T.I. v. C.B., 2025 ONCJ 392

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: July 22, 2025
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Jarvis FO-25-274-00

BETWEEN:

T.I.
Applicant

— AND —

C.B.
Respondent

Before Justice J. Harris
Heard on July 10, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on July 22, 2025

Amanda Taerk and Madeleine Corwin — counsel for the Applicant/Father
Stephen Kirby and Julia McArthur — counsel for the Respondent/Mother

Justice J. Harris:

Part One – Introduction

[1] This is a decision following an urgent motion, brought prior to a case conference, concerning the Father’s parenting time with the parties’ 10 month old Child.

[2] The following motion materials were filed:
a. The Father’s Form 14: Notice of Motion, dated May 28, 2025.
b. The Father’s Affidavit, sworn May 14, 2025.
c. The Father’s Form 35.1 Affidavit, sworn May 14, 2025.
d. The Father’s Form 35.1A Affidavit, sworn May 14, 2025.
e. The Affidavit of Jolene Dixon, sworn May 27, 2025.
f. The Mother’s Affidavit, sworn June 4, 2025.
g. The Mother’s Responding Affidavit, sworn July 3, 2025.
h. The Father’s Reply Affidavit, sworn July 7, 2025.

[3] The issues the court has been asked to determine are:

1. Whether paragraph 21 as well as Exhibit C, Exhibit D and Exhibit E should be struck from the Mother’s Responding affidavit, sworn July 3, 2025?
2. What parenting time with the Father is in the Child’s best interest, in accordance with the factors set out in subsections 24(2) and 24(7) of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, as amended (“CLRA”)?

Part Two – Position of the Parties

[4] The Applicant (the “Father”) is seeking a temporary without prejudice order for parenting time with the Child, as follows:
a. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.;
b. Every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
c. Such further and other times as may be agreed by the parties in writing or as ordered by the courtroom; and
d. That the Father’s family or friends or an agreed upon third-party are arranged for the exchange of the Child and a set location for the exchange.

[5] The Respondent (the “Mother”) is seeking a temporary without prejudice order for the Father’s parenting time with the Child, as follows:
a. Supervised by Toronto Family Therapy on the following schedule:
(i) Sundays 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
(ii) Tuesdays 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
(iii) Thursdays 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
b. An Order that the Father’s motion shall be adjourned pending the release of his mental health records, treatment plan, confirmation that he is enrolled in therapy and anger management courses.

[6] The Mother’s position is that the court should be cautious given the allegations of family violence and, that the court should consider the context in which this motion came before the court, initially as an ex parte motion, and as an urgent motion prior to a case conference, despite there no longer being any urgency as the Father now has supervised parenting time by way of a without prejudice agreement between the parties.

[7] In response, the Father’s counsel states that a without prejudice agreement should not prevent him from proceeding with an urgent motion for the unsupervised parenting time he is seeking. If entering into a without prejudice agreement for supervised parenting time would result in his urgent motion no longer being urgent, the Father argues, then it would result in parties not making without prejudice agreements to resolve motions.

[8] Additionally, the Father raises preliminary issues with respect to the evidence filed on behalf of the Mother. In the Father’s Form 14C: Confirmation of Motion, dated July 7, 2025 the Father sought to strike the following:

1. Paragraph 21 of the Mother’s Affidavit, sworn July 3, 2025, and pages 17 through 66.
2. In the alternative, an Order striking paragraph 21 and Exhibits C, D, E, F, and J of the Mother’s affidavit, sworn July 3, 2025.

[9] Moreover, the Father argues that the Mother’s affidavit offends the page limit on Responding affidavits as it is 65 pages in length (10 pages of narrative and 55 pages of exhibits).

[10] During argument, the Father narrowed his position on striking the Mother’s evidence somewhat and took the position that only paragraph 21 and Exhibits C, D, and E of the Mother’s affidavit, sworn July 3, 2025, should be struck.

[11] The Father argues that paragraph 21 of the Mother’s affidavit is hearsay.

[12] Paragraph 21 of the Mother’s affidavit states:

When I told [the Father’s] sister […] about this call and his incidents of rage, she told me “yes, I know how he can get”, and “we have seen it - we know.” She kindly offered to help me. I told [the Father’s sister] that [the Father] needed therapy, and she told me the family was also working on that. [The Father’s sister] offered to stay with me and told me that if I came to live with her for a bit there would be no safety concerns. I explained to [the Father’s sister] that I was concerned about what [the Father] would do to me in front of [the Child].

[13] The Father challenges the admissibility of the following Exhibits tendered by the Mother:

1. Exhibit C – screen shots of text messages where the Father repeatedly forgot to put the Child’s diaper on before putting the Child to bed.
2. Exhibit D – is a ten-minute telephone conversation purportedly between the parties recorded by the Mother.
3. Exhibit E – a copy of the Father’s referral to a psychiatrist.

[14] The Mother’s position was that paragraph 21 goes to narrative and characterizing it as hearsay depends on the purpose for which it is tendered.

[15] The Mother opposed the Father’s position on the evidence issues and argued that the Father’s materials had similar evidentiary issues, which the Mother was not raising. The Mother suggests the supervised parenting time notes are hearsay as is the registered psychotherapist’s letter.

[16] The Mother’s counsel also raises the inherent difficulties in obtaining evidence in cases of family violence.

[17] The Mother’s counsel also raised that the Father’s affidavit sworn May 14, 2025 was not 1.5 paragraph spacing, and the Father’s reply affidavit was also 8 pages of narrative (and 21 pages of exhibits) and this was impermissibly long under the practice direction, which Mother’s counsel states is limited to 5 pages.

[18] The Mother’s counsel states that it is troubling that the Father was relying on technical grounds seeking to strike relevant evidence.

[19] Furthermore, there are no allegations that the text messages were not sent, the recording was manipulated or the referral for psychiatric treatment was not made. Additionally, the Father states in the recording that he can be recorded.

[20] Ultimately, the Mother’s position is that the court needs to receive relevant evidence in order to make the decision concerning the best interests of the Child.

[21] In reply, the Father’s counsel argued that the Reply affidavit page limits are 9 pages not 5. The Father states that therapist letters are typically attached to affidavits and there is an “exception under the Evidence Act” that states that supervised parenting time notes should be attached in family court and that it is a specific exception. The court is not addressing these issues as the Mother was not challenging the inclusion of this evidence but merely drawing a comparison.

[22] The parties agreed that no schedule for the exchange of materials or page limits were set by the case management judge.

[23] The parties consented to the court receiving the access notes for the Child’s most recent visit with the Father on July 9, 2025.

[24] The court was advised by counsel for the Father that the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto (“CCAST”) has closed its file, which counsel for the Mother was unable to confirm.

[25] The Mother’s evidence was that CCAST intends to close their file as the Child is in a safe parenting arrangement currently and that CCAST has no concerns about the Mother’s care of the Child. The parents are awaiting copies of the CCAST records and/or a closing letter.

Part Three – Background Facts

[26] The parents dispute when their relationship began.

[27] However, in mid-2024, when the Mother was pregnant she discovered 50 videos of the Father engaging in sexual relation with other men. The Mother alleges that the Father was engaged in sex work and she discovered he had a double life and had not been honest with her about basic information since the beginning of their relationship.

[28] The Mother states that she had a difficult pregnancy which was made worse by this shocking revelation. This revelation had a very detrimental impact on the Mother, which is not acknowledged by the Father.

[29] The Mother states that she was diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum during her pregnancy, which the Father disputes and states is misleading and untrue.

[30] The Child was born on […], 2024.

