DATE
June 8, 2025
COURT FILE NO.
25-085-00
COURT
Ontario Court of Justice
BETWEEN:
J.N.
APPLICANT FATHER
Zonelle Webb, for the APPLICANT
- and -
A.H.
RESPONDENT MOTHER
Natalia Crowe, for the RESPONDENT
HEARD
June 3, 2025
JUSTICE
Joanna Harris
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This matter was scheduled for a Motion today.
[2] The following motion materials were filed:
[i] Affidavit of the Father, sworn May 15, 2025.
[ii] Form 14 – Mother’s Notice of Motion, dated May 23, 2025.
[iii] Affidavit of the Mother, sworn May 23, 2025.
[iv] Father’s Reply Affidavit, sworn May 30, 2025.
[v] Mother’s Reply Affidavit, sworn May 30, 2025.
[3] The parties were asked at the last court appearance to update their Form 35.1 Affidavits (decision-making responsibility, parenting time, contact).
[4] The Father filed an updated Form 35.1 Affidavit (decision-making responsibility, parenting time, contact) sworn May 30, 2025. The Father’s criminal conditions are attached.
[5] The Mother takes the position that her Form 35.1 Affidavit (decision-making responsibility, parenting time, contact) remains accurate and that her criminal conditions are attached to her Affidavit, sworn May 30, 2025, at Exhibit “A”.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
[6] The Father did not file a Notice of Motion, but his position is set out in his Affidavit, sworn May 15, 2025, that he is seeking parenting time Fridays 6 p.m. to Sundays 6 p.m. every weekend on a temporary basis. He is also seeking costs against the Mother for the motion. Counsel for the Mother took no issue with the lack of a Form 14 Notice of Motion.
[7] At the outset of the Motion, the Father consented to a temporary order that the Child’s primary residence will be with the Mother.
[8] The Mother is seeking the following orders:
The child, […], born [..], 2023 [the "Child"], will have primary residence with the Respondent, [Mother].
The Applicant, [Father], will have parenting time with [the Child] as follows: Seven (7) Saturday Day Visits
a. One further 2-hour visit, namely commencing on Saturday, May 24, 2025 or as soon as possible, from 1:00pm to 3:00pm (2 hours) in the community and supervised by Aboriginal Legal Services;
b. Thereafter, two 4-hour Saturday visits from 10:00am-2:00pm in the community and without supervision;
c. Thereafter, two 6-hour Saturday visits from 10:00am-4:00pm in the community and without supervision;
d. Thereafter, two 8-hour Saturday visits from 10:00am-6:00pm in the community and without supervision;
e. The exception is Father's Day on Sunday, June 15, 2025 when the Applicant will be with the child on Father's Day instead of on the Saturday that weekend.The exchanges will be supervised by Aboriginal Legal Services or as otherwise mutually agreed upon by the parties, through Counsel.
Aboriginal Legal Services will conduct a virtual tour of [the Father's] home and report their observations to the court before overnights begin in [the Father's] home.
[The Father's] will be the primary caregiver during his parenting time.
[The Father's] will not consume or be under the influence of alcohol or drugs during his parenting time. Drug paraphernalia will be stored away and out of reach of the child.
[The Father's] will not cut the child's hair.
Costs.
[9] Both parties submit their proposals are within the recommendations of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”) Parenting Guidelines.
ISSUE
[10] The issue for the court to determine is what parenting time with the Father is in the Child’s best interest, pursuant to factors set out in subsection 24(2) and 24(7) of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, as amended (“CLRA”).
FACTS
[11] Many of the facts before the court were seriously disputed between the parties, particularly with respect to the allegations of family violence. The court is unable to reconcile the parties’ versions of events without examination and cross-examination at trial. However, it is clear that there has been family violence between the parents; the exact nature of the family violence is disputed.
[12] The parents are each 24 years old.
[13] The Mother is Indigenous. Her Indigenous community is the […] First Nation.
