ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: February 14, 2025
COURT FILE No.: Toronto DFO-19-15325-01
BETWEEN:
C.L.
Applicant
— AND —
P.S.
Respondent
Before Justice Jennifer S. Daudlin
Heard on March 7, 26, April 3, 22, May 5, and June 14, 2024.
Reasons for Judgement released on February 14, 2025.
Amended to correct typographical errors on February 25, 2025.
James Splane — counsel for the applicant (responding party on motion to change)
Cynthia Pon — counsel for the respondent (moving party on the motion to change)
Part One – Introduction
1.1 Overview
[1] A six-day trial was held to address the respective Motions to Change filed by the Respondent Mother, P.S. (“the mother”), and the Applicant Father, C.L. (“the father”), concerning Justice William Sullivan’s final parenting order dated October 25, 2021, regarding their child, J.L. (age 9) (the “final order”).
[2] The mother seeks modifications to the final order. She seeks an order that all the father’s in-person parenting time be supervised by Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO). She also seeks the removal of the father’s ability to exercise his parenting time in Montreal. She requests a modification of the international travel terms to prohibit the father from removing J.L. from Ontario while allowing her to travel to Cambodia with J.L. for up to 60 days without his consent. Additionally, she seeks an expansion of the restraining order made by Justice Sullivan to include a prohibition against direct and indirect communication between the parties, except through a court-approved communication platform and for the purposes of specific communications relating to J.L.
[3] The father opposes the relief sought by the mother and seeks modifications of the final order in his favour, including final decision-making responsibility or, alternatively, joint decision-making responsibility for the child contingent on the mother completing a parenting capacity assessment. He requests that the child’s primary residence be with the parent who first secures employment and that parenting time be structured as alternating weekends with the other parent, equal parenting time during the summer, and an order prohibiting the mother from traveling with the child outside of Canada. Additionally, he seeks an order for the shared cost of the child’s transportation for parenting exchanges.
[4] The final order was issued after a six-day bilingual French/English trial with Cambodian interpretation and occasional Mandarin/English interpretation, following four years of high-conflict litigation. It provides:
(1) Final decision-making authority to the mother, and J.L.’s primary residence with her in Toronto.
(2) Parenting time with the father as follows:
(a) Alternating weekends from Friday at 5:30 p.m. to Sunday at 3:30 p.m., extended to Monday at 3:30 p.m. if it falls on a holiday or professional development day, plus video parenting time twice per week.
(b) Specified holiday parenting time, including one non-consecutive week in July and August, as well as alternating Christmas and March Breaks.
(c) During his extended time, J.L. may contact her mother freely, and the father must facilitate at least three calls initiated by the mother.
(d) Weekend parenting time must be confirmed with the mother and APCO 48 hours in advance, with all exchanges occurring through APCO or an agreed-upon third party or neutral location, such as the child’s school or a library if APCO is closed.
(3) Both parents may travel internationally with J.L. for up to 30 days, subject to specific terms.
(4) The father is prohibited by a restraining order from coming within 500 meters of the mother’s residence.
(5) Child support, uncontested in either party’s Motion to Change, was set at $461 per month based on an imputed income of $50,000. The father must contribute 75% of the child’s section 7 expenses and pay $100 monthly toward arrears accrued since June 1, 2019.[1]
[5] The court heard evidence from the parties, both of whom provided affidavits, testified, and were cross-examined. The court also received testimony from PC Leslie Hung of the Toronto Police Service regarding a parenting dispute on December 17, 2021, and Sgt. Richard Cote of the Montreal Police Service, who executed an Ontario court order to return the child to the mother from the care of the father on September 15, 2022. Additionally, affidavits were submitted by Karl Stephenne and Kim Mouy Heang. Mr. Stephenne was cross examined. Ms. Heang was not.
1.2 Issues to be Decided
[6] The following are the issues to be decided by the court:
(1) Has the father established a material change in circumstances since the date of the final order requiring the changes to it he seeks with respect to decision-making responsibility, terms of decision-making responsibility, and primary residence? If yes, what new order is in the child’s best interests?
(2) Has either party established a material change in circumstances since the date of the final order requiring the changes to it they seek with respect to parenting time? If yes, what new order is in the child’s best interests?
