ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2025 12 03

COURT FILE No.: Sault Ste. Marie 121/22

BETWEEN:

M.G. - Applicant

--- AND ---

M.M. - Respondent

Before Justice Heather-Ann Mendes

Heard on September 29, 2025 and October 1, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on December 3, 2025

Rachel McLean -- counsel for the applicant

M.M. -- on his own behalf

MENDES J.:

Background

[1] The parties are the parents of the children C.M. born [...], 2020 and Ma.G. born [...], 2021. The child Ma.G. is diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis which requires special care as well as special medical attention and treatment.

[2] The parties began residing together in or about May 2018 and they ended their relationship in or about November/December 2020. In July 2020 the respondent father was charged with multiple sexual assault offences involving a person under the age of 16.

[3] On April 25, 2023 the father was found guilty of three counts of the sexual offences by a jury. On September 27, 2023 the father was sentenced to 5 years custody less 9 days presentence custody. The father appealed his conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard on August 22, 2025. The Ontario Court of Appeal reserved its decision. The decision has yet to be released.

[4] On or about September 27, 2025 the father was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement in relation to the mother. The alleged offences occurred on May 16, 2025 and between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2020.

[5] The main issue for this trial is the father's parenting-time with the children. The father concedes that given his present release conditions dated September 28, 2025, he is not permitted to communicate with the mother, except by valid family court order. Further, pursuant to the father's release order dated May 9, 2025, he is not permitted to be in the company of or communicate with any person under the age of 16 years except with the Supervised Access Program of Algoma Family Services and/or pursuant to a family court order, he is also not to attend a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years can reasonably be expected to be present or a daycare centre, school ground, playground or community centre. As such, the father is not contesting the children residing in the care of the mother and that she make decisions for them, with his input.

[6] The father previously exercised parenting-time with the children through Algoma Family Service Supervised Access Program. The father is no longer able to exercise parenting-time through Algoma Family Services given his conviction and that other children under the age of 16 are present during the visits as advised by the centre.

[7] Pursuant to the interim order of June 13, 2025, the father has virtual parenting-time with the children via Zoom initiated by the mother every Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. After four virtual visits, the father was also entitled to supervised parenting-time for a minimum of two hours at mutually agreed upon location with a mutually agreed upon supervisor and for the time being the supervisor agreed upon was B.L.

[8] The in-person supervised visits for the father were never commenced as the parties could not mutually agree upon a location. The mother sought that the visits occur at a local restaurant and the father sought that the visits occur at his home.

[9] The mother concedes that the father's present source of income is Ontario Works and she is not seeking child support for the children at this time.

Position of the Parties

[10] At trial, the mother sought an order that there be no parenting-time for the father and in the alternative that he have parenting-time with the children in the community supervised by B.L.

[11] The father sought that his parenting-time with the children occur at his residence and that it be supervised by his surety R.M.

Evidence

[12] The mother and father each testified at the trial. In addition, the mother called her proposed supervisor B.L. and the father called his proposed supervisor R.M.

[13] The mother's evidence was that during the relationship with the father she was subjected to his controlling behaviour such as manipulation and abuse. The mother alleges that the father isolated her and subjected her to financial abuse as well as sexual abuse. The father was recently charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement against the mother on September 27, 2025, two days before the first day of this trial. The father had previous charges in relation to the mother and a non-communication order was made in February 2021. The details of the father's charges and convictions, if any, regarding the mother were not provided.

[14] According to the mother, in July 2020 after the father was charged, he was granted supervised parenting-time with the child C.M. through a supervisor approved of by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma.

[15] In October 2020 the father's supervised visits were revoked due to breaches and his supervisor not properly supervising. Thereafter the father did not have parenting-time with the children until January 2022 when visits commenced through Algoma Family Services. The father's visits were suspended by the Access Centre at the end of April 2023 due to a violation of the centre's rules by the father.

[16] The father has not had in person visits with the children since April 2023. He commenced having virtual visits with the children in June 2025. The mother's evidence is that these visits have also been problematic as the father discusses inappropriate topics with the children; he will make inappropriate comments to the children; the father will record the visits; the father will make demeaning or derogatory comments about the mother; he will become aggressive and he is not able to control his emotions.

