Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-00026759-000 DATE: 20240408

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

RAMIN RAZVAN KARIMI Applicant – and – ASHLEY NICOLE KYRON Respondent

Counsel: Megan Romanowski and Dominique Pangilian, counsel for the Applicant, Ramin Razvan Karimi Andrea Battista, counsel for the Respondent, Ashley Nicole Kyron

Heard: February 13, 2023

Endorsement

Des Rosiers J.

Nature of the Motion

[1] The Applicant (“Father”) and Respondent (“Mother”) are the parents of a 2 ½ year old daughter, A. Currently, the Father has supervised parenting time three times a week, supervised by Brayden Supervision Services (“Brayden”). He has brought this motion seeking to lift the supervision and to expand his parenting time with A.

[2] The parties had a tumultuous relationship beginning around September 2019. They broke up before A.’s birth, in May 2021. A paternity test confirmed that the Applicant is the biological father of A. Since then, the Father has been actively seeking to be involved in his daughter’s life as a parent.

[3] Currently, and pursuant to various Orders of this Court detailed below, the Father has supervised parenting time through Brayden Supervision for 3 hours every Tuesday and every Thursday, and for 6 hours on alternate Saturdays and Sundays.

[4] The Mother opposes the lifting of supervision of the Father’s parenting time and/or for him to have expanded parenting time for the following reasons:

a. She submits that supervision of the Father’s parenting time remains necessary because he has not demonstrated that he can parent the child alone. b. She has safety concerns that have not been addressed. c. She submits that the issues identified by Justice Sharma in his endorsement of June 30, 2023, relating to the Father’s abusive and disrespectful communications toward her and the court process have persisted.

[5] The Mother also relies on the recommendations set out in the Ontario Children’s Lawyer’s s. 112 Report, dated January 4, 2024, which the Father has now disputed as outlined in a Notice of Dispute dated February 5, 2024. The OCL Report recommends, among other things, that the Father’s parenting time remain supervised until the parents agree otherwise.

Issues to be Decided

[6] The two issues for me to decide on this motion are as follows:

a. Should the supervision of the Father’s parenting time be lifted? b. Should the Father’s parenting time be expanded?

Brief Conclusion

[7] Despite the significant improvements and efforts displayed by the Father, I find that it remains in the best interests of A. that supervision of his parenting time continue for a few more months with increased parenting time pursuant to a step-up schedule, with the possibility of one of his parents acting as the supervisor to ensure that continued child-focused and respectful communications between the parties take place to alleviate the concerns of the Court. Supervised parenting time should be limited in time and it is important to provide a roadmap to when and how supervision can be lifted.

[8] For the reasons set out below, I have found that the Father’s parenting time with the child should remain supervised from now until June 24, 2024, albeit with the help of his parents if they are willing and available. I also find that the Father’s parenting time should be expanded pursuant to a step-up schedule. I have implemented a number of conditions with respect to communication protocols in my Order. If the parties disagree whether the conditions outlined in my Order have been followed, they may come back in front of me on June 28, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., via Zoom. If the conditions in my Order have been followed, there shall be a lifting of his supervised parenting time. Otherwise, supervision will continue.

Litigation History

[9] This case has been litigated for two years. They first attended court on March 14, 2022, while awaiting the results of a paternity test.

[10] The parties had their first case conference on April 5, 2022, at which Justice Steele granted parenting time for the Father for one hour on the porch of the Mother’s home supervised by Brayden Supervision Services. The Father was also ordered to attend an anger management course and pay child support.

[11] The first visit took place on April 21, 2022, when the Father first met his 7-month-old daughter.

[12] On April 27, 2022, Justice Steele, on consent and on a without prejudice basis, increased the Father’s parenting time, granting him care of baby A. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., and on Saturdays and Sundays from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the Mother’s porch.

[13] On May 27, 2022, Justice Pinto heard a motion brought by the Father to expand his parenting time. He ordered an increase in the Father’s parenting time. Commencing May 31, 2022, the Father had care of A. every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday for one hour, and every Saturday and Sunday for 3 hours unsupervised at his home with the Mother in attendance for the first 3 visits.

[14] On July 18, 2022, on consent, the Father’s parenting time was adjusted to a different time. Both parties agreed to submit drug tests to each other, and the Father was to resubmit a request for his criminal record.

