J.L. v. C.L., 2023 ONSC 6861

COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-369-00

DATE: 20231205

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

J.L.

Applicant Father

– and –

C.L.

Respondent Mother

Diana Vasilescu, for the Applicant Father

Joshua Gleiberman, for the Respondent Mother

Christine Ready, counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, on behalf of the children

Also Present: Lana Pryce, for the Durham Children’s Aid Society

HEARD: November 1, 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION

Justice Alex Finlayson

PART I: NATURE OF THIS MOTION

[1] The parties are the parents of three girls, A., age 11, and P. and G., age 10. This is yet another case before this Court, in which two parents are involved in a high conflict parenting dispute, the police and two child welfare agencies have been involved (the Durham Children’s Aid Society (“DCAS”) is still involved), there have been inadequate protective interventions taken, and the situation has deteriorated to the point that the father’s relationship with his three children has been damaged.

[2] For many years, the parents did not behave towards each other in this fashion. They seemingly got along such that they did not need either a court order or even a written agreement to regulate their post-separation relationship as co-parents of their three children. Unfortunately, in late 2021, the mother attempted to move out of the jurisdiction, to New Brunswick, with the children, without the legal authority to do so. There, she pursued a relationship with a man named N.S.

[3] The father then brought this proceeding, initially to compel the mother’s return to Ontario with the children. Although that particular issue headed towards a contested motion in the first part of 2022, on June 1, 2022, the mother agreed to return. This Court made a consent order accordingly. Other parenting issues did not settle and were argued on June 1, 2022; additional orders were made. This case then went dormant before this Court for almost a year, but much went on outside it.

[4] Pursuant to her consent of June 1, 2022 the mother did return to Ontario with the children; she brought N.S. with her. N.S. is very problematic, so much so that this Court has now prohibited the mother from allowing him to have any contact with the children. N.S. has a laundry list of a criminal activity and a mental health history, that has not yet been fully disclosed and therefore explored. He has significantly and inappropriately inserted himself into the parents’ relationships with each other. He has inflamed the situation. He has participated in and caused much conflict, and he has very much contributed to damaging the father’s relationship with his girls.

[5] The father is not blameless. He has also behaved inappropriately at times. He has discussed the parental dispute and this litigation with the children, and questioned them about their mother’s household. But this must be placed in its proper context. The mother has discussed the issues raised in this litigation with the children, too. I address this in more detail below.

[6] The father’s relationships with the girls are now fractured. Apart from a single visit during the weekend of June 9 to 11, 2023, and a brief encounter with the children in their neighbourhood on October 19, 2023, the father has not seen the children since April 30, 2023. All three girls’ views and preferences have evolved over time, to the point that they are now telling their counsel, and Karen Guthrie-Douse, the clinician from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (the “OCL”) who is assisting counsel, that they neither want to see the father, nor participate in counselling with him. They are instructing their counsel, and Ms. Guthrie-Douse, that they do not want the details of certain earlier conversations (in which they said they were prepared to see their father) disclosed. The OCL has questioned the independence of the girls’ stated views and preferences. The Court cannot place weight on those views and preferences.

[7] Neither the DCAS nor the Kawartha Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (“KHCAS”) saw fit to commence a protection application[^1] while the chaos of the past year unfolded. Even after the events of the last year were eventually brought to the Court’s attention by the father, and even after this Court required the two societies to appear in advance of this motion to explain their involvement, no protection application has been brought. DCAS’ current position seems to be that a protection application is now unnecessary because of a recent agreement, later incorporated into an Order of this Court on November 1, 2023, to have N.S. move out of the mother’s house. As I explain below, this late in the day deal is not even been followed. The timing of this agreement came too little, too late.

[8] The father now brings this motion for a variety of relief, most notably for the resumption of his parenting time on a graduated basis. Among other relief sought, he asks for an order that the children be enrolled in therapy with Evan Coghlan, or another therapist that is covered under his health benefits, with the parties to share any uninsured costs equally. He asks the Court to find the mother breached my Order of June 1, 2022, and that he may bring a further motion, for contempt or for enforcement, on an urgent and short notice basis, if the mother breaches an Order again.

[9] The mother brings a cross-motion asking for an order suspending the father’s parenting time. Although it is not specified in her Notice of Cross-Motion, during oral submissions, the mother’s counsel argued that there should be a form of reunification therapy with Bev LeMay. The mother wants an order prohibiting the father from coming within 500 meters of the children’s residence and prohibiting him from communicating with the children either directly or indirectly, unless otherwise authorized by a parenting order. The mother’s counsel claimed that the father is “surveilling” her and monitoring her residence. The mother also seeks an order that the parties communicate by Our Family Wizard in a “child focused and respectful” manner.

[10] At the outset of submissions on November 1, 2023, I made consent orders prohibiting the mother from allowing contact between the children and N.S., for the release of some of the children’s health records, on terms, respecting the use of Our Family Wizard, and for certain other matters. This is my ruling on the balance of the issues raised in the motions.

PART II: BACKGROUND

A. The History of the Parties’ Relationship and Parenting

[11] The parties were in an 8-year relationship between 2018 and 2015.

[12] The parties have both re-partnered. The father lives in Omemee with his partner J.B., and her 12 year-old daughter from a prior relationship, named K. The mother lives in Oshawa, in a house she inherited from her father. The children live primarily with the mother. The father told the Court that while the mother was in New Brunswick for the first half of 2022, she had the children living in some kind of a shelter, despite owning this house here.

[13] The father works for the City of Toronto. The father’s partner works for a housing support organization. The mother and N.S. have been unemployed for an extended period of time.

[14] As set out earlier, it appears that there was a good co-parenting relationship between the parties until mid-2021. The Court observes that the mother’s relationship with N.S. began that year, and it coincided with the beginning of end of this period of collaboration between the parents.

B. The Mother’s Surreptitious Departure for New Brunswick

[15] In August of 2021, the mother took the children to New Brunswick without the father’s knowledge or consent. The father says he confronted the mother about this. She agreed to return the children prior to the start of school in September of 2021, but she then breached their agreement. She did not come back until October, causing the children to miss a month of school.

[16] As it happened, the Brockville Police pulled over the mother on her drive with the children back to Ontario from New Brunswick. There was a man in the car with them, who I find was N.S., for the reasons explained later in this decision. The Brockville Police discovered that there was a warrant outstanding for N.S.’ arrest in New Brunswick; this was shared with the Durham Regional Police Service, and now this Court through the collateral disclosure that the OCL obtained.

[17] The mother was not back in Ontario for long. She relocated suddenly to New Brunswick in December of 2021, again without notice to the father. This time, she registered the children in school there.

C. Prior Legal Proceedings

[18] The father delayed somewhat in bringing this matter before the Court following the mother’s and the children’s move to New Brunswick. He commenced this proceeding only on March 14, 2022. The case first came before me on March 14, 2022 also, by way of his ex parte motion for the children’s return to Ontario and for other related relief. Although I ordered the father to serve his motion, I scheduled a quick return date.

[19] After being served, the mother argued that there should be a case conference before the motion proceeded. Therefore, I also scheduled a quick case conference, now for April 1, 2022. I then scheduled the father’s motion to be argued before me. It did not proceed until June 1, 2022 due to scheduling.

[20] The main issue of the children’s return to Ontario settled, with the mother agreeing to return the children to Oshawa on or before June 30, 2022. I made a consent order providing that once she was back, the mother was prohibited from again removing the children from Ontario without the father’s consent or a court Order. The father now alleges the mother has breached this term too. I also made consent orders that neither party was to change the children’s residences from Oshawa or Omemee without their mutual consent or a court Order, and I ordered that the children were to be re-enrolled in school in Oshawa in the fall of 2022, subject to further order or agreement. I appointed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and made a consent order for child support based on the father’s 2021 income, too.

[21] The issues of decision-making responsibility, the parenting schedule and enforcement did not settle, and so they were argued. In the Endorsement of June 30, 2022, I expressed a significant concern, that the mother had removed the children from Ontario in December of 2021, without the legal authority to have done so; she changed their schools; she unilaterally interrupted the children’s relationships with the father; and she mislead the father about her plans to return to Ontario. I found, based on the record then before me, that the father had been an involved father in the children’s lives. I found that the children had been in his care for generous amounts of time during the Covid-19 pandemic. I found that they even did some of their schooling from his home during the Covid-19 lock-downs.

[22] Although the children were returning to reside with the mother in Ontario, I made an order for temporary joint-decision making. I also did so in view of this history, and to preserve the father’s role in the children’s lives, given the lengths to which the mother had just gone, to marginalize the father. The mother’s marginalization included not just the surreptitious move (that necessarily entailed restricting the father’s physical contact with the children); while she was away, she equally restricted his access to information and his telephone contact with the girls, too.

[23] Incredibly, after having restricted the father’s contact in this fashion for months, the mother argued that there should be a gradual reintroduction of the girls’ relationship with their father. I rejected that position. I ordered an immediate week about schedule for the summer of 2022. There was no evidence then before me, of any problem in the relationships between the father and the children, other than the distance caused by the mother’s move. The record then before me, was also that the father had appropriate accommodations, the children had good relationships with J.B.’s 12 year-old daughter, K., and the father’s work schedule was such that he could accommodate caring for the girls for a week about in the summer. I ordered that when school resumed in the fall, the father would return to having alternating weekends and a mid-week dinner visit on Wednesday. Finally, I adjourned the father’s motion for police enforcement to be brought back on if needed. I ordered the mother to pay costs of $5,000.00 to the father, by August 31, 2022.

[24] The parties’ case before the Court then went dormant, essentially for a year, until the father filed two further 14B Motions dated July 4, 2023 and July 20, 2023 asking for another urgent motion, or an urgent case conference to deal with the issues now before the Court. Outside of the Court, the dispute between the parties had been anything but dormant.

[25] As a result of the 14Bs, this case came before me once again, for further case conferences on September 14 and 25, 2023. The Endorsements of those dates mostly deal with procedural matters. On September 25, 2023, counsel from both DCAS and KHCAS appeared with their workers, to update the Court as to the results of various child welfare investigations that had already occurred. The family doctor, Dr. Chen, was also in attendance as a result of a summons to witness, to bring certain health records that he would otherwise not produce, taking the position that the children were “mature minors”. It would be revealed that Dr. Chen had been used by the mother and N.S. as a vehicle through which to launch unfounded child protection allegations.