(3) Has either party established a material change in circumstances since the date of the final order requiring the changes to it they seek with respect to the terms of the parent’s ability to travel with the child? If yes, what new order is in the child’s best interests?
(4) Has the mother established a material change in circumstances since the date of the final restraining order requiring a change to it? If yes, what new order should be made?
1.3 Relevant Background and Litigation History
[7] The mother is 43 years old. The father is 51 years old.
[8] The parties met in Cambodia in 2011, where the mother was living.
[9] The father, also of Cambodian origin, was visiting Cambodia while on vacation from Montreal, where he lived at the time.
[10] The parties were married on August 16, 2012. The father subsequently sponsored the mother, who arrived in Canada on May 9, 2014.
[11] The parties’ daughter, J.L., was born in Montreal in 2015. Initially, they lived with the father’s mother, with the father working as an engineer and the mother taking language courses and working in retail.
[12] In April 2016, the parties separated after the mother accused the father of assault, leading to criminal charges against him and her relocation to a local shelter with J.L.
[13] In July 2016, the parties attended before the Family Court (Cour Supérieure – Chambre de la famille), in Quebec. They entered into a temporary consent order granting the mother custody (decision-making responsibility) and child support while allowing C.L. access (parenting time).
[14] The parties reconciled soon after, and the criminal charges were withdrawn.
[15] In December 2016, the parties moved to Toronto, where they experienced further difficulties.
[16] The parties’ relationship ended definitively on May 19, 2017, when J.L. was two years old.
[17] Following separation, the mother remained in Toronto while the father moved back to Montreal.
[18] The father issued the originating application in July 2017 in Toronto, and on consent, the parties agreed that J.L. would remain in the mother’s custody where she would have her primary residence and the mother would have decision-making responsibility, with the father having daytime parenting time with J.L.
[19] The father’s parenting time was suspended in July/August 2018 and reinstated on October 25, 2018, with parenting exchanges facilitated through APCO. The father was restrained from approaching the mother or her home.
[20] On March 26, 2021, Justice Sirivar struck the father’s pleadings regarding child support due to his repeated failures to provide financial disclosure.
[21] A final trial in 2021 resulted in Justice Sullivan granting the orders outlined above.
[22] At trial, Justice Sullivan made the following important findings of fact:
(1) The father engaged in controlling and aggressive behavior toward the mother, including stalking her at home, daycare, ESL class, and community spaces.
(2) Police reports and CAS involvement confirmed ongoing conflict, leading to a restraining order against him.
(3) The father violated a court order by taking the child from daycare twice, requiring police intervention.
(4) The father ignored a restraining order issued by Justice Sager in October 2018.
1.4 Circumstances Leading to the Motion to Change
[23] The events leading to the motions to change began in the summer of 2022.
[24] J.L. was 6 years old at the time.
[25] Under the final order, the father was entitled to two non-consecutive weeks of unsupervised parenting time in Montreal. The first week proceeded without issue. However, as the first week came to an end, the father requested an extension into the second week. The mother reluctantly agreed to this extension. When the second week concluded in late July 2022, the father did not return J.L.
[26] The mother asserts that she repeatedly requested, then demanded J.L.’s return, but the father ignored her communications for extended periods, and when he did communicate, he was evasive and abusive. She was unable to speak with J.L. for much of this time, heightening her distress.
[27] By early August 2022, the father ceased responding to most messages, and by mid-August, the mother escalated her efforts, warning the father that she would take legal action. As the summer ended, J.L. remained in Montreal, missing the first week of school and risking her daycare placement.
[28] On September 13, 2022, the mother brought an urgent motion without notice seeking the immediate return of J.L. and police enforcement of the final order. Justice Sirivar granted the motion on a temporary, without-prejudice basis, and suspended the father’s parenting time.
[29] To enforce the order, the mother traveled to Montreal as soon as it was granted. She sought assistance from the local police, who attended the father’s residence.