[17] The mother testified that even when virtual visits occur, the father will still push boundaries by trying to engage with her, arrange a date for in person parenting-time with the children or make promises about future visits with the children rather than focusing on the children and what they are doing at the time. The father would also comment on the mother's home such as noting her cathedral ceiling and he would be argumentative with the children about mundane issues such as where or whom a plant came from.

[18] The mother also alluded to recent involvement with the Society surrounding the father's virtual parenting-time and that she was directed by them to cease the virtual parenting-time. The mother confirmed in her evidence that there is no current or outstanding child protection proceeding.

[19] It is also the mother's evidence that the father has been uncooperative with respect to any attempt to coparent with her when she tries to keep him involved in the children's lives. The mother cites the example of the father refusing to complete the genetic testing requested by Ma.G.'s medical team to assist with her Cystic Fibrosis diagnosis as she has a very rare form of the disease.

[20] In cross examination the mother agreed that the father should be involved in the children's lives, but that it needs to be done safely. The mother is not in agreement with the father's surety, R.M., supervising him with the children.

[21] The mother has met R.M. through the father. The mother feels that R.M. betrayed her trust and would not put the children's safety first. This is in relation to when the mother shared pictures of Ma.G. after her birth with R.M. who in turn shared them with the father without the mother's permission.

[22] The mother also agreed in cross examination that the most recent virtual visits with the father and the children went well as she arranged for them to be outdoors, and the father suggested that the children go geocaching which they enjoyed.

[23] The mother's evidence is that there are still issues with the father pushing boundaries and not encouraging the children in a positive manner during these visits. The mother feels as though the father blames her for things that the children cannot do such as if they are struggling with counting, as it is a reflection of her parenting and then conversely, he will take credit for the things that the children do well, claiming that they get those traits from him.

[24] The mother's evidence is that the children are both doing well. They are in school, and they enjoy attending school. She has met all of the children's medical, health, educational and social needs and they have flourished in her care. She is diligent in monitoring Ma.G.'s health and arranging the appropriate medical care for her.

[25] The father's evidence is that the mother has been obstructive in terms of permitting him to exercise both his virtual parenting-time with the children as well as the expansion of parenting-time to in person visits after the contemplated four virtual visits.

[26] The father attempted to address these issues with the mother's counsel this was not successful. The father also attempted to address the issue through the assistance of the police.

[27] The father is not in agreement with attending supervised visits with the children by B.L. at a restaurant as in his view there are likely to be people under the age of 16 years present and this would violate his release order. Further he had a falling out with the owners of one of the restaurants and he is not permitted on the property.

[28] The father wishes to have parenting-time with the children at his home so that he and the children can participate in normal day to day activities. The father's home is located on almost an acre of property and the father has surveillance cameras set up both inside and outside which record 24 hours a day. The father wants to be able to spend time with the children enjoying fun experiences that are educational such as gardening and "twisting wrenches", working on his 1970 Monte Carlo SS that he wishes to leave to the children.

[29] The father is very frustrated with the process and "being blocked from the children". The father's evidence was that after he was charged and while he and mother were still together from July 2020 to December 2020 the mother brought the child C.M. around all the time. He would get the house ready for them so they could shower, and he attempted to make it easy for them.

[30] However, in his view, "it was like she (the mother) would try to get me breached". The father was also critical of his first surety claiming that she was not supervising him with the child properly as she would go in the home and leave him alone with C.M. The father's evidence is that it was he who reported the lack of supervision by his surety, that she was not doing her job and that he was the one who arranged for a new surety.

[31] The father acknowledges that he has struggled with his mental health which he attributes to the criminal charges. The father is diagnosed with anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. No medical reports or assessments were filed at the trial.

[32] The father denies that he is guilty of the offences for which he has been convicted. The appeal of his conviction and sentence was heard on August 22, 2025 and he is awaiting the decision from the Court of Appeal.

[33] The father's evidence is that the allegations made by the mother against him in January 2021 regarding threatening were false, as well as the recent charges.

[34] The father was cross examined about the Facebook messages and posts made in relation to the mother and her family filed at Exhibit B Tab 2. The father was first asked if he made threats against the G. family and his reply was "not directly", when questioned further if he had made threats his answer was "no".

[35] When the Facebook quotes were put the father, and he was asked if he thought those were threats, his reply was that they were not public. When put to the father again if the statements were aggressive, his reply was that they were fair statements with what he was going through. The father did not agree that the statements were threatening or aggressive and his reply to whether someone would find the statements aggressive, his position was that it depends on how someone perceives the post.