[14] The Mother resides in Toronto with the Child, the Child’s maternal Grandmother, the Mother’s older brother, and younger sister, as well as the Mother’s four year old nephew, Davey, whose mother (the Mother’s other sister) is unable to care for him currently.
[15] The Father is Trinidadian.
[16] The Father resides in […] with the Child’s paternal Grandmother and the Father’s brother.
[17] The parents have known each other since they were in high school. The parents had a relationship on and off from 2016 to 2024.
[18] The Mother alleges that the Father physically assaulted her in 2019/2020 breaking her nose. The Mother’s evidence is that she attended and was treated at a hospital in Mississauga, but did not contact the police at that time. The Father denies these allegations.
[19] The Mother alleges that in 2021 she was sexually assaulted on two occasions by the Father. The Mother’s evidence is that she attended at the Owen Sound Regional Hospital and completed a rape evidence kit, as advised by the police but she did not give a statement to the police at that time. The Father denies these allegations.
[20] The parents have one Child, born September 23, 2023. The Child is described as healthy and cheerful. He currently co-sleeps with his Mother. The Child is reportedly meeting his milestones and his growth is in the 85th percentile. The Child eats a variety of foods and continues to use a bottle. The Child will be starting junior kindergarten in September. The Child is potty training.
[21] The Father was present at the Child’s birth, and was frequently visiting and staying at the Mother’s home in Toronto with the Mother and the Child until the parties separated. The Mother’s evidence indicates that the Father changed the Child’s diapers, fed the Child formula and bathed the Child, prior to separation.
[22] On June 12, 2024, the parents separated.
[23] The parties have different perspectives of the versions of events that led to their separation. The Father alleges that the Mother stabbed him with a knife. The Mother was charged with spousal assault, not assault with a weapon. That charge remains outstanding. The Mother admits to slapping the Father in the head, but denies stabbing the Father.
[24] Since July 2, 2024, the Mother has been a patient with Shkaabe Makwa Clinical Services which provides outpatient group and individual counselling to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people experiencing substance misuse and mental health issues. The Mother has participated regularly in individual counselling.
[25] On September 6, 2024, the Father commenced an Application at the Ontario Court of Justice located at 47 Sheppard Avenue East.
[26] On October 25, 2024, a First Appearance was held at 47 Sheppard.
[27] On December 16, 2024, a second First Appearance was held at 47 Sheppard.
[28] On January 22, 2025, the matter was transferred to the court at 311 Jarvis following a 14B Motion filed by the Mother and ordered by Justice Jones. The matter was scheduled for an initial case conference on March 5, 2025.
[29] On March 5, 2025, the parties reached a consent on the issue of child support and the Father has been paying child support monthly since the parties’ separation to date in accordance with that order. The parties could not agree on the issue of the Father’s parenting time and the matter was adjourned briefly for the parties to obtain further information about the Aboriginal Legal Services (“ALS”) access plan. The court recommended that both parents engage in parenting education courses, geared to separated parents in high conflict, additionally Triple P Parenting courses as a resource for first-time parents.
[30] On March 7, 2025, the parties agreed to the Father’s parenting time being supervised by ALS. The Father did not agree that supervision was necessary but wanted to see the Child without further delay. A motion date was scheduled.
[31] On March 27, 2025, the Father had a visit with the Child supervised by ALS. The Father arrived on time. The Child struggled at first to adjust but began playing with toys. The Father was attentive and calm throughout the visit. The interactions with the Child were described as “warm and supportive”.
[32] On March 28, 2025, the Father had another visit with the Child supervised by ALS. The Father arrived on time. The Father responded appropriately to the Child’s separation anxiety and picked him up and provided emotional support. The Father was attentive, affectionate, and gentle. The Child was engaged in play. The Father sang to the Child, picked him up and rocked him. The Father managed to calm the Child and redirect his attention.
[33] On March 29, 2025, the Mother did not bring the Child to ALS for the scheduled visit because the Maternal Grandmother was unavailable to drive.