[30] Upon arrival, the police informed the father of the court order and directed him to return J.L. The father initially resisted, citing concerns about the mother’s intentions and the fact that the order had not been translated from English to French. However, the officers insisted on immediate compliance. Despite the father instructing J.L. not to comply, the child was physically removed from his care, placed in a police cruiser, transported to the station, and handed over to the mother. That same day, the mother and J.L. left Montreal and returned to Toronto.
[31] Following J.L.’s return to Toronto, parties consented to the resumption of the father’s virtual parenting time, pending the return of the matter.
[32] The mother’s motion proceeded in court with bilingual interpretation, on December 14, 2022. Justice Sirivar made several key findings of fact on the motion, emphasizing the father’s history of disregarding court orders and the impact of his actions on J.L. The court found that:
(1) The father wrongfully withheld J.L. in Montreal beyond the agreed-upon period and ignored the mother’s repeated requests for J.L.’s return.
(2) The mother was unable to communicate with J.L. for a significant period, causing distress and concern for J.L.’s well-being.
(3) The father’s actions resulted in J.L. missing the first week of school and jeopardizing her daycare placement.
(4) The father had previously disobeyed court orders, including instances where police intervention was required to return J.L. to the mother.
(5) The father’s communications with the mother during the dispute included alarming messages such as “route 401 will take J.L.’s life” and “my destiny and J.L.’s destiny are on route 401,” which raised serious concerns about J.L.’s safety in his care.
(6) The father lacked insight into his conduct and its impact on J.L., leading the court to conclude that he could not be trusted to comply with future court orders without supervision.
[33] Based on these findings, Justice Sirivar changed Justice Sullivan’s final parenting time order, temporarily restricting the father’s in-person parenting time to supervised visits every other Saturday through APCO, with virtual parenting time on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
[34] The father has chosen not to exercise any of this in-person parenting time since December 2022.[2]
Part Two – Credibility of the Parties
[35] The mother provided her testimony in a detailed and composed manner. Her evidence was consistent with the documentary record and the testimony of supporting witnesses. She did not overstate her criticisms of the father but focused on specific events that impacted J.L.’s well-being.
[36] The mother provided detailed evidence, including her decision to bring an urgent motion when the father withheld J.L. beyond the agreed-upon summer parenting time. She provided a clear account of her efforts to communicate with the father and resolve the issue before resorting to legal action, and her testimony was corroborated by written communications and court orders. She acknowledged the emotional toll of the dispute but did not exaggerate the harm caused, testifying that while J.L. expressed discomfort during extended visits to Montreal, she delayed seeking her return to minimize conflict between the parents and because J.L. was not exhibiting signs of serious distress at the time.
[37] The father’s testimony was marked by hostility, a refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, and an ongoing unwillingness to accept the final order. He continued to insist that the mother posed a risk of abducting J.L. without evidence and justified withholding J.L. by claiming he was seeking legal advice. He ignored the mother’s messages and kept J.L. for several weeks, contradicting this explanation. He maintained that he had not breached the order, asserting that he was simply “giving the child the choice” and “teaching her right from wrong,” suggesting that he viewed compliance with the order as discretionary rather than a legal obligation.
[38] The father’s defiance extended to law enforcement and legal professionals. When confronted with police reports, he accused officers and the mother’s lawyer of distorting the facts to make him appear uncooperative. He refused to accept responsibility for his actions, instead claiming police had treated J.L. “like a criminal.”
[39] The father’s insistence that the mother was psychologically unfit to parent, despite offering no supporting evidence, further reflected his unwillingness to accept the court’s determination. He repeatedly referred to the mother as a “psychopath” and, when asked if he had any qualifications to make such a diagnosis, stated, “No, I’m not a psychiatrist, but I know when one needs to be examined by one.” Instead of pursuing legal channels to challenge what he perceived as an error in Justice Sullivan’s ruling, he acted unilaterally.
[40] Despite claiming difficulty understanding English-language court orders, the father consistently communicated with the mother in English and confirmed fluency during his testimony in Cambodian, French, and English.[3] He required multiple redirections during cross-examination to wait for the French translation before responding to the question asked in English. During the mother’s testimony in Cambodian, he had to be cautioned to avoid distracting the court as he listened and reacted simultaneously to her response in Cambodian, its interpretation into English, and the subsequent translation into French.
