ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: December 16, 2025

COURT FILE No.: Toronto FO-25-00045822-0000

BETWEEN:

J.G. (Applicant)

-- AND --

F.I. (Respondent)

Before Justice Szandtner

Heard on November 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 and December 15, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on December 16, 2025

Jennifer Macabenta -- counsel for the applicant

Grace-Ann Roberts -- counsel for the respondent

SZANDTNER J.:

Part One -- Introduction

[1] This was a trial about the applicant mother's request to relocate to the Philippines with the parties' two children, S.N.M. born April 2024 and S.S.M. born May 2025 (the children). This relocation is opposed by the respondent father. He seeks unsupervised parenting time and eventually a shared parenting schedule. The children currently reside in Toronto with the applicant mother. The respondent resides in St. Catharines and has weekly supervised access with the children at the Access for Parents and Children in Ontario Centre (APCO).

[2] The mother seeks an order permitting her to relocate with the children to the Philippines. She asks for final primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for the children. She seeks orders that the father have virtual parenting time with the children. She proposes that she bring the children to Canada when they are 4-5 years of age to allow the father to have supervised parenting time with them. She also proposes to facilitate supervised parenting time for the father in the Philippines. The mother also seeks a final order for child support from the father including retroactive child support pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines).

[3] The father opposes the mother's request to relocate with the children to the Philippines. The father seeks an order that the mother not be permitted to remove the children from Ontario without his written consent or court order. He seeks an order that the mother will have sole decision-making for the children after first consulting with him and seeking his input. He seeks an order that he hold the children's important documents and that each party must obtain consent of the other party to apply for or renew important documents of the children. He seeks an order for ongoing child support of $608.00 per month based on an annual income of $39,936. He asks that retroactive support be fixed at $2000 to be repaid in $50 instalments each month in addition to ongoing child support.

[4] The father is proposing a phased-in parenting schedule to gradually increase his time with the children from fully supervised parenting time as follows:

a) Phase 1 -- Weeks 1-2: He will have the children for one day each week, either Saturday or Sunday, from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.

b) Phase 2 -- Weeks 3-6: Father's parenting time will include overnight visits. He will pick up the children on Saturday at 10:00 am and return them on Sunday at 6:00 pm.

c) Phase 3 -- Weeks 7-10: Parenting time to increase to three nights. He will pick up the children from daycare or school on Friday and return them on Sunday at 6:00 pm.

d) Phase 4 -- ongoing: After the transition period the parenting schedule moves to equal parenting time where the mother and father alternate care of the children on a weekly basis.

[5] On the first day of trial, the parties filed a consent. The parties agreed to the following orders:

a) The mother will have sole decision-making responsibility for the children.

a) The mother will first consult with the father in respect of all important decisions and seek his input.

b) The mother's counsel will hold the children's passports, including Canadian passports and/or passports for other countries. The father will immediately be notified of any change in counsel.

c) Each party must obtain the consent of the other party to apply or to renew the children's passports, for which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

d) Starting November 1, 2025, the father shall pay the mother child support for the children in the sum of $608 each month based on the annual income of $39,936.

e) The father shall provide the mother with copies of his previous year income tax return, both personal and any corporate tax return and his Notice of Assessment and any other relevant financial disclosure each year by June 1, 2025. Any changes to the child support shall be made by July 1st each year and changes are retroactive to the date there should have been a change.

f) Unless this order is withdrawn from the Director's Office, at the Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director and amounts owing under the order shall be paid to the Director who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed.

g) The Respondent shall pay $2,000.00 as retroactive child support for SNM from October 8, 2024 to May 31, 2024. This shall be paid as $100.00 per month, in addition to the existing child support until the balance is complete.

h) No order as to costs on the agreed upon issues.

[6] At the hearing, the court relied on affidavits filed by the mother and her three witnesses: the maternal grandmother M.T., her therapist R.G. and her Catholic Children's Aid Society (CCAS) social worker T.M. Her witnesses were cross-examined by the father's counsel.

[7] The court relied on affidavits filed by the father and his two witnesses: the paternal uncle D.I. and the father's current girlfriend C.D. His witnesses were cross-examined by the mother's counsel.

[8] On December 15, 2025, the court invited further submissions from counsel on the specific issue of the appropriate custodian of the travel documents and the application for and renewal of same. It sought clarity on each of the parties as to their respective positions both if the relocation is permitted and in the event that the relocation is not permitted.

[9] The father's counsel submitted that if the relocation is permitted that the mother should be the custodian of the travel documents and be able to apply for and renew them without the consent or signature of the father. However, if the relocation is not permitted, the custodian of the travel documents should be a third party as agreed by the parties. The father's consent or signature would be required to apply for the passport. If his consent was withheld, the mother could bring a motion before the court.

[10] The mother's counsel submitted that whether or not the relocation is permitted, the mother should be the custodian of the travel documents and be able to apply for and renew them without the consent or signature of the father.

[11] The outstanding issues for the court to determine are as follows:

a) Should the children be permitted to relocate with the mother to the Philippines? Is this relocation in the children's best interests?

b) What parenting time orders are in the children's best interests? If the children remain in the mother's primary care, should the father's parenting time be supervised and if so, on what terms? If the children relocate to the Philippines with the mother, what parenting time will be ordered for the father?

c) What other incidents of parenting are in the children's best interests?

Part Two -- Background

[12] The mother is 28 years old. The father is 30 years old.

[13] The parties are biological parents of two children. The first child SNM was born in April of 2024 during their relationship. The second child, SSM was born in May of 2025 following their separation in October of 2024.

[14] The mother is a citizen of the Philippines. She obtained a post-graduate work permit in Canada. It expired on September 15, 2024. She obtained a Canadian visitor record that was valid until November 14, 2025. On November 20, 2025, she obtained a Temporary Residence Permit for Victims of Family Violence and an Open Work Permit. These new permits are valid until November 17, 2026. She is also entitled to health care coverage under the Interim Federal Health Program for a period of one year.

[15] The father is a Canadian citizen. He resides in St. Catharines, Ontario in the paternal family home with his brother.

[16] The parties cohabited from May 21, 2021 until October 8, 2024 in St. Catharines. They resided in the paternal family home with the father and paternal uncle.

[17] The parties initially separated on September 24, 2024. The mother and the child moved to Toronto. The father remained in St. Catharines.

[18] The parties briefly reconciled on September 30, 2024. The reconciliation did not last. On October 8, 2025, the father was charged with assaulting the mother on October 7, 2025. He has a criminal release term stating that he cannot have direct or indirect contact with her.

[19] The mother and the eldest child continued to live in Toronto after the October separation. The father remained in St. Catharines.

[20] The mother issued her Application on January 29, 2025.

[21] At a case conference on February 25, 2025, the parties agreed, on a temporary without prejudice basis, that the father would have supervised parenting time with SNM weekly for two hours at APCO. They agreed that until APCO could start the visits, an agreed-upon family member would supervise visits at a public venue twice weekly. The parties agreed on daily virtual parenting time for up to 15 minutes.

[22] The father filed his Answer/Claim on March 17, 2025.

[23] On May 2, 9, 29 and June 10, 2025, Justice Sherr heard two motions. The mother sought a temporary order permitting her to relocate with the children to the Philippines. She asked for temporary primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for the children. She sought temporary orders for virtual parenting time for the father. She sought temporary child support from the father.

[24] The father brought a cross-motion. He sought temporary primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for the children. He proposed that the mother have specified parenting time with them. He opposed the mother's request to relocate with the children and sought an order that she not be permitted to remove the children from Ontario without his written consent or a prior court order.

[25] The parties' second child SSM was born in May of 2025.

[26] On May 29, 2025, the court ordered that pending the release of its motion decision, the maternal grandmother was not required to supervise the father's in-person parenting time. It ordered that the father had to retain a professional parenting time supervisor, such as Renew Supervision Services or Brayden Supervision Services, to supervise his parenting time.