[26] I made a scheduling order for the argument of this motion on September 25, 2023. I directed that this motion was to proceed as a long motion before me on November 1, 2023. I was advised that the disclosure from DCAS, KHCAS and the police would not be voluminous. Therefore, in addition to their motion material, I permitted the parties to file a joint brief containing these records, to which they could refer in oral argument. As it turned out, the joint brief was 621 pages in length. At the outset of argument on November 1, 2023, I advised the parties that they needed to point the Court to more limited excerpts in this brief. I gave them leave to file further written submissions within 7 days of argument directing me to any further excerpts in the joint brief upon which they wished to rely. Only counsel for the OCL then directed me to certain additional documents in the joint brief.

[27] On September 25, 2023, I was also told that the child G. had been hospitalized at Sickkids. While the details were not fully shared, the child was apparently so sick that she had been transferred from a hospital in Oshawa to Sickkids by air ambulance. The father was worried, and wanted to see the child. I made an Order that the father could have a visit with her in the hospital on September 26, 2023. I ordered the mother (and N.S.) to leave the hospital room to remove the opportunity for there to be any parental conflict at the hospital. I also ordered that DCAS worker Todd Rimmington was to supervise the visit, with the Society’s consent. Mr. Rimmington sent a delegate, Ms. Greenop, in his place.

[28] This visit turned into a bit of a disaster. Sickkids hospital staff behaved inappropriately and unprofessionally, and made the situation worse. Two social workers, one from the hospital and Ms. Greenop from DCAS, and a hospital nurse named “Stefania”, made the decision that this Court’s Order allowing the father to see his daughter, would not be followed.

D. The Deterioration of the Father’s Relationship with the Children

[29] It appears that the father’s relationship with the children resumed with relative ease after the children’s return from New Brunswick in the summer of 2022.

[30] In December of 2022, the children stayed with their father for a week during the Christmas holiday. The father says that he noticed that their energy was “off”. A in particular appeared to him to be distressed and angered. He says she showed up at his house with her hair “dyed jet black”. She had an “unusual amount of weight gain”.

[31] The father says that he and his partner discovered text messages on the children’s phones, that led him to believe that the children had been left alone in the mother’s home without an adult present, including overnight. He says that the mother and N.S. were also trying to disrupt his time during the Christmas holiday, such as by sending the children multiple messages with photographs of a family dog that had recently passed away. Consequently, the father’s partner called DCAS on January 10, 2023, worried about the children’s welfare.

[32] Counsel for the OCL points to this referral to DCAS as the call that perhaps set in motion a chain of events of escalating conflict. The father also says something similar. According to him, after this call, N.S. consistently “harass[ed] and accost[ed] [him], in the presence of the children” at parenting exchanges. On one occasion, A. witnessed N.S. throw snow at the father, and she yelled at N.S. to stop. The father says there were countless times that N.S. came out of the mother’s home and made violent threats against him. N.S. has also threatened the father’s partner.

[33] The father has quoted what N.S. said to him at ¶ 39 of his affidavit sworn October 17, 2023. I do not repeat it, but rather I will just state that N.S. has used foul and vile language towards the father. N.S. also threatened the father and his partner. An example of a violent threat that N.S. made, was that he would “stomp [the father’s] teeth to the curb.” N.S. has intimated that he has access to guns.

[34] At the outset of argument on November 1, 2023, the father’s counsel sought leave to tender the most recent written communication in this case, this time from a friend of N.S.’. It is a text message. It contains a threat. The mother’s counsel objected to the father’s counsel seeking to tender this text message. I accepted the text message. I find it is relevant in the factual matrix before this Court on this motion.

[35] The friend writes that the father, his partner, and a dog should start running, and keep running, and not stop running. He referred to the father’s partner as “Miss pissy pants witch” and the father as “Mr. Snitchy Bitch”. He told them to “take the deal or you will be seeing us soon or you won’t !!!!!!”. The texts ends by saying that:

N.S. will be back with his family soon where he belongs. Don’t worry You two will be where you belong soon too!!!”

[36] The obvious inference to be drawn, is that this is a threat of physical harm; if not a threat to kill.

E. N.S. took A. to a Medical Appointment With Dr. Chen on March 8, 2023 During Which Antidepressant Medication Was Prescribed, and Decisions Were Made About a Psychiatric Referral for A. and Therapy

[37] Although the father holds an order for temporary joint decision-making responsibility, the father learned that A. had been taken to the doctor by N.S., where she was then given a prescription for medication for anxiety and depression. This happened in March of 2023. The learned about it, not because the mother communicated with him as she ought to have under the temporary order for joint decision-making, but because A. told him.

[38] N.S. had no business taking this child to the doctor and involving himself in medical discussions, and the mother had no business letting him do this. Not only was the antidepressant medication prescribed that day, but the father says that N.S. even declined a psychiatric assessment and therapy/counselling for the child, as well.

F. The Involvement of DCAS and KHCAS

[39] Both DCAS and KHCAS were involved because the parents live in different locations, each within one or another of the territorial jurisdictions of these two societies. When the father brought the matter back on before the Court earlier this year on an urgent basis, it became readily apparent to the Court that there was relevant information in the possession of these child welfare agencies, but the Court was not given the full details of it.

[40] In my Endorsement of September 14, 2023, I requested that both child welfare agencies write a letter summarizing their involvement with this family, the allegations that have been made, the investigations that have been undertaken, and the results of those investigations. I also ordered counsel from both child welfare agencies to be in Court on September 25, 2023.[^2]

[41] What has been revealed through the two societies’ subsequent written reports to the Court (and the file disclosure), is that allegations have been made that the father has physically and sexually abused the children. Many of these allegations came from N.S. N.S.’ allegations have continued, escalated, and frankly have become more bizarre and alarming, as time passed. While both DCAS and KHCAS have verified post-separation conflict, and they have both verified that the father talks “too much about court and speaks negatively about the mother”, they did not verify allegations of either physical or sexual abuse. Meanwhile, DCAS and KHCAS failed to address the father’s very real concern about N.S. being in the mother’s home and having much contact with the children, while their focus instead remained on investigating the numerous, and to be later not verified, abuse claims.

(1) The First Complaint on January 10, 2023

[42] As set out above, the first complaint to the DCAS was not about abuse; it came from the father’s partner.

[43] According to Mr. Rimmington’s letter dated September 22, 2023, on January 10, 2023, the father’s partner contacted DCAS to raise concerns about parental supervision and the children’s well-being in the mother’s home. In addition, the father’s partner also reported that the children’s school attendance was an issue, that the mother was exposing the children to parental conflict, that A. was suffering from anxiety, and that there was possible substance misuse in the mother’s home, including by N.S. The Court observes that at least two allegations that J.B. reported, namely the school attendance issue and A.’s anxiety, would prove to be true.

[44] During Mr. Rimmington’s investigation, the children reported that they were left home alone, but that when that occurred, it was brief and their mother would check in on them. The children also told Mr. Rimmington about having witnessed conflict. This included a time when Mr. Stewart came out of the home and yelled at the father, who then yelled back. Notably, at this point in time, the children otherwise described things as “good” at their father’s home, although they stated that the father had talked to them about the court process, and he had asked them where they wanted to live.

[45] The mother told Mr. Rimmington that there was conflict between her and the father. She told Mr. Rimmington that she did not have concerns about the father’s parenting, other than the fact he was talking to the children about court. This statement stands in contrast to the position she later took when this motion was argued.

[46] The father was of the view that the children had been coached to lie to the worker. He specifically asked DCAS for help. He wanted DCAS to remain involved, because the mother was not always allowing his parenting time.

[47] With the benefit of hindsight, there were warning signs at the time of this early referral to the DCAS. But the Society closed its file on February 2, 2023. Less than three months later, the children all but stopped seeing their father.

(2) The Father’s Complaint to the DCAS About N.S.’ Outstanding Warrant

[48] The second complaint to DCAS also originated once again from the father’s household, this time from the father. On February 13, 2023, the father called DCAS because he learned that N.S. had a warrant out for his arrest in New Brunswick. The father was concerned because at that point, N.S. still had not provided the details of his criminal history to the OCL. In effect, with DCAS having closed its file 11 days earlier, the investigation of N.S.’ criminal and mental health history, and the father’s concern about N.S.’ exposure to the children, was left to the OCL.

[49] The father’s concerns went unaddressed. Shortly after the father called DCAS about this, there was a different referral. Although it came from Dr. Chen, the mother and N.S. orchestrated it behind the scenes. This caused a new investigation to be initiated, and so the protection inquiries went in a different direction.

[50] The Court now observes that as of the date of argument of this motion on November 1, 2023, more than eight months later, questions about this criminal history (and N.S.’ mental health) remain. The Court also observes that the father was correct; there is an outstanding warrant for N.S.’ arrest.

(3) Dr. Chen’s Referral to the Society on March 8, 2023

[51] The next referral came from Dr. Chen on March 8, 2023. Mr. Rimmington’s letter states that Dr. Chen reported that he spoke to A. on October 18, 2022, February 7, 2023 and March 7, 2023, during which A. reported a “number of things”. The letter does not set out what A. reported on what day. In any event, Dr. Chen reported to DCAS that A. had “significant panic attacks and was stressed out when she was around [the father]”. Dr. Chen reported that A. had said she had a panic attack because she was at a baby shower, and there were too many people there. The baby shower happened on March 7, 2023, at the father’s house.

[52] Dr. Chen reported to DCAS that he was concerned there might be some “mental abuse toward [A.] by her father”. As it happened, this referral from Dr. Chen on March 8, 2023 was made after the appointment to which N.S. brought A. at which medication was prescribed. A. later told her father, that N.S. and Dr. Chen had a private conversation that day.

[53] Some of what A. was then saying to Dr. Chen appears to pertain to moving to New Brunswick. A. also apparently also asked for the aforementioned referral to a psychiatrist, but Dr. Chen would not make it without parental consent. Dr. Chen nevertheless prescribed the medication, but on what legal authority, this Court does not know.[^3]

[54] As a result of Dr. Chen’s referral to DCAS, Mr. Rimmington interviewed the children at school. During his interview, A. did indicate that the father talked a lot about what was going on in court. But at this point, A. was still saying that she would like to enjoy the time she spends in both homes. Still, the father’s constant questioning of her made her uncomfortable.

