COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-2026

DATE: 2024/04/24

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

SALVATORE GINESE Applicant

– and –

RITA FADEL Respondent

Self-Represented

Katherine Cooligan, for the Respondent

Michael Chun, for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: January 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31 and February 1, and 2, 2024 in Ottawa

TRIAL Decision - Part 1: PARENTING

aUDET J.

[1] This trial was heard over the course of three weeks. The issues in dispute were parenting, child and spousal support, as well as a handful of disputed items related to the equalization of the parties’ net family property.

[2] Although some financial issues remained in dispute, the trial focused almost entirely on parenting. Because this issue was most pressing to the parties and the children, I am releasing this trial decision in two parts: the first part below focuses on parenting issues and the second part, to be released later, will deal with financial issues.

INTRODUCTION

[3] This is the heartbreaking story of four children, An.G. (19), Al.G. (16), M.G. (15) and E.G. (12) who, since shortly after the parties separated in the summer of 2019, have completely and steadfastly rejected their mother. Except for a handful of visits supervised by the Children’s Aid Society during which the children refused to engage in any way with their mother, there has been no meaningful contact between them for almost five years.

[4] The mother takes the position that the father, who she claims was abusive to her during the parties’ 19-year marriage (including emotionally, verbally and by means of coercive control), completely alienated the children against her. According to the mother, this alienation was pre-dated by a strong and loving bond between the children and their mother, who dedicated her life to caring for and raising them. Acknowledging that the older two children have “aged out” of viable orders of the court, she seeks a complete custody reversal for the two younger children (age 15 and 12), with no contact with their father for a period of time, allowing for intensive therapeutic intervention to repair the significant emotional and psychological damages caused by the father’s extreme alienating behaviours.

[5] The father takes the position that the children’s estrangement from their mother is completely justified given the physical and emotional abuse that they have endured at the hands of their mother during the parties’ marriage, and because they have witnessed her emotional and physical abuse of their father, which escalated during the months following the parties’ separation while they were still living under the same roof. The father submits that the mother’s refusal to acknowledge her wrongs, to apologize to the children and to hold herself accountable for the deterioration of their relationship, choosing to put all the blame on the father, is what has caused the complete breakdown of their relationship. The father requests an order requiring family reunification therapy to proceed under the guidance of Dr. Arthur Leonoff, who provided expert opinion evidence in this proceeding on behalf of the mother.

[6] The children, as can be expected, strongly object to being placed in their mother’s care, and they do not wish to have any contact with her at this time.

BACKGROUND

[7] The father is a Canadian citizen of Italian descent. He was born and raised in Ottawa, and lived with his family until he married the mother. He was raised with two sisters, and by a father who struggled with schizophrenia and was in and out of hospital throughout the father’s childhood. The father witnessed his father being arrested by the police after he attacked someone due to a paranoid episode. At times, the paternal grandfather was so heavily medicated that he was unable to function or to hold a conversation. As will be seen later in these reasons, this has had a profound impact on the father.

[8] The father’s relationship with his own family has been very dysfunctional, at least from the moment he revealed having been sexually molested by his older sister on one occasion when he was a child. When he brought this up in his early twenties, he was not supported by his family which caused a rupture between him and the rest of the family, including his own mother. Throughout the parties’ marriage, he had no relationship at all with any of his family members. He did not attend his parents’ funerals, and he had no communication with his sisters.

[9] Nonetheless, the father is a highly intelligent individual who always excelled in school. He graduated from the University of Ottawa with a Civil Engineering and a Computer Engineering Degree, achieving the highest standing in the class for the second degree. After working as an engineer for various private companies, in 2012 he joined the Federal Government’s Patent Office where he continues to work to this day as a patent examiner for electrical and computer engineering patents.

[10] The mother was born in Beirut, Lebanon. She moved to Canada with her family when she was 17 years old. She is the eldest of a very tight-knit family of five siblings, all of whom except for one sister are still living in the Ottawa-Gatineau area. The mother completed a Biology Degree at the University of Ottawa in 1996, followed by a Computer Engineering Program in 2000. Like their sister, all the mother’s siblings have completed university degrees in various fields (engineering and medical sciences). During most of her marriage and until she left her employment and was placed on long-term disability benefits following the parties’ separation, the mother worked as a full-time testing engineer in the Health Canada Products Safety Lab.