[27] On June 12, 2025, Justice Sherr released his decision on the parties' motions. He made temporary orders as follows:

a) The children shall have their primary residence with the mother.

b) The mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility for the children.

c) The children's residence shall remain in the City of Toronto, pending further court order. The father's claim to have the children returned to St. Catharines is dismissed.

d) The mother's claim for temporary relocation of the children to the Philippines is dismissed.

e) The mother shall not remove the children from the Province of Ontario without a prior court order.

f) The father shall have his parenting time fully supervised by a professional supervised parenting time program, such as APCO, Renew Supervision Services or Brayden Professional Services.

g) The father shall pay all costs charged by the professional supervision.

h) The father may have weekly parenting time for one hour with both children each Saturday.

i) The father may have an additional weekly visit with SNM each Wednesday.

j) The father may have virtual parenting time with the children for up to 20 minutes every other day. The maternal grandmother shall supervise these visits and set the times for the visits. She has the discretion to end the video calls if she believes the father is acting inappropriately.

k) The father shall pay child support to the mother in the amount of $543.00 each month, starting on June 1, 2025. This is based on an annual income imputed to him of $35,770. This amount is subject to adjustment, both as to the amount and the start date, at trial.

l) The father shall immediately notify the mother's counsel of the name and address of any employer he works for.

m) A support deduction order shall issue.

[28] The case was set as a priority trial on the November 2025 trial list.

Part Three -- The Parties' Evidence

3.1 Admissibility of the Father's Audio Recordings

[29] The father sought to have audio recordings of past telephone conversations between the parties admitted into evidence. He submitted that the telephone calls were recorded with the knowledge of the mother and that they support his version of the mother's motivations and actions during the breakdown of their relationship.

[30] The mother opposes this admission of this evidence. Her position is that the audio recordings should not be admitted into evidence as they were obtained without her knowledge or consent.

[31] The caselaw with respect to the admission of recording as evidence primarily focuses on balancing the general policy goal of discouraging parents to record each other against the probative nature of the recording itself. Factors such as relevance, reliability, and the probative value with respect to the best interests of the child as the most prominent consideration the court should find admissible. Patel v. Patel, 2023, ONSC 6307.

[32] The court finds that the audio recordings are of marginal probative value for the following reasons:

a) The father has not established that they were not recorded surreptitiously.

b) The father has not established that the recordings are reliable and that they have not been digitally altered by him. They were recorded on his personal phone. The court has no assurance that they have not been digitally edited or altered.

[33] Further, the relevance of this evidence is to issues for which the court has access to admissible evidence. The court has access to direct evidence from the mother, the father, his brother and his current girlfriend regarding the breakdown of the parties' relationship.

[34] The court finds that the probative nature of the audio recordings does not outweigh the general policy goal of discouraging recordings of this nature.

[35] The audio recordings are not admissible in this proceeding.

3.2 The Mother's Position and Evidence

[36] The mother's evidence at trial with respect to the parties' relationship is summarized as follows:

a) The parties met on a dating app and started living together on May 21, 2021.

b) They resided together at the paternal grandfather's home in St. Catharines. The house was owned by the paternal grandfather and occupied by her, the father, the paternal grandfather and the paternal uncle. The paternal grandfather passed away in 2023.

c) There are two children of the relationship. SNM was born in April of 2024 prior to separation. SSM was born in May of 2025 in Toronto following the separation.

d) The mother describes the relationship as fraught with difficulties, signs of incompatibility and abuse.

e) The mother completed the documents required for a spousal sponsorship application in August and September 2024. The father did not follow through with his required documents. No spousal sponsorship application was submitted.

f) The father signed a written travel consent on September 18, 2024 for the mother to travel with the eldest child to the Philippines.

g) The parties initially separated on September 24, 2024. The mother and the child moved to Toronto. The father remained in St. Catharines.

h) On September 27, 2024 the father came to Toronto to pick up the mother and the eldest child. He buckled the child up in the car seat the drove off with her, leaving the mother on the sidewalk. She called the police and they involved the Family and Child Services (FACS). The child was returned to the mother by police on September 28, 2024.

i) On September 29, 2024, the mother attempted to travel abroad with the eldest child based on the father's written consent. The father alerted the police to stop her departure. On September 29, 2024, she was stopped at Pearson airport by the police prior to boarding a flight with the child to the Philippines.

j) The parties reconciled the following day. The reconciliation did not last long. On October 8, 2025 the father was charged with assaulting the mother on October 7, 2025. He has a criminal release term stating that he cannot have direct or indirect contact with her.

k) The mother and the eldest child continued to live in Toronto after the separation. The father has remained in St. Catharines.

l) The parties spent two nights together in November 2024 in a hotel. This meeting contravened the father's criminal release terms.

m) The mother informed the father of her intention to relocate to the Philippines with the children in a letter from her counsel dated October 22, 2024. The father did not respond to this letter and the mother commenced her application.

n) The father failed to respond to the relocation request. He failed to seek contact with the eldest child through counsel. He failed to offer any financial support to the mother and the child prior to the commencement of the application.

[37] The mother's evidence with respect to the father's involvement with the child during their relationship is as follows:

a) The parties resided together for six months following the birth of their first child. They never resided together with the two children.

b) The mother breast fed the oldest child and was her primary caregiver during the time the parties resided together.

c) The father often slept or played video games and provided limited assistance to the mother.

d) The maternal grandmother resided with the parties for two months and provided more assistance than the father.

e) The mother was solely responsible for finding a doctor for the baby, scheduling pediatric appointments and covering most baby-related expenses.

[38] The mother's evidence with respect to the father's behaviour is as follows:

a) The mother reports both physical and emotional abuse from the father.

b) The mother reports that the father choked her when she did not remove her clothing from a drawer after being asked to do so.

c) The mother reports that the father was jealous of the mother's friends on Facebook. Upon discovering that she had hidden certain posts from him, he slapped her without allowing her to explain.

d) The mother reports that on one occasion she was crying during an argument and the father placed a piece of clothing over her face to muffle her sobs. She struggled to breathe.

e) The father blamed the mother for his actions, claiming that she provoked him by being "too emotional." He frequently threatened to kick her out of the home, making her feel insecure, especially as she had no family support in Canada.

f) The mother never called the police because she was afraid. As a non-citizen, she feared that reporting him might affect her future plans to apply for permanent residency.

g) The father pressured the mother to open the relationship and to participate in a three-way relationship with his current girlfriend. She agreed because she was trying to make the relationship with him work.

[39] Under cross-examination by father's counsel the mother admitted the following:

a) When she relocated to Toronto with the eldest child on September 19, 2024 during the first separation, she did not tell the father where she was going in Toronto and gave the father an incorrect address.

b) On September 18, 2025 she had the father sign a written consent to her travel with the child. The form left the dates/duration of the trip blank. She filled it in later. She agreed that she did not know that the father could revoke the consent after signing the form. However, she acknowledged that the father said to her that she could not leave the country without going to court. In spite of this understanding, she went to Pearson airport with their child and attempted to board a night flight to the Philippines.

c) On the night of October 7, 2025 she attended a bar with the father and his current girlfriend. She consumed alcohol that evening and upon her return breast fed the eldest child in order to calm her down. It was this evening that the father punched her in the back of the shoulder when she was feeding the child.

d) She denied causing the father any injury during their relationship. However, she admitted to causing a hole in the wall of the home when he closed the door on her. In her attempt to force open the door it hit the wall and left an indent in the wall.

[40] The mother's evidence highlighted the father's pattern of breach of court orders and undertakings as follows:

a) The father breached the supervised parenting time order on April 28, 2025. During a supervised visit he and his brother placed SNM in their vehicle and drove away. The maternal grandmother, who had been observing from a distance immediately called the father to plead for the return of the child. The police were contacted for assistance. The child was returned the same day.

b) The father has repeatedly breached the no-contact order. On November 10, 2024, the parties met and stayed overnight at a hotel in Etobicoke. During the stay, the father began drafting an email on the mother's phone to be sent to his brother which sought to recant her original allegations that led to the father's criminal charges.

[41] Under cross-examination, the mother admitted that she met with the father twice in November. She also admitted that she met with the father with the child on December 25, 2024 and January 1, 2025. She agreed that they had discussed reconciliation during these meetings.