[55] P and G. also told Mr. Rimmington that the father spoke about Court a lot. Nevertheless, they reported feeling safe at both parents’ homes, although more comfortable with their mother.

[56] On March 21, 2023, child protection worker Shireen Bhaba had a visit in the father’s home, with his partner and will all three children present. On this occasion, Ms. Bhaba noted that all family members were friendly and easily engaged. She described the interactions as appropriate. To her, the children did not demonstrate any behaviour indicative of fearfulness or hesitation towards the father or his partner.

[57] In the end, the Society closed its file, again, for a second time on March 22, 2023. Mr. Rimmington’s letter states that he addressed the concern about the father speaking to the children about “adult issues” and both parents said they “understood the importance of not exposing the children to adult conflict”. While Mr. Rimmington said that in the letter, clearly the parents’ alleged understanding was not then implemented in practice. Mr. Rimmington also referred to the fact that A. was being followed by Dr. Chen as a “strength and mitigating factor” without addressing the father’s concern, which the Court shares, about the circumstances surrounding the March 8, 2023 medical appointment, N.S.’ participation in it, and the medical decisions made that day, ostensibly at the instruction of N.S. Mr. Rimmington did not address the father’s concern about N.S.’ criminal history, either.

(4) The Mother’s Allegation that Began with a Complaint that the Father Physically Abused A., Which Morphed Into Sexual Abuse Allegations, and Which Effectively Ended the Father’s Contact with the Children Altogether

[58] The father says that on May 3, 2023, the mother started to deny his parenting time with the children. He says she stopped responding to his emails and text messages about them. The father says he later learned that on May 4, 2023, the mother reported to KHCAS, that the father caused a bruise on A.’s thigh, by jabbing her in the leg during K.’s piano recital.[^4]

[59] Initially, KHCAS asked DCAS for assistance with its investigation. Mr. Rimmington became involved once again. According to Mr. Rimmington’s letter, A. had told Dr. Chen, that a bruise had been caused by her father at a piano recital on April 29, 2023. She had said the father jabbed her on the leg using his fingers, to get her to stop moving around. She also told Dr. Chen that the father caused a bruise on April 30, 2023, when he jabbed his finger into her chest, to get her to stop playing with their dog in a certain way. By contrast, the father states that the mother neglected to inform DCAS that A. had been involved in a wrestling tournament on April 26, 2023 and that had caused a bruise, whereas she did inform KHCAS that A. initially said she hurt herself at school. In any event, Dr. Chen provided Mr. Rimmington a medical note dated May 5, 2023, in which he observed that the two bruises in questioned seemed to be “old and trivial”.

[60] But that was neither the extent of this investigation, nor the end of Dr. Chen’s involvement during this time frame. Rather, there was quite a bit of contact between the children and Dr. Chen during this time frame, all under the mother’s watch. Mr. Rimmington’s letter states that on or around May 5, 2023, Dr. Chen asked A. to write a document with her statements or allegations. In the letter of child welfare worker Andrew Foeller and his supervisor Sarah Pyke, dated September 21, 2023 (the “KHCAS letter”), there is a summary of the child’s written complaints to Dr. Chen. It includes that the father speaks negatively about her mother, threatens the family dog, and does not appropriately address physical fights between her and her step-sister.

[61] Mr. Rimmington then tried to interview the children on May 8, 2023, but the interview did not happen. The mother and N.S. wanted to have the police in attendance before any interviews were conducted. Mr. Rimmington indicated that he was not conducting a joint police and CAS investigation. The mother said that she wanted to take the child to see Dr. Chen.

[62] There was then more contact with Dr. Chen on May 8, 2023. Attached to Mr. Rimmington’s letter is a medical note. It outlines a number of other statements that A. had now made. The statements included reports of the father asking questions about the mother’s home, or making denigrating statements about the mother. She also reported some conflict between the father and his partner, including some physical altercations.

[63] On May 9, 2023, Lindsay OPP confirmed to KHCAS that it should proceed with interviews without the police, as the concerns levelled so far did not rise to the level of alleged criminal conduct. But Dr. Chen was then involved yet again, on May 10 and 11, 2023. Dr. Chen made further reports that N.S. attended his office and told staff that he asked the children if anyone ever put them in a corner without clothes on. Next, someone arranged for all three children to see or speak with Dr. Chen on on May 11, 2023. Now, P. and A. reported that the father touches their “private parts with their underwear on”, touches their “butts” and “watches them shower and change”. They reported that this had started in September of 2022, but did not happen to G. or K. A. said that her father punches her in the stomach and laughs, and that she never wants to go to his home. G. reported that she was sometimes made to hug her father and the hugs hurt. G. said that the father woke her up at night to talk about court, and coached her to say that she was afraid of N.S. to the OCL.

[64] The investigation plan changed. Now there would be a joint police and child welfare investigation, just as the mother and N.S. had originally sought in their meeting with Mr. Rimmington on May 8, 2023. It very much appears to this Court that the mother and N.S. were campaigning to have the father criminally charged, to gain some kind of advantage in this proceeding.

[65] The joint interview did in fact happen on May 18, 2023. Yet, during it, the children did not disclose physical or sexual abuse in either home, other than to say that their father came in while they showered or changed. All three children did report, once again, that the father talks too much about the mother and N.S. They said they did not want to go for visits with him because of this. All of the children also expressed a desire to return to New Brunswick.

[66] This joint investigation came to an end on May 25, 2023. Charges were not laid.

(5) The Father’s Visit With the Children During the Weekend of June 9 to 11, 2023

[67] Following this, the father was able to have one final visit with the children. According to an email from child protection worker Mr. Feoller to Mr. Rimmington on June 2, 2023, a cousin related to both parents went to speak to the children after this. This time, to the cousin, P. and G. said they wanted to see their father. A. said that she wanted to see her father, but then when the mother and N.S. joined the conversation, A. apparently changed her mind, and said that she would not speak with the OCL, release her medical records, or attend school until there was a “safety plan in place to prohibit [the father] from attending the school and taking the kids”.

[68] Mr. Rimmington then met with the children on June 7, 2023 in the mother’s home. According to Mr. Rimmington’s letter, the children repeated again that the father had discussed both the mother and the litigation with them. But all the children at this point were still able to identify positive aspects of their relationships with their parents and step parents. A. was unable to explain to Mr. Rimmington why her “anxiety got bad” at her father’s house. She also made a different and perhaps new allegation, that her father and his partner “drank a lot”.

[69] Following this interview, there was a visit between the father and the children over the weekend of June 9-11, 2023. The father says that he picked the children up on Friday, June 9, 2023. He says they swam in the backyard pool. On Saturday, the family had breakfast and went to a farmers’ market. The family had 25 family members over for a BBQ, and to celebrate A.’s and P.’s birthday. On Sunday, the father’s partner took the girls shopping, to spend gift cards they had received.

[70] The father says that he, his partner and K. were happy to be reunited, as they had not seen each other since the end of April of 2023. The evidence before the Court is that this was a good visit.

(6) The Second Sexual Abuse Allegation

[71] On June 12, 2023, the very next day after this visit, KHCAS was informed by Lakeridge Health Oshawa, the Durham Regional Police and the mother, that A. had been taken to the hospital. She was vomiting and having a panic attack.

[72] While there, A. apparently now alleged that her father had “pulled her pants down and digitally penetrated her on Friday night in her bedroom” and on Saturday night he “pinched her legs and buttocks causing bruising”. The mother reported that Ativan was found in A.’s bloodwork.

[73] Mr. Rimmington’s letter states that A. had disclosed that her father told her to take off her clothes while he watched her for 5 minutes, and then he touched her “private parts” for “5 mintues”. The mother also reported that there was a “lot of bruising all over A.’s body”.

[74] As a result, there would now be a second joint investigation by KHCAS and the Lindsay OPP, while the father stopped seeing the children. I am told the father “agreed” to suspend his parenting time during the investigation. It lasted for almost a month.

[75] The father says that he later received a phone call from KHCAS on June 23, 2023 advising that his parenting time was being suspended due to new allegations. He was not advised of the details. While this was not the focus of this motion before me, I have no confidence in this statement, that the father agreed to the suspension. The Court queries how a parent is able to give informed consent to suspend a visit, when they are not informed of the details underlying the suspension, or the length of time that the visits will be suspended. It is quite likely that a protection application ought to have been initiated at this point, when the police and the society decided to suspend the father’s parenting time set out in a court order.

[76] There were further interviews on June 28 and July 5, 2023. The father’s partner’s child K. spoke to the KHCAS worker on June 28, did not report any concerns, and did not understand why her step-sisters were making these allegations. The OPP also interviewed the children, the mother and N.S. The KHCAS letter says that the interviews did not appear to be credible to either the OPP officers nor the KHCAS worker.

(7) The Father’s Attempt to Resume His Parenting Time in Early August, 2023

[77] Even if the father had in fact consented to the suspension during this almost one month long investigation, the father’s visits ought to have resumed immediately when the investigation was over. But according to the case note of KHCAS worker Mr. Foeller dated August 8, 2023,[^5] on Friday August 4, 2023, the police went to the mother’s home. Someone (name redacted) had told the police that there was an order allowing the father to have parenting time. The mother then lied to the police, and said there was an order in place “barring” his parenting time.

[78] The police refused to take any steps to enforce the existing Order of June 1, 2022, because there is no police enforcement clause in it. The mother was also specifically told by Ms. Foeller, that KHCAS was not going to bring an application to suspend the father’s parenting time, as it would be unsuccessful, but the mother (and N.S.) did not cooperate. Matters then escalated, yet again.

(8) N.S.’ Bizarre and Alarming Allegations of August 4, 2023 that Led to Another OPP Interview

[79] On August 4, 2023, N.S. now called DCAS to report that the children were “being drugged and taken to secret rooms”. He reported that the father was “fornicating with a dog in the home in front of the children”. He also reported that the father’s partner brought other children home from work and assaulted them at the home, under the pool, and that “she participates in sexually abusing the children”.

