Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FO-22-00000463-0001 Date: October 31, 2025 Ontario Court of Justice
Between: Koboni Nyakahuma Applicant
— And —
Kendra Relf Respondent
Before: Justice W. Kapurura
Heard on: October 30, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on: October 31, 2025
Representation:
- Koboni Nyakahuma ……………………………………………………… on his own behalf
- D. Lue ……………………………………………………………………… agent for the respondent
JUSTICE W. KAPURURA:
Part One – Introduction
[1] The following is the court's decision regarding a trial held in this matter on October 30, 2025.
[2] The parties have one child, C (10 years old). They have had a shared parenting arrangement for the child since around May 2023. On April 9, 2024, the court made a final order (the existing order), on consent, regarding parenting issues.
[3] The applicant (the father) has brought a motion to change regarding clauses in the existing order pertaining to the child's involvement in tennis. The motion to change was issued on March 6, 2025. He seeks to vary the following clauses contained in the existing order:
Para 9: The child shall attend scheduled tennis practice two (2) times per week. The child shall attend Veneto Tennis Club, where she currently attends on Wednesdays and Fridays.
Para 10: The parties shall commit to a 2-day tennis schedule per week and the schedule of the other activity of the respondent/mother's choosing prior to any additional tennis commitment that the applicant/father may want to enroll the child in while in his care.
Para 11: The child may attend 12 tennis tournaments per year. Any tournament over and above this amount must be mutually agreed upon, in writing, by both parties.
Para 18: The parties shall not schedule any extracurricular activity outside of the child's scheduled activities (i.e. tennis and one other activity) on the other parent's parenting time, without the express consent of the other parent. For clarity, any tennis tournament outside of the child's tennis schedule shall occur on the father's parenting time, unless previously canvassed and expressly agreed to in writing by the mother to have the child attend a tournament during her parenting time.
[4] The father seeks to vary the above clauses and replace them with the following term:
The child shall attend all training, matches, qualifications, and tournaments required to maintain her place on Team Ontario, and should she qualify in the future, for Team Canada. Should the child's tennis schedule take place during the mother's parenting time, the mother shall have the option to take the child. If the mother does not wish to take the child, the father shall do so, and the mother shall receive make-up parenting time for any time lost that exceeds two hours.
[5] The following dates are important:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022 | The father commenced his application in this court. |
| April 9, 2024 | The father's application was finalized by way of a consent order (the existing order). |
| March 6, 2025 | The father issued his motion to change |
| October 30, 2025 | A hearing was held to determine whether there is a material change in circumstances impacting the child. |
[6] The respondent (the mother)'s position is that there is no material change in circumstances, and she seeks to have the motion to change dismissed.
[7] The parties attended their first case conference on July 10, 2025. The court directed that the threshold issue (on whether there is a material change in circumstances impacting the child) be addressed by way of a focused hearing. It provided directions for the focused hearing.
[8] The father filed his supporting affidavit and an additional affidavit from a collateral witness. The mother filed one affidavit. Each party was permitted to provide brief additional oral evidence at trial.
[9] The mother was assisted by counsel at trial. The father was self-represented.
[10] Each party cross-examined the other at trial. They each made closing submissions.
[11] The court must determine the following threshold issue:
i. Has there been a material change in the circumstances affecting the child since the granting of the existing order?
Part Two – Parties' Positions and Evidence
2.1 – The Father
[12] The father deposed that:
a. The child has been interested in tennis since she was three years old.
b. The child has excelled in tennis in that she:
- i. Has represented her tennis academy at a national tournament.
- ii. Played for the Province of Ontario at an inter-provincial tournament.
- iii. Qualified for Team Ontario.
- iv. Graduated to an elite training program.
c. The father accuses the mother of not fully supporting the child's involvement in tennis, including:
- i. The child has missed all tournaments scheduled on the mother's parenting time, resulting in suspension.
- ii. The mother has failed to attend any tournament the child has participated in.
- iii. The mother refuses to bring the child to summer tennis camp.
