Tsiriotakis v. Rizzo, 2024 ONSC 2339

Court File No.: FS-17-21541 Date: 2024-04-21 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Panagiotis Tsiriotakis, Applicant And: Nadia Frances Rizzo, Respondent

Before: C. Horkins J.

Counsel: Michael J. Stangarone, Aria MacEachern, for the Applicant Kenneth A. Cole, Danielle Dekeyser, for the Respondent

Heard: April 4, 2024

Reasons for Decision

Overview

[1] The applicant (father) and respondent (mother) started to cohabit in 2015. They separated in 2017. They have one child, Konstantinos Panagiotis Francesco Tsiriotakis, born June 25, 2016.

[2] During their relationship the parties and child resided in Toronto. After separation, the mother took the child and moved to Windsor, Ontario without the knowledge and consent of the father. The father commenced his application shortly after this happened.

[3] The father brings a motion for increased parenting time. He seeks the following 2-2-3 parenting schedule:

a. Week One: From Monday after school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school) to Wednesday morning drop off at school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school) and from Friday after school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school) to Monday morning drop off at school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school); and

b. Week Two: From Wednesday after school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school) to Friday morning drop off at school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school).

[4] The relief sought for the 2024 summer parenting schedule has been settled and a consent order dated April 10, 2024 has been issued.

[5] The mother brings a motion for an assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, and pending completion of that assessment she seeks a parenting order with less parenting time for the father. Her notice of motion seeks a parenting order giving the father every Wednesday after school until the return of the child to school on Thursday and alternating weekends from Friday after school until Sunday at 6 p.m. During the motion she agreed to extend the weekend parenting time to Monday at the start of school.

[6] Alternatively, the mother seeks to continue the father’s parenting time with three out of four weekends from Friday after school until Sunday at 5:00 p.m., but with all visits taking place in Windsor.

[7] The mother’s notice of motion also sought some financial disclosure from the father. This part of her motion was settled and is part of the consent order dated April 10, 2024.

[8] The last court order that addressed the father’s non-summer parenting time was made on consent by Justice Kraft on March 25, 2022. That order stated that “[t]he parenting provisions” in the order “shall be subject to review by the end of August 2022 to determine the appropriate parenting schedule to be implemented starting at the beginning of the school year in September 2022.” This review did not happen as ordered. When this order was made the mother and child lived in Windsor and the father lived in Toronto. In March 2024, the father moved to Windsor so he could have more parenting time with the child and be more involved in the child’s life. The mother has refused the father’s request to have a shared parenting schedule.

Chronology of past events/orders

[9] The father commenced this application in May 2017, shortly after the mother unilaterally removed the child from his habitual residence in Toronto and moved to Windsor, Ontario where her parents reside. On these motions, the mother denies that she unilaterally removed the child. However, Justice Kristjanson decided this issue in favour of the father on January 25, 2018. The mother did not seek to appeal this decision and the court’s findings stand. It is not open to the mother to continually raise this issue that has been decided in the father’s favour.

[10] Initially the court made some temporary parenting orders to give the father some parenting time. The May 18, 2017 order required the father’s parenting time to be supervised. The supervision term was removed on consent in the July 24, 2017 order. That order also gave the father overnight parenting time.

[11] On September 19, 2017, the mother brought a motion to stay the implementation of the father’s overnight parenting time (to vary the May 18, 2017 order). Having consented to the July 24, 2017 order, the mother wanted to cross-examine the workers at Brayden Supervision Services who had supervised the father’s parenting time. While her motion was adjourned to allow this to happen, she never cross-examined these supervisors. Her motion came before the court again on October 3, 2017. On consent the mother’s motion was adjourned to January 25, 2018. The father’s overnight parenting time was not stayed pending the hearing of the mother’s motion.

[12] The mother’s motion was heard by Justice Kristjanson on January 25, 2018. Justice Kristjanson refused to vary the May 18, 2017 order. In her reasons, Justice Kristjanson found as follows:

[1] The habitual residence of the child prior to separation was Toronto. The mother unilaterally removed the child from his habitual residence in Toronto and took him to live with her parents in Windsor, without the knowledge or consent of the applicant father.

[23] More importantly, the mother fails to understand the importance underlying the Toronto access provision, which is a provision in the child’s best interests. The parties resided in Toronto when the mother unilaterally removed the child from Windsor. The parties’ home was in Toronto at the time of separation, and the father remains in Toronto.

[25] I have reviewed the voluminous evidence filed by both parties. There is no evidence of risk to the child. The evidence is that the father is a good parent. I reject the mother’s evidence regarding feeding issues: she maintained this position in light of the Brayden Supervision notes, and the healthiness of the child, and in the absence of documented contemporaneous notes or independent evidence.

[27] Having unilaterally removed the child, the mother cannot now rely on travel to undermine the interim access arrangements which I find to be in the best interests of the child.

[30] I have additional concerns, however, that the mother is not complying with the terms of access. The evidence filed before me indicates that she refused to bring the child to Toronto two times citing weather concerns, and three times citing sickness, with no medical evidence provided. She refused to take the train to avoid the driving conditions.

[31] The father attended in Windsor in late December and early January, when the mother refused to bring the child to Toronto. The mother’s counsel in her oral submissions states that the Father “agreed” to Windsor; this is a misapprehension and misrepresentation of the evidence. Telling an access parent that instead of seeing his son as the court ordered in Toronto he can see his son in Windsor or not at all, is not an “agreement” to access in Windsor.

[13] In 2019, the parties attended a trial management conference and a trial date was set for October 21, 2019. The trial did not happen because the parties attended a mediation with Alfred Mamo on September 5, 2019. They reached an agreement on a parenting and holiday schedule, joint custody (as it was then called), communications, travel consent, child support and spousal support (no spousal support was to be paid). The agreement is set out in a Mediation Memorandum dated September 6, 2019. The terms were to be included in a comprehensive settlement agreement and a court order. This did not happen because the parties could not agree on the terms despite the comprehensive Mediation Memorandum.