[34] On April 3, 2025, the matter was spoken to again to determine whether the motion was necessary and to assess how the Father’s parenting time was going. The ALS supervision notes were not available. A timetable for this motion was scheduled.
[35] On April 12, 2025, the Father had another visit with the Child supervised by ALS. The Father arrived on time. The Father followed the Child’s lead and played with the Child. The visit ended early as the Father was arrested and charged with assaulting the Mother prior to the Child’s birth.
[36] The Mother admitted providing police with the address for ALS where the supervised visits were taking place, but she maintains this was only after the police told her they could not get a hold of the Father. The Mother denied knowing that police would interrupt the Father’s parenting time and arrest him.
[37] On April 24, 2025, the Father was arrested again and charged with sexual assault against the Mother prior to the Child’s birth.
[38] On April 26, 2025, the Father cancelled his supervised visit at ALS.
[39] The Father alleges that the timing of the Mother’s reports to police is vindictive and only as a result of the Father beginning to see the Child.
[40] The Father’s evidence was that the experience of being arrested at the parenting time visit, being handcuffed, accompanied by two police officers out of the supervising center and spending two separate nights incarcerated prevented him from exercising further parenting time out of fear that he would be arrested a third time.
[41] On May 6, 2025, the matter was spoken to again to review the supervision notes to assist the parties in resolving the issue of the Father’s parenting time. Ultimately the issue could not be resolved and the parties’ each sought to bring motions.
[42] The Mother alleges that the Paternal Grandmother provided her and the Father with alcohol and marijuana when they were underage, which is denied by the Father.
[43] The Mother alleges that the Paternal Grandmother has marijuana growing in her basement, which is denied by the Father.
[44] The Mother alleges that the Child’s Father’s brother has made racist remarks to her, which the Father denies. Both parties agree the Paternal Uncle currently has an Indigenous partner.
[45] The Mother alleges that the Paternal Uncle and his partner drink alcohol in the home where the Father resides.
[46] The Mother alleges that the Father and Paternal Uncle have a friend that used to visit the home and that the Father told the Mother that this friend has a cocaine problem, which is denied by the Father.
[47] The Mother states that hair carries great cultural significance to the Anishinaabe culture and asked for an order that the Father not cut the Child’s hair during his parenting time.
[48] The Father understands the importance of the Mother’s heritage but takes the position that the Mother is denying the Child any connection to his Trinidadian culture and connection to his paternal family.
[49] The Father has a bedroom with a crib set up for the Child.
[50] The Father makes a number of allegations related to the Mother, her family and her living arrangements; however, the Father is not seeking to supervise the Mother’s parenting time, so much of this evidence was not relevant to the issue of the Father’s parenting time. The allegations were denied by the Mother.
LAW
[51] Subsection 24(1) of the CLRA provides that the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of a child when making a parenting order or a contact order.
[52] The issue for the court to determine is what parenting time with the Father is in the Child’s best interest, pursuant to factors set out in subsections 24(2) to 24(7) of the CLRA.
[53] Subsection 24(2) of the CLRA states:
Primary consideration
24 (2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.
[54] The factors the court is required to consider when making an order for parenting time, are as follows:
24(3) (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.
[55] With respect to family violence the court is also required to consider the following:
24(4)(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.
[56] Subsection 24(6) of the CLRA states:
Allocation of parenting time
24(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
[57] Application of 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 – “case by case consideration of the unique circumstance of each child is the hallmark of the process”: Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60 at para 13.
[58] The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents: Gordon v. Goertz.
[59] The analysis must remain centred on the rights of the child, from a child-centred perspective. The ‘rights’ of a parent are not a criterion: Young v. Young.
[60] Moreover, adult preferences or “rights” do not form part of the analysis except insofar as they are relevant to the determination of the best interests of the child: Young v. Young; E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264 (SCJ).
[61] The focus is on the child, not the parent: S.S.L. v. M.A.B., 2022 ONSC 6326 (SCJ).
[62] The court is required to undertake a broad analysis of each child’s specific situation. The child’s best interests are not merely “paramount” – they are the only consideration in this analysis: Gordon v. Goertz at para 28; Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 641 (ON CA); E.M. v. C.V., 2022 ONSC 7037 (SCJ).