- iv. The child is consistently late for tennis practice while in the mother's care.
d. The initial family court application was commenced in 2022, mainly due to disagreements around tennis. At the time the existing order was made, the child's ability to play tennis at a higher level was just developing. Six (6) days prior to the granting of the existing order, the parties were notified that the child had qualified for an under-9 (U9) provincial training team.
e. Since the granting of the existing order, the child has qualified to play competitively for the U10 Team Ontario and has graduated to an elite training program.
f. On September 26, 2024, the parties received an email from the Ontario Tennis Association (OTA) inviting the child to a tryout for the U10 provincial team with Tennis Ontario.
g. On October 16, 2024, the parties received confirmation that the child had been selected for the provincial practice team.
h. Despite knowing the requirements for the child to remain on the U10 Team Ontario, the child continued to miss important events during the mother's parenting time.
i. On January 13, 2025, the child received a 3-month suspension from the Ontario Tennis Association (OTA) because of missing tournaments while in the mother's care.
j. The child won bronze for Team Ontario at the interprovincial tournament held from April 25, 2025, to April 27, 2025, in Montreal.
k. The child is now playing at the provincial level for Team Ontario.
l. On June 12, 2025, the child graduated from the Junior National Program to the Girls Elite Program. The Girls Elite program training is four times a week, requiring a full commitment, which is not supported by the twice per week schedule contained in the existing order.
m. The existing order did not contemplate the child's significant advancement in tennis that the child has now accomplished.
n. The mother has prioritized vacation time and other events such as birthdays, at the expense of the child's tennis practice.
o. If the current order is not varied, the child will miss out on future opportunities.
[13] The father called the child's tennis coach, Nieves Fetahagic, to testify. She deposed that:
a. She has coached the child since September 2018.
b. She described the child as a bright, kind, hardworking girl with a deep passion for tennis.
c. The mother brings the child late every Tuesday and Thursday to Erin Mills Tennis Club for the child's high-performance class.
d. There have been missed opportunities due to the parents' schedule in place because the child is only playing tournaments when she is in her father's care.
2.2 – The Mother
[14] The mother deposed that:
a. The parties have disagreed about the extent of the child's involvement in tennis since around 2019 (prior to the existing order being made).
b. Before the existing order was made, the child had been playing tennis for five years.
c. The father has repeatedly articulated his strong belief that the child could be an extremely skilled tennis player.
d. At the time the existing order was made, the father had registered the child at Advantage Tennis International (ATI) for three training days per week, in addition to tournament play. The parties went on to agree to cap her tennis commitments to two training days per week, and a maximum of 12 tournaments per year, unless otherwise mutually agreed.
e. Prior to the existing order being granted, the father notified her (the mother) that the child had been invited to try out for the Ontario Tennis Training Program (OTTP) for the U9 age group. She provided a message from the father sent to her on March 6, 2024, to support her claim.
f. The child's qualification to train in the U10 (OTTP) or in the elite training program was neither unforeseen nor is it a new development.
g. The child's participation in the OTTP hosted by the OTA is a choice. The program is supplemental such that if players decline to participate, they do not get penalized or excluded from other opportunities, except for the single inter-provincial competition against the Province of Quebec.
h. The father continues to refuse to provide her with login details for the child's OTA account.
i. The child's participation in the inter-provincial tournament against Quebec in April 2025, was made possible under the terms of the existing order. The mother agreed to switch her parenting days to allow the father to travel with the child to Montreal for the event.
j. Similar to the child's progression from U9 OTTP to U10 OTTP, the child's progression from Progressive Competitive Programs to the Elite Program was a function of her age, and the normal progression of her skills, both of which were contemplated.
k. ATI maintains a public website that sets out the expectations for each of its programs, as well as a published player development path. These materials were available at the time the existing order was made.
l. She accuses the father of enrolling the child in the ATI's Elite Program without consulting her. He did not discuss the change in program with her. He committed the child to the 2-hour Elite Program, requiring the child to attend on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 6:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m., in contravention of the existing order.
m. On August 11, 2025, the father informed her that the child had been registered for a Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday tennis schedule. This was after he had already made the commitment.
n. On September 15, 2025, the child disclosed that she had started training at ACE Tennis Academy in Vaughan on Fridays and Sundays while in the father's care. This means that without consulting with her, the father committed the child to training on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays.
o. The existing order requires that the child's second extracurricular activity be prioritized prior to additional tennis scheduling.
p. Since October 2024, the father has refused to support the child's participation in weekend volleyball.
q. She accuses the father of misleading the court by stating that the child has been "selected" for the Eastern Canada U10 championship by her coaches. The tournaments require parents to register their child for consideration. She provided an ATI email dated September 22, 2025, inviting parents to confirm their availability and interest in the 2025 Eastern Tournament. She is not included in the ATI email list.
r. The child has attended all regrouping sessions during the mother's parenting time except one session missed when the child attended a friend's birthday event.