[14] The Mediation Memorandum states that the father shall have parenting time, three out of four weekends each month. In week one, the mother shall drive the child to and from Toronto for the father’s parenting time. In week two, the father’s parenting time takes place in Windsor. In week three, the child is with the mother and in week four, the parents are to meet in Woodstock to exchange the child for the father’s parenting time in Toronto. During the summer months the child will be in his father’s care in Greece for 21 days.

[15] The Mediation Memorandum states that when the child is in grade one, the regular parenting time will be adjusted to ensure he would not miss school. The parties agreed that they would consider additional parenting time to make up for missed time in the regular schedule.

[16] Under the Mediation Memorandum the parties agreed to “joint custody” and shared decision-making responsibility. They agreed to communicate with each other about their son and acknowledged that it is in his best interests “not to expose [the child] to any conflict that there might be between them and to encourage [the child] to love and cherish both of his parents.”

[17] The parties agreed to appoint Mr. Mamo as a mediator/arbitrator to first mediate and, if no agreement, then arbitrate. The parties agreed to sign a mediation/arbitration agreement.

[18] As noted, the parties never signed a settlement agreement and did not incorporate the settlement into a court order. Numerous problems arose and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the problems.

[19] The father says that the problems started in March 2020. He says that the mother has repeatedly breached terms in the Mediation Memorandum by trying to dictate and marginalize his parenting time and refusing to share the driving between Windsor and Toronto.

[20] The mother blames the father who she says missed significant parenting time. The father explains that he did not “forfeit” parenting time but missed parenting time because of his “employment commitments in another continent necessitated by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on [his] industry.” The mother’s affidavit says that the father missed 75 percent of his parenting time from January to March 2023 plus other dates in that year.

[21] It is not surprising that COVID-19 and quarantine restrictions made it even more difficult for the parents to cooperate. The father owns a business and had to spend extended periods of time in Greece during the pandemic to save his business. While the father was in Greece, he says the mother would not facilitate video parenting time.

[22] In December 2021, the father returned to Canada from Greece and asked the mother to resume the parenting time under the Mediation Memorandum. She refused the request. The mother denied his request for extra parenting time over Christmas. The Mediation Memorandum only gave him four days. The mother refused his requests to mediate.

[23] The father told the mother that he was in Canada until March 2022 and asked for additional parenting time. The father also told the mother he was going to temporarily relocate to Windsor during the weekdays so they could accommodate a shared parenting schedule. The mother agreed to give the father parenting time the weekend of January 14 but demanded that the pick-up and drop off take place in Cambridge.

[24] The father proposed mediation with Mr. Mamo to solve the parenting time dispute, but the mother would not agree to dates in January, February, or March 2022. The father had to return to Crete in April for work. The mother would not agree and so the father brought an emergency motion. The parties attended before Justice O’Brien on January 31 and February 3, 2022, to address “an interim schedule for parenting time for the period prior to [the father’s] return to Greece.”

[25] Justice O’Brien issued a consent order dated February 3, 2022, that set out the father’s parenting time through to the end of March 2022. This parenting time took place in Toronto and Windsor. Driving was split and the exchange points varied each week between Toronto and Cambridge. The order included five additional parenting days for the father. The order terminated on March 29, 2022 “subject to the mediation scheduled with Mr. Mamo on March 3, 2022 or if amended on consent between the parties.”

[26] The mediation did not happen. Instead, the parties consented to an order dated March 25, 2022, that Justice Kraft issued on a Form 14B motion. The Kraft order provided that the father’s parenting time under the O’Brien order would continue until March 29, 2022, with a small variation. Commencing April 1, 2022, the consent order gave the father parenting time three out of four weekends a month, plus some holiday time. The Kraft order states that the parenting provisions shall be subject to review by the end of August 2022 to determine the appropriate parenting schedule to be implemented for the start of the September 2022 school year. This review never happened.

[27] The parties could not agree on a parenting schedule for the 2022 summer. The Kraft order required the mother to tell the father by March 15 if she would agree to mediate the summer schedule with Mr. Mamo.

[28] The 2022 summer issue was decided by Mr. Mamo in his Endorsement dated June 1, 2022. He found it was in the child’s best interests for him to be in Greece with his father for five weeks. The parenting time was not conditional on the mother travelling to and from Greece with the child, unlike the summer of 2021. There was also no expectation that the mother should spend any time in Greece. The following excerpts from the Endorsement are important. Mr. Mamo noted Justice Kristjanson’s finding that there is “no evidence of risk to the child” and the “evidence is that the father is a good parent”. He noted that Justice Kristjanson “did somewhat prophetically indicate that ‘ I have additional concerns, however that the mother is not complying with the terms of access. ’” Mr. Mamo’s Endorsement further states:

31. The mother’s recent involvement of the Children’s Aid Society, with an allegation of improper conduct by [the father] towards his son, was investigated with no resulting intervention of any kind whatsoever by the Children’s Aid Society….

32. [The child] will, this summer, be six years of age; there is no evidence before me to restrict his time with the father to three weeks just because that is what [the mother] agreed to in the past.

33. Although [the father] does not want [the mother] to interfere with his parenting time of [the child] in Crete, he is also not objecting to her spending some time there when [the child] is in his care. The parties, however, disagree on the terms that should accompany the mother’s attendance to Crete.

34. Although legal considerations with respect to the child’s heritage and the maximization of time with each parent are just two factors amongst many to be considered, I reference them to point out that part of [the child’s] circumstances, where he is born to parents who not only are not living in the same city but who, for extended periods of time, live in different countries, define his life and constitute a reality that partially informs his best interests in his relationship with each of his parents.

35. While I appreciate [the father’s] desire to spend as much time as possible with his son in Crete during the summer months, the requested period of seven weeks, with respect to this particular summer , does not consider that it is beneficial to [the child] to spend part of the summer in Windsor. There he can engage in summer activities with his mother and her family, as well as with friends that he might have in that community where he has his primary residence.

36. I want to make it clear that the parenting time being awarded to [the father] is not conditional upon [the mother] accompanying [the child] during the flights from Toronto to Crete or from Crete to Toronto. Neither is there an expectation that [the mother] is to spend any time in Crete during the five week period when [the child] is in the care of his father. [Underlining added; bolding in original.]

[29] Lastly in bold print, Mr. Mamo pointed out, at paras. 47-50, the responsibility of the parents to shield the child from conflict:

47. Lastly, I want to point out to the parents that, under the heading of Protection of children from conflict , s.33.1(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act states that:

Protection of children from conflict.