[15] The Father’s parenting time was interrupted in August because the child, the Respondent, and the Father’s father tested positive for COVID.

[16] On October 20, 2022, Justice Faieta dismissed a motion brought by the Mother for supervision. He further ordered to the Mother to obey and comply with Justice Pinto’s Order and that if not, the Toronto Police were directed to locate and deliver the child to Father.

[17] On January 16, 2023, Justice Sharma, on consent, ruled that the Father’s parenting time be increased as follows:

a. For the period January to March, every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. and alternate Saturdays and Sundays from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.; b. For the period March 11 to April 8, every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. and alternate weekends from Saturday 4 p.m. to Sunday 11 a.m.; c. Beginning on April 8, 2023, every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., and alternate weekends from Saturday 11 a.m. to Sunday 11 a.m., with the proviso that the overnights were to occur at the grandparents’ home with the Father performing the caregiving tasks and following the baby’s schedule. After 3 visits, the parties were to arrange mediation.

[18] On May 26, 2023, Justice Czutrin at another conference, ordered that the parenting time exchanges were to occur only at the paternal grandparent’s home and that the Father was not to approach the Mother. Our Family Wizard (OFW) was ordered to be the only method of communication between the parties.

[19] On June 23, 2023, Justice Sharma made the following order:

[20] ON CONSENT a. 1. On a temporary without prejudice basis, both parties shall undertake bi-weekly drug testing at a location agreed upon by the parties. b. 2. The Court requests the Office of the Children's Lawyer to investigate and prepare a s. 112 Report on all matters concerning decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and contact with respect to A. Kyron, born September 7, 2021.

NOT ON CONSENT 3. On a temporary without prejudice basis, the Mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility with respect to A. 4. On a temporary without prejudice basis, the Father shall have supervised parenting time as follows: a. Every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and alternate weekends on Saturdays at 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. b. The parenting time shall be supervised by the Father’s parents at their home (28 Yarn) until Brayden Supervision is engaged to supervise the parenting time, and at which time, supervised parenting time shall occur at the Father’s home (110 Simpson) or at another public location. c. The parties shall complete all necessary paperwork to permit Brayden Supervision to begin parenting supervision as soon as possible. d. Transitions shall occur at 28 Yarn until Brayden Supervision can begin supervising parenting time, and once Brayden begin, transitions shall occur at 118 Simpson. 5. The Father shall attend the next available Caring Dads program, and he shall provide the Mother with proof of enrollment and proof of completion of the program. 6. There shall be no trial in this Application. Rather, if adjudication is required to obtain a Final Order, it shall be adjudicated by way of motion with Affidavit evidence and the presiding judge may direct a mini trial with viva voce evidence if the motions judge determines it necessary. 7. The parties shall attend a further case conference before me, if I am available, on November 10, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this case conference shall be: a. To review any s. 112 Report completed by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer with a view to reaching a final settlement. b. Review Brayden Supervision notes. c. Discuss any positive drug test results. d. Confirm that the Father has enrolled in or completed the Caring Dads program. e. Consider whether the Father’s parenting time should be supervised, and whether it should expand. f. If there is no final resolution, fix a schedule for the hearing of the motion to finally determine this case, and to consider whether questioning or cross-examination of affidavits should occur.

[21] In his endorsement, Justice Sharma explains his decision:

[22] “The [Mother] has identified in her Settlement Conference Brief, dated May 19, 2023, and her Supplementary Settlement Conference Brief, dated June 23, 2022, quotes from recent written communication from the [Father] to the [Mother] sent through Our Family Wizard or by email to Mother’s counsel. These messages are from April 8, 2023, April 20, 2023, April 22, 2023, April 25 and 26, 2023, May 4, 2023, May 5, 2023, June 6, 2023, and June 14, 2023. At today’s conference, the Father confirmed that he sent these messages.

The communication is riddled with profanities and insults. He threatens unreasonably aggressive litigation tactics should this matter proceed to trial. He admits to not following feeding and sleep routines for A.. He refused to install safety gates at his home. He stated to the Mother that when the trial was done, “you’re going to see how I’m going to deal with you…no judge or police officer will be able to help you.”