[63] Section 24 of the CLRA applies equally to temporary orders: s. 24(7).
[64] Typically, on a motion, the court is presented with conflicting affidavits which are incomplete and untested. The facts are often still evolving. As a result, a temporary order is meant to provide a reasonably acceptable solution on an expeditious basis for a problem that will be fully canvassed at subsequent conferences or resolved at a trial. See: Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 (SCJ); Munroe v. Graham, 2021 ONCJ 253 (OCJ); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 2021 ONSC 7045 (SCJ); Shokoufimogiman v. Bozorgi, 2022 ONSC 5057 (SCJ); Sadiq v Musa, 2023 ONSC 1811 (SCJ); Grover v Grover, 2023 ONSC 3607 (SCJ).
[65] 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: Jennings v. Garrett; Ascani v. Keedi, 2021 ONSC 4282 (SCJ).
Supervised Access
[66] Supervised access is a great intrusion into the relationship between a child and parent and its continued imposition must be justified: Stec v. Blair, 2021 ONSC 6212 at para 22.
[67] Supervised access is warranted when a parent’s conduct includes:
[a] Harassment and harmful behaviour towards the other parent cause the parent and child stress or fear.
[b] A history of violence.
[c] Unpredictable or uncontrollable behaviour.
[d] Parental alienation.
[e] Denigration of the other parent.
[f] Where the child is being introduced or reintroduced into the life of a parent after a significant absence.
[g] Neglect or abuse to the Child during parenting times.
[h] Substance abuse issues.
[i] Serious mental health issues impacting parenting.
[j] Parenting capacity issues impacting child’s safety and wellbeing.
[k] Threats to remove a Child.
[l] Ongoing criminality.
See: S.W. v. L.C., 2019 ONCJ 922 at paras 14-21 and V. S. J. v. L.J.G. at para 135 where Justice Blishen provided a useful overview of factors that have led courts to terminate access.
[68] Supervised parenting should not be imposed if its sole purpose is to provide comfort to the other parent: Riley v. Riley, 2024 ONSC 4583 at para 42.
[69] Even in cases where a parent may be inexperienced and lack parenting skills, supervised access was not ordered. Parents learn to parent from experience, their partners, their parents, their friends, and their child. See: Kaja v. Mihalciuc, 2018 ONCJ 464; M.C. v. P.P., 2021 ONCJ 219, as cited in Riley v. Riley, 2024 ONSC 4583 at para 42.
Criminal Charges
[70] As held at para 47 of Riley v. Riley, 2024 ONSC 4583:
It has been established that courts “must be vigilant of the risk that parents may engage the criminal process to achieve a strategic advantage in family law proceedings”. Courts must approach allegations of criminal wrongdoing cautiously and whether there are any clear concerns that impact the analysis regarding the best interests of the children. Relying on Chappel, J. in Batsinda v. Batsinda, 2013 ONSC 7869:
“… this involves a careful consideration and weighing of all of the evidence and relevant factors … Allowing the existence of criminal charges in such circumstances to dictate the outcome of the motion runs the risk of allowing a party to invoke the criminal law system as a tool to gain an unfair advantage and hijack the Family Law proceedings”.
The AFCC Parenting Guidelines
[71] The AFCC Parenting Guidelines were prepared by the Ontario Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC-Ontario) to assist parents and their professional advisors in specifically developing the best, child-focused, and realistic parenting plans. As set out in its preamble,
This Guide combines knowledge gained from developmental research on the impact of parental separation and divorce on children, with practical insights about the needs of children with parents living apart. This Guide is intended to be used in conjunction with the AFCC-Ontario Parenting Plan Template, which offers suggestions for specific clauses that can be used or adapted for a parenting plan.
[72] Although it is not binding on the courts, the AFCC Parenting Guidelines 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: Hatab v. Abuhatab, 2022 ONSC 1560 at para 61; 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; Melbourne v. Melbourne, 2022 ONSC 2299 at paras 19-21; Dupuis v. Dupuis, 2024 ONSC 4836 at para 28.