“A party to a proceeding under this Part shall, to the best of the party’s ability, protect any child from conflict arising from the proceeding.”

48. Conflict between parents is emotionally and psychologically damaging to their children. It does not matter who starts the conflict, the child is detrimentally effected by it, and it is the responsibility of each parent to shield and protect the child from conflict.

49. Adult differences should not be shared with your son.

50. Do not make your problems as parents, [the child’s] problems. Your first responsibility as a parent is to protect your child from harm, do not be the cause of harm to your son.

[30] Contrary to the mother’s allegations, the father is the child’s primary caregiver in Greece during his parenting time. During the father’s Greece parenting time, he has allowed the child to spend two days with his mother at her request. In Greece, the mother does not reside with the father and child. The parties rarely have any parenting issues while in Greece.

[31] The father once again asked for extra time over Christmas 2022 and the mother refused.

[32] The parties could not agree on a summer parenting schedule for 2023. The mother said the child could not be in Greece for more than three weeks because of vision therapy that he must attend. She said that if he missed any session he would fall behind and be removed from the program.

[33] After a failed mediation about the 2023 summer schedule, the father brought a motion. The summer schedule settled after the motion was served.

[34] The father’s motion revealed evidence about the vision therapy. The child attended vision therapy at Eye Care First in Windsor with Dr. Huang. The father spoke with Dr. Huang on June 5, 2023, about the child’s vision therapy and spending the summer in Greece. Dr. Huang confirmed the following: 1. the child will not lose his place in the program if he travels to Greece for the summer; 2. the sessions can take place virtually for the summer when the child is away; and 3. the father can complete the homework required from the vision therapy while in Crete.

[35] An e-mail from Tessa Bodi-Brown, a therapist at Dr. Huang’s office, confirmed the telephone conversation with Dr. Huang and the following: “So, short answer, yes online will work for the summer. Once we know the date that he is leaving we will ensure that he has all the equipment he might need over that course of time. So that he can be as prepared as possible. We did virtual sessions in the first shut down of COVID and there were no issues with virtual sessions.”

[36] After the father served his notice of motion, the summer dispute settled. The consent order of Justice Black dated July 5, 2023 gave the father parenting time with the child in Crete from July 21, 2023 to August 25, 2023.

[37] No court orders have been made since the Black order and Mr. Mamo has not mediated or arbitrated any disputes since the failed 2023 mediation.

[38] The motions before this court are in effect the review of the parenting schedule that the Kraft order directed “shall” occur before the end of August 2022. Since the Kraft order a significant change has occurred. The father has moved to Windsor and now seeks a new parenting schedule.

The father’s move to Windsor

[39] In 2024, the father took significant steps to relocate to Windsor. He has rented a newly renovated two-bedroom, 1800 square-foot home in Windsor. He has a one-year lease. He is living in Windsor on a long-term basis. The father intends to remain in Windsor for the foreseeable future so he can continue to be available for his son, watch him grow up, and spend as much time with his son as possible. He will spend his parenting time with the child in Windsor in his newly rented home that is 7 minutes from the child’s school and 13 minutes from the mother’s home.

[40] The mother questions the sincerity of the father’s intention to live in Windsor. She says he has been telling her for months that he is moving to Windsor. She is concerned that he will not be in Windsor for his parenting time. She wants to wait and see if he stays in Windsor before his parenting time is increased.

[41] I reject the mother’s argument. One cannot forget that it was the mother’s unilateral move to Windsor that created the difficult task of parenting between two cities that are hours apart. The commute between Toronto and Windsor has been the source of much conflict. It has required a young child to travel for hours for parenting time. The fact that the father has relocated to Windsor for the benefit of the child should be supported and not resisted.

[42] The evidence shows that it has taken time for the father to change the nature of his business to allow him to relocate to Windsor. He was unable to do it sooner due to financial constraints. As he explained, there were many logistical challenges to his relocation and the move required extensive planning. He “had to change the way [his] company is operated which took time. It took 3 years to pivot an 18 year old business. [He] had to implement new systems and ways of doing business…. sell trucks, close [his] warehouse, sell racks and forklifts, find a new logistics centre, reduce rental space, and outsource the online business.” As he states, “I have changed my life to be able to spend more time with [the child].”

[43] The father has uprooted his life in Toronto and relocated to Windsor to be closer to his son and be involved in his daily routine. This is now his principal residence. In March this year he has been in Toronto wrapping up loose ends and moving additional items to Windsor. He provided the mother with a copy of his lease agreement.

[44] Because he is self-employed, the father says that his work schedule is very flexible. He is able to drop off and pick up the child at school. The father wants to be involved in the child’s daily life in every way. If the father needs to travel back to Toronto for business, he will do so on non-parenting days.

[45] The father’s evidence about his parenting time is that they have a wonderful time together. Father and son play, swim, snowboard, do arts and crafts, read together, and have lazy days at home.

[46] The father’s Windsor home contains a large kitchen where he and the child make Greek food together (which the child loves), and a living room with a large TV where they have movie nights. They love watching Avatar and Lego Ninjas together.

[47] The child has his own bedroom in the father’s Windsor home. As of late March, the father had exercised parenting time in his Windsor home three times. He says that the child is comfortable in this home and has already started decorating and picking out different items for his bedroom.

Involvement of the Children’s Aid Society of Windsor-Essex

[48] The Children’s Aid Society of Windsor-Essex (the “CAS”) has been involved off and on with the family since 2022.

[49] The parties have received a complete copy of the CAS file and provided the court with the parts they rely upon. The mother relies on the CAS investigations to support her position that the father’s parenting time should be limited and that a s. 30 assessment should be ordered.

[50] The CAS file as set out below reveals that the mother has made multiple complaints to the CAS. Her complaints allege that the child is not safe with the father. The complaints of physical harm have not been verified by the CAS. However, the CAS has verified that the child is exposed to “ongoing post-separation conflict” between the parents resulting in the child struggling emotionally.

[51] The first record of a report to the CAS is in early 2022. The mother reported to the CAS that when she picked the child up from his father’s home, the child had a bruise on his cheek. The father had pointed the bruise out to the mother at the exchange and told her it was from kissing the child too hard.