Part Three – Legal Considerations
3.1 – Request to Vary a Final Parenting Order
[15] Section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act (the Act) provides the statutory authority for varying a parenting order. It states:
29 (1) A court shall not make an order under this Part that varies a parenting order or contact order unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child who is the subject of the order.
[16] The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon v. Goertz (1996), 19 R.F.L. (4th) 177 S.C.C. sets out a two-stage process for the court to conduct in motions to change custody or access as follows:
a) First, the parent applying for a change in the custody or access order (now decision-making responsibility and parenting time) must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances affecting the child.
b) If the threshold is met, the court must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child's needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.
[17] In L.M.L.P. v. L.S., [2011] SCC 64, the Supreme Court stated that the change must be substantial, continuing and that "if known at the time, would likely have resulted in a different order." The Supreme Court stated that it must limit itself to whatever variation is justified by the material change of circumstances.
[18] The change must have arisen since the making of the order or the last variation of the order. See: N.S. v. A.N.S., 2021 ONSC 5283; K.M. v. J.R., 2021 ONSC 111.
[19] A change alone is not enough to justify a variation. The change must materially affect the child, the parents, or both. See: K.M. v. J.R., 2021 ONSC 111. The threshold material change in circumstances test is aimed in part at ensuring that the parties do not resort to litigation whenever any change occurs, however minimal. See: M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207.
[20] On a motion to change, the court has the option of restricting changing the existing order to address a specific issue, while maintaining its integrity. See: Elaziz v. Wahba, [2017] ONCA 58.
Part Four – Analysis
[21] The onus is on the father to prove that there is a material change in circumstances affecting the child.
[22] The following facts are undisputed:
a. The child is doing well in school. Her end of year report card for Grade 4 shows Es (excellent) in all aspects of her learning skills and work habits. She excelled throughout her Grade 4 year.
b. The child has been involved in tennis since around 2019 when she was around 3 years old.
c. The child has excelled in tennis.
d. The father has maintained his desire to have the child engage in more tennis practice.
e. The extent of the child's involvement in tennis has remained a major parenting issue between the parents. They have disagreed on the issue for more than three years. The issue was also litigated prior to the granting of the existing order.
f. Other than the issue of tennis, the current shared parenting arrangement (2-2-3) has been working well between the parents.
[23] The court finds that, contrary to the father's claims, the mother has supported the child in tennis, as follows:
a. The child has attended tennis practice while in her care, in accordance with the schedule provided in the existing order.
b. The child participated in the inter-provincial tournament against Quebec in Montreal from April 25 - 27, 2025. The mother agreed to switch her parenting time on Thursday before departure, to allow the father sufficient time to travel to Montreal for the tournament, which was starting on the Friday.
c. The father's allegations focus mostly on events that he unilaterally scheduled in violation of the provisions of the current court order.
[24] The father was not sincere in his criticism of the mother, and provided misleading information to the court, as follows:
a. He deposed that on January 13, 2025, the child received a 3-month suspension from the OTA for missing tournaments while in the mother's care. During cross-examination, he admitted that the suspension was rescinded.
b. He accused the mother of not supporting the child's tennis games and the child missing tournaments while in her care. He failed to disclose that the child missed a tournament running from February 16 until 19, 2024 while in his care.
c. The father registered the child for a tournament running from May 11 to 12, 2024. He communicated with the mother one day before the tournament. The tournament also coincided with Mother's Day, which was a designated parenting day for the mother.
d. The father registered the child for a tournament scheduled to start on May 18, 2024. He notified the mother on May 15, 2024, and asked her to provide her consent by May 16, 2024.
e. The father registered the child for a January 2 to 5, 2024 tennis tournament. He never communicated the registration to the mother.
f. He has refused to provide the mother with the child's OTA login details. In a message dated November 8, 2024, he asserted that "I have an account under my name and log ins. I am not sharing personal and sensitive information with you."
g. The mother has been excluded from communications from the child's coach. The father's witness (the child's coach) admitted that her communications were with the father only.
h. The mother has been excluded from communications from the OTA regarding upcoming tournaments.
i. The father enrolled the child in the ATI's Elite Program without consulting her.