[80] According to Mr. Rimmington’s letter, during this particular call to DCAS, N.S. accused the KHCAS worker and the investigating police officer of “turning a blind eye”, that “everyone was friends with the officer and C.A.S. worker and that people were prepared to cover up what is happening”. He also accused the father of having participated in the sexual abuse of children under the pool, and in the pool house. He said these children before the Court in this case had been “sexually molested” at the hands of the father and his partner, “for 4 to 5 years”. He said that he would “protect the children until his death”.

[81] According to the case note at page 413 of the joint disclosure brief to which counsel for the OCL referred the Court, the mother now told Mr. Foeller that while these allegations were “horrific” and sounded like the couldn’t be true, she still did not know “what to do”. It seems it still didn’t occur to her that N.S.’ behaviour was a real problem.

[82] There was another police interview of the children on August 27, 2023. following these disclosures. As with the previous investigation that had just ended, another almost one month period passed between the date of N.S.’ August 4, 2023 complaint and the time this third interview happened, during which the father did not see the children.

[83] The KHCAS letter states that one of the children made no disclosures to the OPP related to physical or sexual harm, while the other two children provided “vastly different accounts about completely unrelated concerns”. One of the children admitted that she was unsure if any of these events even happened, or if she had dreamt them. According to the case note of Mr. Foeller dated September 15, 2023, at pages 406 and 407 of the joint document brief (to which the OCL also referred me), the child who made this statement about the dream, was A.

[84] KHCAS worker Mr. Foeller has referred to N.S.’ allegations as “fantastical”. The police officer interviewing the children even raised a concern that the children must be suffering from a mental health issue, based on what had been said.

(9) N.S.’ Statements to the OCL on September 15, 2023

[85] The father’s parenting time did not resume after this. The concerning statements from N.S. did not stop. On September 15, 2023, Ms. Ready sent an email to KHCAS and to DCAS, with a memo from her assistant. She did so because at a recent meeting she had with N.S., he advised her that he was prepared to protect the children “at all costs, until he died, or the police stopped him”. He alleged that the one of the police officers who had conducted the most recent interviews of the children “had slammed his hand down on the table and accused A. of lying”. He accused the father of “drugging” the children. He said that the father had sent people to “execute him” and to “rough up” the mother, but they were “warned by someone (no name provided) and were saved”.

[86] A few minutes after the meeting was over, N.S. sent an email to Ms. Ready asking for another meeting, saying “there are some serious events about to take place”, and that he had “given his word to the children and to [the mother] that he will protect them at any cost”.

[87] Mr. Rimmington went to speak to N.S. and the mother as a result of the email from the OCL. N.S and the mother apparently tried to place N.S.’ statements into some kind of context, and to depict them as less alarming than they appeared on their face.

G. The Court’s Order of September 25, 2023 to Permit the Father to See G. At Sickkids on September 26, 2023

[88] As set out earlier, at the appearance on September 25, 2023, the father (and the Court) were advised that G. had been admitted to Sickkids’ Pediatric Intestive Care Unit the day before, as she was having significant breathing problems. She was so sick, that she had to be airlifted from a hospital in Oshawa to Sickkids, due to a concern that she was developing pneumonia in one of her lungs.

[89] The father wanted to visit G. in the hospital. He did not want the mother and N.S. present, to ensure there would not be any conflict. The mother objected. I made an order permitting a 30 minute visit on September 26, 2023, under the Society’s supervision. Mr. Rimmington then sent a different worker, Ms. Greenop, in his place to supervise the visit that DCAS agreed to be present for.

[90] When the father arrived at Sickkids on September 26, 2023, the mother was still in the hospital room, despite the Court Order. When the mother left, the father was told by hospital staff that he was not allowed to go into the hospital room. G. did not want to see him.

[91] The father later learned from the DCAS disclosure, that a hospital social worker named Sara Rumble and a nurse named Stefania (last name unknown[^6]) had been given false information about the father having allegedly abused the children. What Ms. Rumble and nurse Stefania did is documented in the DCAS case note of September 27, 2023. The Court is very displeased with the goings on at the hospital on September 26, 2023. It appears to the Court that their actions lacked objectivity and professionalism. Both inserted themselves into this conflict. Nurse Stefania went so far as to complain to the DCAS, that the court ordered visit (ie. an order that a parent having an order for joint decision-making responsibility of a 10 year old child, who was apparently quite ill at Sickkids, could attend at the hospital to see his child), was “unethical”. She apparently announced that she was “angry with CAS and the legal system”.

[92] In the face of an Order of this Court, Ms. Rumble announced that the visit would not take place until “they figure out what their position is” and then they left to speak with their manager. The DCAS worker in attendance, Ms. Greenop, tried to talk to G. privately. G. reportedly began to cry and said that she did not want to see her father, because she was “scared” that “she has told people what [the father] did to her”.

[93] Upon their return, the hospital staff continued to take the position that the visit should not take place. Ms. Greenop and Mr. Rimmington then consulted one another, and they too decided that the visit would not take place, also in spite of this Court’s Order.[^7] Ms. Rumble even offered Ms. Greenop the use of her office, to tell the father that his visit would not take place, while proactively offering to call security in. While the father was upset and called his lawyer, he also left the hospital without incident and thanked Ms. Greenop for her assistance. There was absolutely no need for security, yet Ms. Rumble and Nurse Stefania were quite prepared to escalate the situation.

[94] While I am very displeased and frankly disappointed at the conduct of the professionals at the hospital, I find the mother is ultimately responsible for the chaos of September 26, 2023. It is the father’s belief that the mother spent time at the hospital spreading false information about him, in anticipation of his visit, to sabotage it. The mother denies that she did this. She claims that she told the child that the father was coming to see her, and the child did not want to see the father. The mother claims that she did not “in any way influence G., the nurse or the social worker”. She claims that the nurse and the social worker were on their own accord concerned about G.’s well-being and anxiety, over “the father’s rights”. In the context of the evidentiary record before the Court as a whole, I prefer the father’s theory over the mother’s denial. This is the most logical explanation.

H. The Children’s School Absences

[95] The father says that the children have missed large amounts of school. Notably this formed part of his partner’s complaint to DCAS in early 2023, that went unaddressed.

[96] The father says that the children went to school for only 5 days in May of 2023, and 9 days in June of 2023. According to Ms. Guthrie-Douse’s affidavit of October 26, 2023, A.’s 2023 end of year report card indicates that she was absent 35 days, and late 26 times. P. was absent 34 times, and late 29 times. G. was absent 34.5 days and late 27 times. The father says that the mother did not respond, either to his or to Ms. Ready’s repeated requests for information about the whereabouts of the children, when absent from school.

[97] As I explain later, one of the goals that DCAS is now identifying some 10 months after the father’s partner’s initial complaint, is the need for the children to attend school.

[98] The father believes that the mother and N.S. went to New Brunswick with the children, without telling anyone, but he says he cannot produce evidence of this at this time, as the mother will not communicate with him. Consequently, this is not a finding that I can make on this record before me.

[99] However, this may very well come out in due course. For example a production order of the mother’s bank or credit card statements could be sought that might reveal her spending on travel. If the mother did in fact go to New Brunswick with the children, then that would have been in violation of my Order of June 1, 2022.

PART III: ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

A. Material Change in Circumstances

[100] This Court has already made a temporary parenting Order. There is a line of authorities that discourages multiple temporary variations of temporary orders in a case prior to trial. However that is not to say that the Court is without authority to act in appropriate, compelling circumstances: see for example the recent decision of this Court in G.R.G. v. S.G., 2023 ONSC 6162, leave to appeal to the Division Court dismissed in G.R.G. v. S.G., 2023 ONSC 6463.

[101] Pursuant to section 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, a court shall not make an order varying a parenting order or a contact order unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child who is the subject of the order. Section 29 applies to temporary variations of temporary orders, as it does to the variation of a final order.

[102] Various, well-established principles govern a material change analysis: see for example Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; L.M.P. v. L.S., 2001 SCC 64; Roloson v. Clyde, 2017 ONSC 3642. I do not need to repeat the principles in full, but I will apply them in this decision.

[103] It is obvious that there have very clearly been material changes in circumstances since this Court’s temporary Order of June 1, 2022. For example:

(1) The mother has returned to Ontario with N.S., who has engaged in very problematic behaviour;

(2) The parental conflict has exploded, with N.S. having inserted himself into this family;

(3) Numerous, unverified allegations of the father committing physical and sexual harm towards these children have been made;

(4) The father’s relationship with the girls has been harmed in the process;

(5) The children have been exposed to emotional harm;

(6) The Court’s parenting Order is not being followed;

(7) The father has been overly conversant with the children about the litigation and the mother’s household, in a problematic way, but this needs to be placed into its proper context. The mother has talked to the children about moving to New Brunswick.

B. The Children’s Best Interests

[104] Having found material changes in circumstances, the Court then considers the issues before it afresh, without defaulting to the existing arrangement. The Court must consider all factors relevant to the children’s circumstances, in light of the new circumstances. Both parties bear the evidentiary burden of demonstrating where the best interests of the children lie in this analysis. The Court should limit itself to whatever variation is justified by the material changes.

[105] At this stage of the analysis, the Court is only to take into account the children’s best interests: see section 24(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act. It must consider all factors related to the child’s circumstances, but in so doing, it shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being: see sections 24(1)-(3).

[106] Section 24(3) of the Children’s Law Reform Act sets out eleven non-exhaustive factors related to a child’s circumstances that the Court may consider, if applicable. No one legislative factor has greater weight than the other, although there may be more evidence about one factor versus another: see Libbus v. Libbus, (2008), 2008 CanLII 53970 (ON SC), 62 R.F.L. (6th) 416 (Ont. S.C.J.) ¶88; see also Van de Perre v. Edwards ¶ 10.

[107] I do not need to refer to each of the factors in section 24(3) in this decision. I will focus my analysis on the evidence that was adduced and the applicable factors that are engaged.

(1) The Status Quo

[108] In regards to section 24(3)(d) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the status quo rests with the mother, in the sense that she has been the children’s primary caregiver since the separation, and since my Order of June 1, 2022. However, the status quo also now provides for joint decision-making by this Court’s order of June 1, 2022, and parenting time between the father and the children. His parenting time has been substantially obstructed since the end of April, 2023, and before that, he was improperly shut out of important medical decisions respecting A.