[42] The mother's evidence with respect to the father's financial support of the children is as follows:

a) The father failed to pay any child support for the eldest child from the date of separation (October 2024) until the temporary order of Justice Sherr (June 2024).

b) The father breached the temporary child support order of Justice Sherr which ordered that he pay $543.00 per month starting on June 1, 2025. At trial $3,258 in arrears were outstanding from this temporary order.

c) The mother did not have a valid health card at the time of the birth of their second child. Her mother asked the father to attend the hospital to visit the child and to provide his OHIP information to ensure that the cost of the birth would be covered. The father declined to attend and to provide his OHIP information. As a result, the mother was billed $1,617.00 for her hospital fees and $1,582.00 for the newborn's hospital fees. The father did not repay any portion of this $3,199 financial debt.

d) At the outset of the trial, the father had not paid one dollar towards the support of his children.

e) The father has been employed on a full-time basis as a customer service representative for Accenture since August 1, 2025 earning $39,936 per year.

f) Since the youngest child's birth, the father has been uncooperative about registering her birth and facilitating her OHIP coverage in spite of the efforts of legal counsel representing both parties. He has delayed the registration in order to assert his interest in renaming the second child according to his preference. He had previously asserted his personal preference with the surname of both children. The last name of both children is a combination of the names of the father's dogs "Mika" and "Krown."

[43] The mother's evidence with respect to the father's parenting time with the children following the separation is as follows:

a) At the case conference on February 25, 2025, the parties agreed to use the APCO Supervised Access Centre in Toronto to begin the reunification process for the father. At that time the father had only seen the child a few times since the separation.

b) While the intake process with APCO was underway, the parties also agreed that the father would have parenting time with the eldest child weekly, supervised by the maternal grandmother.

c) On May 29, 2025, Justice Sherr ordered that the paternal grandmother would no longer supervise access pending the release of the motion decision. The father's access would be through APCO or another professional supervision service.

d) The father did not complete his intake process with APCO until after the release of Justice Sherr's June 12, 2025 decision.

e) On September 27, 2025, APCO reported to the parties that as the father had cancelled his visits three times, the file would be on hold with no further visits scheduled. They resumed October 5, 2025.

[44] The mother's evidence with respect to why she seeks to relocate to the Philippines is as follows:

a) The mother is a citizen of the Philippines. She obtained a post-graduate work permit in Canada. It expired on September 15, 2024. She obtained a Canadian visitor record that was valid until November 14, 2025.

b) On November 18, 2025, during the trial, she received an update on her immigration status. Her request for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) for Victims of Family Violence and an Open Work Permit were approved. The new permits expire November 17, 2026. This new permit confers health care coverage under the Interim Federal Health Program for one year.

c) The mother does not meet the requirements for the Primary Residence programs such as the Express Entry Program or the Provincial Nominee Program. Her final option is to apply to remain in the country under a Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds application.

d) The mother is extremely concerned about the risk that she will be deported in a year's time. The extension of one year has not allayed her fears.

e) The mother relocated to Toronto following the parties' separation. Her move was to friends who could provide temporary shelter. While in Toronto, the mother has the support of the CCAS, with a support worker regularly visiting her at the home, and a nurse regularly checking on the children.

f) As a result of the father's failure to pay child support over the past year, the mother has been relying on government benefits and loans from her family to support her and the children. She has a significant outstanding debt to the hospital for the birth of the parties' second child. The close proximity of the children's births have made employment impossible for her.

g) The children have a strong bond with their maternal grandmother. She visited the children from July to September 2024 and then returned in September 2024 and stayed with the mother until August 2025. She intends to retire from her employment in the Cayman Islands and return to the Philippines to assist with the children if the mother returns home.

h) The mother and the children plan to reside in the family home in the Philippines with the maternal grandparents. The home is in a gated family compound where her uncle's family resides and her aunt is in the process of building her family home. Her sister lives nearby with her own children. The mother has the option of building her own small house in a lot bought by her parents for both herself and her sister's future homes.

i) The mother reports that Baler and the Province of Aurora are among the most peaceful and desirable places to live in the Philippines. The province has adequate healthcare facilities, including a government hospital in Baler. The mother will have medical coverage through PhilHealth, the government's health insurance agency.

j) The mother will also have the support of her extended family in the Philippines, including the maternal aunts. The children will be able to develop relationships with her sister's children and extended relatives.

k) The mother's Canadian employer has agreed to offer the mother remote work in the Philippines. She can continue to work virtually for her Canadian employer which would allow her to work at night while the children sleep due to the 12 hour time difference between Ontario and the Philippines. During the time the mother needs to rest, her family members will assist with the children's care.

l) The mother is a graduate of the Bachelor of Science in Hospitality and Tourism in the Philippines and has earned diplomas in Culinary and Hospitality in Canada. She is confident that if the remote work is not available, that she can work in Baler in the tourist industry.

m) Working in Baler will provide the mother with a better work-life balance and enable her to care for the children. She does not have similar support in Canada.

n) Given the lower cost of living in Baler, she will be able to maintain a more comfortable lifestyle for the children. Once of age, the mother will be able to afford private education for the children including various extracurricular private programs in athletics, arts and science. She will not have to pay for accommodation and the cost of living is very low, improving the quality of life.

[45] Under cross-examination by the father's counsel, the mother admitted the following:

a) Her father resides in the Philippines. He had trouble with alcohol when she was young and he became aggressive when he drank. She and her sister were afraid of him.

b) There have been two typhoons in the Philippines in October. She reported that her family home and land were not affected.

c) The maternal grandmother is currently working in the Cayman Islands. She intends to retire next year to assist with the children in the Philippines. She has not yet retired nor has she returned to the Philippines.

[46] The mother proposes the following parenting time for the father following her relocation to the Philippines:

a) The father will have virtual parenting time with the children for up to 20 minutes every other day supervised by APCO or a neutral third party.

b) The mother will travel to Canada for a two week visit each year when the children are 4-5 years of age and are able to manage the flight/travel.

c) The mother is open to the father visiting the children in Baler, Philippines for a two-week period each year with one month's prior notice. She agrees to accept a reduced amount of child support from the father during the period in which he is travelling to the Philippines.

d) The mother seeks to include another close family member (and a local social worker in the Philippines) in the travel or visitation arrangements.

[47] The maternal grandmother M.T. was called as one of the mother's witnesses. She reported the following evidence:

a) She visited the parties when they were together from July to September 2024.

b) She returned to Canada on a tourist visa in September 2024 and lived with the mother and the grandchildren until her departure until August 11, 2025.

c) The maternal grandmother observed the parties during her visit in July -- September 2024 when they were still living together. She observed that the mother was the primary caregiver for the eldest child. She observed that the father did not participate in the child's daily routine, such as feeding, bathing or putting her to sleep. When asked to hold or to care for the child, the father would often return her to the mother within minutes, especially if she became fussy.

d) She provided daily hands-on childcare and was present for the birth of the younger child.

e) She observed that the mother was a devoted and capable mother. She was the primary caregiver for the children. She was solely responsible for all nighttime care, including preparing bottles, feedings, diaper changes and soothing the children back to sleep.

f) She observed that the children are securely attached to their mother. They are visibly comforted by her presence and seek her out when upset or hurt. The mother engages the children in age-appropriate play. She maintains a clean, safe and organized home. She is meticulous about the children's hygiene and nutrition. She ensures the children have a consistent daily routine.

g) A consent order dated February 25, 2025 provided for supervised visits for the father at an APCO centre with the maternal grandmother supervising in the interim. However, the father failed to complete his intake requirements at APCO until after the release of the June 12, 2025 decision of Justice Sherr.

h) The maternal grandmother was supervising his in-person visits during this interim period. She reports verbal aggression, inappropriate commentary and disrespectful conduct by the father during the supervised visits. She reported that whenever matters did not go the father's way, he would become easily agitated and send her profane or insulting messages via text and voice calls. He repeatedly demonstrated conduct that was inappropriate, aggressive and emotionally destabilizing, both towards her and the mother in the presence of the child.