[11] The parties met while they were both students at the University of Ottawa. They quickly fell in love and began a relationship. However, the mother’s family was very strict with such things and her parents were not approving of her dating. The mother states that from the very beginning of their relationship, her friends and siblings became aware of the control asserted by the father over her and for that reason did not support the relationship. Such controlling behaviours included the father dictating who the mother should talk to, who she should be friends with, and subtly isolating her from friends and family. The day before the parties’ final exam, conflict arose between the father and the mother’s sister Pascale who became upset at the father who did not want her (Pascale) to study with them and was asking her to leave them alone. This led Pascale to tell the father to “enjoy his last day with her (the mother) because tomorrow, she will be sent back to Lebanon and you will never see her again”.

[12] Both parties testified that the mother’s family did not approve of her marrying the father. The day after Pascale threatened that the family would send the mother back to Lebanon, the parties eloped. They were married civilly on April 27, 2000 without notice to, or the presence of, any of their friends and family members. This, of course, was very upsetting to the mother’s family, but the parties were able to patch things up relatively quickly. At the request of the mother’s parents, the parties agreed to marry again, this time in the presence of family and friends and in the context of a religious ceremony. Although the father’s relationship with the mother’s family members was rarely devoid of conflict and challenges, for the first several years of the parties’ marriage at least, they maintained a positive relationship and the parties attended family gatherings and special events, including with the children.

[13] An.G. was born in July 2004, followed by Al.G. in August 2007, M.G. in 2009 and E.G. in 2011. I find as a fact that despite the father’s challenging relationship with the mother’s family members, until at least 2012, the mother was able to maintain a close relationship with her family and the mother’s siblings did whatever they could to make the father feel part of the family.

[14] The mother’s oldest brother, Tony, testified in this trial and I found him to be a credible witness. He explained that despite the father’s volatile and odd behaviours, it was important for him to try and foster a positive relationship with the father because his relationship with his sister was so important to him. He testified that he viewed the father as a brother and treated him as such and, in his view, they shared a relatively strong bond. Tony’s testimony in that regard (although disputed by the father) is supported by the fact that he was chosen to be the godfather for An.G. and M.G., and for E.G. as well, although ultimately the father decided against it and chose the mother’s other brother to fulfill this role. Tony was also the father’s groomsman and emcee at the parties’ wedding.

[15] As will be explained in more detail later in these reasons, there was conflict between Tony and the parties in 2013, following which the Ginese family ceased all contact with the maternal family for a period of roughly five years. On or about 2017, the mother reconnected with her family. This resulted in increased conflict between the parties, and a deterioration of their relationship.

[16] The mother testified that during the two or three years leading up to the parties’ separation, she became increasingly concerned about the father’s mental health due to his odd, obsessive, and paranoid behaviours. For instance, the father believed that he was being followed by the police and security services, that drones were observing him in the family home, that airplanes flying over their home were spying on him, and that spies were after him and his entire family. The mother stated that the father was always on high alert for anyone suspicious as soon as the family would leave the home, including during family outings and while attending the children’s extracurricular activities.

[17] The mother testified that the father’s obsessive and paranoid behaviours were starting to negatively impact her and the children, and that she was becoming very worried. The more she urged the father to stop saying these ridiculous things to her and the children, and to seek medical attention for his paranoid behaviour, the more there was conflict in the home. This, coupled with the mother’s increased contact with her family, led to the fast and significant deterioration of the parties’ relationship.

The Separation

[18] Although the father takes the position that the parties separated on July 3, 2019, I find as a fact that the parties separated on June 13, 2019 as claimed by the mother. According to her, during an argument on that day, the father told her that he was “divorcing” her, “kicking” her out of the house, and taking the children away from her. The evidence makes it clear that the conflict in the home escalated significantly well before the date of separation advanced by the father, and evidence led by the mother’s therapist, Dr. Hemings, supports the mother’s position that the parties separated on June 13, 2019.