(2) The Children’s Views and Preferences

[109] A great deal of the evidence on this motion relates to the children’s views and preferences. Unless they cannot be ascertained, views and preferences are an important consideration in a best interests analysis, but they at the same time, they are to be given due weight to the child’s age and maturity: see sections 24(3) and 64(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act. The evidence about the children’s views and preferences in this case is also relevant to the factor in section 24(2)(b), being the nature and strength of the children’s relationships with their father at this time.

[110] Ms. Ready and Ms. Guthrie-Douse had six interviews with the children. On the one hand, like in the documentation from the child welfare agencies, Ms. Guthrie-Douse identified that the children had consistently expressed concerns regarding their father sharing adult information with them. But on the other hand, they have been inconsistent in their statements about the amount of time they want to spend with their father.

[111] The children’s views about their relationship with their father has deteriorated over time. The Court recognizes that the children’s relationships with their father are fractured. Still, the Court is unable to find that the children’s views and preferences are consistent, independent, or reliable, when it comes to their stated refusals to see their father, or to participate in counselling with him. Consequently, the Court will not be making an Order that gives effect to their stated views and preferences.

• A.’s Stated Views and Preferences

[112] During the interviews of September 26, 2022, October 18, 2022, November 24, 2022, and April 19, 2023, A. told Ms. Guthrie-Douse that she wanted to move to New Brunswick. She said she would see her father for a month in the summer, a week at Christmas and March Break, and she would otherwise have facetime visits on Wednesdays. A. told her lawyer that she wanted to keep the rest of those earlier interviews private, and so Ms. Guthrie-Douse has not provided other details in her affidavit. Notably though, the child was then willing to have parenting time with her father, but in a relocation scenario, with the child living in New Brunswick.

[113] By the time of Ms. Guthrie-Douse’s interviews of June 8, 2023 and October 16, 2023, A. had completely changed her views about seeing her father. She had also retracted her earlier objection to the details of her conversations being shared, but now in regards to these more recent interviews. A. talked with Ms. Guthrie-Douse about the factual dispute between the parties. For example, she apparently shared a video with Ms. Guthrie-Douse of her father being “mean” to her. She made allegations about matters said to have occurred in 2021, before the family event went to New Brunswick for the first time. She also claimed that the father had consented to the children going to New Brunswick, intimating that he then took a contrary position in Court.

[114] In October of 2023, A. expressed anger to her lawyer and to Ms. Guthrie-Douse that N.S. was no longer allowed to live at their home.

• P’s Stated Views and Preferences

[115] On September 26, 2022, after the return from New Brunswick, but before any of the allegations started to be levelled, P. reported that she got along well with her father, his partner, and K. Athough there had just been a week about schedule during the summer as a result of my Order of June 1, 2022, P. told Ms. Guthrie-Douse that her preference was to see the father only on weekends, something that had recently resumed, also under the June 1, 2022 Order.

[116] On October 18, 2022, P. reported to Ms. Guthrie-Douse that “things were good at her dad’s house” with her father and his partner. She reported that she liked Ontario and in New Brunswick “the same”.

[117] By November 24, 2022, P. reported that her mother had been speaking to her about moving to New Brunswick. P said felt both good and sad about moving there.

[118] P. then asked Ms. Guthrie-Douse and Ms. Ready to keep their entire interview of April 19, 2023 private. P. declined to speak with the OCL on June 9, 2023.

[119] On October 16, 2023, when asked about how she felt about seeing her father, she shrugged and said “I do not know”. When asked if she wanted to see her father again, she shook her head no.

[120] P. said if she “really, really, really has to, then I guess I have to.” She said she did not wish to receive any texts, cards or phone calls from her father. When asked if there was anything her father could do to make things better, she said “maybe not yelling at us”. P. also said she would not want to meet with a therapist, and she would prefer not to have supervised parenting time.

• G.’s Stated Views and Preferences

[121] Like A., during her interviews of September 26, 2022, October 18, 2022, November 24, 2022 and April 19, 2023, G. stated that she wanted her interviews kept private, other than to share that she wanted to move to New Brunswick. Unlike A., G.’s view of what a relocation would look like was less precise and unrealistic. For example, she said that she wanted to see her father once per month, and only one week in the summer. Somehow December 25 would be shared equally with the parents, with the child flying back and forth between Ontario and New Brusnwick on Christmas Day. She also said she would see her father for 5 days.

[122] G. said she did not want to see her father on March Break, because the plane would be too full, but if the plane was not too full, then she would see him for two days. She was also prepared to have zoom and facetime calls with her father at other times, apparently.

[123] Also like with A., G. stopped asserting any kind of privacy protections over her discussions with her lawyer and Ms. Guthrie-Douse after June 8, 2023. Now, she talked about the parental conflict. She said she did not want to see her father when she was in the hospital. She said she was worried that he would yell at her for not telling the OCL what he wants to hear. It was not explained what made her think this. She also said that she did not want the father to have access to her medical records.

(3) The Observation Evidence

[124] It is notable to the Court, that the children were having fairly positive visits with their father before the allegations began. For example, during an observation visit on November 14, 2022 at the father’s home, Ms. Guthrie-Douse observed the girls to be “relaxed and comfortable in the presence of their dad, his partner, and K.” Ms. Guthrie-Douse had no concerns about the emotional or physical environment of the home during this observation visit.

[125] I have already described the observation evidence of Ms. Bhaba, from her home visit on March 21, 2023, above.

[126] On the father’s account, the children even had a positive visit as recently as the weekend of June 9 to 11, 2023, although there was much chaos that then ensued, after it ended.

(4) Findings Respecting the Children’s Views and Preferences

[127] Ms. Guthrie-Douse’s conclusions about the children’s views and preferences are by no means unequivocal. She says “it is difficult to ascertain given the children’s constant exposure to conflict between their adult caregivers, the involvement of police and child protection agencies, and medical professionals. We are concerned that they have been influenced by their knowledge of the degree of ongoing conflict and complex adult issues.”

[128] I find that both parents have involved the children in inappropriate discussions. While the father has done so more than the mother, it is not just the father who has done this. For example, P. told Ms. Guthrie-Douse that her mother talked to her about moving to New Brunswick. While this current motion before the Court is not about an interim relocation to New Brunswick, it is also very notable to the Court, that these children lived in New Brunswick (without the mother having had the legal authority to move them there) for no more than 6 months, out of their entire lives. Yet all three now say they want to move there, and A. has a very specific parenting plan in mind. I have already made, and make further findings below, about N.S.’ very inappropriate behaviour and influence.

[129] Therefore, this Court is not placing any weight on the children’s current refusals to see their father or to participate in counselling. Their statements have changed over time. Their current statements conflict with their earlier statements and the earlier observation evidence. It is also very hard for the Court to place weight on the later statements of refusal, when it is given the complete details of those conversations, but only being given snipets of some of the earlier interviews with the OCL.

(5) The Concerning Evidence About N.S.

[130] The father has raised a number of valid concerns about N.S. having any contact with the children. His concerns arise in part, out of the number of unknown questions about N.S.’ criminal history, and his apparent, but not disclosed and therefore fully investigated, mental health diagnoses.

[131] The evidence pertaining to N.S. is very concerning to the Court. I find it to be relevant not only to my decision not to attach weight to the children’s views and preferences, but also to the factors in sections 24(3)(a), (b), (c), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

[132] The fact that the mother has involved this person into the lives of the children reflects a serious lack of insight and irresponsibility on her part. Even if I were to give the mother some benefit of the doubt regarding the wisdom of this relationship during earlier time periods, I find her failure to recognize a problem to be particularly striking as the allegations continued to be levelled. By August 4, 2023 the allegations were so bizarre and alarming, that even the mother questioned their veracity, but also she said she did not know what to do. She then proceeded to participate in a meeting with N.S. and Mr. Rimmington and tried to contextualize the statements. Although the mother eventually agreed to keep N.S. away from the children, I find both that she is breaching that agreement, and a Court Order, to this effect. Not only is her good judgment called into serious doubt, but so is her credibility.

• N.S.’s Apparent Criminal History

[133] Although he had been living with the mother and the children for quite some time already when the OCL became involved, N.S. did not cooperate and sign consents for the release of information about him in a timely fashion.[^8] Consequently, by the time of Ms. Guthrie-Douse’s affidavit of October 26, 2023, the OCL had not received back reports from the police or from any child welfare agency(ies) in New Brunswick, concerning N.S.

[134] However, the father nevertheless found out much information about N.S. from media reports on the internet. The father learned:

(1) In May of 2018, N.S. appeared in a criminal court in New Brunswick, apparently in relation to an impaired driving and obstruction of justice charge, after having submitted to a 5-day psychiatric assessment. A doctor there had urged him to undergo a longer assessment. The sentencing judge adjourned N.S.’ sentencing;

(2) On May 13, 2018, N.S. received a sentence of 57 days in jail, a $500 fine and 1 year of probation for drug possession. The sentencing judge made reference to N.S.’ mental health when delivering her reasons for the sentence;

(3) In October of 2018, N.S. was charged in relation to the alleged threatening and assault of another person. He was released on conditions to live in a certain area, he was placed under a curfew and he was ordered not to have contact with that particular complainant;

(4) On November 28, 2018, N.S. failed to appear in Court, in connection with the October 2018 charges;

(5) In April of 2019, N.S. applied to amend his undertaking, to permit him now to live in a certain area. The application to amend the undertaking was denied. In the process, N.S. apparently referred to his living environment as “very toxic”. A local news reporter asked N.S. to explain what he meant, and N.S. responded “Me no English”;

(6) On December 9, 2019, N.S. was convicted in relation to the October 2018 charges. The facts underlying the charge were that N.S. had chased the person with a “lit spray can”. It appears that N.S. had been detained for a time prior to trial, and he received another sentence of probation. The terms of the probation included that he participate in any treatment as directed by his probation officer. N.S. was also placed on a 10-year weapons’ prohibition;[^9] and

(7) On June 9, 2020, the Miramichi Police Force posted a media warrant list on Facebook, confirming that N.S. is subject to a warrant of arrest for being unlawfully in a dwelling.[^10]

• N.S. Apparent Mental Health Issues

[135] The father’s discoveries on the internet raise concerns not just about N.S.’ criminality, but also about his mental health. The father’s internet evidence is not the full extent of the concerning information about N.S.’ mental health. The father has also filed a number of worrisome text messages that N.S. has sent him in August of 2022 and in March and April of 2023. These texts themselves raise questions about N.S.’ mental health. They are also insulting and threatening.