[73] For a toddler aged 18 to 36 months, the AFCC Parenting Guidelines suggest as follows:
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). If there are older siblings, they are often part of the security system for toddlers and they should normally be on the same parenting schedule.
If the child has some trouble with transitions, or is not particularly adaptable or flexible, or 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 (for example three contacts during the week, made up of one or two 4 to 6 hour blocks and one or two non-consecutive overnights).
If one of the parents has not established the parenting skills necessary to effectively and safely manage a toddler, that parent might have 2 or 3 daytime contacts a week (starting at 1 to 2 hours and working up to 4 to 6 hours) to give that parent the opportunity to develop a relationship and the parenting skills. If the child does not show distress in the care of that parent, parenting time may increase to include an overnight each week, perhaps extending to two overnights a week. At least initially, if there is more than one overnight a week, they should be spread out over the course of the week. More overnights may be appropriate if the child responds well to overnight parenting time or there are older siblings who can provide support for the younger child.
ANALYSIS
[74] The following is an analysis of the factors the court has considered in this case:
(a) The Child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability.
[75] The Child in this case is a toddler who requires a consistent, calm, attentive, and loving caregiving.
[76] The Child requires caregivers with a level of maturity and insight that would permit them to focus primarily on the Child’s needs and not primarily on their own needs.
[77] The Child is very closely bonded to his Mother, which is healthy and positive but also creates challenges for the Child with separation anxiety, but this is normal for a Child of this age.
[78] The Child co-sleeps with the Mother.
[79] The Mother’s evidence helpfully set out child-focused information about the Child and the Child’s needs and the Mother’s abilities to meet those needs. The Mother’s evidence was appropriately focused on the Child.
[80] The evidence indicates that the Father responds patiently and appropriately to the Child’s emotional needs.
[81] The Father did not put in evidence the child-proofing that has been done at his home, for example to secure furniture to the walls, as recommended previously by the court.
[82] The Father also did not put in evidence his parenting abilities such as diaper changes, planning appropriate activities or his knowledge of child development or any evidence that he engaged in a parenting education course as recommended previously to both parties by the court.
[83] Unfortunately, much of the Father’s evidence focused on the Mother, her shortcomings, her conduct and her housing and extending family, which was unhelpful and unnecessary for the sole issue before the court: the Father’s parenting time.
(b) The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life
[84] The Child has remained in his Mother’s care since birth.
[85] The Father was also regularly involved until the parties’ separation.
[86] The paternal and maternal grandmothers have also been involved with the Child’s life.
[87] The Child has a close bond to his young cousin who resides with the Mother.
(c) Each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the Child’s relationship with the other parent
[88] The Father supports the Child’s relationship with the Mother; however, he focused his evidence on his negative perceptions of the Mother. The Father respects the Mother’s and the Child’s Indigenous culture.
[89] The Mother’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the Child’s relationship with the Father is less certain.
[90] The Mother was unwilling to permit any parenting time for the Father on an unsupervised basis until the Father brought this motion.
[91] The Mother did not bring the Child to parenting time on March 29, 2025.
[92] The Mother suggested to the police that attending at ALS during the Father’s parenting time would be an appropriate location to find the Father.
[93] Despite the positive reports from ALS about the Father’s parenting time, the Mother continues to raise concerns about the Father’s parenting.
[94] The court is concerned that the Mother may continue to struggle to accept that the Father has an important role to play in the Child’s life, and that the Child will have a different relationship with the Father than the Mother has.
(d) The History of Care of the Child
[95] The Mother has been the Child’s primary caregiver since birth, and sole caregiver since separation.
[96] However, the Mother has refused to provide the Father with a meaningful role in the Child’s life since separation.
[97] The evidence does not indicate that the Father struggles to care for the Child. Additionally, the Father resides with the Paternal Grandmother who can provide additional care and assistance if necessary, just as the Maternal Grandmother provides occasional care for the Child while residing with the Mother.