[52] A CAS note titled Disclosure dated June 2022 records the CAS investigation, risk assessment, and Verification Decision. CAS interviewed the parents, child, and a contact at the child’s school. The physical harm was not verified.

[53] The child was interviewed at school. He told the CAS worker that his dad was “mean” and hurts him but was unable to provide context or detail as to how his dad is mean and hurts him. The child also described positive interactions and access visits with his dad. He said he was not fearful of his dad and did not disclose any abuse to the CAS worker. The child said that his mother “told him someone would be coming to his school to ‘help’ him so he does not have to see his dad as regularly.”

[54] The father told the CAS that he was in the process of trying to move to Windsor to spend more time with his son. He thinks the mother wants him out of the picture. The father admitted to the CAS that he had spanked the child many years ago but no longer used spanking or any form of physical punishment.

[55] The school reported no concerns with the child.

[56] The CAS worker believed that the mother was struggling with the father wanting more parenting time and was very protective of the child “which can be unnecessary and overbearing at times when there is no obvious risk to [the child]”. The mother is “not supportive” of the father moving to Windsor. The child is aware of the conflict between the parents and “does what he can to please both of them.” The CAS worker recorded that “[i]t would likely not be odd if [the child] made something up just to appease the other parent.”

[57] The report concludes that the parents are very caring and loving parents to the child. The child reported positive relationships with both parents. There was no evidence that either parent lacks adequate caregiving skills.

[58] The only complaint that was verified was the “ongoing post-separation conflict” between the parents resulting in their son struggling emotionally. As well, the mother did not see the importance of the child having a strong relationship with his father and spending more time with him. The parents were cautioned about exposing the child to their conflict. There was a risk to the child if such conflict continued.

[59] The CAS created a “Safety Plan” as follows:

1. There will be no conflict in the presence of [the child].
2. Parents will not speak negatively about one another to [the child].
3. Physical discipline will not be used in either home.

[60] On December 6, 2022, the child’s school called the CAS. The child told the school that the father used a back massager on his arm, that this hurts sometimes, and it felt like it was going to break his bones. The school did not know what to do about the situation.

[61] The CAS worker spoke to the school director and the mother. The mother made various complaints about how the father harms the child and why the child is not safe with the father. The mother said she encouraged the child to tell the teacher about what the father was doing. She did this because she wanted the CAS called and did not want to be the one making the call.

[62] On December 9, 2022, the CAS worker went to the school and interviewed the child. The child “did not report being scared of his dad.” The child said he did not want to see his dad as much. When asked why, he could not give any context and said he preferred to be with his mother. He did not report any physical discipline and said that his dad used to spank him when he was younger but not anymore. The child then said he did not want to see his dad because he hurts him but did not provide any context. The child did not report any other concerns. The child appeared healthy and well taken care of and there were no other concerns.

[63] The CAS spoke to the mother again and she continued to express worry that the father was hurting the child.

[64] On January 9, 2023, the mother called the CAS to make another complaint. The child had returned from visiting his father. She said that the child told her his dad sleeps with a knife under his pillow. The mother was extremely upset. She said she was sure something was going on at the father’s home and so she started to record the child when he returned home so she could provide the information to her lawyer. The CAS Contact Log records that the worker would speak to the father about the knife to ensure that the child is safe at the father's home and that precautions are taken regarding sharp objects.

[65] The next day the father called the CAS because he wanted to know if their file was still open. During the call the CAS asked the father about the knife that the mother had reported. The father told the CAS that of course he had a knife, and it was not within the child's reach. The father said that he makes sure the child is safe. He denied that the child was scared while at his home. The worker said he would speak to his supervisor and would likely proceed to close the file.

[66] The CAS did not verify the mother’s report that the father was harming the child. In the CAS Disclosure note dated January 12, 2023, the only harm that was verified was “ongoing post-separation conflict between [the parents] that has resulted in [their child] struggling emotionally.” This record notes that the child “has made comments about not wanting to be with his dad, however, is unable to provide any details or context as to why.” The note adds that the mother “does not see the importance of [the child] having a strong relationship with his father and spending more time with him…. There is further risk to [the child] should the post-separation conflict continue.” The CAS cautioned the parents not to involve the child in conflict.

[67] The CAS sent a letter dated January 23, 2023, reporting the results of their child protection investigation. As stated in the letter, when interviewed the child did not report any significant child protection concerns at either parent’s home. The child presented as conflicted between both homes and appeared eager to please both parents. The letter confirms the CAS safety plan as follows:

This letter is to confirm that the Society received a child protection referral on December 7, 2022. As a result of the referral, a child protection investigation was initiated. I had the opportunity to speak with your son, on December 9, 2022. At that time, [the child] did not report any significant child protection concerns in either his mother or father's home. [The child] presented as conflicted between both homes and appeared eager to please both parents.

In consultation with a supervisor, a safety plan was completed after meeting with [the child].

Safety plan:

1. There will be no conflict in the presence of [the child].
2. Parents will not speak negatively about one another to [the child].
3. Physical discipline will not be used in either home.
4. Any unsafe objects in the home will be kept out of reach of [the child].

A recommendation was made for [the child] to attend counseling to address his parents' separation and the emotions that [the child] has been experiencing. Both parents were in agreement to this.

The file will be closed at Intake.

[68] The mother says that in March 2023 she found a knife in the child’s pocket. It is her evidence that the child told her his father gave him the knife. The date in March is not noted in her affidavit.

[69] On Tuesday, March 28, 2023, the mother called the CAS. The CAS record sets out what the mother reported, and this record does not include any reference to the child coming home with a knife in his pocket and/or the father giving the child a knife.

[70] The March 28, 2023 CAS note states as follows:

Her son had a wound and reported that dad kept punching and hitting him with an object. With mom the rest of the week. Dad caused the wound on his finger.