[136] Ms. Guthrie-Douse’s affidavit of October 26, 2023 raises serious concerns about N.S. mental health, too (as does the collateral information from DCAS and KHCAS, already discussed). For example, during Ms. Ready’s and Ms. Guthrie-Douse’s interview with him on January 31, 2023, N.S. launched into a discussion with various “comments regarding the situation”. N.S. made statements about “someone else” being a “narcissist”. He also said that he is a “bonus” in the children’s lives. Ms. Guthrie-Douse deposed that N.S. had to be redirected several times. It seems that soon after this interview began, N.S. was no longer comfortable participating in it, and so the interview ended.

[137] During their meeting with N.S. on May 16, 2023, N.S. explained that he was abused as a child. He disclosed to the OCL a diagnosis of ADHD. He said that he took Ritalin, and he said he now uses marijuana from time to time. N.S. also explained that he underwent a court ordered assessment about his fitness to stand trial, in a psychiatric hospital in New Brunswick. This statement is consistent with one of the father’s discoveries from the internet. Yet that assessment has not been disclosed.

[138] N.S. also made bizarre statements to the OCL on May 16, 2023. He said that “what is going on in the back doors of these grotesque…” but he did not finish his sentence. He accused the father of “sadistically [torturing]” the girls, of waking them up hourly to get information, and of spiraling and acting out in desperation. N.S. claimed that the girls told him that they had been “paraded” or “put up against a wall naked”. He even admitted to Ms. Guthrie-Douse and Ms. Ready that he had dressed up as a woman and followed the father and the girls around Costco, because the father had been “yelling at the girls”. N.S. also said the “system is fucked”.

[139] As explained earlier when describing the involvement of DCAS and KHCAS, N.S. next sent Ms. Ready the email on September 15, 2023. It was so alarming (and threatening) that it caused Ms. Ready to act on her duty to report in section 125 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

I. N.S.’ Departure from the Mother’s Home and the Children’s Lives, Ostensibly as of October 3, 2023

[140] On or around September 29, 2023, the mother advised Mr. Rimmington of her plan to have N.S. move out of her home and for him not have contact with the children. This was anticipated to occur by October 3, 2023, when G. was expected to come home from the hospital. Quite frankly, DCAS and KHCAS ought to have insisted upon this, or taken more intrusive steps, much earlier. It seriously misjudged the situation.

[141] After this, the father had his lawyer contact the mother’s lawyer in an attempt to negotiate a consent order to this effect. The mother did not respond, only for the issue to resolve a little under one-month later at the outset of submissions. At the outset of submissions on November 1, 2023, I made a consent Order prohibiting the mother from allowing the children to have contact with N.S.

[142] But the father did not believe the mother. He was of the view that the mother was just pretending to exclude N.S.

[143] The father has driven through her neighbourhood a few times to verify whether N.S. has in fact left. Although this in turn has led to the mother’s allegation that the father is surveilling her, and consequently to her request for a restraining order, the father was right.

[144] The father drove by the mother’s home on October 5, 2023. He saw N.S. in the backyard. An unidentified person apparently told the father that N.S. was in the home on October 15. While the Court cannot rely on the latter, given the source of the information is not identified in his affidavit, it can rely on the former. I accept the father’s evidence about October 5, 2023.

[145] That observation occurred before the agreement was incorporated into an Order of this Court. Still, the mother breached her agreement with DCAS. And the mother has since breached this Court’s Order of November 1, 2023, too.

[146] On November 28, 2023, while this decision was under reserve, the father filed a 14B Motion dated November 27, 2023 asking for leave to file a short affidavit containing updating evidence on this subject. The father’s short affidavit sworn November 28, 2023 was attached to the 14B Motion. The Court accepts the father’s affidavit for filing.

[147] In it, the father says that he and his partner were invited to attend a niece’s birthday party on November 25, 2023. They drove by the mother’s home en route to the party. They saw N.S. with the child, A. and with another child in front of the mother’s home. They took photographs of this, which are attached to the father’s affidavit.

[148] The mother then sent the father a text message of the same day accusing the father of driving by and photographing A., P., “and a friend of theirs”. She told him that she was going to report this to the police. The mother’s text message notably omits reference to the fact that N.S. was with the child, something that is clearly depicted in the father’s photographs. The father telephoned the police and the DCAS himself, to report the breach, too.

J. Findings Respecting N.S.’ Involvement in the Children’s Lives

[149] The mother has not, in her responding affidavit of October 24, 2023 addressed the very concerning evidence about N.S.’ criminal and mental health history. The mother could have obtained an affidavit from N.S. to address it. As a member of her household having contact with the children, she could have also insisted that N.S. sign consents for the release of information to the OCL, in a more timely fashion. The DCAS and KHCAS did not properly investigate this either, despite the father’s concerns raised as early as February of 2023, and the apparent problems with N.S. revealed throughout the course of their investigations.

[150] In regards to the criminal and mental health history, there are really only two explanations. Either the mother is not aware of the details of N.S.’ criminal and mental health history, or she is aware but has withheld the information. In either scenario, this is a problem.

[151] Based on the record before me, the mother’s failure to respond to the father’s evidence, the mother’s failure to affirmatively put evidence about N.S. criminal history and mental health before the Court, and the mother’s and N.S.’ failure to disclose to the OCL, the Court draws the inference that N.S. has been involved in the criminal justice system as described by the father, above. The Court also has serious concerns about N.S.’s mental health and his exposure to these children. The Court finds that N.S. has directly contributed to the parental conflict and to the damage in the father’s relationships with the children.

[152] Of equal concern, A. is now upset, likely at her father, about the fact that N. has been made to leave the mother’s home. At ¶ 30 of her affidavit, Ms. Guthrie-Douse wrote “A. stated she feels made about N. not being at their home. She does not like that he is not there because he makes them feel safe and she loves him. She said N. takes care of her, P. and G.”

[153] The Court is concerned about the extent to which the children are now attached, and perhaps even allied, with this man, too. There is even more evidence that the mother has abdicated her parental responsibilities to him and that the children have become attached to him. For example, in addition to having taken A. to see Dr. Chen without legal authority, as set out in Ms. Guthrie-Douse’s affidavit of October 26, 2023, the school principal reported to Ms. Guthrie-Douse, that the caregiver with whom she has had the most contact with N.S. The principal said that he “showed over and over again how much he loves and cares about these girls through his actions and words, and the relationship is absolutely reciprocated”. The Court finds this incredible.

[154] I find that the mother lacks significant insight and has behaved irresponsibly by bringing N.S. into these children’s lives, by withholding information about him, and by allowing him to take on the role that he seems to have taken on. She behaved irresponsibly in allowing the children to develop a relationship with this man, to the exclusion of their father. She does not even seem to recognize the need for N.S. to move out of her home. At ¶ 13 of her affidavit sworn October 24, 2023, she states that it was “due to pressure” that he is “now, not be living with [her].”

K. The Court’s Other Findings and Conclusions

[155] The evidence about the children’s absences from school is concerning to the Court. The fact that the children have recently missed so much school is another example of irresponsibility on the part of the mother. In fact, it is a child protection concern. It is also another example of a complaint of the father’s, made months ago, that went unaddressed.

[156] Most recently, on October 20, 2023 (a Friday), Mr. Rimmington tried to have a home visit at the mother’s home. He was not let in. The excuse later told to the Court was that the family, including the children, were asleep. Ms. Pryce confirmed that Mr. Rimmington went to the house at 2 PM.

PART IV: THE MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER

[157] I find that the mother breached her agreement with the DCAS by having N.S. in her backyard on October 5, 2023. Based on the father’s photographs, I find that she breached this Court’s Order of November 1, 2023 by allowing N.S. to have contact with A., on November 25, 2023. Based on the mother’s own text message of the same date, I infer that she also allowed contact between N.S. and P. The mother’s failure to reference N.S. in her text message to the father, and therefore admit her breach, is an attempt to mislead.

[158] I am very concerned that no one has listened to this father. I certainly do not intend, to restrain the father by Order of this Court, for having driven by the mother’s neighbourhood and allegedly “surveilling” her, to get evidence that the mother was breaching an agreement and an order, put in place to address a child protection concern. Quite frankly, it was incumbent on DCAS to ensure that its own agreement with the mother was respected. It did not. The father had to after suspecting she was not complying. The mother’s request for a restraining order against the father in these circumstances borders on the absurd. Its purpose would be to insulate her from scrutiny, and to enable her to continue to breach.

[159] Meanwhile, the agreement with DCAS, and the Court’s conduct Order of November 1, 2023, have not worked. In addition to dismissing the mother’s motion for a restraining Order, I am prepared to give the father leave to bring a motion for a restraining order to restrain N.S. from having any contact with him, with the children, and with any other members of his family, like his partner or K., under section 35 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. If he wishes to do so, he may bring it on December 13, 2023, on notice to N.S.

PART V: THIS CASE HAS MANY FEATURES OF A CHILD PROTECTION CASE THAT HAS BEEN LEFT TO BE LITIGATED UNDER THE CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM ACT

[160] As stated at the outset of these reasons, what is apparent to this Court, is that this is yet another high conflict parenting case, in which significant protection issues have been raised, but that has been left to litigation under the Children’s Law Reform Act. At the risk of repeating myself:

(1) In late 2021, this mother lied to the father, and took off to New Brunswick with these children. She re-partnered with a person, about whom the Court now has significant concerns regarding his criminal history and his mental health, and that have not been fully investigated. She then brought this person back to Ontario and involved him into the children’s lives;

(2) Since then, both parents have been inappropriately discussing the parental conflict with the children, with the father being the greater offender;

(3) That said, the father has also been validly and repeatedly raising concerns about N.S. The OCL is still trying to get information about N.S.;

(4) A. has been taken to Dr. Chen by N.S., during which medical decisions were taken and allegations made;

(5) The children were absent from school for far too many days last year;

(6) The mother and N.S. refused to cooperate with Mr. Rimmington’s attempt to interview the children on May 8, 2023, by insisting the police be present. They then set into place a chain of events that converted that particular child welfare investigation, into a joint police and child welfare investigation;

(7) Serious allegations of sexual abuse were made, that could have resulted in criminal charges against this father. It very much appears to this Court, that that is what the mother and N.S. were trying to achieve. The allegations have not been verified, more than once;

(8) The children were then exposed to even more investigations by the police after the events in May. There have now been three such investigations in total;

(9) Certainly by August 4, 2023 (if not earlier), the father’s parenting time ought to have resumed, but N.S. then escalated the matter further causing the third joint police and society investigation. He hurled a series of even more bizarre allegations against the father and his partner. He also made statements of violence to the OCL;

(10) If she didn’t recognize the need to do so earlier, the mother had yet another opportunity to act responsibility when N.S. did this. She instead doubled down with him. She is now breaching an Order of this Court restricting N.S. contact with the children; and

(11) Since N.S.’ involvement in the lives of this family, the post-separation conflict has exploded. In contrast, according to the father’s affidavit material, there was little to no such conflict before the mother’s departure for New Brunswick. The father’s relationship with the children is now fractured at this point.

