Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-240 DATE: 2021/06/14

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: David Enrique Ascani, Applicant -and- Shanice Taylor Keedi, Respondent

BEFORE: Anne London-Weinstein J.

COUNSEL: Alexandra Kirschbaum and Kaela Scavo, for the Applicant Samir Nawaz, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 28, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Applicant Father seeks a resumption of parenting time with the child Neviiyah, born June 14, 2013. He seeks joint decision- making responsibility for the child. He seeks an order for non-communication prohibiting the Mother from contacting him by telephone, text message or in person, except as specified in a family court order to facilitate parenting time. The Father seeks an order that the parents insulate the child from denigrating or critical comments relating to the other party. The Father seeks an order that the police force having jurisdiction in any area where the child may be, be directed to locate, apprehend and deliver the child to the Father, forthwith, pursuant to s. 36(4) of the Children’s Law Reform Act. He seeks a disclosure order of police reports and CAS records. He seeks disclosure of a confirmation letter from the child’s psychologist.

[2] The Father had also brought a lengthy motion to strike motion. I persuaded counsel to abandon that aspect of the motion, given the time and financial restraints facing the parties, and the fact that the urgent aspect of this motion is that the Father has not seen the child since December of 2020. However, despite this aspect of the motion being abandoned, I did not disagree that much of the Mother’s affidavit contained argument. For example para 37 of the Mother’s affidavit states: “ It would shock the conscience of the Court and Canadian society as a whole for the Applicant to succeed in any of his claims for unsupervised access or decision making authority given his demonstrated and admitted violence against our defenseless child.”

[3] The Respondent Mother opposes the Father having in-person parenting time due to COVID-19 concerns, and the fact that the Father has been violent to the child in the past and behaved inappropriately toward the child and toward the Mother. The Mother asks that I endorse the Father’s interim child support offer of $319.24 a month. The Mother asks that I also make an order dealing with section 7 expenses. The Mother seeks an order that imputes income to the Father in the amount of $35,000 per year, and an order seeking the appointment of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

[4] The Mother asked that the amount be paid for the parties’ three children. The Father and Mother have only one child together, so I am assuming that this was an error in the Mother’s materials. The mother seeks an order for retroactive child support and that the Father provide his tax returns, CRA Notices of Assessment for the last three years, his last three paystubs, all of his bank statements for the last two years, and an Affidavit declaring how much cash income he has earned over the last three years and where he has worked during the same period.

[5] The Mother seeks an order that the primary residence of the child is to be with the Mother; that she is to have sole decision making responsibility for the child, and that the Father only have one hour of parenting time a week and that it be virtually only, with any other form of parenting time to be at the sole discretion of the Mother. The Mother also seeks an order that the Father complete some combination of anger management classes, parenting classes and/or psychological evaluation.

[6] Like the Father, the Mother also seeks a non-communication order, and an order that the parties protect the child from denigrating comments.

Background regarding this urgent motion:

[7] An urgent case conference was scheduled with Master Kaufman on May 14, 2021 pursuant to the Order of Master Fortier dated April 20, 2021. The Respondent Mother did not file a conference brief at the case conference and did not file an Answer either. She advised the Family Counter that she did not consent to the date and was seeking new counsel and an adjournment.

[8] Master Kaufman noted that the parties signed a mediation agreement which provided that the Father would have parenting time with the child every other weekend as well as two evenings a week.

[9] The Father has not seen the child since December of 2020. Master Kaufman, relying on the decision of Brazeau v. Lejombe, 2020 ONSC 2843, 2020 ONCS 2843 at para 10 held; any sudden, unilateral interruption of a generous, long-standing timesharing arrangement is potentially urgent.

[10] Master Kaufman ordered the cost of the case conference to be determined by me.

[11] Initially, counsel for the Mother objected to the late filing of lengthy materials in this matter, including two cases related to COVID-19. I found that the materials were served within the permissible time period, albeit not by 5 p.m. Further, while I offered counsel additional time on the first of day this matter, to review the two cases provided by counsel for the Father, I did not adjourn this matter due to the timing of the service of the materials, as indicated in the Mother’s materials.

[12] Counsel for the Mother has not accurately represented what transpired. Counsel for the Mother attempted to convert the motion into a hearing regarding child support. Master Kaufman’s endorsement sets out the purpose of the urgent motion which was to deal with the issue of parenting time.