[The mother] stated that he returned with punctures on his finger which are now healed. She said that she called [the child] on Saturday so she has a time frame because she called him Saturday and she said [the child] stated that it happened after that. [The mother] initially said that [the child] said dad punched him with a block and he was crying so dad apologized. She then stated when she asked [the child] again, he said it was a knife with a fork in it (like a swiss army knife). [The mother] then stated that [the child] said that dad fell into the register while doing this so she suspects that he was coming at him with force.... [The mother] also expressed she is not happy to have to call us again as she did not feel we did anything last time as we believed [the father] and he lied to us….Therefore she said she took [the child] to the pediatrician rather than calling CAS and according to [the mother] the pediatrician stated that the puncture wounds were done with an object, appeared to be sharp and it punctured his finger pad. [The mother] has a picture of it from Sunday. [The mother] stated that [the child] has been coached to tell people if anything happens to him and this time she picked him on Sunday and he told her everything.

[71] If there is a picture of the puncture, the mother did not include it in her evidence. There is no direct evidence from the pediatrician.

[72] The mother has made many complaints to the CAS about the father. She claims to have found a knife in the child’s pocket in March 2023, but the CAS notes do not record her telling them that she found a knife in the child’s pocket. There is also no record of the CAS asking the child or father about this knife that was allegedly found in the child’s pocket and given to the child by the father. The mother’s evidence about this knife lacks detail. She simply states, “I found a knife in [the child]’s pocket that he said [his father] had given him.” The mother has the CAS records, and she does not address the fact that there is no record of her telling the CAS about finding this knife. On the record before the court, I am not satisfied that this ever happened. If it did, the mother would have surely told the CAS. And if the CAS had been told, one would expect them to have asked the child and father about this knife that the father allegedly gave to the child.

[73] The mother also states that when the child was four years old, he came home with a cut across his palm. The mother asked what happened. She says that the child told her his dad gave him a knife to play with and that he got into trouble with his dad when he cut himself with the knife. There is no evidence that the mother ever reported this to the CAS and nothing to verify this allegation.

[74] On April 18, 2023, the CAS spoke to the father about the mother’s March 28 complaint. The father denied harming his son or chasing him around the house. He told the CAS that he was hurt when the child became angry about the eggs being served. The child threw the eggs on the table and stabbed his father with a fork. The father believes that this is how the child hurt his finger. The father admits that he yelled at the child after this incident. The father expressed his frustration with the mother who he believes is coaching the child about what to say. The mother does not allow the child to speak to him privately and she is always monitoring their phone calls. Once again, the father was adamant that he does not use physical discipline with the child. He described what they enjoy together. He is upset that he only sees his son three times a month and feels that the mother is doing everything she can to keep the child away from him. The father was asked why he revoked his consent for the child to receive counseling. The father said he was open to counseling for the child but first wanted the family to have counseling together. The CAS reinforced the child's need for counseling and explained that it should not require the family to engage in counseling together. The CAS recommended Bridging Family Conflict for counseling (a service located in Windsor).

[75] The mother’s March 27, 2024 affidavit quotes what she says is in an excerpt from the CAS’s interview with the child on April 3, 2023. The record of this interview is not included in the CAS records that the mother produced. Assuming this is an accurate quote from a CAS record, there is no mention of the knife the mother says she found in the child’s pocket that the father allegedly gave to the child. The excerpt that the mother provides is as follows:

He shows me t[w]o small puncture dots on his left pinky finger that he reports was done by his dad. He also says the scrape on his knee came from dodging his dad. With respect to the puncture wound, [the child] reported that his dad hit him hard with a foam block on the butt. It is unclear what object it was but he described it as a foam block with metal in the middle. He reports to have dodged his dad twice. He reports that his dad tried to hit him and when [the child] dodged him his dad banged it on his head and caused injury to his temple and was bleeding. He reports his dad hit his finger which is why he got the puncture wounds. He reports he's been hit with the block 67 other times. He got into trouble for sitting on the couch because he was supposed to be doing things while his dad was in the shower. He's not allowed to sit. He describes his dad as always trying to hit him right away. His knee was scraped when his dad through the block at him and it scraped his knee.

[76] The next record from the CAS is a Contact Log dated May 29, 2023, that records a call from the mother. She told the CAS what the child said to her. The father was recording him and making him say things. If he did not do what his father asked, he would grab his arm and put him in a headlock until he said what the father asked him to say. If the CAS investigated this complaint, the CAS records have been produced. This is the last CAS record for 2023.

[77] The mother states that on December 5, 2023, she found a “pocket knife” in the child’s pocket in the morning prior to dropping him off at school. She asked where he got the knife. The child told her that his father put the knife in his jacket pocket during their past visit and told him to hold this. The mother states that the child had taken the knife to school on December 4, 2023, unbeknownst to her. The mother says that she reported the incident to the CAS. She understands that the CAS spoke to the father about this and says that the CAS investigation is ongoing.

[78] There is no CAS record of the mother calling to report this knife or the CAS conducting any investigation about this pocket knife.

[79] In January 2024, the mother states that she again found a knife in the child’s pocket. She says the child told her that his father gave him the knife. The mother describes the knife as “sharp, not a blunt instrument and is not appropriate for a 7 year old to have.” She says that she took the knife to the CAS office. The date she found this knife is not stated nor the date she went to the CAS office. The CAS notes that have been produced do not record the mother taking this knife to their office and do not record the CAS discussing this with either parent or the child.

[80] On the record before the court, I am not satisfied that the mother’s evidence that she found these knives ever happened. If it did the mother would have surely told the CAS. And if the CAS had been told, one would expect them to have asked the child and father about the knives that the father allegedly gave to the child, and to have made a record of the complaint and investigation.

[81] The father has answered the knife allegations in his affidavits. He states:

What [the mother] refers to as “knives” in her affidavit are not knives; they are multitools which [the child] and I use for camping and when we spend time in the woods. They are blunt instruments. [The mother] is aware of this.

[The child] and I enjoy camping together and have done so for the last three years. We have acquired the necessary camping gear. [The child] has been taught valuable skills such as gathering wood for fires, respecting and appreciating nature, and understating [ sic ] potential dangers while camping. I have purchased specialty items including boots, flashlights, jackets, tents, small hammers, dry bags, compasses, walkie talkies, hats and multitools. The multitools consist of pliers, hammers, saws, and knives. The knives are blunt and incapable of cutting. I would not provide [the child] with a knife as a toy. The tools are stored safely and out of reach.