i) For example, on April 28, 2025 when she was supervising a visit in the park the father and his brother suddenly took the child to their car and drove away without warning. During a video call for the child's birthday the following day, the father told the maternal grandmother to "shut up" and apologized to the child "I'm sorry these people are fucked up."

j) For example, on May 18, 2025, the mother had recently given birth to the second child. The maternal grandmother called the father the same day to facilitate a video call to see the new child. She requested that he come to the hospital to see his baby and to bring his health card so that the child would be covered by OHIP. He did not come. The father proceeded to send messages asking to see the baby in person on May 18, 2025. The maternal grandmother said that it was not feasible to bring both the newborn and the eldest child to the park so soon after childbirth.

k) During the next park visit, the father said to the maternal grandmother "go f**k yourself" and made a "f**k you" gesture while holding eldest child. The father continued to call the maternal grandmother's name loudly and gave her another "f**k you" gesture, laughing with his girlfriend. Later at a fast food restaurant the father allowed the child to crawl on the floor and in the parking lot despite the maternal grandmother's repeated requests not to allow this for health and safety reasons.

l) On May 19, 2025 the maternal grandmother informed the father that she was not feeling well and could not supervise a visit that day. The father sent her messages threatening her that he could contact the police as she was violating the court order.

m) On June 8, 2025 the father made derogatory remarks to the child during a virtual visit, stating that the maternal grandmother and mother were "horrible people." He then ended the call himself and falsely accused the grandmother of disconnecting.

n) The father missed in-person visits on March 16-17, March 21, March 24, March 31, April 7 and April 13. He missed multiple virtual visits.

o) During supervision, the maternal grandmother observed a consistent lack of preparation from the father. She repeatedly saw him resort to letting the child play with disposable cups, lids and napkins from the restaurant. She had to intervene on one occasion when the child put a tissue in her mouth and was chewing on it, creating a choking hazard.

[48] The maternal grandmother reported the following information with respect to the Philippines:

a) The family hometown in Baler, Aurora, Philippines. It is the capital of the province.

b) The family is large, close-knit and supportive. Multiple generations live in owned homes within the same compound. There is a built-in support network for the mother.

c) Her family owns its home outright with no mortgage. They also have sustainable sources of food: a rice field that supplies their staple food and a fishing boat with a stall at the local market.

d) The mother has access to a residential lot on which she can build a permanent home for her family in the future.

e) Healthcare is provided through a rural health unit that offers free consultations and vaccinations for babies, complemented by the national PhilHealth insurance program which subsidizes medical expenses. There is a well-established public school system.

[49] Under cross-examination, the maternal grandmother admitted the following:

a) She has worked in the Cayman Islands since September 2006. She worked abroad to support her children at home in the Philippines.

b) She has no set date for retirement. She intends to purchase a ticket if her daughter is permitted to return to the Philippines with the children.

c) She confirmed that the father would text her to try to set up visits with the child.

d) She denied that she denied the father parenting time because she believed he had wronged her daughter.

[50] The mother called TM, a social worker from the CCAS as a witness. Her evidence was as follows:

a) She has been visiting the mother from January 27, 2025 to date. Her involvement was voluntary and was welcomed by the mother. Her role was to assess the mother's home and the children's well being. Her visits were typically for 40 minutes to an hour in duration.

b) She reported that she found no safety hazards in the home. She observed warm interactions between the mother and the children.

c) She provided referrals to the mother as required. She reported that the mother was involved with a therapist. The mother was also connected to a wrap-around worker from Rosalie Hall who support her in getting groceries and addressing the children's medical needs. She also connected the mother to an infant health specialist who recently closed her file.

d) She confirmed that she had never met the father nor had she observed the father's care of the children. She had reached out to the father twice, on January 31, 2025 and on April 28, 2025. The father never responded to her efforts to connect. She could therefore not provide any evidence with respect to his parenting capacity.

[51] The mother called RG, her therapist, as a witness. Her evidence was as follows:

a) She is a violence against women counsellor.

b) The mother had been engaging her therapeutic support through telephone appointments. The therapy began in May of 2025 and involved 11 visits by telephone and one by Zoom.

c) The mother was engaged in the therapy. She described the mother as lucid and focused on finding solutions. The mother's financial difficulties and immigration status were two of the issues that they discussed.

[52] Under cross-examination, the therapist confirmed that she had never met with the mother in person prior to the trial and had never observed the mother in the presence of the children. She never had any contact with the father. She did not reach out to any collateral sources of information in the course of her work with the mother. Her information was based on the mother's self-reporting.

3.3 The Father's Position and Evidence

[53] The father's evidence with respect to the parties' relationship is as follows:

a) The mother moved into his father's home on May 21, 2021. He was unemployed and the mother was employed intermittently.

b) The father reports that he was the primary caregiver of the parties' child up until her departure from the home when the child was five months old. He took on the majority of the duties and responsibilities related to the child's care. He was solely responsible for finding doctors, scheduling medical appointments and purchasing supplies for the child. He took full responsibility of caring for the child while the mother struggled with post-partum depression.

c) When the deadline approached for the mother to file for permanent residency, the parties agreed that the father would sponsor the mother. The father was provided with a list of tasks to be completed for the sponsorship but failed to take the required steps.

d) The father reports that the mother was physically and verbally abusive towards him. She exhibited erratic behaviour, frequently yelling during disagreements and destroying property. He further reports sexual assault by the mother. He reports that she breastfed the child while intoxicated, threatened to commit suicide and threatened him with a knife, stating an intention to murder him, the child and herself.

e) The father reports that on October 8, 2024, the mother made accusations which resulted in criminal charges. He maintains that the accusations were false.

f) The criminal charges against him were for one charge of assault and one charge of assault/choking. The father was bound by terms of release while waiting for trial including a term that he not contact or communicate in any way either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with the mother except pursuant to a family court order made after today's date, in the presence of or through legal counsel, or for the purposes of making contact arrangements for, or having contact with your child(ren) through a mutually agreed upon third party.

g) The father and mother spent two nights in a hotel in Etobicoke in November of 2024.

h) At 1 am on one of their nights together (November 11, 2024), an email was sent by the mother revising her evidence with respect to the incident that led to the father's criminal charges. The email was addressed to the father's brother.

i) The father describes his brother and mother as generally supportive of him and the children.

[54] The father reports the following concerns with the mother's plan to relocate to the Philippines:

a) The mother has reported to him that her father has a history of alcohol abuse and that she and her sister were afraid of him as children.

b) He fears that the maternal grandmother will not retire and care for the children in the Philippines as planned. Rather, she will return to work in the Cayman Islands, leaving the mother and children alone in the home of the maternal grandfather.

c) He alleges that the maternal aunt has a history of alcohol abuse, works at a bar, returns home intoxicated and hosted sex parties at home.

d) The father fears that he will never see the children again and that his relationship with them will be permanently severed.

e) The father fears that the Baler region is crime-ridden, unsafe and has limited medical services and facilities.

f) The father is concerned about the impact on Baler of two typhoons that struck the Philippines on November 6, 2025 and November 9, 2025.

g) The father notes that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is not currently enforceable between the Philippines and Canada.

[55] The father's evidence with respect to his contact with his children post-separation is as follows:

a) Following the first separation in September, the father reports that the mother demanded on three occasions that the father involve his new girlfriend in their interactions. Each request involved the new girlfriend being harmed by the mother or the father as a precondition to the father's access to the child. The father refused all requests of this nature and the mother refused the father's access to their child.

b) On September 27, 2024, the father met with the mother to visit the parties' eldest child. When the father met with the mother that day, he placed his daughter in a car and drove back to St. Catharines. He testified that he believed that the mother was not in a stable state of mind. The mother contacted the police and the FACS became involved. A caseworker attended his residence to see the child. The father insisted on recording the interaction and the caseworker did not enter the home. The police arrived and informed the father that they would be taking the child and the mother back to Toronto.

c) On September 18, 2024 the father signed a consent form permitting the mother to travel to the Philippines with the child. This was witnessed by his brother. At the time the father signed the consent form, the section specifying the duration of the travel had been left blank. The father believed when he signed the form that this was for a temporary trip because the mother was feeling overwhelmed and needed to go home briefly.

d) The father subsequently became aware that the mother had filled it in to indicate an indefinite period, contrary to their original agreement. He communicated with her to clarify that he did not consent to an open-ended trip. The father called the police and the Canada Border Services Agency in an effort to prevent the mother from travelling. On September 29, 2024, the mother was intercepted by the Toronto Police at Toronto Pearson International Airport prior to boarding a flight to the Philippines.

e) The father reports that following separation he consistently contacted the maternal grandmother in attempts to see the eldest child, but that she restricted his access to the child. This continued even following the case conference on February 25, 2025 when both parties agreed that she would supervised his two hours of supervised visits per week.

f) The father confirms multiple breaches of his no-contact criminal condition as follows: the parties had multiple interactions between September 2024 and February 2025 including overnight stays, holidays, visits in motels, the father's home and public places.

g) The father maintains that the APCO visit notes demonstrate the positive and loving relationship that he has with his daughter. He reports that he attended all visits except the visits he cancelled on September 12, 21 and 28, 2025 due to his hand, foot and mouth disease.