[41] The father’s hostility was not limited to the mother but extended to her legal counsel, whom he repeatedly insulted in evidence and during proceedings. In addition to calling the mother irresponsible and untrustworthy, he referred to her as “a disgrace” and “mentally unstable.” He dismissed her lawyer as “incompetent,” referred to them in profane and derogatory terms such as “crazy” and a “fucking lawyer,” and accused her of manipulating the legal process, misinterpreting court orders, and being financially influenced by Legal Aid Ontario. These baseless accusations aligned with his broader refusal to accept any court decisions unfavorable to him.
[42] The father’s aggressive behavior was further reflected in the overwhelming number of abusive text messages he sent to the mother, which the court accepts is likely only a fraction of what has occurred.
[43] The father also contributed to unnecessary delays in the proceedings, including seeking leave, mid-trial, to call Justice Sullivan as a witness to explain the intention of the final order. This request was inappropriate and served only to prolong litigation rather than advance a resolution in J.L.’s best interests.
[44] While the mother answered questions directly and accepted responsibility for her actions where appropriate, the father remained adversarial and inflexible. His testimony indicated an unwillingness to engage in constructive co-parenting and a persistent effort to frame himself as a victim, without acknowledging his own contributions to the ongoing conflict.
[45] The analysis of the evidence that follows is conducted within the context of these credibility findings.
Part Three – Material Change
3.1 The Law
[46] The law on material change in circumstances in parenting matters is governed by Section 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act,[4] (the Act), which prohibits varying a custody or access order unless there has been a material change in circumstances affecting or likely to affect the child’s best interests.
[47] The Supreme Court of Canada in Gordon v. Goertz,[5] established a two-stage test.
(1) First, the applicant must demonstrate a material change in circumstances affecting the child.
(2) If this threshold is met, the court then conducts a fresh analysis of what is in the child’s best interests.
[48] To constitute a material change, the change must be substantial, continuing, and of a nature that, if known at the time of the original order, would likely have resulted in a different order.[6]
[49] The change must arise after the original order was made[7] and must materially affect the child, the parents, or both.[8]
[50] A material change may be found in various situations. If the original order or reasons contemplated specific changes in parenting as the child matures, and those circumstances have now occurred, this may satisfy the test.[9]
[51] Worsening parental conflict that affects the child’s well-being can also constitute a material change.[10]
[52] Repeated or serious breaches of a final order that impact the child’s best interests may justify a variation.[11] Additionally, if one parent undermines the child’s relationship with the other parent contrary to the expectations of the original order, this may also be considered a material change.[12]
3.2 Analysis and Conclusion
[53] The father has failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances that would justify modifying the final order in his favour. Instead, his actions—wrongfully retaining the child in the summer of 2022, enrolling her in school in Montreal without the mother’s consent, denying the mother court-ordered contact, and failing to pay child support—constitute clear breaches of the order.
[54] Courts do not condone self-help remedies. A parent who believes an order is no longer in the child’s best interests must seek relief through the courts rather than unilaterally altering the terms.[13]
[55] Courts have repeatedly held that unilateral actions impacting a child’s stability must not be rewarded.[14] Parents who engage in self-help measures risk losing custodial authority due to concerns about their judgment.[15]
[56] The father’s deliberate actions show a disregard for court authority, raising serious concerns about his ability to follow future orders or effectively co-parent with the mother. The court is not bound by a perceived status quo when one parent improperly withholds the child or unilaterally changes parenting arrangements.[16]
[57] Accordingly, the father’s motion change is dismissed.
[58] Not only does the father’s conduct and his breaches of the final order undermine his case and disqualify his motion to change but they also support the mother’s motion to change and reinforce the need for stricter parenting conditions and greater safeguards to protect the child’s best interests.
[59] The father’s wrongful retention of the child, combined with his refusal to comply with court orders, his unreasonable hostility towards the mother and his complete lack of insight into his conduct has heightened concerns about the child’s well-being and stability. His alarming communications during the dispute further reinforce the need for supervised parenting time.
[60] Accordingly, the mother has met the test for a material change in circumstances affecting the child, justifying changes to the final order.