(e) The Child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained
[98] The Child is clearly bonded with his Mother and was upset to be separated from her.
[99] However, the Child was soothed by the Father during his supervised parenting time and appeared to enjoy playing with his Father.
(f) The Child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage
[100] The Child’s Indigenous heritage is very important and must be developed and supported by each parent as much as possible.
[101] The Child also has Trinidadian culture and the Child has not been exposed to his Trinidadian culture to the same degree.
[102] Both of the Child’s heritages must be introduced and supported by each of the parents.
(g) Any Plans for the Child’s care
[103] Both parents have put forward their plans of care for the Child.
[104] The Father proposes the Paternal Grandmother to facilitate the pickups and drop offs.
(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
[105] The court has some concerns about both parents’ ability to care for the Child and to focus primarily on the Child’s needs.
[106] Both parents are relatively young, and their behaviour suggests a history of difficulty making mature and appropriate decisions while regulating their emotions and prioritizing the Child’s need to be protected from exposure to family violence.
[107] The Mother has taken positive steps by engaging with professional supports.
[108] The Mother is taking positive steps to return to school and to better her education for a career that can help support her and the Child.
[109] There was no evidence that the Father is engaged in any counselling or education as recommended by the court previously to both parents.
[110] The parents do not have the ability to communicate with each other in a positive manner and as a result of criminal conditions, which is very unfortunate for the Child who requires parents who can cooperate and share information about the Child’s eating, sleeping, health, and other issues.
(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
[111] Both parents are currently subject to criminal conditions.
[112] The Father’s conditions permit an exception for communication with the Mother pursuant to a family court order.
[113] The Mother’s conditions do not permit such an exception.
(j) Family Violence and its Impact
[114] There are repeated allegations of family violence.
[115] As Mother’s counsel submitted, it appears there was physical violence in both directions.
[116] The allegations of family violence resulting in the Father’s criminal charges pre-date the Child’s birth.
[117] The allegations of family violence resulting in the Mother’s criminal charge were after the Child’s birth.
[118] Family violence can have serious and lifelong consequences for children. In the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, the Court wrote about the impact of family violence, stating:
[143] … Research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives ... Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath, or hearing about it…
[119] Both parties need to take steps to address their roles in the adult conflict between them, so that the Child is not exposed to continuing post-separation conflict.
[120] The Mother is engaged in counselling, which is a positive step.
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
[121] Both parents currently have criminal conditions.
CONCLUSION
[122] The court has considered all of the factors set out in subsections 24(3) and (4) of the CLRA.
[123] It is clear to the court that the Mother is attentive to the Child, connected to the Child and that the Child is bonded to her.
[124] The Child is doing well in the Mother’s care.
[125] The Mother is very committed to the Child and focused on the Child’s needs.
[126] The Mother is teaching the Child about his Indigenous heritage, his Indigenous language, and connecting the Child to his maternal family and his First Nation.
[127] The evidence does not support that the Father has a substance misuse problem, an untreated mental illness or has engaged in serious and ongoing family violence, particularly after the Child’s birth, or any inappropriate harassing communication towards the Mother through text or email.
[128] The Mother does not allege the Father uses cocaine only that a friend who comes to his home occasionally does, which is denied by the Father.
[129] The Mother does not allege the Father is unsupportive of the Child’s Indigenous culture.
[130] Both parents have engaged in family violence, which is concerning. It is difficult to determine on a motion with competing affidavit without examination or cross-examination the nature of the family violence that occurred. Both parents must take steps to address the conflict in the post-separation, co-parenting relationship.
[131] The supervised access notes indicate the Father is attentive, warm and supportive of the Child. The Father was observed to engage with the Child in play and to calmly and gently redirect the Child, as he adjusted to being separated from his Mother.
[132] Yet, the Mother continues to focus on the negative aspects from those clearly positive visits.
[133] The Father has consistently paid child support to the Mother.