The Applicant’s [Father] communication is deeply troubling. These messages appear to demonstrate: (a) the Applicant is unwilling or unable to coparent at this time with the Respondent; (b) the Applicant has flagrantly refused to adhere to the feeding and sleep schedule that A. is currently on despite my Order demanding that he exercise best efforts to do so; (c) the Applicant intends to use the court process in an abusive manner should this matter proceed to trial; (d) the Applicant has engaged in aggressive and threatening verbal abuse of the Respondent; and (e) the Applicant has chosen to act in this fashion in his communications on Our Family Wizard, a platform on which he knew his communications would be viewed by a judge at a future attendance, that demonstrates an irreverence for the judicial process.

(…) 7. Making substantive orders at a settlement conference without the agreement of parties is not done regularly. However, in this case, the Court is concerned about the safety and well-being of the child who is not yet 2 years-old and is unable to communicate effectively with her parents or care providers. The tone, tenor and contents of the Applicant’s communication strongly suggests that he is not able to control his anger, that he not able to co-parent, and that he is incapable of refraining from abusive commentary. His communications establish he is not following the child’s sleep and feeding schedule, as ordered. (…) In these circumstances, and pursuant to the Courts parens patriae jurisdiction and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules, it is necessary for the Court to make procedural and substantive orders that are not on consent at this settlement conference.

[23] On November 10, 2023, at a further case conference, Justice Black noted the Applicant\Father’s progress and near completion of the Caring Dads program:

“As I observed during the conference, it is encouraging and to the applicant’s credit that he appears to be making a productive effort during his parenting time and is attending (and has nearly completed) the Caring Dads program. I also note that the supervised parenting has been at considerable expense to the applicant.

On the other hand, despite the very clear admonitions by Justice Sharma about the applicant’s communications, leading His Honour to make a substantive Order (which His Honour acknowledged was done rarely at a settlement conference), the applicant’s communications continue to be problematic.

That is, although clearly reduced in quantity and intensity from what was in the record before Sharma J., there was in evidence before me various communications from the applicant, since Sharma J.’s June 30, 2023 endorsement, that were in some cases profane and in many cases inappropriate.

Among other examples, there is a text message from the applicant to the respondent’s mother, sent at 2:09 a.m. one day, laced with profanity and threats.

There are also texts from the applicant to the respondent in which he accuses her of lying, calls her a “sick individual”, and in which he makes various veiled threats. (…)

As noted, the applicant’s conduct has been laudable in the supervised parenting visits and it is to his credit that he has attended the Caring Dads program as required by Sharma J. On the other hand, the applicant’s communications have continued to be less than stellar. I pointedly advised the applicant that if he wants a positive and unrestricted relationship with his daughter, he will have to choose to abide by this court’s direction and to begin reflecting maturity in his communications and conduct.

The respondent’s communications with the applicant are themselves at times a little stern, and I encouraged her to attempt to soften her tone, which seems at times to incite the applicant. That said, it is very much up to the applicant to control his behaviour and focus on productive conduct and communications.”

[24] Justice Black declined to vary the supervised parenting times.

Issue One: Should the Supervision of the Father’s Parenting Time be Lifted?

Parties’ Legal Positions

[25] The parties disagree as to who has the burden of proof with respect to lifting the supervision. The Father, relying on many authorities on supervised parenting time, insists that the parent seeking supervision, here the Mother has the burden of proof and that the court should not maintain supervision unless it continues to be necessary. The Mother argues that the current schedule should be maintained until trial, as it is an interim Order, that the status quo ought not to be changed and that the Father bears the burden to show why it ought to be changed.

[26] The parties also disagree as to what should justify an order for supervised parenting time. The Father argues that the only relevant criteria are the risks of harm to the child, physical, sexual or emotional, when a child is reintroduced in a parent’s life after a long absence or where there are clinical issues involving the non-residential parent. According to the Father, communications issues between parents are not sufficient to justify a supervision order. The Mother suggests that the issues of concerns identified in Justice Sharma’s June 30, 2023 Order, namely, following the routines that she establish, safety precautions and communication issues continue to be the relevant ones.

[27] Finally, the parties also disagree on the application of such criteria and the implications of the affidavit evidence filed. The Father points to his 67 positive supervised visits, to the strength of his relationship with the child, his perseverance in wanting to be a good parent, his attendance to Caring Dads and on-going therapy and the improvements to his communication skills with Mother. The Mother’s affidavit points to the pattern of communications, her on-going safety concerns and the applicant’s reckless personality and difficulty in managing his anger.