[31] The Mother states that the Father spat on her while she was holding the Child on the night the Child was brought home from the hospital, which the Father denies.

[32] The Father states that nanny cam recordings exist that show the Mother is verbally and physically aggressive towards him, which he does not have access to, but is aware of their contents.

[33] The Mother has taken 18 months of maternity leave. The Father is self-employed and did not take any parental leave, but has a flexible schedule.

[34] The Father states that for the first few weeks of the Child’s life, he took care of the Child’s daily needs – feeding, bathing and changing diapers, putting the Child to bed, and providing emotional and physical comfort.

[35] The Mother disputes this and states that she was exclusively responsible for the Child’s care, but the Father fed and changed the Child on a few occasions. However, the Mother states that the Father would forget to put the Child’s diaper on the Child and twice put the Child to bed without a diaper.

The Child’s Injuries – October 2024

[36] On October 29, 2024, the Child suffered a serious injury while the Father was providing the night feeding for the Child in the parties’ home.

[37] The Father states in his Reply affidavit that the Child, then 5 weeks old, “accidentally rolled off the bed”. The incomplete records (2 pages) from the Hospital for Sick Children (“SickKids”) were tendered as evidence by the Father.

[38] The SickKids records state:

1. that the Child reportedly experienced a “fall from caregivers arm while sitting with the Child on the bed” and that “Dad reports 5 week old fell from bed (>1 m).”
2. Mother was sleeping in another room and did not hear the Child cry.
3. The Child had a CT head scan and it was discovered that the Child experienced biparietal skull fractures (2 linear fractures on the right and left parietal).
4. The Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (“SCAN”) program at SickKids was consulted.

[39] SickKids recommended that the Child be monitored in an outpatient setting as there was a small chance that the right parietal fracture, which was slightly displaced, could develop into a growing skull fracture.

[40] The Child was “deemed safe for discharge” by SickKids on October 30, 2024.

[41] The Mother states after this incident she did not leave the Child in the Father’s care.

Allegations Regarding the Father’s Mental Health

[42] The Mother alleges that the Father’s mental health deteriorated after this incident, and the Father became aggressive and very angry without warning or reason.

[43] According to the Mother, the Father told her that he wanted to have a stroke and die, and the following day he had a severe panic attack. The Father was taken by ambulance to the hospital and admitted. The Mother and the Child accompanied him.

[44] One page (of 32) of the Father’s St. Joseph’s Health Centre records, dated November 19, 2025, was filed by the Father, which indicates the Father did not suffer a stroke. The Father also had a history of anxiety, which was noted.

[45] In the Father’s Reply affidavit he stated that all pages of his health records from St. Joseph’s Health Centre were provided to Mother’s counsel. The Father states that the allegations about his mental health concerns are “entirely unfounded”.

Mother’s Allegation of Family Violence

[46] The Mother alleges that on November 22, 2024, the Father threw a bag of dog food at her.

Father Left the Parties’ Home

[47] On November 22, 2024, the parties physically separated when the Father removed himself from the parties’ home and the Mother remained with the Child.

[48] The Mother states that on November 24, 2024, she arranged for parenting time for the Father with the Child supervised by his family, and she proposed video parenting time, but the Father did not accept that offer.

Mother’s Allegations of Family Violence

[49] The Mother states that during this time the Father sent threatening messages to her. The Mother tendered evidence of the Father’s text messages, which are inappropriate, demeaning and vulgar.

[50] The Father tenders evidence of text messages and transcripts where the Mother makes negative comments towards the Father and provided a summarized chart of some of the ways the Mother spoke to him in the transcribed recordings, including the following:

• October 1, 2024 – Go f#ck yourself. I’m not successful. I chose to have a family. That’s humbling. You belong with someone like a tranny. You’re not going to be good for me.
• December 12, 2024, at 8:41 p.m. - Babe, I'm not scared of you. You're like a little weak brown boy to me.
• December 12, 2024, at 8:43 p.m. – [Father’s name], only thing I can figure is you're fucking gay, you're a fag, or you just want to bone trannies. You need to figure it out and go figure what the fuck you want, man. Do you want to be a dad? Do you want to be carefree? Send money dad? Do you want to go fuck dudes for the rest of your life? …As much as I want you to not be an influencer in your son’s life, I hope you will be, but a healthy version that doesn’t fuck trannies, man.
• January 18, 2025 - [The Child and I are] going to sleep like we have for the last four (4) months where you’ve been MIA from your ‘tranny puss’ coke down.
• February 1, 2025 - You’re awful … Anything else to break me you little piece of sh#t … I’m getting over you f#ck#ng every male.

Allegations Regarding the Father’s Mental Health Continued

[51] The Mother states that the Father sent her an urgent referral from his doctor to a psychiatrist, on December 1, 2024, and the Mother states that she told the Father she was proud of him for taking this step.

[52] The Mother sought to rely on the referral from Dr. Shamsul Kelman to Dr. Maria Lee Freedman, dated December 1, 2024, and marked urgent, which requests an urgent referral to psychiatry. It states the Father had an episode of panic attack, chest pain, headache and migraine and the specialist thinks this was all psychological. As well, the Father reported deteriorating mood.

[53] The Father objected to the admission of this medical report, but states that he only asked for this referral because the Mother was not allowing him to see the Child unless he received the referral. The Father states that he never followed up on the referral.

[54] The Father indicates in his Reply affidavit that he has been seeing a registered “psychologist” Maria Christopolous for talk therapy since January 2021.

[55] This is not accurate. Ms. Christopolous identifies herself as a registered psychotherapist, not a psychologist.

[56] The Father relies on a letter, dated June 12, 2025, from Ms. Christopoulos, a registered psychotherapist.

[57] The Father’s psychotherapist states in her letter, among other things:

1. The Father began treatment on January 15, 2021, and currently attends weekly appointments.
2. At the beginning of his treatment, the Father attended twice a week and gradually decreased his sessions as improvement was noted.
3. The Father attended periodically through 2023-2024 with “check ins” as needed.
4. The Father’s initial concerns stemmed from impulsive [behaviours] and relationship concerns.
5. The Father reported that he would like to communicate better with family and friends and work to decrease impulsive behaviours, which stemmed from his inability to communicate with people effectively, leading to irritation and frustration.
6. The Father recently resumed consistent weekly sessions as he has found himself to be in a heightened state of anxiety due to ongoing conflict with the Mother of his Child.
7. The Father’s only focus in the sessions is to help maintain appropriate levels of anxiety to ensure that he is able to provide his son with the best care.
8. The Father continues to work diligently to navigate his emotional dysregulation and has expressed his desire to do whatever is required in order for him to see his son again.

Child’s Parenting Time with the Father

[58] The Father states that he continued to visit the Child between December 2024 to February 22, 2025.

[59] The Mother states that she encouraged the Father to visit with the Child, but he rarely attended and many times he planned to arrive very late after the Child was in bed sleeping and demanded to see the Child, and if the Mother refused, the Father sent her abusive text messages.

[60] The Mother states she noticed improvements in the Father’s communications, which the Mother attributed to the Father seeking mental health assistance but she was not sure he was taking those steps.

[61] On February 14, 2025, the Mother thought the home was being broken into and there were footprints in the snow leading to the backdoor. The Mother reached out to the Father to stay at the home because she was scared.

[62] The Mother states the Father was calmer for the first few days and then became angry and full of rage. The Father states that if the Mother were fearful of him she would not have called him to help with the suspected break-in.