[13] Further, the legal principles set out in the two cases provided by counsel for the Father are hardly novel propositions of law. Counsel for the Mother declined my offer of time on the day of the motion to review the materials. The cases reflect the current jurisprudence in relation to parenting time and COVID-19. Frankly, I offered counsel for the Mother time to read them on the day they were presented out of a sense of courtesy to counsel and not out of a belief that counsel would be prejudiced by receiving them at the outset of the hearing. The matter was not adjourned due to the Father’s counsel providing cases late, or due to material being served late.

[14] The matter was adjourned as there are allegations of violence toward the child in this case, and the Mother sought to file additional material in support of claims of violence by the Father against the child. In the interests of having a complete record before determining what is in the best interest of the child, I permitted the Mother to file additional materials. However, these materials could have, and arguably should have, been filed in the Mother’s original materials. That being said, I was not going to proceed in the absence of the materials or deprive the Father time to respond. The Mother filed additional affidavit material and a photo of the child with a black eye, and the Father filed his return affidavit on June 8 which I received on June 9. The Father indicates that the child was injured on his bracelet and the Mother was aware of that fact, as she made an inappropriate remark about the bracelet in a text to the Father.

[15] The Father has been denied parenting time with his daughter since December of 2020. In his June 8 affidavit he indicates that the topic of child support was not addressed in his motion as the Mother has been receiving funds from him since the beginning of the year. He has inconsistent employment as he was working in the restaurant industry during the pandemic. The Mother also indicated in her original affidavit at para 24 that the Father was not paying regular child support. The Father was not paying the full table amount, but it is not true that he was not paying regular child support, as evidenced by the exhibits to his affidavit. The Father was paying regular support and also occasionally paying for additional expenses.

History:

[16] The Mother Shanice Keedi is 29 years old. The Father is 28 years old. The parties began living together in 2012 and separated in August or September of 2013. The parties resided together off and on until October 24, 2014.

[17] There is one child of the relationship, Neviyah Israel Keedi, born on June 14, 2013. (The child’s name is spelled differently in the Father’s material, and I adopted the spelling in the Mother’s material for consistency, but for no other reason).

[18] The child has resided with the Mother since birth. Her evidence is that she is the primary caregiver, provider and decision maker.

[19] Both parents have a litany of negative things to say about each other as evidenced in the texts submitted by the Father on this urgent motion for parenting time.

[20] Both parents accuse the other of engaging in physical abuse of each other, psychological manipulation and failing to put the needs of the child first. It is disheartening to read, and without a change in perspective, both parents will continue to fail the child through mutual unwillingness to rein in the obvious animus which they feel toward each other. However, it was not always such a bitter relationship. At one point, as evidenced by the texts submitted in this matter, the parties were able to communicate with one another, the Father had regular parenting time, and the needs of the child were being put first by both parties.

[21] The Mother’s evidence lists a long number of incidents of abuse by the Father of the Mother during the relationship. The Mother states that the Father abused the child when the child was an infant, tried to smother the child, and then this year told the child what he had done. The child is 8 years old today.

[22] The Father denies ever abusing the Mother. In the absence of cross-examination, I am unable to find that the Father ever abused the Mother, or the Mother abused the Father. I reviewed the extensive list of allegations, counter allegations and denials in all of the material provided. I do not intend to list every allegation and counter allegation due to the time constraints, but I have carefully read all of the material provided to me. This is an urgent motion which has already been delayed due to the need for the Mother to provide additional material. I received the Father’s additional material on Friday June 11 and drafted this endorsement over the weekend. Both parties have photographs of their injuries at the hands of the other which they have submitted. Both parties have called police. Both parties have been the subject of CAS investigation. The Father’s evidence is that the Mother’s new partner once assaulted him and threatened to shoot him before police arrived. No one has been criminally charged as a result of these allegations and counter-allegations.

[23] The Father admits that he caused physical harm to the child when she was a baby. This involved pinching causing bruising and flicking the child hard in the nose. The Father’s evidence is that in and around June of 2021 he told the child why he was no longer with the Mother and what he had done to her as a baby. The Father’s evidence is that he wanted the child to hear it from him before the Mother disclosed the abuse to the child. I have no evidence before me as to whether this matter was investigated by the CAS at the time it occurred, when the child was an infant.