[25] The court finds that the father, through his actions, has not followed the provisions of the existing order, as follows:
a. The existing order requires the parents to also commit to an additional extracurricular activity chosen by the mother. The mother testified that she enrolled the child in volleyball. The evidence supports the mother's allegation that the father has not supported the child in volleyball. In his own message sent to her on October 19, 2024, he wrote that she would have to bring the child to volleyball on her weekends if she decided to keep the child in volleyball.
b. The existing order provides that the child may be enrolled in 12 tournaments per year. Any tournaments exceeding 12 would require the consent of both parents, in writing. The father has registered the child in about 15 tournaments in a year, with the excess not being with the consent of the mother.
c. The existing order provides that the child shall have a two-day tennis schedule per week. On August 11, 2025, the father informed the mother that the child had been registered for a Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday tennis schedule. This registration was done without the consent of the mother.
[26] The father had a lot of criticism of the mother regarding her commitment to the child's tennis. However, he failed to acknowledge that his conduct had also contributed to most of the challenges the parents are going through, as discussed above. He appears to be sending a direct and/or indirect message to the child and the child's coaches that the mother is not supporting the child in tennis.
[27] The court is concerned that the father's incessant focus on the child's tennis may now be impacting other aspects of the child's life, as follows:
i. He has not supported the child's involvement in volleyball.
ii. He accuses the mother of taking the child to a birthday event for a friend of the child, instead of having the child attend tennis practice.
iii. He accuses the mother of taking the child on vacation, at the expense of her tennis scheduling.
[28] The father's claims regarding the child excelling in tennis, and the need for her to engage in additional tennis practice and tournaments were all contemplated at the time the existing order was made. The father's claims around tennis appear to be an attempt to relitigate a settled issue. During cross-examination, he admitted that prior to the granting of the existing order, he had filed affidavits containing the following details:
a. In his November 4, 2022, affidavit (paragraph 20), he deposed that:
(the child) attends tennis every Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, with tennis tournaments on Sundays. (The child) has excelled at tennis. She is winning tournaments or placing within the top 3 in her age group.
b. In his May 9, 2023, affidavit, he deposed that:
For the past 5 years, the child has attended tennis 3 to 4 times per week.
At present, (the child) is enrolled in tennis training for one hour on Thursday and two hours on Saturdays. Based on (the child)'s age and level of tennis that she is playing, it is recommended that (the child) engage in tennis training for 8 to 10 hours per week. In addition to training, (the child) is required to participate in tournaments in order to compete. To date, (the mother) has refused to take the child to her tennis tournaments, if they land during her parenting time.
I commenced the herein application because (the mother) is obstructing the child's participation in tennis.
[29] The above paragraphs reflect the father's claims and position prior to the granting of the existing order. He went on to resolve the matter by way of minutes of settlement, agreeing to the terms of the existing order. Accordingly, the allegations and claims he raises in his motion to change are not new. In L.M.L.P. v. L.S., [2011] SCC 64, the Supreme Court stated that the change must be substantial, continuing and that "if known at the time, would likely have resulted in a different order."
[30] The father called the child's coach as a witness. She was credible in her evidence regarding the child's performance in tennis. However, her evidence was overshadowed by her perceived bias against the mother, in favour of the father, for the following reasons:
i. She accused the mother of not supporting the child's tennis. However, she admitted that she has only communicated with the father, and not with the mother. She does not include the mother in her communication.
ii. She has only had limited involvement with the child. On average, she coaches the child about twice per month. She is not the child's club coach.
iii. She provided irrelevant evidence about her own upbringing, stating that one of her parents had not supported her involvement in tennis. She attempted to relate the facts of this matter to her own upbringing.