Part Four – Best Interests of the Child
4.1 The Law
[61] As the mother has established that there has been a material change in circumstances affecting the child, the next step is to conduct a fresh analysis to determine what arrangement serves the child’s best interests.
[62] The law on the best interests of the child in parenting matters is governed by section 24 of the Act, which requires that all decisions regarding parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and contact be determined solely based on the child’s best interests.
[63] The Supreme Court of Canada in Gordon v. Goertz,[17] established that the best interests of the child are not merely paramount but the only consideration in such an analysis. Courts assess best interests from the child’s perspective rather than the parents’ and must take a holistic approach to evaluating the child’s circumstances.
[64] The assessment of best interests is guided by a non-exhaustive list of factors. No one factor is given statutory pre-eminence, and each case must be decided based on its own facts.[18] The best interests test is not a mechanical checklist, but rather a flexible, contextual assessment of the child’s needs and the people involved in their life.[19] Courts must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being.[20]
[65] The law recognizes the importance of maintaining strong relationships between children and both parents, provided it is in their best interests. A child with attachments to both parents benefits from sufficient contact with each, without prolonged separations, to ensure meaningful relationships.[21] However, factors such as high parental conflict, failure to financially support the child, or non-compliance with court orders may weigh against shared decision-making responsibility or extensive parenting time.[22] Failure to adhere to court orders and refusal to pay child support go directly to a parent’s ability and willingness to act in the best interests of the child.[23]
[66] Exposure to family violence is a significant consideration. Section 24 of the Act requires that findings of family violence be factored into the best interests analysis.[24]
[67] Family violence includes not only physical harm but also emotional, psychological, and financial abuse.[25] Even a single incident of family violence may raise safety concerns that affect the parenting arrangement.[26] Research confirms that children exposed to family violence, whether directly or indirectly, are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives.[27] Family violence can be difficult to prove, as it often occurs in private and lacks corroborating evidence. Nonetheless, proof of even one incident may warrant limitations on contact.[28]
[68] Courts have recognized that exposure to parental conflict is one of the most damaging factors for children following separation.[29] A parent’s ability to shield the child from conflict is an important consideration. The failure to do so may justify limiting parenting time or granting sole decision-making responsibility to the other parent.[30]
[69] Past parental conduct is only relevant to the extent that it affects a parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs. Section 24(5) of the Act states that “the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.” To be admissible, past conduct must be directly and logically linked to the parenting order being sought.[31]
4.2 Analysis and Conclusion
4.2.1 Overview
[70] There is no need to conduct a fresh best interests analysis of the father’s requested variation of the terms of Justice Sullivan’s order regarding decision-making responsibility, primary residence, parenting time, or terms of parenting, including travel as his motion to change has been dismissed.
[71] The court’s analysis will address only the mother’s requested changes to the terms of parenting time, travel, and the existing restraining order.
4.2.2 Parenting Time
[72] The father opposes the mother’s request for supervised parenting time, asserting that his past parenting time was exercised without incident and that the restrictions sought by the mother are unwarranted. He maintains that his noncompliance with prior orders should not preclude him from having meaningful and unsupervised parenting time with the child.
[73] The evidence presented at trial establishes a history of the father’s refusal to comply with court orders, including the return of the child in July 2022, which necessitated police intervention. The father’s lack of engagement in in-person parenting time since Justice Sirivar’s temporary order of September 13, 2022, further undermines his position. It demonstrates he prioritizes his own pride to the child’s need to have a relationship with him. Additionally, concerns regarding his controlling and aggressive behaviour, as substantiated in previous proceedings, weigh against granting him unsupervised parenting time at this stage.
[74] The court must determine parenting arrangements in accordance with the child’s best interests. Stability, safety, and consistency are paramount considerations. A parent’s failure to adhere to court orders, refusal to pay child support, and lack of demonstrated insight into past misconduct all weigh against an order for unsupervised access. This lack of insight makes the father a poor candidate to change.
[75] The requirement for supervised parenting time does not mean that supervision should be indefinite. Rather, it is now the father’s responsibility to demonstrate his commitment to pursuing a relationship with the child in a child-centric manner. The structured, supervised parenting time will be implemented and will graduate over time, providing the father with the opportunity to prove his ability to comply with court orders and to show that he has made a constructive and sustained change before supervised parenting time expands to unsupervised parenting time. This plan will also ensure the child’s physical and emotional security while maintaining a connection with both parents.