[24] The Mother’s evidence is that the Father also tried to suffocate the child when the child was an infant. The Father’s evidence is that he was playing peek-a-boo with the child, and he and the Mother had a heated argument about this incident at the time

[25] The Mother’s evidence was that she is disturbed that the Father disclosed this incident to the child at all, and that he failed to discuss it first with the Mother. The Mother is concerned that this disclosure of his abuse of the child by the Father to the child may have caused the child psychological harm. In the absence of expert evidence, I am unable to determine whether this disclosure caused psychological harm to the child. However, I do not disagree with the Mother that the issue of whether to disclose this piece of family history to the child should have been discussed with the Mother beforehand. It is also possible that the disclosure harmed the child psychologically.

[26] The child was seeing the Father regularly in the past in accordance with the mediation agreement. The text messages which were part of the Father’s motion material corroborate his evidence that he has been actively involved in the child’s life on an ongoing basis. The text messages support the inference that the Mother at one time welcomed the Father’s ongoing interaction with his child, including planning and paying for expensive birthday parties for the child. The Mother invited the Father to participate in parent teacher interviews. The Mother now claims that she was unaware of the extent of the Father’s abuse of the baby.

[27] There was another incident where the child returned from the Father’s home with a bruised eye. The Father indicates that it was an accident and the child bumped against a bracelet he was wearing.

[28] The parties had mediation in 2017. The Mother denies that she was aware of the extent of the abuse of the child by the Father prior to the mediation. The Mother’s evidence is that she would not have permitted the Father to have unsupervised time with the child if she was aware of the extent of what had transpired. I am unable to accept the Mother’s evidence that she was unaware of the extent of what happened with the child when the child was an infant.

[29] The text messages exchanged between the parties support the inference that the Mother was fully aware of the seriousness of the matter. I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Mother only very recently became aware of the gravity of the matter. The Mother in fact, was outraged that the Father disclosed what he had done to the child as she regarded his conduct when the child was a baby to be extremely serious and completely unacceptable. As a result of the gravity of his conduct, the Mother did not want the child to be told what the Father had done, according to the texts which were submitted on this motion as part of the Father’s exhibit material. Despite this fact, she continued to allow him to have unsupervised parenting time.

[30] The Mother also takes the position that her mediation agreement is void due to non-disclosure of the abuse of the child.

[31] Both parties accuse the other of not following COVID-19 protocols.

[32] The Mother’s evidence indicates that the Father does not follow COVID protocols and is not capable of caring for the child as he lived with a group of men with no locks on the bathroom doors and the child has been forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor. The Mother’s evidence is that the Father smokes in front of the child and speaks ill of the Mother. The Mother has another daughter with asthma, which increases her risk of an adverse outcome if she contracts COVID.

[33] The Mother’s evidence is that the child has been out of school prior to COVID.

[34] The Father states he was only permitted to see the child through Facetime and by standing outside the Mother’s door to communicate with the child. The Father’s evidence is that he has quit smoking and that he believes in the virus and follows COVID-19 protocols. The Father’s evidence is that the child has her own bed.

[35] In a similar vein, the Father accuses the Mother of having friends in her house, visible on Facetime. The Mother indicates she maintains a tight circle of family contacts only. I have no basis to reject the evidence of the Mother that she is cautious regarding COVID-19 protocols, especially since I accept that she is especially concerned as she has another child who is at a heightened risk of an adverse outcome if she contracts the virus.

[36] The Mother’s evidence is that in June of 2020, the child went to a sleep over at the paternal grandmother’s home. The child was returned the next day and said that she had gone out for dinner. The Mother was opposed to the child eating in a restaurant during the pandemic. The child also told the Mother that her father took her to Montreal when she slept over with her dad in July. She went out for dinner and to a hotel. The Mother says the child was told to keep this visit a secret.

[37] The Father’s evidence is that he went to Montreal with his family and with the child for a day. He did not tell the Mother he was going to spend overnights with his mother. The Father indicates the child was happy and safe and they followed COVID-19 protocols. The Father submitted a photo of the child wearing her mask on the trip to Montreal.

[38] In November, the Father came to the home and was crying. The child was upset. The Father said that his dad may be sick. The paternal grandfather had some tests and was fine.

[39] The Mother’s evidence is that the Father had more time to see the child in December. He messaged and asked to see her overnight at his mother’s on December 5 and December 12. On December 20, the Mother says the Father notified her that he had been sick. The Mother indicates she asked him how long he had the symptoms for, and he said since the 16th, which was only three days after he had spent time with the child. The Mother’s evidence is that she was upset by this as he had waited four days to tell her. From December 20 to mid-February he did not come by and there was no contact, according to the Mother. On February 8, 2021, the Mother said she learned that the Father had come into contact with someone who had COVID in December. The Father, according to the Mother, advised that he tested negative.