[36] Some of the Facebook posts include comments as follows:

"My kids have had way more than enough bullshit fucking shit stain liers. Daddy's coming Fuck you c. U. Next Tuesdays [G.'s] have kept my kids away. Time to fuck them up"

"Every moment my kids are held from me is waisted. Those responsible will pay with their own misery. Karma will come for you fuckers"

"40 today. Only birthday wish is to see my kids. Thanks to the overwhelming shittyness of the CAS and the G. family that isn't happening. So a super fuck you to the pieces of shit keeping my kids from me and my family"

[37] The father was questioned about his last visit with the children at the supervised access facility. He agreed that the last visit with on April 22, 2023. It was put to the father that on that day he engaged with the staff in a negative manner. He did not agree. It was put to him that he was yelling about not having enough space in the centre and that this was "bullshit". The father's reply was that he was not yelling. It was further put to the father that he yelled that he was "going to get custody" and again his reply was that he did not yell. The father was asked if he agreed his visits were cancelled due to his behaviour and his reply was "they said that yes".

[38] The father was also questioned about the emails sent to the mother's counsel when no agreement was reached regarding the location of the in person supervised visits. Again, the father did not agree that these emails were threatening or aggressive. Some of the text messages exchanged with counsel were filed in Exhibit C, the mother's affidavit sworn September 15, 2025 as follows:

"Were either of you paying any attention in court? This is ridiculous. You and M.G. are both destroying C.M. and Ma.G. mentally. You should be discussed with yourself, your client and this broken system that allows you to drag this out. No order for locations was made. It was to be decided mutually. As for another supervisor only the named party was allowed or M.G. herself."

"I expect a zoom call at 430 until 530 this evening. I expect to see my kids here at home this week for 2 hours. No excuses. No games. No reason that visitation cannot be here other than M.G. herself not having the narrative."

"So what happened with visitation? I want answers immediately. I'm done waiting. I have police reports for everything. You are to be the go between. Court ordered. I want real answers no more run around. My next step will be advising the LAC. Of your practices. I don't care you have too many clients. These are my kids so anything you so or do that is furthering my kids seeing me their Dad. I have no choice but to go over your head."

[39] B.L. testified as a witness for the mother and proposed supervisor for the father's parenting-time. B.L. works as a caretaker for the Algoma District School Board on St. Joseph's Island from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday to Friday.

[40] She is familiar with the children as she has spent time with them and she is very comfortable with children as she has grown children of her own as well as step grandchildren. She has also been around children for 25 years through her employment as a caretaker.

[41] B.L. understands that her role as a supervisor of parenting-time for the father would require her to be present during the visit and to ensure that the children were safe. It is her understanding that the visit would be in the community and this is where she would feel comfortable. When asked about the length of time for the visits, her thought was for a period of an hour, once per week and on the weekend. When asked by the court if she could supervise for up to 4 hours, she agreed.

[42] B.L. does not know the father and her evidence was that she was not aware of why the father required supervision with the children.

[43] R.M. testified as a witness for the father and proposed supervisor for the father's parenting-time. R.M. has known the father for 14 years and she has been his surety for the past 5 years. She resides with the father at his residence. R.M. has a 10-year-old son. R.M.'s husband, her mother and her son reside together at their residence in Sault Ste. Marie while she resides with the father.

[44] R.M. has only met the child C.M. once when the child was less than a year old and the parents were together. After that she saw the mother with the child once in Canadian Tire when the mother was pregnant with the child Ma.G.

[45] R.M. understands her role is to not allow the father to be unsupervised with the children. R.M. drives and is able to obtain car seats for the children. She has no involvement with child protection services, she does not have a criminal record nor has she been charged.

[46] During the five years that she has been the father's surety there have been no breaches of the father's release order and she has not had to call the police regarding the father.

Law

[47] The Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 provides the following:

Best interests of the child

24 (1) In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section.

Primary consideration

(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. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

Factors

(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,

(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.