[76] The father’s parenting time shall be as follows:
(1) In-person parenting time shall:
(a) Occur in Toronto.
(b) Be supervised by Access for Parents and Children in Ontario, or a private supervision service (such as Brayden Supervision Services, or another comparable private supervision service), the cost of which shall be paid for entirely by the father.
(c) For a period of four months, occur on alternate Saturdays for up to two hours, as soon as APCO or Brayden Supervision Services can facilitate the visits.
(d) If no more than two visits are missed in the prior four months for which the father is responsible, for a period of four months, parenting time on alternate Saturdays shall expand to up to four hours, if the father’s visits are exercised through Brayden Supervision Services (or another comparable private supervision service).[32]
(e) If no more than two visits are missed in the next four months for which the father is responsible, parenting time on alternate Saturdays shall expand to up to six hours, through Brayden Supervision Services (or another comparable private supervision service).
(2) Virtual parenting time shall occur every Tuesday and Thursday for up to 30 minutes from 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
[77] The court will want to see the father do the following before approving any request to restore unsupervised parenting time:
(1) Continue to have no contact with the mother except pursuant to the exceptions to the Restraining Order set out below.
(2) Exercise in-person and virtual parenting time with the child consistently for a period of not less than 12-months.
(3) Successfully complete the Caring Dads program, or a similar program offered in Québec.
(4) Attend intensive therapy with a professional trained in domestic violence to address his abusive behaviour. He should provide a report from this therapist that he has meaningfully participated in this therapy and that sets out any gains he has made.
(5) Demonstrate insight into the impact of his past abusive behavior on the mother and child and has adopted healthier coping mechanisms for stress and frustration.
(6) Show responsibility by accurately reporting his income and paying child support pursuant to the child support order, inclusive of arrears.
(7) Pay the outstanding costs orders.
(8) Follow the court order.
[78] The father's past conduct, his repeated non-compliance with court orders, and inconsistent parenting time justify requiring him to seek leave before filing another motion to change. This requirement ensures judicial oversight, prevents unnecessary litigation, and maintains stability for J.L. and the mother.
[79] If the father is able to substantially take these steps over the next twelve months, the court will consider this to be a material change in circumstances. If he takes these steps (and if an agreement cannot be reached with the mother), the court encourages the father to bring a 14B motion to seek such leave. He shall not bring a motion to seek leave for a motion to change the parenting provisions of this order or the parenting provisions of Justice Sullivan’s final order, for at least 12-months.
4.2.3 Travel
[80] The mother is requesting that the father be prohibited from traveling with J.L. outside of Ontario without her written consent or a court order.
[81] The court finds that he should not be permitted to remove J.L. from Ontario for the following reasons:
(1) The father has previously disregarded court orders requiring J.L.’s return to the mother.
(2) The father’s past actions indicate a risk that he may again refuse to return J.L., potentially leading to legal interventions and disruptions to her stability.
(3) Allowing the father to remove J.L. from Ontario could create further instability for the child, as his previous conduct suggests a disregard for maintaining consistent care and schedules.
(4) Given his history of non-compliance, there is a significant concern that any travel outside Ontario could complicate enforcement measures and delay J.L.’s return.
(5) J.L.’s well-being is best served by maintaining a predictable and secure environment, which is jeopardized by any possibility of unauthorized retention.
[82] The mother also seeks permission to travel with J.L. outside the country for up to 30 days and up to 60 days if traveling to Cambodia for vacation purposes, without requiring the father’s consent.
[83] The mother agrees to provide the father with at least 45 days’ notice of travel and one day’s notice in case of an emergency, along with travel details and emergency contact information via email.
[84] Additionally, the mother proposes facilitating video parenting time between J.L. and the father once a week for an hour on Tuesdays between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time while she and J.L. are on vacation.
[85] The father opposes the mother’s request regarding international travel with J.L. without his consent, citing concerns about disruptions to J.L.’s routine, reduced parenting time, and uncertainty about return arrangements. These concerns are not accepted, as they are not supported by evidence and do not outweigh J.L.’s best interests.