[56] Under cross-examination, the father admitted the following:

a) He criminal charges remain outstanding. His conditions provide for no contact with the mother and have not be varied to date.

b) He admits that on April 28, 2025 he drove away with his brother and his daughter during a supervised access visit as described by the maternal grandmother.

c) He confirmed that his father passed away in 2023.

d) He confirmed that he had not paid child support since the parties' separation in October 2024.

e) He confirmed that he had not reimbursed the mother for any portion of the hospital costs of the birth of his second daughter.

f) He confirmed that he did not allow any of his baby supplies to travel home with their children after access visits at APCO.

g) He confirmed that he was able to comply with any detailed long distance parenting time order and was able to go to the Philippines to visit.

h) He confirmed that he has never had unsupervised access with the second child and has never had more than one hour at a time with her.

i) He confirmed that he has supervised time with the oldest child by APCO. He has not had an overnight visit with either child.

j) He admitted that he met secretly with the mother in November and December of 2024 in breach of the no contact order.

[57] The father called his brother D.I. as his witness. His brother's evidence was as follows:

a) He resided in the paternal grandfather's home with the father and the mother during their relationship.

b) During the years the mother resided in the home she was very secluded and infrequently interacted with him.

c) One night he heard movement in his brother's room and overheard the mother yelling and crying. He ran into the room and chastised his brother. The mother later came into his room and said that she had hit the father and apologized to him.

d) He assisted the parties by driving them to appointments.

e) Following the breakdown of the relationship he acted as a support for his brother.

f) He assisted his brother in figuring out how to stop the mother from leaving on the flight to the Philippines in September of 2024. He made phone calls and drove with his brother to the police station.

g) He paid the mother's legal fees for a lawyer who would assist her in recanting her report to the police that led to the criminal charges against his brother.

h) He acted as a confidante to the mother who lacked other supports. He admitted on cross-examination that he wanted her to have other supports because he was biased towards his brother.

[58] The father called his current girlfriend C.D. as a witness. Her evidence is summarized as follows:

a) She met the father at their workplace. She describes him as an outstanding top performer.

b) The father confided in her about his difficult relationship with the mother.

c) The father proposed an open relationship with her and the mother.

d) She met with the mother on one occasion prior to October 7, 2024. She and the mother engaged in affectionate behaviour on that occasion. She also witnessed the mother breastfeeding after drinking alcohol.

e) She and the parties went out together the night of October 7, 2024. She was shocked to learn that the father was arrested for an incident that occurred after she went home that evening.

f) She and the father continued to develop their romantic relationship following the parties' separation. They were romantically involved as at the time of trial.

g) She had been a support to the father throughout the stress of the separation from the mother.

h) She had accompanied the father to Toronto during some of his visits with the eldest child. During her visits, the maternal grandmother did not supervise the entire visit.

i) She would like to participate in the care of the children in the future.

3.4 Findings of Fact

[59] The parties agree on a number of events in their past. On some key issues their narratives diverge significantly.

[60] The court makes the following findings of fact based on the credibility of each of the parties on certain relevant facts:

a) The parties' relationship:

i. The parties resided together in the father's family home in St. Catharines with the paternal uncle and grandfather.

ii. This arrangement provided them with residential security and allowed both to work intermittently during their relationship.

iii. The father and his brother assisted their father with his mobility issues until he passed away in 2023.

iv. The court finds that the mother's evidence of the uneven power dynamic that existed between the parties is credible. The mother was keenly aware of the power that the father's control of the parties' residence (his father's home) and her uncertain immigration status provided him.

v. The court finds that the evidence from both parents of jealousy (on both sides) and volatile arguments is credible.

vi. The parties' first child was born in May of 2024. The maternal grandmother visited with them from June 2024 to September 2024 to assist them with childcare responsibilities.

b) The breakdown of the parties' relationship:

i. The father became interested in pursuing a relationship with his current girlfriend whom he met at work while he was living with the mother. He proposed an open relationship in order to pursue his interest in his current girlfriend. This occurred following the birth of the parties' first child in April of 2024.

ii. The mother agreed to this proposal because she felt pressured by the father and wanted to maintain their relationship.

iii. On September 18, 2024 the mother secured a written travel consent from the father permitting her to go to the Philippines but leaving the departure and return section blank.

iv. The parties first separated on September 19, 2024. The mother relocated to Toronto with the child to reside with a friend. She did not inform the father where she and the child were residing.

v. On September 27, 2024, the father visited with the parties' child in Toronto. When the father met with the mother that day, he placed his daughter in a car and drove back to St. Catharines. He left the mother on the sidewalk. The mother contacted the police and the FACS became involved. A caseworker attended his residence to see the child. The father insisted on recording the interaction and the caseworker did not enter the home. The police arrived and informed the father that they would be taking the child and the mother back to Toronto.

vi. The mother relied on the written consent to attempt to fly out of Toronto on September 29, 2024. The father (with the assistance of his brother) mobilized the police to thwart her departure with their child.

vii. The court finds that the mother was aware that the father did not agree to the trip but she hoped that the written consent would be sufficient for the airport authorities.

viii. The parties then briefly reconciled. The father immediately renewed his pursuit of an open relationship with his current girlfriend and the mother.

ix. On October 7, 2024 the parties and the father's current girlfriend went out together drinking. This was only the second occasion that the mother had met the father's current girlfriend. After his current girlfriend went home, the mother and father had an altercation which resulted in criminal charges against the father and a no-contact order between the parties.

x. In breach of the father's no-contact order, the parties met on a number of occasions in November and December of 2024. They also met on January 1, 2026.

xi. The court finds that from the mother's perspective these meetings were opportunities to reconcile with the father. This was evidenced by the fact that they stayed over together on two nights at a hotel together. The court finds that the mother also proposed different ways to involve the father's current girlfriend in their meetups in ways that would humiliate and alienate her from the parties. The court finds that the mother did so because she wanted to alienate the father's girlfriend whom she had identified as a threat to their reconciliation.

xii. The court finds that from the father's perspective, the meetings were a chance to try to get the mother to recant her complaint that formed the basis of the criminal charges he was facing. To this end, his brother connected the mother to a criminal lawyer to assist in this undertaking. There were emails sent from the November hotel stays that reflected that this was a focus of the parties' conversation during these overnights.

c) The father's conduct following separation:

i. The court finds that the father was seeking contact with his eldest child prior to the first case conference in February 2025.

ii. The father did not believe that he required supervision as a parent.

iii. The father was not cooperative with the maternal grandmother when she was voluntarily assisting as the supervisor of his visits.

iv. The father was not grateful for the maternal grandmother's supervision assistance. He did not respect her schedule nor her availability. The court finds that he was openly hostile and contemptuous of her at the visits she supervised. He was verbally abusive to her. His difficult and immature behaviour led to the maternal grandmother withdrawing as a supervisor and his necessary transition to a paid access centre for his visits.

v. The father was able to pursue visits at a supervision centre following the February case conference. He did not commence these visits until July of 2025.

vi. The father made no voluntary child support payments to the mother during this period and assumed no financial responsibility for his eldest child.