[19] At that time, the children were 14, 11, 10 and 7 years old.

[20] The evidence makes it clear from that point on, the home environment became highly toxic, with the parents engaging in significant conflict in front of the children. At some point in June 2019, Dr. Hemings advised the mother to remove herself from what he considered to be a very abusive home environment, with the children if possible. However, the father would not allow the mother to leave with the children, or any of them, not even for a sleepover at her mother’s home in Gatineau.

[21] The mother testified that she remained in the home with the children because she was afraid of what the father would do if she left with them, and she did not want to leave them behind. Similarly, the father had no intention of leaving the home, or the children. By then, both parties began videotaping whenever conflict arose within the home to gather evidence of the other’s wrongful or abusive conduct.

[22] At the end of June, the mother decided to travel to Quebec City to remove herself from the toxic home environment for a few days, as was suggested by Dr. Hemings. However, the father refused to allow her to take any of the children with her. When she returned home a week later, the children would not acknowledge their mother’s presence and refused to speak to her, accusing her of having abandoned them. During the weeks that followed, the children’s behaviour towards the mother would continue to deteriorate.

Police and CAS Involvement - July and August 2019

[23] During the months of July and August 2019, the police were constantly called to the home or involved by the parents’ reports of abuse at the hands of the other.[^1]

[24] On July 4, 2019, the father attended the police station with the four children after the mother called 911 during an altercation which took place in the home. The mother claimed that the father had undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia and thought that everyone was following him. She described the father as verbally abusive, and always shouting. When Ms. Pyett, the child protection worker from the Ottawa Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) who was first involved with this family, interviewed the children, An.G. told her that “his mother is always yelling and trying to brainwash him” and that in 2018, his mother “grabbed his father by the throat, grabbed a knife and threatened to kill him.” An.G. later changed this story to say that his mother had grabbed his father’s throat and looked for a knife, but then walked away.

[25] The police at that time reported to Ms. Pyett that the father had immediately told the children “the Police are not helping them, because they don't believe them,” which the police officers felt was consistent with the mother’s account of the father’s manipulation of the children to believe him regardless of fact.

[26] On July 10, 2019, Ms. Pyett attended the home and conducted private interviews with both parents and the four children. An.G. described his mother as isolating herself in her bedroom to call family members in Lebanon and telling them that their father was mentally ill. An.G. also described a pattern of repeated fights and yelling, particularly on the part of his mother. When Al.G. was interviewed, he described the incident from the summer of 2018 noted by An.G., adding that his mother “was biting his dad on the arm”. Al.G. said his mother left the house when she did not find a knife. Al.G. also noted that his father was the parent who did the morning routine and helped with their homework and piano lessons. He also worried he would lose his father if the fighting continued. Al.G. reported that his mother got a paycheque on June 26, 2019 and took the money to go to Quebec City for a few days.

[27] When M.G. was interviewed, he described the incident from 2018 similarly to his older brothers, though he thought his mother was looking for a spoon rather than a knife. M.G. described his father as doing morning and bedtime routines and the parents as splitting homework and piano or drum practice supervision. He felt that his father did three-quarters of the cooking. M.G. expressed a desire to “live with Dad because Dad cares for me more.” M.G. said that neither parent did physical discipline. When E.G. was interviewed, she described the incident from the summer of 2018 as both parents fighting, her mother biting her father when he “tried to block her with his arm,” but her account did not mention knives. E.G. described her mother spending long periods on the phone and said that her mother sometimes calls her older brothers “sick.”

[28] When the mother was interviewed, she described the father as paranoid and concerned that the family was being followed. She reported that he believed a drone was hovering over the house to spy on them and had discussed these concerns with their family doctor. She described the incident from the summer of 2018 as an argument, after which she was looking for a wooden spoon to shake in front of his face the way that her mother used to do when she was a child. When the father was interviewed, he described the mother as much different since E.G.’s birth because of subsequent health problems. The father went to see their family doctor on June 28, 2019 because he was overwhelmed and looking for support and was prescribed an antipsychotic, which he believed was based on the mother speaking to the doctor. Both parents expressed a willingness to work with the CAS, and Ms. Pyett clearly expressed the position that the fighting in front of the children needed to stop.