Mother’s Injuries – February 2025

[63] The Mother alleges that on February 22, 2025, the Father “brutally assaulted” her after she refused to let him return his dog to the family residence and when the Mother questioned the Father about using Cialis. The Mother states that she had questions about the Father’s use of Cialis because the Father had, according to the Mother, taken Cialis when the Father was sleeping with other men. The Mother states the Father became physically violent when she questioned him about this.

[64] The Mother states that the Father “broke my hands, and my body was badly bruised.” The Mother attended the hospital the next day, after hiding from the Father and locking herself and the Child into a room for the balance of the night.

[65] The Mother tendered photos of numerous bruises to her arm, wrist, and hand, particularly her ring finger, scratches and bruises on her other wrist and other bruises to other parts of her legs.

[66] The Mother also tendered an undated patient report by Dr. Robert Bleakney a diagnostic radiologist. The notes on the patient report state under clinical information:
Yesterday slipped on ice FOOSH R digit 4. Obvious deformity and L wrist swelling and bruising, and under Conclusion: 1. Nondisplaced transverse fracture at the base of the right third metacarpal, and 2. Nondisplaced intra-articular fracture of the left first distal.

[67] On February 23, 2025, the Father’s in-person contact with the Child stopped.

[68] On February 24, 2025, the parties exchanged text messages, which were filed by the Mother. In those text messages:

1. The Father indicates that the security system installations will take place on Wednesday February 26, 2025. The Father offers to help the Mother and asks to see the Child.
2. The Mother acknowledges the Father and states that she appreciates him arranging for the security installations but states:
   I’m not in a position I really want to see anyone in this broken state. I’m not sure if you were planning to attend on top of it; I really don’t want that given recent events.
3. The Father responds and states he completely understands the Mother’s need for space right now and he has reached out to reschedule the security installation and confirms he would not be attending and asks the Mother to let him know if there is anything else he can do to make this easier.

[69] The Father did not disclose anything about the incident that occurred between the parties on February 22, 2025, in his affidavit, sworn May 14, 2025, in support of his ex parte urgent motion.

[70] In the Father’s Reply Affidavit, sworn July 7, 2025, he states that the Mother was not afraid of him based on future communications. He also stated that the records from the hospital indicated that the Mother reported that she slipped on ice and it is unclear why she did not report to the hospital that the Father caused her bruises.

[71] The Father states it is notable that the Mother did not make a police report until April 13, 2025.

[72] The Father also states: “I cannot comment further on these pictures as this matter is before the criminal court, but I deny physically abusing [the Mother] or causing those bruises”.

[73] The Father states that the bruises in the undated photos are not abuse by him but the result of the Mother’s own alcohol-related accidents on one of the many occasions the Mother blacked out after abusing drugs and alcohol. The Father states that he is “hopeful” someone else is monitoring the Mother’s substance use and the Child is safe in her care.

[74] The Father then states that he has a video of the February 22, 2025, incident that he intends to have admitted at trial to disprove the Mother’s claims. The Father states that the Mother was the one who became violent with him on February 22, 2025 and that the Father attended the emergency room for injuries caused by the Mother but chose not to report the Mother to the police “to avoid further conflict and turmoil” for the Child. No emergency room medical records were filed.

Mother’s Further Allegations of Family Violence

[75] On March 3, 2025, the Mother left the family home. She states that she moved to a secure new location. The Mother states that she did not feel safe having the Father know where she was living after she was violently assaulted and needed to get away.

[76] The Mother sought to rely on an audio recording of a phone conversation between herself and the Father, which was recorded around this time.

[77] In the audio recording the Father is responding to the Mother saying that she is leaving the family home (which the Father previously vacated) for her safety to a private location, and the Mother offers the Father parenting time.

[78] The conversation includes the Father communicating with the Mother using over 100 profanities, including derogatory epithets about the Mother, women, and Black people, as well as the following:

1. The Father states the Mother is the worst human being on the planet that has ever been born.
2. The Mother is taking the Child to an undisclosed location and suggests the Mother will be “f#cking choking on 10 naked d#cks” and the Father won’t know what is going on. The Father tells the Mother: “if you are living with a n#gg#r man never f#ck#ng come back to me every again”.
3. The Father is more concerned about the Mother’s sexual activity and what other man she may be living with than the Child’s wellbeing.
4. He suggests that he will burn down her whole family and refers to her father, her sister and her brother.
5. He refers to the Mother’s father as a “fill c#nt b#tch #ss n#gg#r”.
6. He will make sure the Mother’s father dies of a heart attack.
7. He threatens her and threatens any new partners she is involved with and states: yo I will f#cki#g clip that n#gg#r... you can record me …I will spend the jail time… b#tch #ss f#cking wh#re.
8. He states: “I will do everything in my powers to make sure... you can record me on this … to make sure I get my son back and not to be raised by evil…”
9. He states that he hopes the Mother dies of a fentanyl overdose before calling her a “coke head b#tch”.
10. He states there is a special place in hell for her and threatens over five times that he will take the Mother to hell with him.
11. He states repeatedly that he is “not f#cking playing games” with Mother and he will burn up Toronto.
12. He states: “Bad things are going to happen to everybody that you love, including every n#gg#r and your family member”.
13. He states to the Mother: “I will f#ck you up” and “You are f#cked”.

[79] The Mother indicates that she will remain in the same area and that the Father will continue to see the Child, but that she does not feel the current situation is safe.

[80] In the background of the recording the sounds of the Child feeding and being burped by the Mother.

[81] The Father objected to the admission of this audio recording on the basis that it did not have a date, there was no acknowledgement of who was on the call, and was recorded without the Father’s knowledge.

[82] The Father alleged in his Reply affidavit that he has hours of professionally transcribed recordings of calls between himself and the Mother where the Mother is screaming and yelling at him, swearing at him, using racial slurs, making derogatory comments about the Father’s sexuality and taunting the Father with her ability to control when and if he sees the Child. These recordings were not part of the evidence before this court. However, excerpts of these transcripts were provided, presumably the most relevant and probative.

[83] The Father also states that he is “not proud” of how he communicates with the Mother on the recording.

[84] He states he and the Mother have “toxic arguments where they say hurtful and mean things to one another”.

[85] The Mother states that the Father started showing up at places where the Mother was and the police found a tracking device under her car. The Mother states that the Father frequently chased her down on roads while the Child was in her car. Additionally, the Mother learned the Father had hired a private investigator to follow her.

[86] The Father states that he never followed or stalked the Mother. He states that the police have never contacted him about such allegations, although he is facing criminal charges related to these incidents.

[87] Furthermore, the Father states that a breach of his condition is currently before the criminal court and his lawyer advised him not to discuss the charges.

Father’s Criminal Charges

[88] The Father’s criminal release order, dated April 14, 2025, states that he is charged with the following offences:

1. November 22, 2022 – Assault with weapon.
2. February 22, 2025 – Assault causing bodily harm.
3. March 22 – April 14, 2025 – Criminal Harassment.

[89] The Father’s criminal release conditions, dated April 14, 2025, include:

1. Remaining at his residence between 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. except in the direct and continuous presence of his surety.
2. No communication with the Mother except through legal counsel for purposes of a family law proceeding.
3. Not being within 100 metres of any place the Mother lives, works, goes to school, frequents or is known to be, except for court appearance.
4. A weapons prohibition.
5. Access to your child to be arranged through a mutually agreeable third party or by a Family Court order made after today’s date.

[90] The Mother states that the Father attempted to call her twice on April 30, 2025 and this was reported to the police.

[91] The Father states on May 1, 2025, that he was alleged to have breached his no-contact order.