vii. The father repeatedly breached his criminal no contact order with the mother. He did not obtain a variation of the criminal conditions to allow contact.

viii. The father refused to communicate with the CCAS worker involved with the family despite her repeated outreach to him.

ix. The father's visits with his eldest daughter at APCO began on July 6, 2025. He had fully supervised one-hour visits with her prior to trial. He did not attend visits in September due to his illness.

x. The father's visits with both children at APCO began in October 2025. They have occurred once per week for one hour fully supervised.

d) The mother's conduct following separation:

i. The mother managed the care of the one and then two children throughout this period without any financial support from the father.

ii. The mother was resourceful. She relied on the Filipino community, her visiting mother, the CCAS worker and a therapist to support her and the children. She ensured that the children's emotional and physical needs were met.

iii. She met with her immigration consultant and applied for any extensions for which she qualified.

iv. She met with the father sporadically in the fall of 2024 in an attempt to reconcile.

v. She brought her court application in 2025 when those attempts were unsuccessful.

vi. She initially supported the participation of the maternal grandmother as the father's parenting time supervisor until the father's behaviour led the maternal grandmother to refuse this role.

e) Family violence:

i. The mother's tenuous immigration status and the parties' reliance on the paternal family home as a residence created a power imbalance between the parties that favored the father. Both parties were aware of this power imbalance.

ii. The father's decision to withhold all financial support from the mother and the children for the full year following the separation constitutes credible evidence of financial abuse.

Part Four -- Legal Framework

4.1 Relocation

[61] The Children's Law Reform Act (the Act) provides a comprehensive framework that governs relocation matters. The sections of the Act that address relocation are 39.3 and 39.4.

[62] In determining whether to authorize the relocation of a child, the court is required to consider the best interests of the child in accordance with section 24 of the Act. The court has considered these factors, where relevant.

[63] Subsection 24(2) of the Act provides that the court must give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests.

[64] Subsection 24(3) of the Act sets out a list of factors for the court to consider related to the circumstances of the child. It reads as follows:

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 person in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate 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.

[65] Section 24 of the Act sets out the best interests criteria, but this list is not exhaustive. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 173.

[66] Financially supporting one's children in a responsible manner is an important part of being a parent. The failure to do so is a factor militating against a joint custody order as it demonstrates poor judgment and an inability to prioritize the child's interests. See: Jama v. Mohamed, [2015] ONCJ 619; P.H. v. T.J., 2017 ONCJ 166; McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610; J.T. v. E.J., 2022 ONSC 4956; Shokoufimogiman v. Bozorgi, 2022 ONSC 5057.

[67] The list of best interests' factors is not a checklist to be tabulated with the highest score winning. Rather it calls for the court to take a holistic look at the child, her needs and the people around her. See: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.

[68] No one factor is dispositive, and not every parenting dispute will contain every factor. Each parenting dispute must be decided on its own facts, in relation to the factors that are present with the primary consideration being the child's physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. See: M.Q v. R.C, 2022 ONSC 1753 and Cote v. Parsons, 2021 ONSC 3719.

[69] In a relocation case, the court is also required to consider the factors at subsection 39.4(3) of the Act, which are as follows:

a) the reasons for the relocation;

b) the impact of the relocation on the child;

c) the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child, and the level of involvement in the child's life of each of those persons;

d) whether the person who intends to relocate the child has complied with any applicable notice requirement under section 39.3 and any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award and agreement;

e) the existence of an order, family arbitration award or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside;

f) the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new residence and the travel expenses; and

g) whether each person who has decision-making responsibility or parenting time or is an applicant for a parenting order with respect to the child has complied with their obligations under any applicable Act, regulation, order, family arbitration award or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance.

[70] In Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, the court interpreted these relocation provisions as follows:

1. The parent who cares for the child on a daily basis is in a unique position to assess what is in their best interests: Gordon, at para. 48. This logic applies to both parents in a shared parenting arrangement, and accordingly, both of their views are entitled to great respect in an assessment of the child's best interests. This makes sense: a court always pays careful attention to the views of the parents. In my view, it adds little value to this analysis to label it a separate principle of "great respect". See: paragraph 119.

2. The court should avoid casting judgment on a parent's reasons for moving. A moving parent need not prove the move is justified. And a lack of a compelling reason for the move, in and of itself, should not count against a parent, unless it reflects adversely on a parent's ability to meet the needs of the child. Ultimately, the moving parent's reasons for relocating must not deflect from the focus of relocation applications -- they must be considered only to the extent they are relevant to the best interests of the child. See: paragraphs 129-130.

3. Avoiding family violence or acrimony can be an important best interests factor in determining relocation. See: paragraph 147.

4. The court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, which may include the child's views and preferences, the history of caregiving, any incidents of family violence, or a child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage. A court shall also consider each parent's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other parent, and 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. These examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. See: paragraph 153.

5. At paragraph 154 the court writes:

[154] However, traditional considerations bearing on the best interests of the child must be considered in the context of the unique challenges posed by relocation cases. In addition to the factors that a court will generally consider when determining the best interest of the child and any applicable notice requirements, a court should also consider:

• the reasons for the relocation;
• the impact of the relocation on the child;
• the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or a pending application for a parenting order and the level of involvement in the child's life of each of those persons;
• the existence of an order, arbitral award, or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside;
• the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of parenting time, decision making responsibility or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new place of residence and the travel expenses; and
• whether each person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility or a pending application for a parenting order has complied with their obligations under family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance.

The court should not consider how the outcome of an application would affect either party's relocation plans - for example, whether the person who intends to move with the child would "relocate without the child or not relocate..."

6. The mother's need for emotional support was an important factor. Courts have frequently recognized that a child's best interests are furthered by a well-functioning and happy parent. See: paragraph 169.

7. Relocation that provides a parent with more education, employment opportunities, and economic stability can contribute to a child's wellbeing. These considerations all have direct or indirect bearing on the best-interests-of-the-child assessment. See: paragraph 171.

8. The additional support of family and community at the new location can enhance the parent's ability to care for the children. See: paragraph 172.

9. It is often difficult to disentangle the interests of a parent from the interests of a child. Indeed, "the reality that the nurture of children is inextricably intertwined with the well-being of the nurturing parent" is far from novel. A child's welfare is often advanced in tandem with improvements in the parent's financial, social, and emotional circumstances. The trial judge found this to be the case here. See: paragraph 173.

4.2 Analysis

[71] The court has considered the issue of onus. The court finds that both parties bear the onus of establishing whether the proposed relocation is or is not in the child's best interests, pursuant to subsection 39.4(7) of the Act.

[72] The following are findings of fact against permitting the relocation of the children with the mother to the Philippines:

a) The children's current location in Toronto permits frequent parenting time for the father who resides in St. Catharines Ontario.

b) The father has only had time limited fully supervised parenting time with the children this year. He has not had an opportunity to build a strong relationship with the children to date. The gradual increase of his parenting time will be severely hampered by the proposed relocation.

c) The children have extended paternal family members in St. Catharines including their paternal grandmother and paternal uncle. They have no relationships with the children. The relocation would hamper their ability to build relationships with the children.

d) The proposed relocation to the Philippines involves some uncertainties raised by the father. For example:

i. Will the maternal grandmother retire immediately from her job in the Cayman Islands and return to the Philippines and be available to help in the care of the children?

ii. Will the mother be able to manage contact with her father who she found difficult during her childhood?

iii. Will the remote job with the Canadian employer materialize? If not, will the mother secure other employment?

iv. Will Baler, Aurora be negatively affected by natural disaster (e.g. typhoons) in the future and cause the mother and children hardship?

e) The proposed relocation destination is not bound by the Hague convention and the father would have little recourse if the mother breached the court order and failed to follow through with his parenting time.