The Burden of Proof

[28] The authorities relied upon by the Mother for the proposition that interim Order ought not to be changed did not involve supervision. In Genovesi v. Genovesi, 1992 ONSC 8562, Granger J. suggested that interim custody order should not be changed. He was not dealing with supervised access, and the trial date was imminent. In McEachern v. McEachern, 1994 ONSC 7379, the supervision order had been lifted, and the change Order discussed was to move the children who had been residing with their mother during the week to begin residing with their father during the week. The court opined that such a dramatic change for the children ought not to be done except when the best interests of the children required it. Finally, in K.A.C. v. P.P., 2007 ONCJ 217, the issue before the Court did not involve an order for supervised parenting time either.

[29] Indeed, other authority submitted by the Mother, Kurmi v. Sidhu, 2021 ONSC 6389, which deals with a supervised access order, confirms the statement that it is the party seeking a supervisory order who bears the burden to show that it is necessary. In that case, Justice Fowler, considered that the mother had not shown that the order continued to necessary and that the Court’s concerns about the father’s mental health and use of medication were no longer relevant.

[30] Furthermore, it is clear from the wording of Justice Sharma’s June 30, 2024, Order that he did not intend his Order to remain unchanged. He clearly invited a reassessment in light of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer report.

[31] I find that the Mother bears the burden to prove that supervision of the Father’s parenting time continues to be necessary.

Criteria for the imposition of supervision

[32] Supervised parenting time is not a punishment. It is a form of parenting that reflects the Court’s concerns for the child while maintaining the ability of a parent to have and develop a relationship with the child. It may be costly, particularly as here, when provided by a professional Supervision Services. It does restrict the access parent’s spontaneity in managing and organizing parenting time and is felt like an intrusion on the parent-child relationship.

[33] In the present case, because of the rules of Brayden Supervision Services, the Father has had to cancel 14 visits because A. was sick. The visits were often cancelled within 48 hours of the scheduled time, and he still had to pay for the supervision service.

[34] There is no doubt that although supervisors are discrete and professional, the presence of an extra adult in the room creates an artificiality to the parent-child relationship. The Father wishes to have increased and less structured time with his young daughter.

[35] The caselaw on supervised access is clear. As summarized in Stec v. Blair, 2021 ONSC 6212, paras. 22-24, per Fowler Byme J.,

“Supervised access is a great intrusion into the relationship between a child and parent and its continued imposition must be justified: Young v. Hanson, 2019 ONSC 1245, at para. 32, also cited in G. v. F., 2021 ONSC 1362 at para. 47.

The intrusion is less striking when supervision is by a family member in a home setting, but nonetheless, it is not a long-term solution. Supervised access is designed to provide a temporary and time-limited measure, to resolve a parental impasse over access, rather than provide a long time solution: M. (B.P.) v. M. (B.L.D.E.), 97 D.L.R. (4th) 437, at para. 33.

The onus lies on the person seeking that parenting time be supervised, to show that such supervision is necessary. The greater the restriction, the more important it is to show why the restriction is necessary: Liu v. Xie, 2021 ONSC 222, at para. 69, Docherty v. Catherwood, 2015 ONSC 5240, para. 38.”

[36] The burden is on the parent requesting supervision to establish that it is necessary. Nevertheless, it is the Court’s responsibility to ensure that the decision to end or maintain the supervision is in the best interests of the child pursuant to section 24(1) and (2) of the Children Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-12.

[37] The best interest of the child is the sole criteria that should be considered. Section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act identifies the factors that ought to be considered. Paragraph 24(2) and (3) state:

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

25. (3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include, (a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability; (b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life; (c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent; (d) the history of care of the child; (e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained; (f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage; (g) any plans for the child’s care; (h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child; (i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child; (j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things, (i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and (ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and (k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

[38] In the present case, the Mother relies on the following factors to justify on-going supervision: Anger and Control Issues demonstrated in communications, Child safety concerns, Child health concerns and Irreverence for the Judicial Process. There is no debate that child safety concerns and child health concerns are factors that the Father recognizes as relevant factors. His position is that the evidence does not disclose any safety or health concerns for the child.

[39] The Father’s factum stresses that the child’s safety and well-being should be the primary factors and that communications issues between parents or respect for court proceedings are less relevant to the decision to maintain supervision, although they might be relevant for other family law questions.