[40] To say that the parties are now extremely hostile toward one another is to understate the matter. The parties have such active hostility toward each other that in my view, it impacts their credibility. The Mother for example, has clearly permitted the Father to have access to the child in the past, knowing what happened when the child was a baby. A review of the texts between the parties reveals that there was a time, not so long ago when they were able to be civil with one another and work together toward the best interests of the child, for example planning a birthday party for the child. I do not accept the Mother’s evidence that it is only now that she learned the extent of the abuse which the Father visited upon the child when the child was a baby.

[41] For the Father’s part, it is common sense that in a pandemic, if the Father contemplates taking the child to Montreal when there are a large number of COVID-19 cases, this issue should be discussed with the other parent beforehand as the child has a sibling who is at an increased risk of an adverse outcome if she contracts the virus

[42] It is also in the best interest of the child that she not be asked to keep secrets regarding where she and the Father have visited. Further, I cannot disagree with the Mother that the Father’s disclosure of harming the child as a baby, even if disclosed because he feared the Mother may disclose it to the child first, may have caused the child psychological harm.

[43] The Father has taken counselling from a clinician psychotherapist. His evidence is that he completed a course of 20 weekly sessions of psychodynamic psychotherapy from September 16, 2020 to March 16, 2021. A letter from the therapist, Dr. Hershel H.B. Kagan, was attached as Exhibit F4 confirmed, that the Father completed the therapy as he described. I have no evidence before me as to the subject matter of the counselling, simply that it was completed.

[44] I appreciate that in some cases, where there is domestic violence the parent who is victimized may continue to facilitate parenting time for a variety of reasons related to the violence. See I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615. However, in this case I am satisfied that the Mother did not accommodate parenting time because she was unable to resist the Father, or because she feared him. As I indicated, the allegations of physical abuse in this case relate to both parents against each other.

[45] The Mother claimed the Father was not paying child support in paragraph 24 of her affidavit. The Father’s evidence in the form of email transfers and banking records refutes the Mother’s sworn evidence on the issue of child support. I find as a fact that the Father was paying regular support, but not in the table amounts. His employment in the restaurant industry was impacted by COVID-19.

The Law:

[1] Section 20 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.12, as am. provides that, except where otherwise provided in this part, a child’s parents are equally entitled to decision-making responsibility with respect to the child and that the entitlement to parenting time with respect to the child includes the right to visit with and be visited by the child.

[2] Section 20(4) of the CLRA provides that if the parents of the child live separate and apart and the child lives with one of them with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other, the right of the other to exercise the entitlement to decision making responsibility with respect to the child but not the entitlement to parenting time, is suspended until a separation agreement or order provides otherwise.

[3] Section 20(7) of the CLRA provides that any entitlement to decision making responsibility or parenting time under this section is subject to alteration by order of the court or by separation agreement.

[4] Section 21(1) of the CLRA provides that a parent of a child may apply to the court for a parenting order respecting decision making responsibilities and parenting time.

Best Interest of the Child:

[5] Section 24 of the CLRA sets out the factors to be considered by a Court when dealing with parenting orders. In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section.

[6] Sections 24(2) and 24(3) set out the factors to be considered by a court in making parenting orders including, and not limited to:

Primary consideration section 24(2)

In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

Section 24(3)

(3) Factors related to the circumstances of the child include:

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;

(d) the history of care of the child;

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

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g)any plans for the child’s care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things;

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii)the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well being of the child. 2020 c.25 Sched 1, s.6.

[7] Section 24(4) of the CLRA mandates consideration of family violence when determining a parenting plan and what is in the children’s best interests:

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3)(j) the court shall take into account,

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

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

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

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

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

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

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence form occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor. 2020 c.25 Sched. 1, s.6.

[8] Section 24(5) of the CLRA provides that the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person, unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of the person’s decision making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to the child.

[9] The child should have maximum parenting time with both parents to the extent that such time is in the child’s best interests. Orders for supervised parenting time are exceptional orders. They have been described as one step away from a complete cessation of parenting time.

[10] The onus is on the parent seeking to limit access to establish on a balance of probabilities that the restrictions are in the child’s best interest. An order for supervised parenting requires evidence of exceptional circumstances. Jennings v. Garrett, 2004 CanLII 17126.