According to [the mother], [the child] apparently told her that I keep a knife under my pillow. This is untrue. I keep a traditional Cretan ‘knife’ in my closet, which is blunt and used as a letter opener.

[82] The father denies that he gives the child knives to play with during his parenting time as alleged. He has chocolate Swiss army knives but would never give the child a real knife to play with.

[83] The next document in the CAS files before the court is dated February 29, 2024. On this occasion the CAS worker met the mother and child at their Windsor home and the child was observed playing. The child was observed to have good social skills and was friendly and talkative with the CAS worker. The CAS note states:

I asked him ‘do you know, your dad is moving to Windsor this Friday to spend more time with you, and [the child] said ‘yes’, I know. I asked ‘do you miss your dad’, and he looked down and said ‘yes’ and did not express much about his feelings while his mom also walked in the living room to give him food. Upon asking about his friends at school and neighborhood [the child] said he has lots of friends at school and some of his friends live in the neighborhood.

[84] On March 4, 2024, the CAS worker visited the father in his new Windsor home. The father presented as “appropriate and cooperative during the meeting.” Excerpts from the CAS record are set out below:

The home is newly built and spacious with new furniture. Dad just moved in this Friday from Toronto to Windsor to get more closer to his son, [the child]. He said he spent thousands of dollars on moving expenses for the sake of his child. Upon my request to check the child's room, dad showed me [the child]’s room…. I noted nice double bed with new bed sheets, and blanket and the bedroom has lot of space with big closet and window. Dad said [the child] was here with him this week ends and he liked his room and the area, and we walked out together in the neighborhood. [The father] then talked about [the child] as how he gets him engaged in healthy activities by going out in the community like karate classes, swimming and bowling. He said [the child] loves to be with him all the time and blamed mom to keep coaching against his dad and [the child] wants to please his mom by making up stories that dad physically abused him. Upon asking about the bruises, dad said [the child] has bruises all over the body as he is overactive physically and one time he slipped on his knees and got bruises….

Upon asking, if dad is having any parenting issues with [the child] like [the child] does not follow the chores or gives him hard time in following the rules, [the father] said ‘yes’, he does give hard time occasionally, but he directs him to go to his room for 15 minutes and he calms down.

[85] On March 15, 2024, the CAS case worker and his supervisor met the child in the father’s new Windsor home.

[86] The CAS case worker interviewed the child privately. This CAS worker had met the child previously and the child said that he recognized the CAS worker. The child showed the worker his room and toys. The child was in a “pleasant mood” and said that he was having “fun” with his father. The CAS worker asked the child what his three wishes were, and he replied, “[M]y first wish is to live half time with my [mom] [ sic ] and half time with my dad”. The child then said, “[L]ike one day with my mom and one day with my dad”. With respect to his second wish, he said, “I wish my mom and my dad live[d] close to each other’s in the neighbourhood and I could visit my dad everyday.” His third wish was “I want my parents [to] stop arguing and talk nicely to each other”. The child appeared to be emotional while expressing his feelings and at one point said, “my parents can't live together as they argue all the time”.

[87] The CAS worker asked the child if his father ever hit him, and he replied “no”. The worker further wrote: “During the private interview, [the child] did not make any disclosure with regards to any physical abuse by dad during the access visits and spoke positively about his dad.” The CAS worker promised the child that he would “make every effort to make his wishes true and he smiled.”

[88] On March 18, 2024, Sonia Rotulo, a child protection worker, and Jennifer Moos, a child protection supervisor, sent a letter to the mother. It states:

A request has been made for the outcome of the investigation to be outlined in writing. Please find the outline below:

The concern regarding physical discipline was deemed inconclusive . Although [the father] denied the use of physical discipline, the Society has received numerous reports and [the child] has made disclosures regarding these concerns. As a result, the safety plan was implemented that there is not to be any physical discipline. This will continue to be monitored and addressed during ongoing involvement .

The concern regarding post-separation conflict was verified as [the child] is negatively affected by the conflict between yourself and [the father] . [The child] appears to be inadvertently placed in the middle and may feel he needs to choose between either parent. As recommended, Bridging Family Conflict will provide education on the importance of positive co­parenting and the effects of high conflict separation on children.

[Emphasis added.]

[89] The mother relies on the March 18, 2024 letter when she states that “[t]he CAS has determined there are concerns warranting continued monitoring and involvement”. That is not what this letter states. The CAS letter states that the concern about “physical discipline was deemed inconclusive”. The only person who has reported concerns to the CAS is the mother. While the school called once, the mother prompted this one call. The letter confirms that the father has denied the use of physical discipline. As a result of the numerous reports, the CAS implemented a safety plan that there “is not to be any physical discipline.” The CAS states that it will continue to be monitored and addressed during the CAS ongoing involvement.

[90] Regardless of how many complaints and disclosures were made, the fact is that the CAS did not verify the mother’s complaints of physical harm.

[91] In her March 17, 2024 affidavit, the mother provides a long list of the “excessive physical discipline” she alleges the father uses with the child. The CAS has not verified her complaints, as stated in the March 18, 2024 CAS letter. As well, the CAS letter dated January 23, 2023 found that there were “no significant child protection concerns”.

[92] It is the mother’s evidence that the CAS file has been transferred to “long-term” as of February 2, 2024, and that the CAS will be involved with the family for a minimum of six months to a year going forward. This is not confirmed in the CAS records before this court. What is confirmed is that the CAS file is still open, and they will continue to monitor that safety plan.

[93] The only concern that the CAS has verified is the child’s exposure to the parties’ post-separation conflict. The child is placed in the middle of this conflict.

[94] In summary, the CAS has not verified allegations of physical abuse. Rather, they have verified that the child is struggling emotionally because of the “ongoing post-separation conflict” between the parties. The risk is coded as “moderate”, and the safety plan includes that the parents will not speak negatively about one another to the child, there will be no conflict, and that physical discipline will not be used in either home.

Analysis

[95] In deciding the parenting schedule for this child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child as set out in the Children's Law Reform Act, as follows:

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

(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.