PART VI: THE DURHAM CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUPERVISE AND TO CONTINUE TO ASSIST THIS FAMILY

[161] The father could have, but did not seek an immediate return to the schedule set out in the June 1, 2022 Order. He also did not ask to change the children’s primary residence. Through his Notice of Motion dated October 17, 2023, the father has recognized that his relationships with the children have been fractured, whatever the cause.

[162] This case probably ought to have been brought before the Court as a child protection matter some time ago, at a minimum for a supervision order, and well before the case was allowed to get to this point that the father-daugther relationships got so damaged: see for example CFS for York Region v. JR and JE, 2022 ONSC 5979 ¶ 27-30, and 36. The Court recognizes that there has been a shift in the approach to child welfare that came with the enactment of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. But in this case (and others that have come before this Court in recent times), the pendulum has swung too far in favour of inaction.

[163] The child welfare agencies responsible for the protection of the children in this case have been operating in the background, without court oversight, until this Court called them in, in September of 2023. They have opened and closed files. They have conducted investigations. In so doing, they have not fully investigated the father’s concerns, while focusing on the allegations of a non-parent with apparent mental health troubles. Adequate supports have not been provided. For example, closing a file because parents tell a worker that they “understand” the need not to fight and argue and involve their children in the process (which happened in one instance in this case), is not helpful.

[164] One or both child welfare agencies and the police have also directed that the father’s visits were to be suspended at times. Most recently this occurred at the direction of two workers with DCAS, a hospital social worker and a nurse. Child welfare agencies, the police and hospital staff do not have the legal authority to do this, absent seeking relief from a court. That was not done.

[165] DCAS’ counsel’s recent statement in an email to the parties, that the agreement for N.S. to move out of the mother’s home is now a factor obviating the need for a protection application, is also unhelpful. Not only have I found that this agreement came too little too late to prevent the damage to the relationships, but it is not even being followed.

[166] The parents and DCAS are warned that if this case continues like this, more intrusive remedies may become unavoidable, and the Court may very well direct that a protection application be brought.

[167] The above being said, this matter is still constituted as a case under the Children’s Law Reform Act. That has put the Court in the position, of having to consider what order to make, with remedial options that are not entirely satisfactory. In my view, regardless of how this case is constituted, DCAS is obliged to help. DCAS has obligations under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 to provide preventative services, irrespective of its decision to commence a proceeding or not: see sections 1(2)(2.) and 35(1)(c) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. At a minimum, I find that DCAS must supervise the reunion of the father with these children, and provide therapeutic support to these parents to help them change their conduct and attitudes.

[168] The Court may order DCAS to supervise with its consent: see section 34(1) and (2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act. During submissions, Ms. Pryce indicated that the Society will consent to Mr. Rimmington supervising four visits with the father. When questioned by the Court about whether that would suffice, Ms. Pryce upped DCAS’ consent to supervise eight visits. Proposing a certain number of visits, and then doubling them in response to a question from the Court, is entirely arbitrary. Neither the Court, the parties, the OCL, nor DCAS are yet in a position to know whether four, eight, ten, twenty or fifty supervised visits are required.

[169] In A.F. v. J.W., 2011 ONSC 1868 (a.k.a. Fiorito v. Wiggins), Harper J. heard a twenty-two day high conflict parenting and contempt trial. By the end of the trial, Harper J. came to the conclusion that the children were in need of protection and that the local child welfare agency had failed to meet its statutory duties to investigate and to act: see ¶ 125-127.

[170] Harper J. found the children in need of protection under the predecessor Child and Family Services Act. But he did not use the predecessor child welfare legislation to deal with disposition. He instead made an order under section 34 of the Children Law Reform Act, which empowers a court to order supervised parenting time, provided the supervisor consents, to fashion a remedy.

[171] To address the concept of consent, Harper J. found that the Society had impliedly consented to act “…as a supervisor given its lengthy and historical involvement with this family and its present assignment of a worker”. See ¶ 190. He also noted that the Society instead periodically opened a file, to “monitor” the situation in implying consent.

[172] Harper J.’s decision was appealed. Aspects of the appeal decision were about the jurisdiction of a superior court to make findings under child welfare legislation in a case under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, in a part of the province where the courts are not unified, and the Ontario Court of Justice has jurisdiction over child welfare: see Fiorito v. Wiggins, 2015 ONCA 729. But a careful read of the case reveals that neither the findings of fact made, nor the remedy that Harper J. ordered under section 34 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, were overturned by the Court of Appeal.

[173] In S. v. N., 2013 ONSC 556, Howden J. also used section 34 to craft a similar remedy to that which Harper J. imposed. Differently though, Howden J. made his supervision order subject to the Durham Children’s Aid Society first giving its consent (see ¶ 137). Unlike in the case before Harper J., Howden J. did not make a finding that the Society impliedly consented to supervise. The breadth of what he asked the Society to do was similar though, but because of the absence of implied consent, his order was framed as a “strong suggestion”.

[174] In this case before me, DCAS has given its express consent to supervise pursuant to section 34(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act. To the extent that counsel for DCAS has attempted to attach limits to its consent, I find that the DCAS is not entitled to do that in the circumstances of this case. I find implied consent to supervise more broadly. As in the case before Harper J., in this case before me, child welfare files have been opened and closed, while these parents (and N.S.) have engaged in this litigation. DCAS is still very much involved, on an out of court basis. I make this order now, in aid of the immediate resumption of the father’s parenting time.

[175] I acknowledge DCAS’s argument, that it now has a limited number of people to provide supervision services, given internal decisions, perhaps related to funding, made within the agency. I acknowledge that the Court’s order will impose on Mr. Rimmington or Ms. Greenop, and DCAS’ resources. But that is how DCAS has decided to allocate its resources.

[176] While providing supervision by Mr. Rimmington or Ms. Greenop is a good start, more than mere supervision is required; there needs to be therapeutic support and other involvement. For example, both KHCAS’ and DCAS’ recent efforts to help re-start the parenting time have already failed, twice. Mr. Foeller tried on August 4, 2023. There was then the failed hospital visit on September 26, 2023. Notably, DCAS’ own position is that its involvement is required, and more than mere supervision is required. As recently as in the email of Lana Pryce dated October 12, 2023, DCAS outlined the following goals:

(1) to “monitor and support the family”;

(2) that the children attend school;

(3) that the father’s “parenting time to resume”;

(4) that the “children [are] to obtain counselling”;

(5) for the “parents to decrease post-separation conflict, stress”; and

(6) for the parents to take a parenting course.

[177] The Court notes that DCAS sometimes expends resources to retain outside services. The fact that DCAS says that it does not usually spend money for outside services in a case of this nature, as Ms. Pryce argued, is not compelling. The obligation to provide services under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, including in a case of this nature, necessarily includes the responsibility to financially contribute, where the service required to address the child’s needs within the parameters of the objectives of the legislation, entails a cost.

[178] In a different, child protection case that is currently pending before this Court, Ms. Pryce for DCAS sought an order (which the Court granted) to involve Odessa Anderson with Synergy Link, to supervise visits between a parent and a child, where more supportive services were required. In response to questions from this Court during submissions in this case, Ms. Pryce explained the following about Ms. Anderson’s services:

She would be able to go with the father and the children out in the community, to a movie, to shopping to a restaurant. They would come up with a plan together as to what the access would look like, taking input from the children and the father. If she’s directed to do so, then if there’s any interaction during the access that’s problematic, she would be able to pause the access at that point in time and help the parent and the child to resolve it, and then the access would proceed. Usually also we give her direction that if the access comes to a point where it’s not able to solve whatever issue there is at that point in time, then usually the parties agree that the access could be terminated at that point in time if it’s no longer productive to either the children or the parent.

[179] During submissions, counsel for the OCL agreed that this is what is required in this case. I intend to make orders to put this into place.

[180] Finally, DCAS (and KHCAS) may very well have chosen to get involved on an out of court basis, rather than under the ambit of a protection application, where there is court oversight. But now that this has been brought to the attention of the Court, there will be court oversight. Counsel for DCAS will be ordered to appear with a worker before this Court at all future court appearances, until this Court orders otherwise.

PART VII: COUNSELLING FOR THE CHILDREN

[181] The father says that he has been trying to get the children into counselling since 2020. He says he has benefits available through his work, and he has repeatedly requested copies of the children’s long form birth certificates, I gather to take steps to get counselling in place. He says that the mother has refused to provide him with government issued documentation.

[182] The father has sourced counselling with a registered psychotherapist named Evan Coghlan, whose services are covered by his and his partner’s benefits through their employment. The father says that Mr. Coghlan has availability to start immediately. He says Mr. Coghlan’s ongoing professional development remains focused on children and teens, play therapy, and cases involving trauma.

[183] The father and his partner have insurance coverage of up to $3,900.00 per year for all three children. The father says that the mother has alleged that Mr. Coghlan is connected to his partner, but she is not. The father and his partner have already had an intake with Mr. Coghlan.

[184] The mother agrees that there should be a therapeutic approach. Yet she says this in tandem with asking for an Order suspending the father’s parenting time. She proposes that Bev LeMay will meet with the parents, assess them, that the OCL will obtain the views of the children to ascertain specifically what their concerns are, and with the assistance of individual therapists, managed by the OCL clinical assist, the therapy will commence. She calls the father’s selection a “cookie cutter” therapist.

