activities and he will be required to interact with other professionals in these systems. The unfortunate repercussion of being overly assertive, is that others may become defensive and be less likely to interact with him, which could then have an impact on the information shared related to F.

Ms. Riaz has indicated that her major worry is Mr. Islam misinterpreting F.’s messages and making false allegations that she could be abusing F. She advised me that it is due to these false allegations that family members are not willing to supervise the visits and the visits have to remain at the access center. The Clinician has reviewed some of the access visit case notes and has noted the same concerns observed by the Clinician during the one hour’s observation visit with Mr. Islam. For example, on August 11, 2018 F. had climbed into her car and was hiding. Mr. Islam asked F. three times if [F.] was in the car alone prior to F. responding “yes”. Mr. Islam then advised the access staff that F. had said [F.] was in the car alone and [the] mom was looking for [F.]. On June 9, 2018 Mr. Islam requested on several occasions to “kiss me, kiss me, kiss me” and until F. obliged. Also, Mr. Islam told F. several times, “say I love you daddy, say it, say it, say it.” F. then said “I love you daddy.” The Clinician recognizes that Mr. Islam needs validation that the child loves him, particularity since he only sees [F.] on alternate Saturdays for two hours. A two year old is more concerned about having their basic needs met and a parent should not expect validation from the child. The child at this age is not able to understand the complexity of the feelings related to love and what it means. The Clinician does feel however, that it is imperative that an increase in access time would help F. develop a stronger emotional connection with … father. As Mr. Islam has agreed to attend a parenting class and the expectation is that he will gain a greater understanding of child development and how our actions and questions can be perceived at that specific age. The 3 R’s Parenting Course (Raising Responsible, Respectful and Resilient children) will address various topics that will include expectations versus reality, ages and stages of child development, communication, problem solving and discipline versus punishment.

[67] I note that the concerns raised by Ms. Bled regarding Mr. Ul Islam’s behaviour in her report are also seen throughout the Supervised Access Observation Reports. I therefore find that there is an evidentiary basis to conclude that these concerns exists and do not support a variation of access visits from supervised to unsupervised.

[68] In reviewing the entire evidentiary record before me and for the reasons noted above, I find that there has been a material change in circumstances since the granting of the temporary order dated April 26th, 2018. Specifically, the record is clear that Mr. Ul Islam has been exercising consistent access to his child in accordance with the order, and that the visits have, overall and within the supervised environment, been beneficial to the child.

[69] I further find however that the evidence does not support that a variation of the existing order, as requested by Mr. Ul Islam, such that the access visits should transition from being supervised to unsupervised is in the child’s best interests at this times given the concerns contained in the evidence.

[70] I find that the evidence establishes, despite the positive description and observations of the access visits through the notes and the OCL report, there exists concerns specifically relating to Mr. Ul Islam’s behaviour during visits with F. which persist despite his attendance at a parenting course. The evidence supports the determination that despite attending a parenting course, Mr. Ul Islam has not gained insight as to how his behaviour impacts F. Given this, I find that that unsupervised visits, at this time, would not be in the child’s best interests.

Order

[71] For the reasons noted above, Mr. Ul Islam’s motion for a variation of the existing access order dated April 26th, 2017 is denied.

[72] I encourage counsel for Mr. Ul Islam and Ms. Riaz to discuss and resolve any request for costs.

[73] In the absence of an agreement, I find that Ms. Riaz is entitled to her costs given that she is the successful party in this matter. Accordingly, the following time table on the issue of costs is ordered:

(a) Ms. Riaz is to serve and file her request for costs, limited to two (2) pages, doubled-spaced with 12 inch font and excluding any Bills of Costs and/or Offers to Settle, by March 12th, 2019;

(b) Submissions in response on behalf of Mr. Ul Islam, limited to two (2) pages, doubled-spaced with 12 inch font and excluding any Bills of Costs and/or Offers to Settle, are to be served and filed by March 26th, 2019;

(c) Submissions in reply by Ms. Riaz, limited to one (1) page, doubled-spaced with 12 inch font are to be served and filed by April 2nd, 2019.

[74] The costs submissions ordered above can be forwarded to my assistant.

[75] As previously noted in my endorsement dated February 22nd, 2019, this matter will proceed as scheduled to a case conference on April 18th, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #210.

Dated: February 26, 2019

Justice L.S. Parent