iv. She stated in her affidavit that the mother had picked up the child early from her club (in Milton) on December 31, 2024, suggesting that the mother is not supporting the child's tennis. However, the evidence confirmed that the father had unilaterally changed the child's pick-up location from Toronto that day, to the coach's Milton camp. It was New Year's Eve, and it was not appropriate for the father to change the mother's pick-up location on New Year's eve.
v. Her evidence was internally inconsistent. She deposed that the mother currently brings the child late for tennis practice every Tuesday and Thursday. However, when questioned by the court about her actual coaching involvement with the child, she stated that her tennis club is located in Milton (the parents are in Toronto). She also stated that the child attends her club about twice a month (as needed), with no set schedule, and participates in a 2-week summer camp during the summer months. There are no scheduled events for November 2025.
vi. She is not the child's club or regular tennis coach. She stated that the child is missing opportunities due to the parents' schedule in place because the child is only playing tournaments when she is in her father's care. However, the evidence does not show that she is currently involved in the scheduling and participation in the child's tournaments as she is not the club coach.
[31] The father appears to undermine the mother's involvement in the child's life. The parents are separated. The child has two homes. His request to have the child attend "all training, matches, qualifications, and tournaments required to maintain her place on Team Ontario" is unreasonable as it disregards the child's current circumstances around parenting arrangements, and the need to provide stability to the child, and minimize conflict between the parents.
[32] The existing order was designed to address the parents' endless disputes around tennis. The court finds that the current order continues to address the parents' challenges around tennis scheduling. They must respect it.
[33] The evidence supports the mother's allegation that she has made repeated attempts to work collaboratively with the father to discuss the child's tennis schedule and tournaments. The OTA tournament schedule is available to parents months in advance. It appears that the father has not cooperated with the mother's attempts to work amicably.
[34] The father's strict approach to tennis also undermines the following:
i. The child's ability to spend time and socialize with her friends.
ii. The child's school attendance.
iii. The child's ability to attend other age-appropriate events, such as birthday events.
iv. The child's ability to spend time with extended family members.
[35] The existing order provides a balance regarding the child's involvement in tennis, other sporting events, social life, family time and rest.
[36] The court concludes as follows:
a. The change suggested by the father was contemplated.
b. The change, if known at the time of the granting of the existing order, would not have resulted in a different order.
c. The change does not materially affect the child, the parents or both.
d. Even if the court had found that there is a change in circumstances, the evidence does not show that the change is "material" as required under the Act.
e. The father's continued litigation on the issue of the child's involvement in tennis is not in the child's best interests.
f. The child requires predictability and stability. The current order continues to address those needs.
[37] For the reasons above, the court concludes that the father has not met his onus in establishing that there is a material change in circumstances impacting the child. It will dismiss his motion to change.
[38] In order to guide the family moving forward, the court suggests that the parents consider the following:
a. They must respect the terms of the existing order.
b. The father must allow the mother to access the child's OTA online account.
c. The father must facilitate the mother's ability to obtain all information pertaining to the child's tennis schedule and tournaments.
d. The father must coordinate and work with the mother in scheduling the child's tennis tournaments and additional tennis practice.
e. The parents must respect each other's right to spend meaningful time with the child during their parenting time.
f. The father must respect the mother's right to choose an additional activity for the child (per the terms of the existing order) and must support her in doing so.
g. The father must understand that in as much as it is important to support the child in tennis, it is equally important to also consider the fact that the child also has a life outside of tennis. The child has friends, and her socialization is important.
h. The father's continued litigation around tennis must end.
Part Five – Conclusion
[39] A final order to go as follows:
[40] The father's motion to change issued on March 6, 2025, is dismissed.
[41] If either party seeks costs, they shall serve and file their written costs submissions by November 14, 2025. The other party will then have until November 28, 2025, to serve and file their written response (not to make their own costs submissions). The submissions shall be no more than five pages, excluding any bill of costs or offer to settle. The submissions may be delivered or emailed to the trial coordinator's office at the courthouse.
Released: October 31, 2025
Signed: Justice Wiri Kapurura
Abbreviations
In this decision:
- OTA – Ontario Tennis Association
- U9 – under 9 years
- U10 – under 10 years
- ATI – Advantage Tennis International
- OTTP – Ontario Tennis Training Program