[185] In her email of September 29, 2023, Ms. Pryce for the DCAS first proposed that the father could access counselling for the children through his EAP program. But by October 12, 2023, Mr. Pryce now suggested that the mother canvass three different counsellors, namely Gary Brooks, Debbie Salsbury and Bev Lemay.

[186] In my view, the process proposed by the mother involves multiple professionals. It is too vague and ambiguous. It is not clear how it will be funded. In regards to her proposal that the OCL will obtain the views of the children “to ascertain specifically what their concerns are”, there have already been numerous interviews of these children, and the OCL has already ascertained their views. It is also not Ms. Guthrie-Douse’s role to get involved and manage the therapy in the manner that the mother has proposed. Moreover, the mother has already instructed her counsel to speak to Ms. LeMay. Apparently, Mr. Gleiberman has already had some degree of a discussion with her about the mother’s view of the case. The fact that this mother has asked the Court to Order a complicated and uncertain remedy like this, sheds more light on her lack of insight. It appears to be a thinly disguised request to continue to interrupt the father’s parenting time. It very clearly will lead to more delay in the resumption of the father’s parenting time.

[187] I intend to make an order empowering the father to arrange for counselling for the children. Any uninsured cost shall be shared equally between the parents. However, the operation of this aspect of the Court’s Order should be deferred until visits get underway, in the hopes that the children’s current statements of resistance to their relationship with their father, and to counselling will soften, and the chances of success of any therapy will increase.

PART VIII: THE FATHER’S REQUEST THAT THIS COURT FIND THE MOTHER HAS BREACHED COURT ORDERS

[188] The father asks the Court to find the mother has breached orders of this Court for various reasons, particularly so that if there is a further breach he will be able to take certain steps. I do not need to do so any further, or for that particular purpose. I have already made findings of fact about the mother’s breaches in the exercise of disposing of the motions before the Court.

[189] I do however intend to provide final commentary for these parents. I accept that the father has not behaved beyond reproach. Most recently, in a moment of impulsivity, he sent a message to N.S. on September 18, 2023, after learning about Ativan in A.’s system. He sent an angry text message to the mother on October 11, 2023, too.

[190] But the father is enrolling into counselling to work on healing from the trauma following what has happened. He says he sent the message to the mother against his better judgment. He says he was in pain from among other things, missing time with the children, not being told that G. had been air lifted from Oshawa to Sickkids, from being excluded from the hospital, and from the mother having allowed her mentally ill partner to insult and hurt him and his partner, and having exposed their vulnerable children to him. To this, the Court adds that the father had reached out to the child welfare agencies for help, at least twice.

[191] The Court understands the father’s upset and pain. He probably felt exasperated and perhaps even desperation, worried for the children. The Court finds that the father has showed some insight into his actions in his affidavit of October 17, 2023.

[192] The mother says that she is on a wait list for the John Howard Society co-parenting program. At this point, this is a statement without much concrete underneath it. As I have already found, the mother has not demonstrated very much insight into her behaviour. Another example of this was revealed during submissions on November 1, 2023. I asked Mr. Gleiberman whether the mother was asking the Court to find that any abuse had occurred, in light of the record before the Court. Mr. Gleiberman said no. While this exchange between the Court and counsel occurred, the mother sat at counsel table and shook her head in apparent disagreement with what her counsel said.

[193] The mother’s shaking of her head is consistent with her conduct after August 4, 2023, when she could have acted reasonably, but instead doubled down with N.S. It is consistent with the statements in her affidavit of October 24, 2023. For example, she accused the father of having made “kissing faces and a creepy smile” at A. on October 20, 2023. It is consistent with her breaches of the agreement with DCAS, and this Court’s Order of November 1, 2023.

[194] In the overall litigation, the mother wishes to move to New Brunswick. She may wish to discuss with her counsel the likelihood of success if there are more findings made that she is not supporting the children’s relationships with their father, if she does not take immediate meaningful steps to change her attitude, if she continues to breach orders, and if these children are not supported to let them rebuild their relationships with the father, that she and N.S. have participated in damaging. The mother should also ask herself: how exactly is an inter-provincial parenting plan supposed to realistically work, if the current circumstances before the Court do not change?

PART IX: ORDER

[195] If the Court’s Order of November 1, 2023 has not already been taken out, counsel are directed to do so immediately.

[196] I now make the following additional Orders:

(1) The Court accepts the father’s 14B Motion dated November 27, 2023 and his affidavit sworn November 28, 2023 for filing;

(2) The father shall have a 3-hour weekly visit with the children, supervised by a worker with the Durham Children’s Aid Society, on an evening each week selected by the Durham Children’s Aid Society. The mother is to bring the children to the Society’s office for the visits to occur. This shall continue pending further Order of this Court;

(3) The parties are to enter into a contract with Odessa Anderson at Synergy Link, or with another similar service provider if she is not available, for the father to have additional supported community visits, ideally on weekends each week. The Court requires additional information about her availability, the length of each visit that she can accommodate, and the cost of these visits. The Durham Children’s Aid Society shall assist in setting this up;

(4) The parties shall share the cost of the visits in (3) above equally, after taking into account the Durham Children’s Aid Society’s contribution. If the parties cannot agree with the Society about funding, then I am prepared to hear submissions about the Court’s jurisdiction to order the Durham Children’s Aid Society to contribute. If necessary, either party may seek to add the Durham Children’s Aid Society as a party to this proceeding, including to pursue a claim for costs against it;

(5) The parties are to appear before me on December 13, 2023 at 9:30 AM by zoom. Each parent may file a sworn affidavit containing only the information needed for the Court to make further orders set out in (3) and (4) above. Each may file any Notice of Motion, if necessary, and case law, that may be required in accordance with (3). Such material to be filed by December 11, 2023. The Durham Children’s Aid Society may also file an affidavit regarding these matters if it wishes by December 12, 2023;

(6) Depending on what happens with SynergyLink or some other comparable service, I will consider varying (1) above once the service is in place, provided that the father is able to see the children regularly and at a reasonably frequency each week. I will consider further submissions about this based on further circumstances at the time;

(7) The Court will also hear arguments about costs when this matter returns before the Court on December 13, 2023. The parties are to file a Bill of Costs and any Offers to Settle by December 11, 2023, and by the Durham Children’s Aid Society by December 12, 2023 if costs are pursued against it;

(8) On December 13, 2023, the Court will schedule a further return date to monitor compliance with the terms of this Order and to review the parenting schedule, with a view to the father’s parenting time in the June 1, 2022 Order resuming;

(9) The father shall have decision-making responsibility respecting the children’s counselling. He shall not enroll the children in counselling until the further return date provided for in (8) above, subject to further Order of this Court;

(10) If the father is of the view that he needs to take steps to enforce Orders of this Court, he can seek leave to do so by 14B Motion at the relevant time, including asking for a date on short notice, bearing in mind that the Court is also going to schedule a return date to monitor compliance and review the re-instatement of his parenting time;

(11) The father is granted leave to bring a motion for a restraining Order to prohibit N.S. from having contact with him, with the children, and with any other members of his family, like his partner or K. If he wishes to bring this motion, he may do so on notice to N.S. and it may be argued on December 13, 2023. If it is not pursued on December 13, 2023, then it may be scheduled through the trial coordinator’s office to proceed at some future date;

(12) Both parents are to enroll in and take the co-parenting course offered through the John Howard Society;

(13) Both parents are otherwise to cooperate with respect to any other programming or services recommended by the Durham Children’s Aid Society;

(14) The relief claimed in the mother’s Notice of Motion dated October 24, 2023 is dismissed in its entirety; and

(15) Counsel with the DCAS and a worker are to be in attendance at every future court date in this matter, until this Court orders otherwise.

Justice Alex Finlayson

Released: December 5, 2023

[^1]: As between the two agencies, it likely would have fallen on DCAS to do so as the children’s primary residence is with their mother in Oshawa: see section 91(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

[^2]: Incidentally, information sharing can become a real problem, when there is child protection involvement outside of the ambit of a protection application, but the parties are instead involved in Divorce Act or Children’s Law Reform Act proceedings. The Court often needs information from the relevant society involved, sometimes on a rush basis, when matters escalate and a parent brings their matter on before the Court quickly. This causes delay. It also consumes judicial resources, as it may necessitate multiple court attendances.

[^3]: If Dr. Chen drew some kind of distinction between requiring parental consent for a referral but not for medication, then the Court does not understand such a distinction either.

[^4]: According to the letter of child welfare worker Andrew Foeller and his supervisor Sarah Pyke, dated September 21, 2023 (the “KHCAS letter”), KHCAS became involved on May 5, 2023 when it received that report about the bruise and the poking It is Mr. Rimmington’s letter that states that it was the mother who made the report on May 4, 2023. The original source of the information that the child was jabbed or poked, is said to be A.

[^5]: Counsel for the OCL referred me to this case note in the joint brief. It is located at page 413 of the joint document brief.

[^6]: According to child protection worker Ms. Greenop’s case note, Nurse Stefania refused to provide her last name to Ms. Greenop.

[^7]: This Court reminds the Society that child welfare workers are not empowered to direct the suspension of Court orders without bringing the matter before the Court, although in this instance the Court will not criticize the society worker as it recognizes the challenges that Ms. Greenop faced that day.

[^8]: N.S. first agreed to sign some consents for the release of information about him at a meeting with the OCL on May 16, 2023, while also saying he wanted to speak to a lawyer before signing the consents. N.S. told Ms. Ready and Ms. Guthrie-Douse that he would return the signed consents by 5:00 PM that day. This did not then happen. He only returned signed consents four months later, just before the Court appearance on September 14, 2023.

[^9]: The father points out in his affidavit evidence before the Court, that N.S. has emailed him to advise that he has access to guns. If so, that may be a violation of the weapons prohibition.

[^10]: As stated already, the fact of this outstanding warrant has essentially been confirmed by the OCL. It ought to have been looked into by DCAS, when the father brought it to their attention in February, 2023. According to Ms. Guthrie-Douse’s affidavit sworn October 26, 2023, file disclosure from the Durham Regional Police Service indicates that N.S., the mother and the children were pulled over in a car in Brockville on October 2, 2021, while driving back to Ontario from New Brunswick. N.S. refused to identify himself, causing the police to undertake a particular search. The police discovered that the person in the car was “wanted in New Brunswick”. While the male’s name is not identified in the police report, N.S. is known to have been travelling with the mother.