[11] An order for supervised parenting requires cogent evidence that the child is at risk of physical or emotional harm. Breen v. Larocque, 2012 ONCJ 640.

[12] Courts have found that inconsistent access may cause a child emotional harm. See Chukwunomso v. Ransome, 2017 ONCJ 121. In my view, during this time of COVID-19 when so much of the child’s regular stabilizing routines have been suspended, the importance of consistent parenting time with both parents is of even greater importance.

[13] It is trite law that the child should have maximum contact with both parents to the extent that this contact is consistent with the child’s best interests. Gordon v. Goertz 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27. Further, as a general rule, if parenting time has proceeded for several years, it should not be stopped unless there is a serious threat to the child. Wilkinson-Hughes v. Hughes [2008] O.J. No. 736 (Ont. S.C.). Where there is a risk of harm I must determine, based on a consideration of the evidence as a whole, the existence and the extent of any “risk of harm” to the child. It requires the court, regardless of whether the evidence meets the civil standard of proof, to consider all the evidence and circumstances to assess the existence and the degree of risk to the child of harm (whether because of alleged sexual abuse or some other alleged reason). The court must determine the existence and degree of risk of harm to the child if the risk materializes. Where this risk of harm falls along this continuum will determine the weight to be given to this factor. This is then only one factor in determining what is in the best interests of the child. The court must also go on to consider any other risks of harm (and the degree of those risks) to the child and any benefits (and the degree of those benefits) to the child of the proposed order with the ultimate goal being the determination of what order will be in the child’s best interests going forward. Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.). See also, Bates v. Bates, 2011 ONSC 3027.

[14] The party seeking supervised parenting time bears the burden of establishing that supervision is necessary. Klymenko v. Klymenko, 2020 ONSC 5451. Supervised parenting time is beneficial for children who require gradual reintroduction to a parent, or whose safety requires it until such time as the parent is sufficiently rehabilitated and a child is no longer in danger of physical or emotional harm. Najjardizaji v. Mehrjerdi 2004 ONCJ 374, [2004] O.J. No. 5472 (OCJ).

[15] The Father’s abuse of the child when she was a baby is obviously highly concerning and is a factor which must be carefully weighed, along with all of the other relevant factors in determining what type of parenting time is in the child’s best interests. I must also consider the fact that the Father has had unsupervised parenting time with the child both during the day, and on alternate weekends in accordance with the 2017 mediation agreement. I have considered that the Mother was aware of the abuse which transpired when the child was an infant, and felt confident in permitting parenting time to continue. I am unable to conclude that the bruise to the eye is as a result of physical abuse by the Father, and not an unfortunate accident. Children can be injured, despite our best efforts to keep them safe. However, I am concerned that the Father saw fit to disclose what happened to the child when she was a baby without consulting the Mother, or taking any steps to determine if and when this information should be disclosed, in accordance with what would be in the child’s best interests. I am troubled by the impulsive disclosure by the Father of such an impactful event to a child who is 8. I have also considered that the concerns for the child’s safety are mitigated by the fact that the child is now eight years old. The child can vocalize any concerns to her Mother. For example, the child reported that she did not feel right about not telling her Mother that they made the trip to Montreal, and she disclosed the trip to her Mother.

[16] The Father in this case has been open regarding harming the child when she was a baby. In fact, one of the Mother’s complaints is that he has been too open, in that he should not have disclosed the incident to the child. The violence toward the child happened eight years ago. The evidence before me is that the child loves the Father, and enjoys her relationship with him. The child is not at current risk of physical harm from the Father, there have been no further incidents of violence toward the child by the Father. The Mother was aware of what happened to the child as a baby and she herself was satisfied that there is no present risk of that behavior being repeated. As a result, she permitted the Father to continue to have unsupervised parenting time with the child. The Mother’s willingness to allow the child to spend time with the Father, does not end the matter, it still falls to the Court to determine if parenting time with the Father, given his violence toward the child as a baby, is in the child’s best interests. However, the fact that the Mother permitted the Father to have time with the child, is one of many relevant factors which I have considered. As I said, I did not accept the Mother’s evidence that she only recently became aware of the extent of the Father’s conduct and my reason for rejecting her evidence on this issue relates to the content of her text messages with the Father, over a considerable period of time. I have no doubt that the Mother was fully aware of what had transpired and felt comfortable letting the child see her Father, as the Mother had no concerns that the behavior would be repeated. I also have a concern that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Mother has not facilitated the support of the relationship between the Father and the Child. The Father was reduced at one point to sitting outside the Mother’s door in order to speak to the child. In all of the circumstances, while the Father’s conduct eight years ago was obviously extremely concerning, eight years have passed. In my view the passage of time has mitigated the risk to a sufficient degree that I am satisfied that a supervised parenting order is not required. I have considered the mutual violence toward each other which the parties have indicated has taken place, and the impact that this has had on the child, and the implications it has for both parties going forward in having to deal with one another to parent the child.