[29] However, police attended the family home on July 15, 2019 after the mother called 911. She had been videotaping the father, and she reported that he knocked the phone from her hand in an aggressive manner. The father and An.G. both told police that she had hit each of them in the chest. Subsequently, conflict arose when Ms. Pyett was visiting the family for a scheduled visit to interview the children on July 25, 2019. Both parents had extended family members come to the home, and both sides of the family were in conflict as well. The interviews with the children were constantly interrupted by arguing adults in the home. Ms. Pyett advised the father to get legal advice after he told her that the mother had done so. Eventually the fighting escalated, and Ms. Pyett got them to go outside to be away from the children. An.G. expressed concern for his father’s safety before the parents left.

[30] The police were called again on August 1, 2019 when the mother found herself locked out of the home and was concerned for the safety of the children. All four children were at home when the police attended and had no concerns. Ms. Pyett noted that their statements did not appear coerced, memorized from script, or cued by glancing at their father in a different room. All the children preferred being around their father, with An.G. the most vocal about not wanting to spend time around his mother. Following this, the father and An.G. went to the Stittsville Police Station on August 8, 2019 to lay an information about An.G. being assaulted by his mother on June 1, 2019 before the family attended a Redblacks game. An.G. told police that his mother followed him upstairs to his room and began biting his arm and slapping him, before pushing him into the bathtub, where he struck his head.

[31] On August 9, 2019, the mother spoke with a back-up CAS worker and expressed her concerns that the children were not safe around the father, and that he was “brainwashing and alienating the children.” The mother did not feel the children were safe and had spoken with a lawyer who advised her not to leave the home or the children. She was asked what her plan was to ensure the children were not exposed to further arguing and reiterated that she planned to stay in the home. She denied hitting or biting the children or grabbing a knife on the father. She described the June 1, 2019 incident with An.G. as her intervening in an argument between An.G. and his father.

[32] The father spoke with the same back-up CAS worker later that day. He planned to take the children to his sister’s house to get away from the conflict but informed the CAS worker that the mother had just called the police to say that he was kidnapping the children. The worker felt that the father’s plan to take the children to his sister’s house was appropriate to keep the children safe and away from conflict and “that he was being a protective parent”. The mother called the CAS later that day because she did not know where the children were and said that she would call the police if the father did not bring them back immediately. As a result, the father and the children remained in the home.

[33] It is around that time that the father reunited with one of his sisters, Graziella (“Grace”), whom he had had no contact with for some 20 years. Grace lives in Ottawa with her husband and her children, and during these difficult times she opened her home to the father and the children, and they began spending a lot of time there.

[34] On August 12, 2019, the mother called the police alleging that the father “was trying to take the children”. The police advised both parents to seek legal advice and reminded them not to expose the children to their arguments. The children “told police that they are worried that their mom is continuing to make up allegations against their dad” and that they stay with him during arguments to “witness what is happening”.

[35] The following day, August 13, 2019, the mother at the recommendation of a Victim of Violence counsellor obtained a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, and police attended the residence to bring the father to the Queensway-Carleton Hospital for an assessment. The children were at Grace’s house, and the CAS worker noted that they “refused to come with any worker who came” despite the mother’s insistence that they return home. The father was seen by a doctor and after a few hours, he was released from the hospital. He returned to his sister’s home while these discussions were taking place, and the children returned home with him.

[36] On August 16, 2019, the parents agreed to enter into a six-month Voluntary Service Agreement (“VSA”) with the CAS. Terms and conditions of the VSA included monthly meetings with a CAS representative for the parents and agreeing to home visits and individual child visits. The parents agreed to attend relationship counselling, access counselling for their children as needed, and to ensure that their children not be exposed to or involved in further conflict.