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

[96] When there is a dispute about a parenting order, all parties bear the evidentiary onus of demonstrating where the best interests of the child lie, and there is no legal presumption in favour of maintaining the existing parenting arrangements: Persaud v. Garcia-Persaud, 2009 ONCA 782; A.E. v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 8189, at para. 89; and K.M. v. J.R., 2022 ONSC 111, at para. 71.

[97] As stated in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, at para. 8, the inquiry “is a heavy responsibility, with profound impacts on children, families and society. In many cases, the answer is difficult – the court must choose between competing and often compelling visions of how to best advance the needs and interests of the child.”

[98] The best interests inquiry is highly contextual because of the numerous factors that may impact the child’s well-being. The considerations that the court should focus on in carrying out the assessment, and the weight that should be accorded to each factor, will vary depending on the unique features of every child and case: Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60, at para. 13; Barendregt, at para. 97; and B.J.T. v. J.D., 2022 SCC 24, at para. 55.

[99] The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that the analysis of the child’s best interests in the context of parenting disputes must be undertaken from the lens of the child rather than the parents’ perspectives; parental preferences and rights do not play a role in the analysis except to the extent that they are necessary to ensure the best interests of the child: Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at pp. 99, 117; Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, at paras. 28, 37, and 50; and F. v. N., 2022 SCC 51, at para. 61.

[100] These motions seek temporary parenting orders pending trial. This is a consent court ordered review that was required to take place by the end of August 2022. The father seeks equal parenting time under a 2-2-3 schedule and the mother asks that his parenting time be limited to Wednesday overnights and alternating weekends.

[101] The 2-2-3 parenting plan best meets “the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being” as explained below.

[102] The mother states it is not in the child’s best interests to have increased parenting time given the active CAS investigation and her concerns about the father’s conduct and inability to act in the child’s best interests. She says that the father uses excessive physical discipline with the child, has given him knives to play with, called him names, tried to get the child to lie, impeded the child’s vision therapy and access to counseling, and often misses his parenting time.

[103] The CAS has confirmed that the child is safe in his father’s care. The mother has repeatedly made unfounded complaints against the father. While the father acknowledged that he had in the past spanked the child, he does not do this anymore. The CAS found the parents to be very caring and loving to the child. They found no evidence that either parent lacks adequate caregiving skills. The CAS has implemented a safety plan and is monitoring this plan.

[104] The one risk of harm that has been verified is the child's exposure to parental conflict. Both parents need to pay more attention to this verified harm and cooperate to ensure that the risk is eliminated. The safety plan includes a monitoring of the direction that there be no conflict in the presence of the child.

[105] Since the date of separation, the child has lived in Windsor, hours away from his father. Parenting time has required long drives between Windsor and Toronto. The COVID-19 pandemic made it even more difficult to facilitate parenting time. The long drive and the added complication of COVID-19 caused friction and disagreement between the parties. The child has been exposed to this parental conflict. As Mr. Mamo stated in his June 1, 2022 endorsement, the parties have an obligation to protect the child from this conflict.

[106] The father has now moved to Windsor. This move took him many months to facilitate. He is now able to commit to a parenting schedule that will give the child and father regular and meaningful time together. The father has rented a home close to the child’s school and the mother’s home. The home is furnished, and the child has his own bedroom and toys. This relocation will give the child stability in his relationship with his father.

[107] The child will soon be eight years old. On March 15, 2024, the child clearly expressed his views and wishes to the CAS worker. The child wants to spend equal time with each parent. He misses his father. He wants his parents to “stop arguing and talk nicely to each other.” The CAS worker promised that he would make every effort to make the child's wishes come true.

[108] There is no justifiable reason to deny the child’s wishes. The child is entitled to have a significant and healthy relationship with both parents. Further, a 2-2-3 parenting plan is an appropriate plan for children aged 6-9 where parenting is shared (see the AFCC Parenting Plan Guide).

[109] For most of this child’s life, he has had less time with his father largely because the mother unilaterally moved the child to Windsor. A 2-2-3 parenting plan will allow the child to have his father involved in his weekly activities and give the child a real opportunity to strengthen his bond with his father in a meaningful way. This child deserves no less.

[110] The mother is resisting the father’s 2-2-3 parenting plan and wants to have a s. 30 assessment before any additional parenting time is allowed. As explained below this is not a case where a s. 30 assessment is required and even if it were, the 2-2-3 parenting plan should not be delayed.

[111] The father’s parenting plan is a real opportunity for these parents to work together each week and act in the child’s best interests. The mother must support this new parenting plan that honours her son’s wish to see his parents equally. The mother’s unfounded complaints must stop, and the father must immediately support the counseling that the child needs. As the CAS stated, the child needs counseling to address the parental conflict to which he has been exposed. This counseling takes priority regardless of whether the entire family seeks counseling together.

[112] The parents may have used OurFamilyWizard to communicate in the past but no longer do so. I am ordering that they use OurFamilyWizard to communicate about their child’s health, education, and welfare.

[113] One final point. There is evidence that both parents record the child. On January 9, 2023, the mother told the CAS worker that she records the child when he returns from his father’s home. The mother says that the father records the child, as well. Although recordings were not part of the evidence, it is concerning that the parents are recording the child. This must stop immediately.

[114] Surreptitious recordings of a child should be strongly discouraged. The same applies to a parent recording the other parent, with or without the child present. The case law recognizes “the general repugnance which the law holds toward these kinds of recordings”: Scarlett v. Farell, 2014 ONCJ 517, at para. 31. As stated in Sardi v. Sardi, 2011 ONCA 665, at para. 12, there is a “sound public policy of trying to discourage the use of secretly recorded conversations in family proceedings”. There is already enough conflict and mistrust in family law cases, without the parties worrying about whether the other is secretly taping them or the child.

S. 30 Assessment

[115] It is the mother’s position that “[g]iven [the father’s] recent conduct and request for additional parenting time, [she is] proposing that a parenting Assessment be conducted under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.” However, the CAS has not verified the father’s conduct that she relies upon to support her request for an assessment.

[116] As stated above, this is not a case where a s. 30 assessment is required and even if it were, implementation of the 2-2-3 parenting plan should not be delayed.

[117] Section 30(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act provides as follows:

30 (1) The court before which an application is brought for a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, by order, may appoint a person who has technical or professional skill to assess and report to the court on the needs of the child and the ability and willingness of the parties or any of them to satisfy the needs of the child.