[92] The Father’s criminal release order, dated May 1, 2025, states that he is charged with the following offence:

1. April 30, 2025 – Failure to Comply with Release Order.

[93] The Father’s criminal release conditions, dated May 1, 2025, included additional terms as follows:

1. No communication with the Mother except pursuant to a family court order, or through legal counsel for purposes of a family law proceeding.
2. Not to possess any cellular phone devices capable of access the internet except while under the direct supervision of his surety.

[94] The Mother states on May 20, 2025, that the Father drove past her condominium, which caused her significant fear that the Father would harm her again. The Mother reported this to the police.

Family Litigation

[95] On May 21, 2025, the Father issued this Application seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the Child. The Father filed a Form 35.1 Affidavit (decision-making responsibility, parenting time) sworn May 14, 2025 and did not disclose family violence perpetrated by the Mother against the Father on February 22, 2025, but states the Mother’s accusations are false.

[96] On May 21, 2025, the Father filed an ex parte 14B motion, dated May 20, 2025, seeking leave to bring an urgent motion, prior to a case conference, as well as the same parenting time sought in this motion and full indemnity costs.

[97] In the Father’s affidavit, sworn May 14, 2025 he made the following allegations about the Mother:
a. The Mother has long struggled with alcohol abuse and is a functioning alcoholic.
b. The Mother caused injury to herself including bruises and falls because of her drinking.
c. The Mother harassed and verbally abused the Father when he visited the Child from November, 2024 to February 23, 2025 in an attempt to discourage his involvement in the Child’s life.
d. From February 23, 2025, to March 2025, the Mother has minimized, blocked and ignored his attempts for updated and parenting time.
e. The Mother made false allegations against the Father resulting in his criminal charges and the involvement of the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto.
f. The Mother used cocaine frequently.
g. The Mother had abusive outburst towards the Father that included racist, homophobic and degrading comments.
h. The Mother is in a new relationship with a “drug dealer” who possesses “illegal guns”.

[98] Additionally in the Father’s affidavit, sworn May 14, 2025, the Father stated that he was seeking that the Child be placed in his full-time care immediately.

[99] Alternatively, the Father stated that he was open to shared parenting if the Mother proved her sobriety and committed to attending Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar program. Despite taking this position in his affidavit, his ex parte 14B motion sought the same parenting time relief as sought in his Notice of Motion, dated May 28, 2025.

[100] On May 26, 2025, the case management judge dismissed the Father’s ex parte 14B motion on the grounds that the relief sought was neither procedural, uncomplicated, or on consent. Additionally, the case management judge found that the Father failed to provide any grounds for failing to serve the Mother, and the Father was ordered to serve the Mother.

[101] On May 28, 2025, the Father filed a 14B Motion, dated May 28, 2025, seeking the same relief sought in the ex parte 14B, with notice to the Mother and filed an affidavit, sworn May 27, 2025 from a law clerk employed by the law firm retained by the Father indicating service was made on May 27, 2025.

[102] On June 5, 2025, the Mother filed a Responding Form 14B, dated June 4, 2025, seeking an order dismissing the Father’s 14B Motion, dated May 28, 2025, as it was not urgent and exceeded the page limits contained in the “practice direction”, the outstanding criminal charges and the involvement of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto were pending. The Mother also sought costs.

[103] On June 5, 2025, the case management judge permitted the Father’s urgent motion and held that the court should “intervene in situations where contact between parent and young child has stopped without consent or court order”.

[104] On June 9, 2025, the urgent motion was scheduled by the trial coordinator for today’s date.

[105] In the interim, the parties agreed, on a without prejudice temporary basis, to the Father having supervised access, supervised by the Toronto Family Therapy & Mediation.

[106] The Father’s supervised parenting time has taken place on June 28, 2025, and July 2, 5, and 9, 2025.

[107] The Mother had concerns about the Father’s supervised parenting time visits as follows:

1. On June 28, 2025 –
   (a) The Father applied sunscreen, which has not been used on the Child before and the advice the mother received was not to use sun screen until the Child was 12 months old. The Child has eczema and sensitive skin.
   (b) The Father fed the Child coconut, which had not been previously introduced to the Child. The Mother has a severe nut allergy, which is prevalent in the maternal side of the family. According to the Mother, the Child’s pediatrician suggested that she wait to introduce nuts to the Child.
   (c) The Child had a severe diaper rash when he came home.
2. On July 2, 2025 –
   (a) The Child was not fully dressed when the Mother picked him up from his visit.

[108] The Father states that the supervised parenting time notes highlight that he was prepared and engaged with the Child, able to calm him, was patient, changed his diaper, rocked him to sleep and otherwise responded to his needs.

[109] The Father states that the contents of the supervised parenting time notes evidence that he is a safe, loving and capable caregiver for the Child and that he should be having unsupervised parenting time in his home.

[110] On July 3, 2025, the Mother filed her responding affidavit sworn July 3, 2025. The Mother makes the following allegations about the Father:

1. The Child is at risk in the Father’s care because the Father has serious mental health issues.
2. The Father was physically abusive towards her.
3. The Father’s neglect of the Child resulting in two skull fractures.
4. The Father’s verbal abuse was brutal.
5. The Father’s allegations are false and the Father went so far as to plant cocaine in their home and then ask the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto worker to come over to see it – alleging the cocaine belonged to the Mother.
6. The Father smokes marijuana daily, has used cocaine, MDMA, ketamine and other drugs.

[111] The Father filed his Reply affidavit, sworn July 7, 2025.

[112] On July 9, 2025, the Father had a supervised visit with the Child. At the beginning of the visit, the Father was told the Child needed solid food. The Father decided that he would take the Child in the stroller for a walk, in case it rained later and gave the Child a small amount of formula instead of the solid foods. Over an hour later, the Father offered the Child solid food. The Child ate five spoons of mango, avocado and oats and shook his head. The Child cried, eventually settled for a short nap and then was fussy, crying on and off, for most of the remainder of the visit. The Father was able to change the Child and get him dressed while calming the Child and engage him with a toy near the end of the visit.

Part Four – Law

4.1 Evidence

4.1.1 – Page Lengths

[113] The Ontario Court of Justice (Toronto Jarvis) does not have a practice direction with respect to page limits or motion materials for family proceedings.

[114] This motion was brought as a 14B motion in writing and the case management judge found that there was urgency such that the ordinary requirement for a case conference was dispensed with and a motion date was set without a timetable or page limits.

[115] The court will not strike relevant materials based on allegations of exceeding page limits that were not set by the case management judge.

4.1.2 – Hearsay

[116] It is well established that traditional rules of evidence prescribe that hearsay evidence is inherently unreliable and as a result is generally inadmissible.

[117] However, there is some limited ability to admit hearsay evidence under subrules 14(18) and 14(19) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (the “Rules”), which govern the content of affidavits to be used on a motion.

[118] Subrule 14(18) of the Rules states:

An affidavit for use on a motion shall, as much as possible, contain only information within the personal knowledge of the person signing the affidavit.

[119] Subrule 14(19) of the Rules states:

The affidavit may also contain information that the person learned from someone else, but only if,
(a) the source of the information is identified by name and the affidavit states that the person signing it believes the information is true …

[120] The Rules permit the limited use of hearsay evidence in motions seeking temporary orders: Berger v. Berger, 2016 ONCA 884 at paragraph 74 and CAS v. N.A.-M., 2018 ONSC 978 at paragraphs 20-23.

[121] With respect to the paragraph 21 of the Mother’s affidavit, the paragraph has been tendered for narrative not for the truth of its contents. The court does not rely on the statements purportedly made by the Father’s sister to the Mother, as truth for the purposes of deciding this motion.