[86] The Court grants the mother’s request as it is in J.L.’s best interests for the following reasons:
(1) The mother has consistently adhered to court orders and ensured J.L.’s availability for the father’s parenting time, demonstrating reliability.
(2) The mother’s evidence was that, but for an emergency, her intended dates of travel would occur during the child’s school breaks, ensuring the proposed travel does not interfere with J.L.’s schooling or established routines.
(3) Travel to Cambodia strengthens J.L.’s connection to her heritage and extended family, which supports her emotional development.
(4) The request includes provisions for weekly video contact between J.L. and the father while she is away, maintaining their relationship.
(5) Allowing reasonable travel ensures J.L.’s benefits from enriching experiences while preserving stability and security.
4.2.4 Restraining Order
[87] Before considering whether to modify a restraining order, it is essential to examine the evidentiary basis for its issuance.
[88] The evidence presented by the mother in prior proceedings overwhelmingly supported the need for a restraining order. Justice Sullivan found credible evidence of threats, harassment, physical violence, stalking, prior violations of court orders—including restraining orders—and resulting emotional distress, all of which justified protection.
[89] The case history demonstrates the father’s repeated noncompliance with court orders, necessitating judicial intervention. His actions, including retaining J.L. beyond the court-ordered period in July 2022—requiring police enforcement—illustrate his disregard for court directives.
[90] Trial evidence, including law enforcement testimony, corroborates the father’s controlling and aggressive behaviour toward the mother. The mother provided copies of abusive communications from the father, including threats against himself and the child, underscoring the necessity of maintaining the restraining order.
[91] The mother seeks additional protection through a no-contact provision, asserting that any direct or indirect communication beyond urgent child-related matters exacerbates conflict and poses a risk to her safety and that of the child.
[92] The father opposes this expansion but does not contest the remain-away provision. His submissions focused on parenting time and decision-making rather than modifying contact restrictions.
[93] The evidence supports the mother’s request for a no-contact provision. Given the father’s history of court order breaches and police-involved incidents, and persistently abusive communication, the risk of continued conflict remains high.
[94] Restricting communication, except for urgent matters concerning J.L., is a necessary and proportionate response. A clear boundary is essential to minimize conflict and ensure the mother’s safety.
[95] Accordingly, the restraining order shall be expanded to include a no-contact provision. The father shall not have direct or indirect communication with the mother, except for emails strictly related to urgent matters concerning J.L. and facilitating J.L.’s virtual parenting time.
Part Five – Orders
[96] An order shall go on the following terms:
(1) Paragraph 9 (a-e) of the order of Justice Sullivan dated October 25, 2021, shall be changed as follows:
(a) The father’s in-person parenting time with J.L. shall:
(i) Occur in Toronto.
(ii) Be supervised by Access for Parents and Children in Ontario, or a private supervision service (such as Brayden Supervision Services, or another comparable private supervision service), the cost of which shall be paid for entirely by the father.
(iii) For a period of four months, occur on alternate Saturdays for up to two hours.
(iv) If no more than two visits are missed in the prior four months for which the father is responsible, for a period of four months, parenting time on alternate Saturdays shall expand to up to four hours, if the father’s visits are exercised through Brayden Supervision Services (or another comparable private supervision service).
(v) If no more than two visits are missed in the next four months for which the father is responsible, parenting time on alternate Saturdays shall expand to up to six hours, through Brayden Supervision Services (or another comparable private supervision service).
(b) The father shall have virtual (video) parenting time with the child every Tuesday and Thursday for up to 30 minutes from 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
(2) The father shall not bring any motion to change the parenting orders of this or Justice Sullivan’s order without prior leave of the court. He shall not bring a leave motion for at least twelve (12) months.
(3) If after twelve months the father wishes to bring a motion to change on the parenting issues, he may seek leave of the court by filing proof of:
(a) Consistent attendance at virtual and parenting time with the child.
(b) Successful completion of the Caring Dads program, or a similar program offered in Québec.
(c) A report from his therapist demonstrating that he has meaningfully participated in therapy to address domestic violence and abusive behaviour, and setting out any gains he has made, along with a copy of the therapist’s CV.