[134] The Mother is very connected to the Child, which is healthy, and it may be very difficult for the Mother to separate from the Child, but the Child is entitled to a meaningful relationship with the Father.
[135] The Father’s inexperience caring for the Child is largely as a result of the refusal to permit his parenting time to expand, and not a lack of the Father’s parenting capacity or willingness.
[136] The Father can only gain experience and a greater connection with the Child by spending additional time with the Child.
[137] The Father respects the Child’s Indigenous culture and the Child’s primary relationship with the Mother.
[138] The Father is not seeking to reverse parenting time or even to share parenting time. He is seeking weekly overnight unsupervised parenting time, which is consistent with the AFCC Parenting Guidelines.
[139] The AFCC Parenting Guidelines state that:
• Children do best in both the short-term and the long-run when they feel loved and cared for by both parents.
• Children generally do better when both parents have stable and meaningful involvement in their children’s lives.
[140] The Child is currently not benefiting from the love, support and connection to his Father, his paternal family, and his Trinidadian culture.
[141] The distance between the parents and the long commute poses one of the greater challenges to the Father’s parenting time and limits the frequency of parenting time that can be ordered.
[142] Another significant consideration for the court is the Child’s comfort level with the Father given that he has not had regular and consistent parenting time. The Child is at a developmental stage where separations are difficult and can cause the Child to feel upset.
[143] Therefore, for reasons related to the Child’s comfort and not as a result of the Father’s inability to parent the Child, the court is ordering progressively expanding parenting time: one 8-hour unsupervised community visit, then one unsupervised overnight per week initially, and then progressing to two unsupervised overnight visits per week.
[144] The parents are expected to prioritize the Child’s needs for a conflict free childhood over their own needs, or their feelings about one another.
ORDERS
[145] The following orders are made today:
[a] On consent, the Child’s primary residence shall be with the Mother.
[b] The Child shall have parenting time with the Father, as follows:
[i] Stage 1 – an 8 hour visit in the community on Sunday, June 15, 2025 (Father’s Day) the Father shall have unsupervised parenting time from 10 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. in Toronto.
[ii] Stage 2 – One overnight per week – commencing Saturday, June 21, 2025, and on every Saturday from 10 a.m. until Sunday at 6 p.m. the Child shall have parenting time with the Father.
[iii] Stage 3 – Two overnights per week – commencing Friday, July 18, 2025, and on every Friday from 6 p.m. until Sunday at 6 p.m. the Child shall have parenting time with the Father.
[iv] The pickups and drop offs shall occur at Aboriginal Legal Services Access Centre, if available, but if the ALS Access Centre is not available, the Paternal Grandmother shall facilitate the pick-ups and drop offs at the Mother’s home, for so long as the Paternal Grandmother is willing to do so.
[v] The parties can agree, through counsel and in writing, to any additional other parenting time, or a different pick up and drop off location or facilitator.
[c] The Father shall not cut the Child’s hair during his parenting time.
[d] Aboriginal Legal Services (“ALS”) shall conduct a virtual tour of Father’s home before overnights begin on June 21, 2025. The Father shall address any recommendations made by ALS to the satisfaction of ALS.
[e] Neither party shall consume or be under the influence of alcohol or drugs when caring for the Child.
[f] The parents shall communicate about the Child in a child-focused manner using AppClose, as soon as the Mother’s criminal conditions permit such communication.
[g] If the parties are unable to resolve the issue of costs and either party is seeking costs, submissions may be filed by June 20, 2025, for a maximum of three pages, not including a Bill of Costs and any offers to settle. Responding costs submissions must be filed by June 27, 2025, for a maximum of three pages, not including a Bill of Costs and any offers to settle.
[h] The matter is also scheduled for a Settlement Conference on August 19, 2025 at 3:00 p.m.
[i] This appearance will proceed Hybrid - link set out below. Father and his counsel may attend remotely because he is located out of region.
[j] Court administration is requested to email the endorsement to the parties, and counsel.
Released: June 8, 2025
Justice Joanna Harris