Parenting orders and contact orders

28 (1) The court to which an application is made under section 21,

(a) may by order grant,

(i) decision-making responsibility with respect to a child to one or more persons, in the case of an application under clause 21 (1) (a) or subsection 21 (2),

(ii) parenting time with respect to a child to one or more parents of the child, in the case of an application under clause 21 (1) (b), or

(iii) contact with respect to a child to one or more persons other than a parent of the child, in the case of an application under subsection 21 (3);

(b) may by order determine any aspect of the incidents of the right to decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, as the case may be, with respect to a child; and

(c) may make any additional order the court considers necessary and proper in the circumstances, including an order,

(i) limiting the duration, frequency, manner or location of contact or communication between any of the parties, or between a party and the child,

(ii) prohibiting a party or other person from engaging in specified conduct in the presence of the child or at any time when the person is responsible for the care of the child,

(iii) prohibiting a party from changing the child's residence, school or day care facility without the consent of another party or an order of the court,

(iv) prohibiting a party from removing the child from Ontario without the consent of another party or an order of the court,

(v) requiring the delivery, to the court or to a person or body specified by the court, of the child's passport, the child's health card within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act or any other document relating to the child that the court may specify,

(vi) requiring a party to give information or to consent to the release of information respecting the child's well-being, including in relation to the child's health and education, to another party or other person specified by the court, or

(vii) requiring a party to facilitate communication by the child with another party or other person specified by the court in a manner that is appropriate for the child.

Analysis

[48] Before the court are two young children who are clearly loved by their parents. That being said, there is a great deal of animosity between the parties which was evident at the trial in terms of how they interacted with each other throughout the proceeding and despite the court cautioning both of them on multiple occasions.

[49] The court is very concerned about the level of antagonism between the parties. More concerning to the court was the father's continuous deflecting and blaming of others for the situation that he finds himself in with having limited parenting-time with the children.

[50] The father blamed the mother claiming that she has created this narrative, the father accused the mother of trying to make him breach his release orders, the father blamed his first surety that she was not properly supervising him, the father appears to have blamed the Access Facility for his visits being cancelled and the father blames the mother for not agreeing to have his supervised visits occur at his home. The father demonstrated no understanding in to how his actions and behaviour contributed to the current situation.

[51] Also concerning to the court was the father's lack of acknowledgement regarding the threating and aggressive posts towards the mother and her family. A plain reading of the posts clearly shows the use of aggressive and abusive language by the father in a threatening manner, not just how one could perceive the posts. Again, this lack of acknowledgement on the part of the father demonstrates very little insight.

[52] In addition, the father throughout his evidence attempted to paint himself as the victim of circumstance and how he has been more than helpful in reporting the failure of his surety to properly supervise him and then subsequently obtaining a new surety as well as trying to make things as easy as possible for the mother and the child C.M. after the charges were laid in July 2020 until their relationship ended. But then, at the same time the father claims that the mother was trying to have him breach his release order by showing up with the child at the residence.

[53] The father seeks to have his parenting-time supervised by his surety R.M. and that it occur at his home. The father advises that he has 24 hour video recorded surveillance both inside and outside his home.

[54] I am not satisfied that it is appropriate nor in the children's best interests to have supervised visits with the father at his home and supervised by R.M. First, R.M. has no relationship with the children and while she has complied with her obligations as a surety for the father over the past five years, I am not satisfied that it is in the children's best interests that they be supervised for the father's parenting-time by a person with whom they have no relationship or know as a person they can trust and go to for safety, security and stability.

[55] This is not to say that R.M. is not appropriate as the father's surety, it is that she has no relationship with the children and the father's relationship with the children is tenuous given that he has not had consistent or regular time with the children over the past three years given the suspension of his parenting-time at Algoma Family Services which came about due to the father's behaviour towards the facility staff and given that the virtual parenting-time has been limited since June 2025.

[56] I find that an appropriate venue to commence parenting-time for the father with the children would have been through the Algoma Family Services Supervised Access Program, however, given the father's current conditions, Algoma Family Services will not accept this family into their program.

[57] I would consider parenting-time for the father in the community or public location such as a community centre, library, park or even a restaurant, however the father's conditions prevent his attendance at these locations. The father is correct in that these locations are places where persons under the age of 16 could reasonably be expected to be in attendance.

[58] I do not find that the father's home is a suitable location for his supervised parenting-time. This is not a place the children are familiar with, despite the fact that C.M. resided there when he was born, as the parties separated some seven or eight months later. Coupled with the uncertainty of the father's outstanding criminal matters, I am not satisfied that it is in the children's best interests to be at his home with a supervisor that they are not familiar or comfortable with.