[40] The Father relies on a 2005 Nova Scotia case of Lewis v. Lewis (2005 NSSC 256) to suggest that absent concerns for the safety of the child, clinical issues involving the access parent or when a child is reintroduced to a parent after a lengthy absence, supervision ought not be ordered. Counsel for the Father also relies on two Ontario cases, Rotar v. Kulangiev (2015 ONSC 6999), Wang v. Zhang (2014 ONSC 1614) where supervision orders were lifted on the basis of positive supervision notes that did not disclose safety concerns for the child.

[41] Counsel for the Father suggests that these cases indicate that only the safety of the child is relevant to the issue of supervision, and that communications issues between the parties are not.

[42] Although these cases are instructive in that they clearly identify what are the Court’s concerns for the child were, they may be distinguished on the basis that they dealt with a different version of the Children’s Law Reform Act. At that time the Act defined the best interests of the child slightly differently:

24. (1) The merits of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4). (2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including, (a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and, (i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child, (ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and (iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing; (b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained; (c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment; (d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child; (e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing; (f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live; (g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and (h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application.

[43] Noteworthy is the absence in the version in force in 2014 and 2015 of direct reference to “the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child” (section (24(3)(i) of the current Act). This inclusion of the ability to co-operate as a factor in evaluating the best interests of the child is meaningful because children exposed to high conflict between parents are harmed. Negative communications between parents with respect to a young child is worrisome as misinformation could have negative consequences for the child who is still unable to fully communicate. Exposure to parental conflict has been identified as being psychologically harmful to children. Pursuant to s.24(2) of the CLRA, I am required when determining what is in a child’s best interests to give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

[44] Although perfection is not expected, a failure to engage in child-focused non-abusive communications is a factor that should be considered in assessing the need for supervision particularly of a very young child where parents need to communicate because the child cannot.

[45] In light of the amendment to the Children’s Law Reform Act since 2015, communications issues between parents may be relevant to the well-being of the child as it relates to “the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child” (section 24(3)).

[46] Respect for the court process can also be a relevant factor in the determination of a supervision order. Complete disregard for a court process may put a child in jeopardy if a parent refused to surrender the child or disregarded minimum safety rules. Indeed, the Children’s Law Reform Act makes any court order that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of a child a relevant factor under section 24 (sect. 24(3)(k)).

[47] The Father relies on two other cases to suggest that only when immediate safety issues are raised is supervision necessary. In Brady v. Fitzpatrick, 2022 ONSC 2380, the Court was concerned about the mother’s serious drinking problem and supervision was maintained. In Miranda v. Miranda, 2013 ONSC 4704, the concern was with respect to the father’s mental health. These cases do not determine the threshold of when supervision should be maintained, they illustrate why supervision is often necessary.

[48] In conclusion, I find that the relevant factors to determine whether the supervision conditions should be lifted or modified in this case are:

a. the child’s right to have a meaningful relationship with both of her parents and a relationship with her grandparents, b. safety concerns, both physical and health-related, c. the capacity to the parents to co-operate and communicate about her needs, d. the ability of the parents to place the child’s needs ahead of their own needs, and e. their ability to adhere to rules established by the court.

[49] I agree with the Court in Lewis v. Lewis that supervision “is not appropriate if its sole purpose is to provide comfort to the custodial parent.” (para. 47). There needs to be evidence of a serious concern in light of the above-mentioned factors.

Evidence and findings

[50] The Mother’s position is that it is not sufficient to show improvement and that unless there is a “lasting change in the father’s problematic behavior”, (Smith v. Richey, 2023 ONSC 100 at para. 55), the supervision order should be maintained. In Smith v. Richey, the court dealt with a constant pattern of on-going abusive harassment and threatening behavior toward the mother, including pressures to resume cohabitation. The present case is different.

[51] Because supervision is not meant to be a permanent solution, a roadmap toward its termination should be provided in light of the Court’s concerns.

[52] The Mother relies on the Report of the Ontario Children’s Lawyer to support her argument that supervision ought not be lifted. The Applicant\Father disputes the findings and recommendations of the Report conducted pursuant to Section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Report of the Ontario Children’s Lawyer

[53] The Report of the Ontario Children’s Lawyer (OCL) recommends that supervised parenting time be continued and suggests that the Father exercise his parenting time without the presence of his parents during weekend visits so that Brayden Supervision Services could monitor his sole management of the child. The OCL recommends on-going supervision because of the young age of the child and the inability of the parents to communicate effectively which undermines the consistency of an appropriate routine for the child.