(d) A Family Responsibility Office Statement of Arrears noting child support are up to date.
(e) Proof of payment of any outstanding costs awards.
(4) Paragraph 10(a-f) of the order of Justice Sullivan dated October 25, 2021, shall be changed as follows:
(a) The father shall not remove J.L. from the province of Ontario, for any purpose, without further order of the court.
(b) The mother shall be permitted to travel with J.L. outside of Ontario and Canada for up to 30 days, and for up to 60 days if traveling to Cambodia for vacation purposes, without the father’s consent. She shall provide the father with at least 45 days’ written notice of travel and one day’s notice in case of emergency, including travel details and emergency contact information, by e-mail.
(c) The mother shall facilitate video parenting time once per week on Tuesdays between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. Eastern standard time with the father while traveling vacationing with the child.
(5) The Restraining Order of Justice Sullivan dated October 25, 2021, shall be changed as follows:
(a) The father shall not come within 500 meters of the mother’s residence, or her person, or anywhere she is known to be, at any time or for any reason.
(b) The father shall not contact or communicate directly or indirectly with the mother, except by e-mail on urgent matters only relating to the child, and for the purposes of arranging the child’s virtual parenting time.
Part Six – Costs and Other
[97] If the mother seeks costs, she shall make written submissions by March 7, 2025. The father will then have until March 21, 2025, to make a written response. The written submissions shall not exceed five pages, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font (not including any offer to settle or bill of costs) and shall be delivered to the trial coordinator’s office on the second floor of the courthouse.
[98] When preparing and submitting the draft Order and draft Restraining Order, the parties shall submit fully completed CPIC forms.
Released: February 14, 2025
Signed: Justice Jennifer S. Daudlin
Footnotes
[1] C.P. v. P.S., 2021 ONCJ 557.
[2] The father has exercised virtual parenting time.
[3] The father demonstrated in testimony stronger oral comprehension than reading and writing skills.
[4] R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.
[5] (1996), 19 R.F.L. (4th) 177 (S.C.C.).
[6] L.M.L.P. v. L.S., [2011] SCC 64.
[7] N.S. v. A.N.S., 2021 ONSC 5283; K.M. v. J.R., 2021 ONSC 111.
[8] M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Wreggitt v. Belanger; Hackett v. Sever, 2017 ONCJ 193.
[11] Armstrong v. Vanneste, 2017 ONSC 5835; Laurin v. Martin, 2005 CarswellOnt 5084.
[12] Leggatt v. Leggatt, 2015 ONSC 4502.
[13] Blair v. Hamilton, 2018 ONSC 7328; Ng v. Charles, 2016 ONSC 2946; Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480; Walton v. Walton, 2022 ONCJ 394.
[14] Canning v. Davis-Hall, 2019 ONCJ 971 at para. 34; Fallis v. Decker, 2013 ONSC 5206 at para. 26.
[15] Raifi v. Raifi, 2014 ONSC 1377 at paras. 21-22; Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 6451; Clement v. Clement, 2010 ONSC 1113.
[16] Howard v. Howard, [1999] O.J. No. 3164 (SCJ); Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305.
[17] Supra, note 5.
[18] Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479.
[19] Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.
[20] M.Q. v. R.C., 2022 ONSC 1753; subsection 24(2) of the Act.
[21] Van Den Driessche v. Van Den Driessche, 2011 CarswellMan 255 (Q.B. Family); Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479.
[22] Jama v. Mohamed, [2015] ONCJ 619; P.H. v. T.J., 2017 ONCJ 166; McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610; J.T. v. E.J., 2022 ONSC 4956; Shokoufimogiman v. Bozorgi, 2022 ONSC 5057.
[23] Cooley v. Cooley, 2024 ONSC 1133.
[24] White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736.
[25] McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610.
[26] Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22.
[27] 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.
[28] M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207.
[29] Graham v. Bruto, [2007] O.J. No. 656 (S.C.), at para. 65, aff’d 2008 ONCA 260; Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 641.
[30] Wiafe v. Aboakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201.
[31] E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264.
[32] APCO will only supervise visits up to two hours.