[37] On August 26, 2019, Ms. Pyett called the mother to discuss a comment she made to the police that she was concerned the father “might murder the children then commit suicide”. The mother did not agree to discuss the comments in person and then stated that she had “lost trust and confidence” in Ms. Pyett. Later that day, An.G. met with Ms. Pyett and expressed that “it's getting worse, it is progressively worse”. An.G. reported that his mother continued to record the children using voice memos, and that he did not feel safe around her. This prompted Ms. Pyett to conduct individual interviews with all four children, who confirmed that their mother was “taping them all the time”. The children also confirmed that their mother had told An.G. to “come and push me away if you want me to go away”. This was seemingly instigated when the children did not want to go to a professional soccer game or fair with their mother that weekend.

[38] Ms. Pyett then interviewed Al.G., who reported that when his mother got mad, she would yell and leave for “six or seven hours” and that they would not know where she had gone. He said that he “doesn't like this to be happening, wants it to finish,” and did not want to be left alone with his mother. E.G. expressed her concern that her mother would “say something bad about dad and then tell the police” and recalled hearing her mother say to her father that “the judge is going to choose me”.

[39] Following these interviews, the CAS recommended that the father temporarily move out of the home with the children to ensure that they were no longer exposed to the significant parental conflict.

The Child Protection and Family Law Proceedings

[40] On August 30, 2019, the CAS filed a Protection Application seeking an order that the children be placed in the care of their father under a supervision order, with supervised access to their mother. On the same day, a temporary without prejudice order was made to that effect, and Ms. Kelly Pemberton was appointed to replace Ms. Pyett as the family’s caseworker. Although the mother wanted the children back in her care, she recognized that they would need professional help to make this happen given the children’s strong objections to contact with her.

[41] Shortly thereafter, the parties consented to the appointment of the Family Court Clinic (the “FCC”) to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the family.

[42] On October 11, 2019, the father filed a Divorce Application in which he sought a divorce, sole custody, and primary care of the children (as it was then called), supervised access to the mother, child support, the equalization of the parties’ net family property, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and a restraining order for his benefit and that of the children. While the claims related to parenting did not proceed at that time because the child protection proceedings were still ongoing, the father wished to reintegrate the matrimonial home with the children and brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the home. By then, he had been living with the children at his sister’s home for a couple of months, and he wanted to return home with the children.

[43] On October 21, 2019, the mother consented to the father having exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. He reintegrated the home with the children on or about that time, and the mother moved in with the maternal grandmother. By then, the mother had had a few supervised visits with the children at the CAS’ office, none of which had gone well. Her wish to quickly resume care of the children having been shattered by the toxicity of her visits with the children, she agreed that it was in the children’s best interest to return home, and she agreed to vacate it to allow the father to move back in.

[44] The mother’s Answer (in the Family Law proceedings) was filed on February 10, 2020. In it, she claimed an order granting her sole custody and primary care of the children (as it was then called), an order for intensive therapeutic intervention for the parties and the children, a restraining order (for her benefit and that of the children), child and spousal support, the equalization of the parties’ net family property, and an order for the sale of the home.

The Mother’s Supervised Visits

[45] It is important at this juncture to describe the mother’s visits with the children following their apprehension by the CAS, which visits were fully supervised at the CAS’ office.

[46] The mother’s visits with the children began on September 3, 2019 and only included the three younger children as An.G. (then 14) was refusing to attend. In her affidavits filed in the context of the child protection proceedings,[^2] and during her testimony at this trial, Ms. Pemberton reported that the mother initially had two access visits per week for two hours each with Al.G., M.G., and E.G.

[47] She reported that the visits were excruciatingly difficult to watch. The children were observed to be angry with their mother and very disrespectful and rude to her. They often would not engage in conversation; they would ignore her and refuse her affection. They would make mean and rude comments to her. A common theme in the visits was for the children to bring up things that happened in the home over the summer. For example, they would constantly bring up how the mother “called the police 8 times” on their dad, a theme that would continue to be recurrent over the next several years.