[54] The specific recommendations of the Report are that the Mother have sole decision making of A., have her primary residence with the Mother, the Father have independent access to information about A., including school and medical records and receive this information from the professionals involved, and both parties communicate with all of the professionals and individuals involved in A's life in an appropriate and child focused manner.

[55] The OCL recommends that the current supervised parenting time be continued and that any amendments or increases to the parenting time schedule, including frequency, duration and supervision be as agreed upon by the parties.

[56] Because of young age of the child, the OCL recommended that both parents follow a child focused routine and structure and have similar parenting practices in each home in order to ensure consistency and predictability. The OCL clinician also maintained that both parents abstain from using drugs when A. is in their care and continue to attend for bi-weekly drug testing.

[57] The OCL recommends that Father continue to engage in counselling, in order to further explore his own issues and thoughts about the relationship breakdown, and that Mother continue to engage with the professionals involved in her life, including her sponsor, in order to work through her issues and support her sobriety.

[58] Finally, the OCL recommends that both parents use only appropriate and cordial language with one another, communicate in a positive and child focused manner, respond promptly and share important information. On behalf of the OCL, Heather MacInnis, adds: “Both parties shall promote a positive relationship with the other party and refrain from speaking negatively about the other in front of A. Given the ongoing conflict with the parties' communication, Mr. Karimi and Ms. Kyron shall continue using Our Family Wizard and consider significantly limiting their communication to non-emergent matters.” (Recommendation 9) and finally that they consider using a parenting coordinator or mediator for any further dispute.

[59] The Father disputes the findings of the OCL, suggesting that the report is biased and does not provide a roadmap for him to prove that he is able to parent alone the young child. He questions the way in which the report criticizes the presence of his parents (the child’s grandparents) during the visit. In his view, the presence of the grandparents is meant to foster the development of an affectionate relationship between grandparents and child, and does not indicate that he is unable or unwilling to safely parent alone.

[60] A full review of the Brayden Supervision Services notes indicate that the child is comfortable with his Father and that the Father is the one performing the caregiving functions, changing the diapers when this was still needed, preparing lunch, feeding the child if she requires it, or strapping her into the stroller. Although the grandparents are often present and have a good relationship with the child, I am satisfied that they rarely performed the caregiving functions and that the Father is in charge of the child and looks after her and her needs.

[61] The presence of the paternal grandparents should be encouraged and to the extent that the Father wants to have his parents involved, this is a positive feature of his relationship with the child. More adult presence provides comfort and additional help if needed.

[62] In addition, the Report on the Father’s completion of the Caring Dads program, on November 16, 2023, notes that he understands child centered parenting and “displayed sufficient knowledge of the different needs’ children have at different development stages”. (Exhibit J, Father’s affidavit). The Father continues counselling with Caring Dads.

[63] The Supervision notes do not disclose any concerns for the safety of the child.

[64] The remaining concerns which Justice Sharma identified, namely, the Father’s difficulty in following the routines for the child established by the Mother, the problematic communications by the Father toward the Mother and the Father’s disregard for the Court process are important to address.

[65] Routines established by a parent are particularly important for young children. Predictability and consistency help both parents ensure the child develops well, eats and sleeps properly. As the child ages, differences in parenting styles between two separated parents are not ideal, but are more tolerated as children become better able to adapt and respond to new circumstances. Because A is not yet 3 years old, adherence to routines established by the parent with whom she resides ought to guide the Father.

[66] My review of the Brayden Supervision notes demonstrates that the Father is attempting to comply with the established schedule but asserts his right to make decisions that he deems reasonable and with which the Mother disagrees. Because communication between the parents is poor, conflicts are heightened and what ensues is a power struggle between the parties and a disagreement as to what it means to be a good and reasonable parent.

[67] The underlying concerns of the Mother, and the OCL are with the unpredictability of the Father’s conduct, his quickness to anger and his difficulty in engaging in neutral and nonjudgmental communications with the Mother.

[68] The OCL report recognizes that both parents must learn to appreciate the other parent’s contribution in A.’s life. I am persuaded that both parents must learn to communicate in a child-focused, cordial, appropriate, and respectful language.