[122] The court accepts this paragraph as narrative.

4.1.3 – The Expansive Approach to Evidence in Parenting Motions

[123] When children are involved, if the evidence is relevant, necessary, and probative to the matters in issue, the court should take an expansive and not a technical approach to its admission: V.A.W. v. R.C.L., 2004 ONSC 7043 at paragraph 20, as cited in Fakhim v. Shirazi, 2007 ONCJ 126 at paragraph 7.

4.1.4 – Exhibit “D” to the Mother’s Affidavit - Surreptitious Recording

[124] Justice Sherr wrote in Hameed v. Hameed, 2006 ONCJ 274:

[11] Surreptitious recording of telephone calls by litigants in family law matters should be strongly discouraged. There is already enough conflict and mistrust in family law cases, without the parties’ worrying about whether the other is secretly taping them.
[12] I agree with Justice Henry Vogelsang who said in paragraphs [5] and [6] of Tatarchenko v. Tatarchenko (1998), 83 A.C.W.S. (3d) 792, [1998] O.J. No. 4685, 1998 CarswellOnt 4374 (Ont. Fam. Ct.):
[5] . . . There is a wide scope for potential abuse in this practice.
[6] The reliability of such evidence is very difficult to determine, even for a trial judge who has the benefit of much more opportunity to explore all of the evidence than that enjoyed by a motions judge. The suspicious and disturbing circumstances surrounding the production of this “evidence” convince me that it should be struck in its entirety and should not be before the court.
[13] The court in deciding whether to admit such evidence will need to weigh these policy considerations against its probative value. The party seeking its admission should establish a compelling reason for doing so….

[125] In S.C.H. v. S.R., 2023 ONSC 4928, Justice Finlayson carefully summarized the common themes in cases addressing surreptitious recordings, at paragraphs 605 to 612.

[126] With respect to family violence and the inherent difficulties in obtaining corroborating evidence, Justice Sherr wrote in R.A.K. v. M.Z., 2023 ONCJ 476 at paragraphs 67-69:

[67] Family violence can be insidious. It can take many forms, and frequently involves coercive and controlling behaviors which are usually very difficult to prove because they often take place in private. Abusers, especially those of the coercive and controlling kind, are often skilled manipulators; they can be charming, they can be convincing liars, and they can be very persuasive. Victims of family violence are often the only witnesses who can attest to their abuser’s behavior and unfortunately, they are sometimes not believed because of their inability to support their allegations with objective third party evidence. See: Volgemut v. Decristoforo, 2021 ONSC 7382.
[68] Failure to speak out earlier and inconsistent evidence is common for victims of domestic violence. See: A.E. v. A.B., 2021 ONSC 7302; N.M. v. S.M., 2022 ONCJ 482.
[69] The court is very aware that family violence is sometimes difficult for the victim to prove. It is often not reported. There may be many reasons for this. There will often be no medical, police or Children’s Aid Society reports to corroborate allegations of family violence. Victims sometimes minimize and rationalize the abuse. The family violence can take place in private so that there are no witnesses. Control and coercion can be subtle and only evident to the victim. See: Wiafe v. Aboakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201.

[127] Whether a recording was surreptitiously made is relevant but not determinative. In the context of family violence cases, the best interests and safety of children must take precedence over the privacy interests of parents.

[128] The court has considered a number of factors while determining the admissibility of the recorded conversation tendered by the Mother:

1. The Father states on two occasions on the recording that he can be recorded.
2. The Father does not dispute saying what was recorded.
3. This was a recording between the parents and not a recording of the Child or a parent’s interaction with the Child.
4. The recording was made prior to litigation.
5. The Father does not suggest the recording was manipulated.
6. The Mother’s case significantly rests on allegations of family violence. Acts of family violence such as abusive name calling, threatening and intimidation are relevant to the court’s consideration of the best interests of the Child.
7. The recording is highly probative on the issues of family violence, as the recording provides tone and content to the family violence claims.
8. Family violence is notoriously difficult to prove.
9. Family violence is difficult to establish because it most often takes place in private settings.
10. The Mother (who, of course, knew she was being recorded) was not provoking the Father. She was patient, calm and attempted multiple times to offer the Father time with the Child, while explaining her concerns about the Child’s safety. The Father chose to say the things he said and reacted the way he did.
11. The recording is probative to the issues of the Father’s credibility, family violence and the parties’ ability and willingness to communicate and cooperate with one another on matters affecting the Child.

[129] The Mother’s audio recorded conversation at Exhibit “D” to her affidavit is ruled admissible.

4.1.5 – Exhibit “C” to the Mother’s Affidavit – Text Messages

[130] Both parties rely on text messages between them. The text messages have some probative value and evidence a relationship with inappropriate communication.

[131] The Father relied on text messages from the Mother in his affidavit sworn May 14, 2025 in support of his ex parte motion that portrayed the Mother in a very dim light.

[132] The Mother’s text messages are related to the Father’s care of the Child, and his failure to put a diaper on the Child before bed. This is clearly relevant.

[133] The text messages at Exhibit “C” to the Mother’s affidavit are ruled admissible.

4.1.6 – Exhibit “E” – Father’s Referral to a Psychiatrist

[134] The Father admits that he obtained a referral to a psychiatrist. The Father states it was because the Mother would not allow him to see the Child unless he obtained that referral. Furthermore, the Father states that he never followed up on the referral.

[135] Furthermore, the Father submits that he does not understand how the Mother came into possession of his referral. The Mother indicated in her affidavit that the Father provided it to her, which is consistent with the Father’s evidence that he needed to provide that to the Mother in order to see the Child.

[136] There is no dispute that the Father sought a referral to a psychiatrist on December 1, 2024.

[137] The Father’s mental health is relevant to his ability to care for the Child.

[138] The Father’s referral to a psychiatrist at Exhibit “E” to the Mother’s affidavit is ruled admissible.

4.2 Temporary Parenting Time Orders

[139] The orders sought are temporary, additionally the Father seeks “without prejudice” orders.

[140] Temporary orders are imperfect solutions to complex problems put in place on imperfect evidence (limited in its nature, submitted in affidavit form, which often conflict, without cross-examination), designed to provide an acceptable solution until the matters can be resolved…: Redmond v Redmond, 2018 ONSC 4559, citing Bolotnov v. Moldavski, 2015 ONCJ 530 at para. 21; Chaitas v. Christopoulos, 2004 ONSC 66352; and Boissy v. Boissy 2008 CarswellOnt 4253 (S.C.J.).

[141] 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: 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).

[142] This motion, originally brought ex parte, is a motion prior to a case conference. A person bringing an ex parte motion must make full and fair disclosure of all material facts, including facts that may not be helpful to that party’s position.

[143] Pursuant to subrule 14(4) of the Family Law Rules, no motion may be brought prior to a case conference, unless there is a situation of urgency (subrule 14(4.2)).

[144] As held in Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 ONSC 480 at para 2:

Generally, motions are now discouraged as the opening step in a family law file. The philosophy of the Family Rules is to encourage parties to sit down in a case conference prior to a motion, to see if some or all of the issues can be resolved, either directly or with input from the presiding judge. There is a deliberate attempt to try to avoid the damage that flows from the “nasty affidavit war” that accompanies the filing of a motion. This approach has been tremendously successful. The vast majority of cases are resolved at a case conference without the need for a formal motion.

[145] In Hood v. Hood, 2001 ONSC 28129 at para 12 the court held:

…an urgent motion within a court proceeding contemplates issues such as abduction, threats of harm, dire financial circumstances and these can be addressed prior to a case conference.