[48] In her notes from the first supervised visit between the mother and the children, Ms. Pemberton observed the following:

Mom said: “I love you and I miss you and I know you miss me too”. [E.G.]: “you’re not my mommy”. […]

[Al.G.]: “how many times have you called the police”. [E.G.]: “you locked your own bedroom door and called the police to say he hurt you in the bathroom. […]

“Who smoked in the mercedes?” Mom: “nobody ever got in the car with me” [E.G.]: “why are there cigarette butts and ashes all over the ground.” [E.G.]: “what bullshit is that?”. Mom: “why don’t you tell me about my school teacher, friends”. [M.G.]: “nobody wants to talk to you”. […]

[E.G.]: “we only came here because we have to.”

Mom brought dinner. She kept asking them if they want tabouli and they said they hate tabouli and [E.G.] said that she “regrets eating it all these years”. […] They say they want the visit to end. […]

[E.G.] – “crying scene, there she goes” – when mom was a bit teary.

[E.G.] yells “don’t touch me” when her mom tried to reach out to her. […]

[Al.G.]: “we can’t respect you for what you did” […]

Mom: “can I please play” – [E.G.]: “nobody wants you to play, if you want we can return it to you because you bought it and we can play the Monopoly game that my dad bought”. […]

[Al.G.]: “how many times have you fake cried, you’re probably an expert now”. […]

[49] In addition to the above, the children would call their mother by her first name, instead of calling her “mommy”, alternatively refusing to speak to her and then accusing her of abusive behaviour, of lying, of not caring for them. They completely refused any physical contact with her. The children’s behaviour during this first visit was so extreme, that Ms. Pemberton felt it necessary to meet with the children afterwards to give them some ground rules (“it is OK for you to be angry at your mother, but it is not OK for you to be so rude to her; no more swearing, yelling, talking about past events”).

[50] During the visits that followed, the children’s behaviour towards their mother deteriorated even further and, frankly, it became downright abusive. For instance, the children would frequently tell their mother that they hated her, ask her to leave them alone or be extremely condescending to her. During some of the visits, the children would sit with their back to her, looking at the wall, and completely ignoring her. They would demand that she not talk to them, and the mother would oblige.

[51] Unfortunately, the mother’s response to the children’s complete rejection and abuse was not always helpful. These concerns were noted by Ms. Pemberton in her affidavit sworn October 9, 2019:

8. It is apparent that this rejection is very difficult for [the mother] and she will often become emotional after the visits. Despite the negative visits, she continues to attend the visits and she tries to engage with the children. [The mother] does not talk negatively about the father to the children. She brings them home cooked food and she often brings toys or games for them to play with.

9. There are many concerns with respect to [the mother]'s behaviour and response to the children in the visits. [The mother] has difficulty respecting the children's boundaries during the visits. She is very intrusive with them and does not read their verbal or physical cues. For example, they will firmly tell her throughout the visits not to touch them, however, she continues to touch them or attempt to touch them throughout the visits. For example on September 3, 2019 [the mother] got right in front of [Al.G.]' face (again) as he is lying on the couch and she was touching his arms and putting her head and the food in front of his face. He continued to ignore her question and kept saying to her "don't touch me, don't touch me".

10. [The mother] continuously talks to the children throughout the visits despite them ignoring her or telling her to stop talking to them. [The mother] constantly repeats the same thing to them. For example, she will continuously tell them to eat more of the food she bought or repeatedly ask them if they are finished their dinner. It is apparent that these attempts by [the mother] to engage the children, irritate them further and make them angrier toward her. They will yell at her or snap rudely at her.

[52] In early November 2019, in an effort to make the children’s visits with their mother more positive and to foster communication, the visits were changed so that each child would visit with their mother separately for one hour on separate days. It did not help. While earlier on the children would eventually accept to eat the food their mother was providing during visits, by the month of January 2020 they would steadfastly refuse to touch any of it. They refused her Christmas presents. They continued to present with rude, disrespectful, and rejecting behaviour towards their mother. During a visit between E.G. and her mother on December 16, E.G. refused to remove her jacket, sat on a chair, and turned it to face the wall so that her back was to her mother. She refused to speak to her mother, and when the mother told her that she loved her and would always be there for her, E.G. responded by saying “[y]ou don’t care. You caused everything. You lied and called the police for no reason”. She was eight years old at the time.