[17] When I weigh all of the relevant factors, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of this child that she spend time with her father, and I am not satisfied that there is cogent evidence which would warrant the imposition of a supervision order. However, the concerns in this case arising from the past abuse, along with the Father’s impulsive disclosure of the past abuse to his eight year old daughter leave me with residual concerns for the well-being of the child, which in my view, do not rise to the level of requiring a supervision order, but which must be addressed nonetheless.

Order:

[18] For the reasons outlined above, I order on a temporary and without prejudice basis that the Father be granted unsupervised parenting time with the child in accordance with the terms of the 2017 mediation agreement. The Father is to have the child every second weekend, and two evenings a week in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

[19] The Father is not to remove the child from Ottawa without the written consent of the Mother.

[20] The parties shall have joint decision-making responsibility for the child, Neviyah Israel Keedi, born June 14, 2013. In the event of an inability to agree on a matter, the Mother has final say, but she must consult with the Father before making important decisions regarding the child.

[21] The Father is ordered to not discuss the issue of the abuse of the child with the child, or in the presence of the child again, until further notice of the court, or consent of the parties.

[22] The child’s primary residence is with the mother.

[23] I am requesting that the OCL become involved in this case for the purpose of a s.112 assessment.

[24] The parties’ communication with each other shall be restricted to matters pertaining to the child’s well- being such as her care, developmental milestones, health issues, scheduled activities, appointments and school and any requests related to the parenting schedule. Communications shall be in writing only, unless there is an emergency which makes this means of communication ineffective. The communication shall be brief, respectful and child-focused, and devoid of accusations and derogatory remarks.

[25] I order that the parties shall each insulate the child from exposure to any issues or potential issues between the parties related to his or his or her compliance with COVID-19 measures, issues and from any denigrating comments.

[26] I order both parties to engage in best practices in regard to COVID-19, including mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing in accordance with whatever are the most current Ottawa Public health guidelines.

[27] I order that the police having jurisdiction in any area where the child may be directed to locate, apprehend and deliver the child to the Father pursuant to s. 36(4) of the CLRA.

[28] I endorse the Father’s offer of child support on an interim, temporary and without prejudice basis in the amount of $319.24 a month. I note the subject matter of this motion was parenting time and not child support therefore, it is inappropriate to consider retroactive child support or consider imputing income to the Father.

[29] I order disclosure of all CAS reports and police reports in this matter.

[30] This matter is to return in front of me in six weeks time. Counsel are to contact the trial coordinator to facilitate a date. I appreciate that there is already a case conference scheduled in this matter for June 21. Counsel may vacate that date if they wish, or use the time. However six weeks from today’s date this matter is to be before me for a case conference. I am not ordering a psychological evaluation at this time, but I would like to see some evidence either from Dr. Kagen, who previously treated the Father, or from any qualified counsellor, that the issues which precipitated the Father’s behavior when the child was an infant are well in hand eight years later.

[31] As a final aside, I will state it is evident to me that both parents love this child. However, the parents need to both recognize that the constant bickering on both sides is not in the best interests of the child, and reflects poorly on their ability to put the child’s interests ahead of their own interests in lashing out at each other. Part of being a good parent in these circumstances is the ability to communicate in a civil manner with one another for the sake of the child.

Costs:

[32] Costs of this motion and the case conference with Master Kaufman, will be deferred to the case conference in six weeks.

Anne London-Weinstein J.

Date: June 14, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-240 DATE: 2021/06/14

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: David Enrique Ascani, Applicant -and- Shanice Taylor Keedi, Respondent

BEFORE: Anne London-Weinstein J.

COUNSEL: Alexandra Kirschbaum and Kaela Scavo, for the Applicant Samir Nawaz, for the Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

Anne London-Weinstein J.

Released: June 14, 2021