[146] In Kaur v. Singh, 2023 ONSC 2116, Justice McGee held:

[16] … It is almost twenty years since the Family Law Rules were enacted, and the test for a motion to be heard prior to a Case Conference remains the same. As set out by Justice Wildman in Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 ONSC 480, “urgency or hardship” contemplates issues such as abduction, threats of harm or dire financial circumstances.
[18] As I stated in Clemente v. O’Brien 2020 ONSC 3287, negotiation and problem solving come before litigation. A moving party must make genuine efforts to try to settle a matter before bringing a motion. Resolution efforts may only be bypassed when there is an immediate and specific risk of serious harm to a child.
[19] There is good reason for this approach. When problem solving takes precedence over family law litigation, the potential for a reasonable and affordable outcome multiplies exponentially. Conversely, when the first step in the litigation is a race to the Courthouse on reactive and incomplete information, the potential for a reasonable and affordable outcome plummets.
[20] Family issues, particularly parenting issues, are painful and complicated. Emotions run high. Particularly so in the early stages of the dispute. Events are easily misconstrued in the fog of war.
[21] Motions are expensive. Parties pay for legal assistance with precious after-tax dollars or receive limited hours of assistance from Legal Aid. If litigation is prioritized, finances are almost certain to be exhausted long before the complicated work of restructuring one family into two families is complete.
[22] This reality has been long recognized by the Ministry, court connected services, family service professionals, legal organizations, and the courts.
[23] The Ministry promotes the benefits of early resolution through services such as the Mandatory Information Program, Automatic Orders, court-connected Mediation Services…
[24] Unless a child’s circumstances are urgent as set out in Rosen v Rosen, these are all resources that can, and with regard to judicial Case Conferences, must be accessed before bringing a Motion.

[147] The context of this motion is relevant to the issues, and the reasonableness of the parties’ respective positions.

[148] Additionally, as the evidence evolves, parties and counsel need to continually assess the strengths of their position.

4.2.2 – The Children’s Law Reform Act

[149] 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.

[150] 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.

[151] 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.

[152] 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.

[153] 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.

[154] Section 24 of the CLRA applies equally to temporary orders: s. 24(7).

4.2.3. – The Caselaw

[155] 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 paragraph 13.

[156] The court must ascertain a child’s best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents: Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 SCC 191.

[157] 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, 1993 SCC 34. The focus is on the child, not the parent: S.S.L. v. M.A.B., 2022 ONSC 6326 (SCJ).

[158] 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 1993 SCC 34; E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264 (SCJ).

[159] 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, 1996 SCC 191 at paragraph 28; Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 641; E.M. v. C.V., 2022 ONSC 7037 (SCJ).

[160] 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, 2004 ONSC 17126; Ascani v. Keedi, 2021 ONSC 4282 (SCJ).

[161] The courts have clearly emphasized over the years that while maximizing contact between children and parents is important, it is not an unbridled objective. If the evidence indicates that increased parenting time with a parent would not support the child’s best interests, it should not be ordered: McBennett v Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610 at paragraph 89, citing (Young v. Young, 1993 SCC 34, at paragraph 40 and Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 SCC 191 at p. 49; B.V. v. P.V., 2012 ONCA 262, at paragraph 15; Rigillo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 548, at paragraph 4).

[162] In S.W. v. L.C., 2019 ONCJ 922, Justice Paull wrote that supervised parenting time is appropriate in specific situations, some of which include the following:
a) Where the child requires protection from physical, sexual or emotional abuse;
b) Where the child is being introduced or reintroduced into the life of a parent after a significant absence;
c) Where there are substance abuse issues; or
d) Where there are clinical issues involving the access parent.

[163] 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.

[164] 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 paragraph 61; McBennet v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, at paragraphs 92-93; Armstrong v. Garrison, 2021 ONSC 3986, at paragraph 38; Southorn v. Ree, 2021 ONSC 7819, at para. 401; Melbourne v. Melbourne, 2022 ONSC 2299 at paragraphs 19-21; Dupuis v. Dupuis, 2024 ONSC 4836 at paragraph 28.

[165] For an infant aged 10 months, the AFCC Parenting Guidelines suggest as follows:
Developing a parenting plan for babies of this age is dependent on:

• the amount of prior involvement of each parent with the baby, including caretaking routines and experience with childcare functions such as feeding, bathing, playing, soothing, getting ready for bed, and waking;
• the ability of each parent to be attuned and responsive to the baby’s needs;
• the baby’s emotional, social, physical, and cognitive development, which includes ability to self-regulate and to understand that when someone is out of sight they still exist; and
• the baby’s temperament.

If one parent has had primary care, the duration and frequency of contact with the other parent will depend upon the other parent’s availability, willingness and sensitivity to the child, as well as the baby’s temperament. Parents also need to consider their work schedules and the baby’s sleeping and eating routines. As with infants under 9 months of age, overnights with a non-residential parent may be appropriate if that parent is attuned to the baby’s needs, is able to maintain the care schedule of the residential parent, and is able to soothe the baby.

If the parents only separate when the child is in this age range, and both parents have had consistent, good quality involvement in all aspects of care of the child before separation, it may be appropriate for a shared parenting arrangement to continue with regular overnights with both parents. The child should see each parent every two to three days.

If one parent had less parenting and childcare time before separation, there should be opportunities to participate in feeding, playing, bathing, and sleeping times before that parent has sole care and overnights. To strengthen the relationship, there should be contact between the parent and baby every few days, gradually increasing the length of separation from the primary parent as the baby tolerates with the possibility of starting overnight visits.

As with younger infants, a communication log is essential. This log, whether hand-written or digital, should include information about eating, sleeping and elimination, as well as health, developmental changes and new milestones. It is important that parents avoid arguments in the presence of the child, as even pre-verbal babies will be stressed by the tension between their parents.

4.2.4 – Family Violence

[166] The Supreme Court of Canada recognized in Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22 that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis and held as follows:

[143] The suggestion that domestic abuse or family violence has no impact on the children and has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s parenting ability is untenable. Research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and 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…
[144] Domestic violence allegations are notoriously difficult to prove: … Thus, proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim or may overlap with and enhance the significance of other factors, such as the need for limited contact or support.
[145] … the evidence shows that most family violence goes unreported…

[167] The comprehensive and far-reaching nature of the family violence provisions in the CLRA represent a statutory recognition of the profound direct and indirect destructive effects that family violence in its many forms can have on children: M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207 at paragraph 175.

[168] In McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, Justice Chappel wrote at paragraphs 85 and 86:

[85] The definition of family violence specifically recognizes that conduct that may not constitute a criminal offence can constitute family violence for Family Law purposes. The examples of conduct that constitute family violence is expansive, but it is non-exhaustive. The broad definition recognizes the many insidious forms that domestic violence can take other than physical violence and accords each equal weight in the best interests assessment….
[86] The broad definition of family violence and the specific inclusion of this factor as a mandatory consideration in determining the best interests of children recognize the profound effects that all forms of family violence can have on children. These consequences can be both direct, if a child is exposed to the family violence, or indirect, if the victimized parent’s physical, emotional, and psychological well-being are compromised, since these consequences in turn often negatively impact their ability to meet the child’s physical and emotional needs.

[169] Courts must also remain cognizant of the reality that some allegations are in fact fabricated or exaggerated. Being closed-minded to these possibilities poses an equally serious threat to the achievement of justice in cases where family violence claims are advanced, and the courts must therefore meticulously assess the evidence in its totality to ensure that family violence claims are credible and are not being maliciously advanced to obtain a litigation advantage: M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207 at paragraph 180.