[53] Ms. Pemberton testified that she was highly concerned about the children and about these visits. She testified that she had done this work for many years, and she had never seen something like this before. She explained that, even when there has been abuse and neglect, children in most cases still want to have some type of relationship with their parent. These children’s rejection of their mother, however, was complete and absolute.

FCC Assessment

[54] Admittedly, the FCC assessment took much longer than usual. Dr. Wood explained that in keeping with other cases of suspected parental alienation, he was of the opinion that this was a very complex assessment due to a number of factors.

[55] Firstly, he found that there was limited to no information pertaining to this family experiencing dysfunction or discord prior to the police and CAS involvement in early 2019. Secondly, both parents provided conflicting accounts of their relationship. The mother described the father as controlling, vindictive, emotionally and verbally abusive, and paranoid while the father described the mother as short-fused and emotionally unstable and exposing the children to adult conflict and adult information as well as physically abusing them.

[56] I believe it is fair to conclude that the FCC assessment was inconclusive based on the information they were able to collect at that time.

[57] Clearly, Dr. Wood harboured significant concerns about the father’s negative influence over the children. He was of the view that the children’s substantial levels of resentment towards their mother seemed disproportionate to the reported abusive behaviours that they say they had experienced. He found that the children were all focused on a select few incidents, and they all pointed out that they were very unhappy that the police were called to the home “on eight occasions” the previous summer. It was worrisome to him that the children were not able to come up with one positive memory with their mother, and that they were not even willing to engage with her in a conversation or to explore these experiences. He said as follows:

While it would be somewhat unusual for all the children to fabricate abusive incidents if they were untrue, they could have potentially been fed this information over a number of years or they may be in a position where they feel they need to reduce the conflict in the home and view their father as a victim based on his potential emotional reactions.

Nonetheless, if the allegations of [the mother]'s abusive and erratic behaviours have an element of truth, the children's resentment would be reasonable and warrant a cautious approach to their exposure to their mother. However, the possibility that direct or indirect influence by their father, thereby promoting parental alignment, cannot be ruled out.

[58] Dr. Wood found clear evidence of the father revealing too much adult information to the children and fueling their resentment towards their mother. He noted that the father had been observed attempting to discuss adult matters with the children or in front of the children during the assessment, even after the FCC team members re-directed him. He noted that the children used similar vernacular as the father, for instance when they said “shame on her” when referring to their mother’s action.[^3] All the children were also aware of the father’s charges related to allegations their mother made to the police as well as their father’s plan to have them live with their aunt Grace if he was incarcerated because of their mother’s allegations, thus further aligning them to their father.

[59] The FCC was also unable to come to clear conclusions about whether the father was struggling with a significant amount of paranoia either representing a delusional disorder or a paranoid personality disorder. The father’s psychological testing was rendered invalid due to him presenting himself in an overly favourable light, and there was limited to no information available to corroborate the mother’s accounts of paranoid behaviour which prevented the FCC from making any specific diagnosis. Nonetheless, Dr. Wood concluded the following:

It is recognized, however, that [the father] does present with a number of paranoid traits, where he remains convinced that various intelligence agencies have indeed been following him and his family for years, which he suspects may be due to [the mother]'s brother, Tony. He also appears capable of holding significant grudges, where he did not speak to his family for a number of years due to a problematic encounter when he disclosed being sexually molested by his oldest sister, and he did not even attend his parents' respective funerals.

However, if there truly is an underlying psychotic illness or significant paranoid personality traits, this could negatively impact the children due to causing them to worry unnecessarily while also having an increased risk of instability during times of increased paranoia.