[69] The Father’s recent communications (since January 2024) are less rude than they were. Nevertheless, there are still concerns that emerge from the review of the affidavit evidence. He continues to engage in commentaries that are unnecessary, critical and dismissive of the Mother.

[70] The young age of the child is also a factor that distinguishes this case from the cases relied upon by the Father.

[71] Being a safe and a good separated parent, requires that both parents have the ability to be able to co-parent effectively which means they must be able to communicate effectively. A pattern of abusive communication is not only inappropriate and creates additional stress for the parent who looks after the child, it is harmful to the child and is not in her best interests. Each parent must value the role of the other parent in the child’s life. Speaking disrespectfully to the other parent is a sign of inability to control one’s temper which might impact the child. Moreover, it is indicative of a parent being unable to place the child’s needs and interests ahead of his/her own needs.

[72] For all of these reasons, I am persuaded that the Father requires additional supervisory parenting time.

[73] I am mindful of the costs of the supervision that makes it potentially unsustainable for the Father. The additional support provided by the paternal grandparents is to be encouraged. To the extent that they are willing and available to provide supervision, they can replace Brayden Supervision Services, particularly for longer visits.

[74] The relationship between the child and her Father is important and must continue to develop. Additional parenting time is appropriate.

[75] I find that an additional period of supervision (from now until June 24, 2024), with this supervised parenting time to take place without incident and continued respectful and child-focused communication between the parties are necessary in the child’s best interests.

[76] After June 24, 2024, the parties should review the notes from Brayden Supervised Access, if any, and determine whether the conditions outlined in the Order have been followed. If they have, unsupervised parenting time can safely occur. If the parties are unable to agree as to whether the conditions have been followed, I will hear the matter on June 28, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. via Zoom. Additional parenting time, and overnight, might be considered as part of this next stage if the conditions have been followed.

Issue Two: Should the Father’s Parenting Time be Expanded?

[77] The child’s relationship with her father needs to be fostered. It is in her best interest that this occur. Additional gradual parenting time is warranted.

Disposition / Order

[78] This Court makes the following order:

[79] This Court makes the following order: a. Between the date of this Order and until May 15, 2024, the Father shall have supervised parenting time to be supervised by either one of his parents or Brayden Supervision Services if his parents are unavailable or unwilling to supervise based on the following two-week schedule:

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday	Sunday
1		2:30 pm to 5:30 pm		2:30 pm to 5:30 pm	11:00 am to 5:00pm	11:00 am to 5:00 pm
2		2:30 pm to 5:30 pm		2:30 pm to 5:30 pm

b. From May 15, 2024, until July 15, 2024, the Father shall have supervised parenting time to be supervised by either one of his parents or Brayden Supervision Services if they are unavailable or unwilling based on the following two-week schedule.

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday	Sunday
1		9:00 am to 5:00 pm		11:00 am to 5:00 pm	11:00 am to 5:00 pm
2		12:00 pm to 5:30 pm		12:00 pm to 5:30 pm

c. Parenting exchanges shall occur at daycare\nursery school, where possible. If the parenting exchanges cannot occur at daycare\nursery, they shall take place at the home of the Father with the supervisor or grandparent taking the child from the Mother’s car or other person delivering the child. d. Cancelled visits to be made up by additional times to be agreed upon by the parties or brought to the Court’s attention. e. The parents shall only communicate the child only via Our Family Wizard. All communications shall be child-focused, polite, and business-like with no personal comments about each other or about their parents (the grandparents of the child). f. Neither parent shall consume drugs or drink alcohol during parenting time and drug test biweekly. g. If either party drives with the child, they must have a valid driver’s license, be insured for the vehicle in which the child is driven, have a car seat properly installed for the child and they must abide by the rules of the road. h. At the end of the period, parties to review to determine whether the conditions outlined above have been followed. If they have, unsupervised parenting can take place. If the parties disagree as to compliance with the conditions, the matter can be brought back in front of me on June 28, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. via Zoom. The criteria for continuing or removing supervision shall be limited to adherence to the above conditions. i. Parties are encouraged to retain the services of a parent coordinator or mediator to manage conflicts. j. There shall be no costs of this motion and each party shall bear his/her own costs.

Des Rosiers J. Released: April 8, 2024