[59] The father maintains his innocence regarding the criminal charges and the recent charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement against the mother. The fact of the matter remains that the criminal convictions, which are subject to appeal, have not been decided and so they stand and this court must proceed cautiously given that we have very young and vulnerable children.

[60] Conversely, I am also not satisfied that the mother's proposed supervisor, B.L., is appropriate to supervise in person parenting-time with the father given that she was not even aware of what the concerns were with the father. It is somewhat troubling that someone would volunteer to supervise and be asked to testify at trial about their willingness to supervise someone with their children but not have been made aware or she herself inquire as to what the concerns are such that the father requires supervision with the children.

[61] In addition, B.L. does not have a relationship with the father and without them having any historic association to determine if the father would follow B.L.'s direction during his parenting-time I am not satisfied that it is in the children's best interests to put them in this situation, especially given the interactions that unfolded at the Supervised Access Facility between the father and the staff which led to the termination of his visits at the Centre in April 2023.

[62] The court is also concerned about the current virtual visits and the description by both parents that it is not working well. The mother raising concerns about the father pushing boundaries and the father's evidence that the mother is not following through with the virtual visits.

[63] Ideally, the visits should be initiated by the father and the mother not be engaged with either the children or the father but just simply supervise. Practically speaking this is difficult if the mother is coordinating the visit given that she will need to be present in order to supervise the children and given their ages, needs and the condition for supervision of the father with the children.

[64] The father needs to focus on the children during his parenting-time rather than trying to advance or promote his involvement in their lives as an attempt to make up for lost time or remedy the narrative. This is undoubtedly a very difficult process to navigate for the father, but more importantly the children and their best interests and wellbeing must always be at the forefront. The father is encouraged to remain positive and focused on what the children wish to show him, tell him or engage with him about.

[65] While the history between the parties may be difficult to set aside and given the significant concerns with the father's convictions which remain under appeal and the recent charges involving the mother, the priority must remain the children, their best interests and their safety.

[66] As such, I find that the appropriate order for parenting-time for the father with the children at this stage is virtual visits twice per week.

Decision

[67] Given my reasons above, a final order shall issue as follows:

1. The children C.M. born [...], 2020 and Ma.G. born [...], 2021 shall primarily reside with the applicant mother, M.G.

2. The applicant mother M.G. shall have decision-making responsibility for the children C.M. born [...], 2020 and Ma.G. born [...], 2021.

3. The applicant mother shall seek the respondent father's input on all major decisions affecting the children's health, education, spirituality, extracurricular activities, general welfare and wellbeing prior to making any major decision. The father's input shall be obtained in writing and any request for input shall be replied to by the father within 48 hours of receiving the request.

4. Both parents, are entitled to access and obtain copies of information from third parties involved with the child including but not limited to doctors, dentists, teachers, principals, coaches and counsellors. The parties shall keep each other advised of which third parties are involved with the child and provide contact information for same.

5. The children's residence shall not be changed from the District of Algoma without complying with the provisions outlined in the Children's Law Reform Act or by court order.

6. The parties shall keep each other advised of their current address, telephone number and email address.

7. The respondent, M.M. shall have virtual parenting-time with the children C.M. born [...], 2020 and Ma.G. born [...], 2021 each Tuesday and Thursday at 4:30 p.m. with the virtual visit to be initiated by the respondent, M.M. to the applicant, MG.

8. The respondent's virtual visits shall be child focused, the parties are not to engage with one another during the visits and the children are not to be used as a conduit to elicit information about the other parent.

9. If the respondent father arranges for a simultaneous activity to be completed by him and the children together during the visits such as colouring, painting, carving pumpkins, gardening or planting, building gingerbread houses, baking cookies, building legos, painting easter eggs, building birdhouses or any other similar activity, he shall provide all the materials for the activity to the mother, through her selected third party, at least 24 hours in advance of the virtual visit.

10. The respondent father's parenting-time may be reviewed in the event of a change in his criminal release conditions, conviction and/or sentence.

11. The respondent father shall immediately advise the applicant mother of any change in his income and provide proof if same within 15 days, for the purpose of reviewing child support.

12. All other claims made in the application dated October 6, 2022 and answer dated November 16, 2022 are dismissed.

Released: December 3, 2025

Justice H.A. Mendes

Ontario Court of Justice