[73] The court finds these concerns are outweighed by the following findings of fact supporting an order permitting the children to relocate with the mother to Baler, Philippines:

a) The children are very young. They are 1.5 yrs and 7 months old. The mother has been the children's primary caregiver since each of their respective births. She has been devoted to their care.

b) The mother has proven herself to be resourceful over the past year. She has enlisted the assistance of her mother and welcomed the visits of a CCAS worker and the support of her Filipino community to ensure that the children's emotional and physical needs are met. Her mother and the social worker who have observed her with the children have confirmed that she is an organized, loving and committed caregiver. The children are securely attached to her and their needs for consistent and loving care are being met.

c) The mother and the children are living at a low income level in Toronto. They rely on the children's tax credit. Over the past year they have relied on the support of the Filipino community in Toronto and on financial support from the maternal family in the form of loans. They have also benefited from the maternal grandmother's extended visit during which she provided childcare and emotional support to the mother.

d) The court finds that the maternal grandmother's two lengthy visits to Toronto following the birth of each child establish the credibility of her commitment to her daughter and granddaughters. The court finds that she will follow through with a relocation to the Philippines if her daughter and the children return.

e) The court finds that the mother's immigration status is tenuous. She reasonably finds this very stressful and fears deportation. While her immigration status improved mid-trial with a one-year extension on her work permit and health coverage, it is not resolved in a manner that provides the mother permanence in Canada. The mother was not sponsored by the father. Her immigration consultant indicated that she does not qualify for the Express Entry or Provincial Nominee programs that would enhance her permanency prospects.

f) The court finds that the mother cannot rely on the father to assist with her genuine immigration and financial struggles. The father's behaviour following the separation has been to assert his rights as a father and to totally neglect his paternal responsibilities. His behaviour is consistently self-centered and immature, prioritizing his own best interests and neglecting those of the children. For example:

i. The father minimizes the mother's genuine immigration issues and has made no effort to assist her in solving them.

ii. The father has proven himself to be a consistently unreliable financial support to the children. The father sought parenting time with the children but did not financially support them. At the start of trial, the father had not provided one dollar in child support since the parties separated in October of 2024. This included a failure to provide voluntary financial support from October 4, 2024 to June 1, 2025 and a breach of the temporary child support order from June 1, 2024 to the start of trial in November. Further, he would not allow any of his diapers or other supplies to be returned to the mother's home with the children following his parenting time at APCO.

iii. The father refused to provide his OHIP number to the mother when the second child was born leading to an unnecessary and significant hospital fee for the mother.

iv. The father delayed the registration of the second child's birth in order to assert his right to choose her first name. This jeopardized the child's health care coverage for months as the mother could not secure her OHIP coverage without the birth registration.

v. It is notable that this utter failure to financially support his children was during a period where he had the good fortune of residing in his family home. Furthermore, he was employed full time from August 1, 2025 onwards. This was also a period during which he was represented by counsel and aware that he was under court scrutiny.

vi. The father's behaviour reflects a total lack of respect for court orders and conditions. For example, he repeatedly breached his criminal conditions by arranging contact with the mother. He does not reside with his listed surety, his mother. He breached the temporary child support order made in June of 2025. He failed to pay the $500 costs order made by Justice Sherr in November of 2025.

g) The court finds that the mother has given her plan in the Philippines considerable thought. The court finds that the plan reflects sound long term planning and a focus on emotional and financial stability for her and the children. Her plan is as follows:

i. She seeks to return to Baler, Aurora in the Philippines to reside with her immediate and extended family. She will no longer have to worry about the threat of deportation.

ii. Her family owns a home outright. There is land available to her on which she could eventually build her own home. The family also have sustainable sources of food: a rice field that supplies their staple food and a fishing boat with a stall at the local market.

iii. Healthcare is provided through a rural health unit that offers free consultations and vaccinations for babies, complemented by the national PhilHealth insurance program which subsidizes medical expenses. There is a well-established public school system.

iv. Her plan involves taking advantage of the time difference. She plans to work remotely when the children are asleep in the Philippines. Her current employer has indicated that she would be a good candidate for remote work with them.

v. She would rely on family to care for the children during the day when she rests.

vi. She is a graduate of the Bachelor of Science in Hospitality and Tourism in the Philippines and has earned diplomas in Culinary and Hospitality in Canada. She is confident that these qualifications would enable her to work in the Baler tourist industry if the remote job did not materialize.

h) The court finds that the father's evidence with respect to the risks of the Philippines plan are not compelling or reliable. He vilifies maternal relatives that he has never met. He refers to newspaper articles about recent typhoons that affected different regions in the Philippines. He has not engaged in any meaningful research into the region in which the mother is proposing to live. He cannot assist the court with respect to understanding the medical or educational supports in Baler. The court prefers the mother and maternal grandmother's evidence on these issues.

i) The court finds that the mother's decision to relocate is child-focused and fiscally responsible. The mother's prospects in Toronto are time limited by her temporary immigration status. She does not have the benefit of maternal extended family to help her here. The lower cost of living and family support in the Philippines will allow her to maximize her earnings to support the children. Permitting the mother to relocate to Philippines will give her the opportunity to provide the children with financial security and better meet their long-term needs. Enhanced financial stability is in the children's best interests.

j) The court finds that the father's parenting time with the children to date has been very modest and limited. He sees the children for one hour per week fully supervised. He has not availed himself of the option of also seeing the eldest child on an additional day. He has never had overnight visits with either of the children following separation. Accordingly, in this case, the proposed relocation will not disrupt an extensive existing parenting time schedule that is familiar to the children.

k) The court finds that the mother proposed a parenting time plan for the father following the relocation that includes travel by each party between countries. Her plan includes virtual parenting time and in person visits both from the father to the Philippines and by her back to Toronto with the children. This plan will allow the father to build a relationship with the children should he decide to avail himself of the contact it provides. The father has testified that he is able to travel to the Philippines.

[74] Under s. 24(3) of the Act the court must consider any family violence and its impact on the ability and willingness of each person to communicate and cooperate regarding the needs of the child and the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons to cooperate on issues affecting the child. The court must also consider any relevant court order or condition.

[75] In this case, the court has found a power imbalance connected to the mother's immigration status and evidence of financial abuse by the father. There is also a criminal no-contact order that prohibits contact between the parties.

[76] The relocation mitigates the impact of both findings of fact. The mother's return to the Philippines will eliminate her immigration insecurity as she will be able to reside there without fear of deportation. Further, the return allows her to live with the children at a lower cost of living with the full support of family which reduces her financial reliance on the father.

[77] The father's contact with the children will be supervised in accordance with the no contact order until he successfully varies the conditions and/or the matter is disposed of in the criminal court.

[78] In light of the lack of application of the Hague convention in the Philippines, the court must also carefully consider whether or not the mother will abide by a parenting time court order for the father. The father has highlighted the mother's attempted departure to the Philippines with the eldest child in September 2024 as evidence that she will not comply with court orders.

[79] The court finds that the mother's attempted departure with the child in September 2024 was deeply problematic. However, this occurred over a year ago. Her departure attempt occurred during a turbulent period in which the parties' relationship had very recently ruptured. When the mother came to terms with the end of the relationship, she brought her application before the court in January of 2025. She gave the father appropriate notice of her desire to relocate with the children to the Philippines. In May of 2025, she brought a motion for the relocation and was unsuccessful. She has persisted in her request and has now sought permission to relocate through this hearing. The mother has complied with court orders for the father's parenting time. She has transported the children to and from the father's APCO visits. The court finds that there is no pattern of non-compliance in the mother's behaviour and that she has shown that she will comply with court orders.

[80] The court finds that the mother has met her onus of establishing on the evidence that the relocation to the Philippines is in the children's best interests.

Part Five -- Parenting Time

[81] In considering the father's parenting time, the court must consider the relevant best interests considerations set out above.

[82] Subsection 24(6) of the Act states that 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.

[83] The mother has proposed the following parenting time plan for the father following relocation to the Philippines:

a) The father can have virtual parenting time with the children for up to 20 minutes every other day supervised by APCO or a neutral third party.

b) The mother will travel to Canada for a two week visit each year when the children are 4-5 years of age and are able to manage the flight/travel.

c) The mother is open to the father visiting the children in Baler Philippines for a two week period each year with one month's prior notice. She agrees to accept a reduced amount of child support from the father during the period in which he is travelling to the Philippines.

d) The mother seeks to include another close family member (and a local social worker in the Philippines) in the travel or visitation arrangements.