[170] The AFCC Parenting Guidelines also state as follows with respect to Family Violence:

In some families, there has been violence between the parents. Violence between the spouses, even if not seen or heard by the child, exposes a child to emotional risk, and parents who are violent towards their partners may also abuse their children. Parenting plans in these families should include provisions to protect the child, including transitions in neutral places and limited contact between the parents. In some cases, contact with a violent or abusive parent may need to be supervised or suspended. Additionally, such parenting plans should include a counselling or treatment plan for the child to address the adverse effects of the family violence on the children.

Part Five – Analysis

5.1 Parenting Time

[171] This is a motion for temporary parenting time and it is challenging to make findings of facts based on competing affidavit evidence solely from the parties, coupled with the Father’s blanket denials while alluding to other evidence not before the court.

[172] The court has considered the cogency of the evidence and the supporting material including the recordings of the conflict between the parties in text messages and the phone conversation, as well as the evidence of the Father’s registered psychotherapist, as well as the information that Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto has closed their file.

5.1.1 – Parenting Time Factors under the CLRA

[173] 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.

[174] The Child is 10 months old. The Child recently started crawling.

[175] The Child requires the constant loving attention of a calm and nurturing caregiver. The Child requires a regular feeding and sleeping schedule, as well as stimulating activities.

[176] The Child cannot communicate many of the Child’s needs so an attentive caregiver is also required. The Child is gaining independence and becoming increasingly mobile.

[177] The Child experienced a serious fall, which resulted in two skull fractures, which require the Child’s caregiver to continue to monitor the Child’s right parietal fracture.

[178] The Child needs to be free from parental conflict, distress, and emotionally dysregulated caregivers.

(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

[179] The Child has been primarily cared for the Mother since birth. The Mother has taken a lengthy parental leave to provide for the Child’s physical and emotional needs.

[180] The Father physically separated from the Mother and left the Child in the Mother’s sole care when the Child was approximately two months old.

[181] The Child has rarely, if ever, been in the Father’s sole unsupervised care. The Child was sporadically cared for by the Father after the Father left the home, but only when the Father returned to the home and the Mother was present.

[182] The Child has only recently begun supervised parenting time with the Father.

(c) Each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the Child’s relationship with the other parent

[183] Both parties engaged in demeaning name calling and inappropriate communications, and this causes the court to be concerned about how both parents will communicate to the Child about the other parent.

[184] The Father has made very serious allegations about the Mother, despite leaving the Child in the Mother’s sole care in November 2024. The Father alleged the Mother frequently drinks excessive amounts of alcohol and regularly uses illicit substances, her substance abuse causes her to fall and be injured, and she has relationships with drug dealers who own guns.

[185] The parties agree that the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto has been involved and investigated because of the criminal charges against the Father. The Father indicated he shared his allegations about the Mother with Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

[186] The court was advised that the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto will be closing its file without concerns about the safety and care of the Child in the current parenting arrangement.

[187] The Father’s allegations about the Mother have not been verified by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto investigation or substantiated by any other evidence before the court. The court is concerned that the Father is making false allegations about the Mother for his own purposes separate from the Child’s best interests, and that he does not support the Child’s relationship with the Mother.

[188] The Father is aggressive, controlling, and threatening towards the Mother. His evidence demonstrated little insight into this, and he deflects his conduct on to the Mother.

[189] The Mother is willing to support the Father’s relationship with the Child, although in a limited way connected to the Child’s best interests. The Mother has concerns about the Father, including his mental health, his emotional regulation, anger and caregiving skills. The concerns appear, at this stage, to be justified and appropriate.

(d) The History of Care of the Child

[190] The Mother has been the Child’s primary caregiver since birth.

[191] The Child was also cared for by the Father at times during his first two months of life. The Child suffered a serious injury while in the Father’s care. The Father also forgot to put the Child’s diaper on him on two occasions prior to putting the Child to bed.

[192] The Father decided to leave the family home in November 2024. He sporadically cared for the Child, but the Mother remained the Child’s primary caregiver.

[193] The Father began supervised access on June 28, 2025, and has had four three-hour visits totally 12 hours of parenting time since February, 2025.

(e) The Child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained

[194] The Child is very young. The access notes indicate that the Child is growing more comfortable with the Father.

(f) The Child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage

[195] The parents have different cultural backgrounds.

[196] There was evidence that the paternal family is from Bangladesh.

[197] Unfortunately, there was almost no evidence provided to the court about this factor.

(g) Any Plans for the Child’s care

[198] The Father’s plan includes joint decision-making with the Mother. He is seeking primary residence given his allegations that the Mother currently excessively uses alcohol and drugs. The Father intends to care for the Child and indicates that he works full-time flexible hours. The Father will also have the support of the Paternal Grandmother as well as a nanny service.

[199] The Mother has yet to file her Answer or Form 35.1 Affidavit (decision-making responsibility, parenting time).

(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

[200] The Mother has been providing the Childcare since birth. She took a parental leave in order to do so. The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto has been involved and investigated the Father’s allegations and the parties’ agreed that the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto would be closing their file as they do not have concerns for the Child’s current situation.

[201] The Father has limitations in his ability and willingness to care for the Child, as the Father would forget to put the Child’s diaper. The Father fell asleep while caring for the Child resulting in the Child falling and being seriously injured. The court does not accept that a 5-week-old baby rolled off the bed, and this was not the evidence in the SickKids records.

[202] Other less serious concerns about the Father’s instrumental caregiving include that the Father also applied sunscreen, despite the Child being under 12 months and not being advised to do so. The Father gave the Child coconut which the Child had not previously been exposed to and despite the Mother’s nut allergy, as well as not providing the Child solid foods for an hour, when it was suggested that the Child would be due for solid foods.

[203] The Father has a history of impulsive behaviours and relationship concerns, according to his registered psychotherapist. The Father denies any mental health diagnosis but failed to follow up on an urgent psychiatric assessment that his requisition for him in December 2024. A psychotherapist, as opposed to a psychologist, cannot diagnose mental health conditions. The Father’s psychotherapist states that “in the past, and now in the present, the Father has not reported nor exhibit any behaviours that I feel would reflect poorly on his ability to parent [the Child]”. The psychotherapist makes no mention of the Father’s criminal charges, the allegations of family violence or whether she has been provided with the evidence before court, particularly the recorded phone conversation.

[204] Both parents have limitations in their ability to respectfully communicate with one another to meet the needs of the Child.

[205] The Father’s communications with the Mother includes threats to her and her family, as well as intimidation.

(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

[206] There is no evidence that the parents have the ability or willingness to communicate and cooperate.

(j) Family Violence and its Impact

[207] Both parents allege family violence has occurred.

[208] There are many evidentiary gaps as a result of the Father’s choices respecting the evidence he did and did not tender. This motion was brought at the earliest possible stage in the proceeding, which also contributes to the evidentiary gaps.

[209] The Father states that all of the criminal allegations are unfounded and are being used by the Mother to justify her ongoing termination of contact between the Father and the Child.

[210] The Father states that his lawyer has advised him not to discuss the criminal charges before they have been dealt with in criminal court.

[211] The court is aware that the criminal allegations have not been proven, but the court is unable to determine at this stage that the allegations of family violence are unfounded.

[212] The Father has chosen not to address the very serious allegations against him in any meaningful way. The Father chose to bring this motion in a rush, and he chose what to file and what not to file. The Father chose not to put his version of events before the court apart from blanket denials.