[118] An assessment under s. 30 should not be routinely ordered. If the court can reasonably decide the issue without the assessment, it should not be ordered. The assessment must be reasonably necessary to assist the court in determining the issues before it: Kramer v. Kramer (2003), 37 R.F.L. (5th) 381, at paras. 36, 41. A “clinical issue” is not required before an assessment order is made: Glick v. Cale, 2013 ONSC 893, at paras. 40-46. The court also must consider whether the intrusive and time-consuming nature of an assessment would outweigh its benefits: Kramer, at para. 51.

[119] An assessment should not be used as a general fact-finding exercise by one parent hoping to obtain evidence favourable to their position: Haggerty v. Haggerty, 2007 ONCJ 279, at para. 7; Baillie v. Middleton, 2012 ONSC 3728, at para. 43.

[120] The mere fact that the parties are engaged in a high-conflict parenting dispute does not, in itself, justify ordering an assessment: Baillie, at para. 31.

[121] The burden is on the party seeking the assessment to demonstrate that it is reasonably necessary.

[122] Glick provides a non-exhaustive list of criteria to consider in determining whether an assessment is reasonably necessary:

a) What was the parenting relationship like before separation? Did the parents function at least adequately before the separation and the dysfunction arose after the separation?

(b) Are the parents unable to make any decision about the child's needs (including education, religion, health, and activities) without intervention by a court?

(c) Without defining "high conflict", is the relationship between the parents so unhealthy that one or both parents is/are unable to identify the best interests of the child and act on it?

(d) Do the parents have a mutual disregard for the other parent's ability to parent?

(e) Do the parents blame each other for the dysfunction each describes?

(f) Is there a clinical diagnosis that might impact on the parenting capacity of one or both parents?

(g) Is there a clinical diagnosis with respect to any of the children in the family unit that means the child is fragile and vulnerable to ongoing conflict and has special needs?

(h) What is the age of the child at separation and at the time of the request for the assessment?

(i) Is the child manifesting behaviour that might be associated with stress caused by the conflict between the parents?

(j) Is there an alternative? For example, is the child of an age and maturity that his or her views should be known and if so, would it be more appropriate to ask the OCL to become involved and appoint a lawyer to act for the child?

(k) Are there other challenges in the family such as whether the family home must be sold? If those challenges are resolved, will the family dynamic be improved and avoid the necessity of an assessment?

(l) What is the basis upon which the moving party relies? Is it essentially a mobility case on which the court must hear evidence? Is the issue custody or access?

(m) What is the estimated cost? Do the parents have the financial resources to pay that cost?

(n) Will the assessment cause delay that is not in the best interests of the child? In considering the impact of delay, is it more likely than not that the delay necessarily involved in an assessment will enable the parents to have a better understanding of the family dynamic and arrive at a resolution without a trial?

(o) Is an assessment in the best interests of the child?

[123] Some of the Glick factors are present in this case. The parties have required the court and a mediator to assist with disputes. They have also been able to agree on some orders and in particular the Kraft order. There is parental conflict, and the child has been exposed. The parents often blame each other. That said, the parents do not have conflict when in Greece. This shows that they can respect each other’s parenting time without conflict.

[124] There are many reasons why the assessment should not be ordered. There is no clinical diagnosis. Each parent now has a stable home for the child in Windsor and the father is committed to parenting the child in his new home. The move to Windsor has been expensive for the father and a s. 30 assessment is costly. The CAS has been involved with this family and is monitoring them. The CAS has investigated the mother’s allegations of harm and they were not verified. The CAS has a good relationship with the child, and they have been able to communicate the views and wishes of the child to the parents.

[125] The child has already been exposed to stress, disruption and questioning. Assessments are intrusive and could draw the child further into his parents’ conflict. The child simply wants his parents to stop arguing and talk nicely to each other. The child will receive the counseling that the CAS recommended. I have made an order. The mother has sought out the counseling the CAS recommended, and the father can do the same. They do not need a s. 30 assessment to be told that they should seek help. The CAS has already told them.

[126] I am not satisfied that the proposed assessment is necessary to assist the court in determining the issues that must be decided in this case. Rather, I conclude that all the evidence respecting the child’s needs and the parents’ ability to meet the child's needs can be addressed through the evidence of the parties themselves and others, including those at the CAS that have been involved.

[127] Lastly, the assessors that the mother proposes all work in Toronto. This would require travel and extra costs for the parties.

[128] The motion for a s. 30 assessment is denied.

Conclusion

[129] I make the following temporary orders:

1. The parenting schedule in para. 4 of the order dated March 25, 2022, is varied as follows.

2. Commencing May 1, 2024, the child, Konstantinos Panagiotis Francesco Tsiriotakis, born June 25, 2016, shall have regular parenting time with the applicant as follows: (a) Week One: From Monday after school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school) to Wednesday morning drop off at school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school) and from Friday after school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school) to Monday morning drop off at school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school); and (b) Week Two: From Wednesday after school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school) to Friday morning drop off at school (or 4:00 p.m. if no school).

3. The parenting time in para. 2 is subject to the summer 2024 parenting time that is set out in the April 10, 2024 order.

4. The parties shall use OurFamilyWizard to communicate about their child's health, education, and welfare. Each shall pay her/his own cost of using OurFamilyWizard.

5. The child shall attend counseling as recommended by the Children’s Aid Society of Windsor-Essex and the parties shall cooperate and support this counseling without delay.

6. Neither party shall record or video the child about the child’s time, experience, or relationship with the other parent.

7. The relief requested in paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the respondent’s notice of motion dated March 18, 2024, is dismissed.

8. The parties shall attend a combined settlement conference/trial management conference on October 4, 2024, at 10 a.m. for two hours. Offers to settle shall be exchanged and filed along with a jointly completed Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form.

9. If the parties cannot agree on the costs of the motions, they shall exchange brief written cost submissions including bills of costs and file them with the court by May 17, 2024.

C. Horkins J. Date: April 21, 2024

COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-21541 DATE: 20240421 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: Panagiotis Tsiriotakis, Applicant AND: Nadia Frances Rizzo, Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION Horkins, J. Released: April 21, 2024