[84] The father's proposed plan assumes that the children remain in Toronto and cannot be ordered post relocation.

[85] The court finds that the mother's proposed parenting time plan, with some changes, is in the children's best interests. It meets the objectives set out in the legislation and jurisprudence and is consistent with the court's findings in this decision.

[86] The court finds that it is in the children's best interests to have frequent virtual parenting time with the father. The length of up to 20 minutes every other day is appropriate given the age and stage of the children (6 months and one and a half years old).

[87] The mother seeks an order that this virtual parenting time be supervised by a neutral third party. The court finds that supervision by a third party is only required pending the variation of the father's criminal conditions. Once the conditions are varied, she will be the supervisor of the virtual parenting time.

[88] The mother's designate or the mother will be responsible for organizing and managing the children during the virtual parenting time. In the event that the father acts inappropriately during the parenting time, she or her designate have the discretion to terminate the virtual visit.

[89] The mother proposes a two week visit annually when the children are 4-5 years of age and are able to manage the flight/travel. Given the length of the flight, the court finds that some delay is appropriate. However, the court orders that these annual visits can begin when the youngest child is two years of age and the older child is three years of age.

[90] The mother proposes that the father may visit the children in Baler, Philippines for a two week visit each year with a month prior notice. She agrees to accept a reduced child support payment during the month in which he is visiting the Philippines. The mother seeks to include another close family member (and a social worker in the Philippines) in the travel and visitation arrangements.

[91] The court finds that an annual visit from the father is in the children's best interests. The court is sensitive to the challenging logistics of such a visit from the father's perspective. Further, the comfort and safety of the very young children (who have had limited supervised contact with their father to date) must be considered.

[92] The court orders that once the father gives notice of his plan to visit the children, the mother is to take the following steps:

a) Assist the father is locating an appropriate accommodation in Baler that is proximate to the children's home.

b) Create a plan for daily contact between the father and the children. The contact should be child-focused and gradually increasing over the course of his stay. The contact may be supervised by the mother or her designate if the no-contact order is in place.

c) The level of supervision is at the mother's discretion. If the mother uses a designate (pending the variation of the criminal conditions) the individual's availability must not hamper daily and gradually increasing contact between the father and the children.

d) The father's child support obligation to pay child support for the month of his visit is suspended.

Part Six -- Incidents of Parenting

[93] The parties' consent sets out that the mother will have sole decision-making responsibility for the children. She will first consult with the father in respect of all important decisions and seek his input. The court finds that this order is in the children's best interests in light of the permitted relocation.

[94] The father and mother agree that if the relocation is permitted, the mother should be the custodian of the travel documents and be able to apply for and renew them without the consent or signature of the father.

[95] The court finds that this order is in the best interests of the children.

[96] The father's behaviour to date with respect to cooperation in matters pertaining to the children's documentation is flagrantly obstructionist. For example:

a) He refused to provide his OHIP card when the second child was born, leading to an avoidable hospital fee for the mother;

b) He refused to cooperate with respect to the registration of the second child's birth, in order to assert his preference with respect to her first name, thus affecting her health care coverage following her birth.

[97] The father has repeatedly proven himself to be unreasonable with respect to child-focused documentation requests while under the direct scrutiny of the court during litigation. The court finds that relying on his reasonable response to any identity document application completion is unrealistic. His actions have compromised the children's best interests in this respect in the past.

[98] Accordingly, the court orders that the mother is to be the custodian of all of the children's identity documents, including their passports and travel documentation and that she may apply for and renew these documents without the consent or signature of the father.

[99] The court further orders that the mother is able to travel with the children without the written consent of the father. The father requires the written consent of the mother to travel with the children.

Part Seven -- Conclusion

[100] A final order shall go on the following terms:

a) The applicant mother is authorized to relocate with the children to the Philippines.

b) The applicant mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility for the children of the relationship.

c) The applicant mother will first consult with the respondent father in respect of all important decisions and will seek his input.

d) The applicant mother may obtain and renew all documentation for the children, including passports, birth certificates and health cards without the respondent father's consent or signature. The applicant mother shall provide copies of all documents obtained to the respondent.

e) The children's original identification documents including passports shall remain in the care and control of the applicant mother.

f) The respondent father shall not travel with the children without the prior notarized signed consent of the applicant mother.

g) The applicant mother may travel with the children without the consent or prior notarized signature of the respondent father. She is to notify him of her itinerary in advance of any travel.

h) The respondent father shall have the following parenting time with the children until the children relocate to the Philippines:

i. The father shall have his parenting time fully supervised by a professional supervised parenting program, such as APCO, Renew Supervision Services or Brayden Professional Services.

ii. The father shall pay all costs charged by the professional parenting time program.

iii. The father may have weekly parenting time for one hour with both children each Saturday.

iv. The father may have an additional weekly visit with the children for up to three hours. Since APCO does not supervise visits of this length it will need to be supervised by one of the private supervised parenting programs. The specific day is to be as agreed by the parties.

v. The father may have virtual parenting time with the children for up to 20 minutes every other day. The mother (or her designate pending the variation of the criminal conditions) shall supervise these visits and set the times for the visits. She (or the designate) has the discretion to end the video calls if she believes that the father is acting inappropriately.

i) Once the children relocate to the Philippines, the respondent father shall have parenting time with the children as follows:

i. The father may have virtual visits with the children every other day for 20 minutes to be arranged and supervised by the mother or her designate (pending the variation of his criminal conditions). The mother (or her designate) has the discretion to end the video calls if she believes that the father is acting inappropriately.

ii. The mother will undertake annual two-week visits to Toronto with the children when the youngest child is two years of age. When she is in Toronto she will arrange for visits with the father a minimum of five days for each week she is in the city. The level of supervision of the visits is at her discretion and in compliance with any criminal conditions. She may rely on a designate to supervise the visits, but the availability of the designate may not reduce the frequency of the visits with the father.

iii. The father may visit the children in the Philippines annually for two weeks each visit. He shall give 30 days notice to the mother of any planned visit. The father's child support is not payable during the month in which he visits the children.

iv. When the father gives notice of his plan to visit the children in Baler, the mother is to take the following steps:

1. Assist the father in locating appropriate accommodation in Baler that is proximate to the children's home.

2. Create a plan for daily contact between the father and the children. The contact should be child-focused and gradually increasing over the course of his visit.

3. The parenting time may be supervised by the mother or her designate (pending the variation of criminal conditions). The level of supervision is at the mother's discretion. If the mother relies on a designate, the individual's availability must not hamper daily contact between the father and the children during his visit.

Child Support

j) Commencing November 1, 2025, the respondent father shall pay the applicant mother ongoing child support for the children in the amount of $608 each month. This is based his annual income of $39,936. This is the guidelines table amount for two children.

k) The arrears owing by the respondent father to the applicant mother are fixed at the sum of $4715. This sum includes the following:

i. $2000.00 in arrears for the support of the eldest child from October 4, 2024 to May 31, 2025.

ii. $2715.00 in arrears for the child support owing for the two children from June 1, 2025 to October 31, 2025 under the temporary order of Justice Sherr.

iii. The arrears shall be repaid instalments of $200.00 per month, in addition to the ongoing child support order until the balance is paid in full.

l) The respondent father shall provide the applicant mother with copies of his previous year's income tax returns, both personal and corporate tax return and his Revenue Canada Notice of Assessment and any other relevant financial disclosure each year by June 1st. Any changes to the child support shall be made by July 1 each year and are retroactive to the date there should have been a change.

m) Unless this order is withdrawn from the Family Responsibility Office, it shall be enforced by the Director and amounts owing under the order shall be paid to the Director who shall pay them to the person to whom they are owed.

n) Support deduction order to issue.

o) If either party seeks costs, they shall serve and file their written costs submissions by January 5, 2026. The other party will then have until January 15, 2026 to serve and file their written response (not to make their own costs submissions). The submissions shall be no more than 3 pages including offers to settle and bills of costs.

p) All other claims made by the parties, not addressed above, are dismissed.

q) The return date of December 18, 2025 at 2 pm is vacated.

Released: December 16, 2025

Signed: Justice Szandtner