[213] The Father alleges he has a video of the events on February 22, 2025, but rather than tendering the video as evidence on this motion, he has decided to seek to have the video “admitted at trial” to disprove the Mother’s claims.

[214] In C. v. C., 2024 ONSC 4319 at paras 65-78, Justice Finlayson discusses some of the issues of an accused failing to provide evidence in a family matter as a result of criminal charges. In Meola v. Griffiths, 2012 ONSC 6439 at paras 9-13, the court discusses protections to an accused in a family law proceeding with criminal charges pending.

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

[215] The Father currently has a criminal no contact order, and a restraining order.

5.1.2 – Family Violence Factors under the CLRA

[216] The following is an analysis of the family violence factors:

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

[217] There is evidence that suggests that both parents have engaged in family violence in terms of abusive forms of communication and name calling.

[218] There is evidence that the Father’s communication is threatening and intimidating.

[219] There is also evidence that suggests the Father was physically violent with the Mother. The fact that the Mother reported to the hospital that her injuries were caused by a slip on the ice does not, at this point, reduce the seriousness of the allegations or the concerns of family violence. Many victims of family violence underreport, or delay disclosure for a variety of reasons. This is a very common occurrence for victims of abuse.

[220] There is evidence that the Father was dishonest with the Mother about aspects of himself, and engaged in relationships outside their relationship, which the Mother discovered while pregnant, and this had a devastating impact on the Mother. Infidelities in relationships can constitute family violence: McBennett v Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610 at paragraph 120.

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

[221] There is evidence that both parties engaged in family violence.

[222] However, not all family violence is coercive and controlling. Some conflict in relationships, even conflict which involves name-calling, raised voices and wholly inappropriate communications, may be undesirable, and condemnable, but not coercive and controlling. The Mother’s conduct does not appear to be coercive or controlling.

[223] Coercive and controlling behaviour will generally involve a power imbalance and the fear by one parent of the other parent that there will be consequences (financial, social, emotional or physical) if the parent does not act in the way the abusive partner wants.

[224] The Father insults the Mother and degrades her repeatedly.

[225] The Father states that there will be serious consequences to the Mother if she leaves the family home, which he already vacated months before.

[226] The Father tells the Mother he hopes she dies of a drug overdose and he hopes her father (the Child’s maternal grandfather) dies of a heart attack.

[227] The Father threatened multiple times to take the Mother to hell with him. He threatens the Mother and tells her bad things are going to happen to everyone the Mother loves.

[228] The Father is alleged to have physically abused the Mother, to have hired a private detective, and to have used a tracking device on her car. The Father is facing criminal charges related to those allegations.

[229] While both parties engaged in negative forms of communication and name-calling, the Father communications were categorically different and included threats and intimidation, even in response to the Mother’s expressions about her concerns for her and the Child’s safety.

[230] The Father was emotionally abusive to the Mother during the conversation that was recorded by the Mother. The Father was enraged that the Mother would remove herself and the Child from the home for safety reasons, despite the fact that the Father had left that home months before.

[231] The Father’s approach to this litigation is highly aggressive and litigious.

[232] The Father initially brought the motion ex parte, denying the Mother any opportunity to respond. The Father’s motion included extremely serious allegations about the Mother’s ability to care for the Child, which were not verified by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto involvement. The Father did not mention the Child’s skull fractures, or the Father’s mental health struggles and supports. The Father stated the Mother was emotionally abusive towards him using racist, homophobic and degrading comments, without any mention or insight into his own abusive, intimidating, and threatening communications. The Father then brought the motion urgently before a case conference. Finally, the Father objected on technical grounds to much of the Mother’s evidence while declining to provide his version of events and relying on blanket denials.

[233] There was no evidence filed that Father’s counsel attempted to negotiate a parenting plan with the Mother at any point from February 23, 2025, when the Father alleges he was denied all contact to the commencement of the ex parte motion on May 14, 2025.

[234] There was no evidence that Father’s counsel made a genuine effort to settle the issues before commencing the motion. Negotiation and problem-solving must come before litigation unless there is a serious safety concern for a child.

[235] Problematic litigation conduct and litigation by bullying can also be a form of family violence: S.C.H. v. S.R., 2023 ONSC 4928 at paragraph 511.

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

[236] The Child has been exposed to the parents’ family violence and was present during the February 22, 2025 incident. The Child has also been indirectly exposed to the family violence and its impact on the Mother, the Child’s primary caregiver.

(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

[237] Physical and psychological violence toward a parent can create serious harm to a child: Zafar v. Azeem, 2024 ONCA 15 at paragraph 84.

[238] There is serious risk of harm to the Child based on the presence of family violence.

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

[239] The Mother’s safety is compromised by the Father’s family violence. The Father has repeatedly threatened to take the Mother to hell with him.

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

[240] The Mother fears for her safety and the safety of the Child as a result of the Father’s family violence.

(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

[241] The Father is engaged in talk therapy, which is a positive step to address the allegations of family violence.

[242] The Father should share with his psychotherapist the audio recording of the conversation he had with the Mother to assist him in gaining insight into the completely inappropriate way in which he speaks to the Mother.

(h) any other relevant factor.

[243] The court has not considered any other factors.

Part Six – Conclusion

[244] Having carefully considered all of the evidence and the concerns described above as well as the factors legislated in the CLRA, the court is highly concerned about the Father’s conduct, and his threats, as well as the incidents that have resulted in criminal charges.

[245] The Father lacks insight, or is indifferent to the impact of his actions. The Father may have mental health issues but has declined to complete an assessment despite an urgent referral to a psychiatrist.

[246] The Father made serious allegations about the Mother’s caregiving, which were not verified by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto after an investigation.

[247] The parents are unable to effectively communicate about the Child’s needs.

[248] The Father’s parenting time shall remain supervised by a professional, as it is the only way to ensure the Child is emotionally and physically safe during the Father’s parenting time. The supervised parenting time will reduce conflict and ensure some communication about the Child is occurring, which is in the Child’s best interests given his age and inherent vulnerability.

[249] The court is also not prepared to make a “without prejudice” order. A without prejudice order would give either party the ability to seek a variation without having to show a material change in circumstances. The Father chose to bring this motion before a case conference on an urgent basis with incomplete evidence. Parties are not entitled to multiple motions before trial. This motion has been fully argued and the decision is with prejudice.

[250] The Father can seek additional parenting time through a motion if the issues cannot be resolved or tried, and a material change in circumstance occurs.

[251] The parties should attend a case conference and determine whether the parties can agree to a parenting schedule that includes the involvement of the Father’s family members as appropriate supervisors.

[252] In the interim, both parents are strongly encouraged to engage in counselling/education for separated families to understand the impact of family violence on children. The Father should engage in anger management and consider completing the psychiatric assessment that he was referred for. The Mother should engage professional supports to address the events that have brought the family before the court and their impact on her.

[253] A temporary order shall go on the following terms:

1. The Father’s parenting time with the Child, as follows:
   a. Supervised by Toronto Family Therapy or any other mutually agreeable professional supervisor, on the following schedule:
   (i) Sundays 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
   (ii) Tuesdays 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
   (iii) Thursdays 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

[254] The parties should agree on costs of this motion. If the parties are unable to agree, and the Mother seeks her costs, she is to serve and file written submissions by July 28, 2025. The Father will then have until August 4, 2025, to make a written response. The submissions should not exceed three pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle. The submissions should be filed through the JSO portal. Court administration is requested to bring any costs submissions to the court’s attention on August 5, 2025.

[255] This matter has been adjourned to an initial case conference before the case management judge on September 9, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.

Released: July 22, 2025
Signed: Justice J. Harris