[60] With respect to the mother, Dr. Wood found no evidence to confirm that she struggled with anger or emotional dysregulation. He said that if the FCC were to only rely on the father’s description of the mother, it would appear that she was largely disengaged from the family while also being erratic and demonstrating irritability and anger issues. However, Dr. Wood found limited to no corroborating information to support the father’s account aside from the children’s reports, which he found may have been intentionally or unintentionally influenced. Dr. Wood added as follows:

Nevertheless, if there is any truth to what [the mother] described regarding her relationship to [the father], it would seem that she was a victim of coercive control that progressively worsened over the years, resulting in [the mother] becoming increasingly passive and struggling to leave the relationship, thereby inadvertently allowing the children to be exposed to further chaotic scenarios and potentially alienating behaviour. It could also explain [the mother]'s persistence in the access visits with the children despite the negative quality and ongoing accusations made by the children. If [the mother] did indeed act in abusive or erratic ways with the children, it would be unusual to persist with the visits with the children when there is no clear secondary gain.

[61] The FCC remarked that while the children’s contempt towards their mother, at that time, was clear, the reports of the children’s concerns and allegations of abuse by her only seemed to crop up when the police and CAS became involved. Nevertheless, it was apparent that the mother had engaged in escalated arguments with the father in front of the children, including filming or recording some of these encounters, which had caused animosity from her children.

[62] However, Dr. Wood noted that the mother presented as being appropriate and loving during her visits with the children while making attempts to engage each of the three youngest children, her efforts were met with complete silence and anger. Each child would bring vague complaints of being hit as well as being angry that she called the police. He concluded as follows:

When reviewing the reported allegations towards [the mother], it is concerning that the children are presenting with this much contempt and inflexibility towards her, and it suggests that their behaviours are more representative of children involved in a high-conflict separation, where they feel they need to sheer one parent or they are being aligned by the father in some way.

[63] The following paragraph found at the end of the FCC assessment report is noteworthy in relation to the conclusions I reach after three weeks of trial with this family, as will be described later in these reasons:

As previously mentioned, there are a number of limitations regarding the FCC's ability to gain a clearer picture of this family. One of the main limiting factors is the fact that there was no information available describing this family prior to police and CAS involvement, where it seems that both [the mother] and [the father] were estranged from their respective families and there was no other community agency involvement. There was also no information from medical professionals indicating either parent revealing concerns about the other prior to 2019. As a result, the FCC is largely uncertain regarding the quality of the children's relationship to each parent prior to the current situation, and whether there had been any noticeable differences over the years.

Nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance for the Society and the Courts to get a clearer understanding of this family over a period of years, as there are a number of factors raising the concern of potential parental alienation, and there are limited individuals that are able to provide this information.

[64] Ultimately, Dr. Wood found that while there were significant concerns that the father may have taken progressive steps to alienate the children from their mother, particularly over the previous year, the FCC believed there was no alternative than to leave the children in the care of their father for the following reasons:

• The father had demonstrated positive parenting skills during the FCC interaction and home visits where he was affectionate, met the children’s multiple needs, and multi-tasked. The children all responded well to this, and they were respectful in their interactions while also spontaneously demonstrating affection;
• While the FCC was unable to fully confirm the stability in the children’s relationship with their father and their father’s ongoing functioning, the children clearly had a strong alignment to their father and seemingly viewed him as the preferred parent;
• The fact that all the children were strongly bonded to their father at that time could not be changed, and it appeared that all their needs were being met;
• It was the FCC’s impression that any forced separation between the children and their father could be viewed as a traumatic event through their eyes and lead to a deterioration in their functioning; and
• In addition, if one or more of the children were forced to reside with their mother, the FCC would view her as being at significantly increased risk of further allegations of abuse and the resentment the children have towards her would be exacerbated.

[65] Dr. Wood recommended that the family engage with reunification counselling due to the number of red flags present to suggest that the children had been alienated from their mother. He also suggested that such counselling move forward with each child individually based on concerns that the children might encourage each other to not communicate with their mother (as had been observed during supervised visits and during the FCC’s observation visits).

[66] As for An.G., who had been the most resistant to contact with his mother, and who had refused to attend supervised visits with her or to participate in the FCC assessment, Dr. Wood recognized that he might not be prepared to participate in reunification counselling. If that were the case, he recommended that he at least participate in his own individualized therapy, preferably with a therapist specialized in trauma and attachment.

[67] As for any access between the mother and the children, Dr. Wood was of the view that it needed to continue to be supervised at that time, including within the context of reunification counselling where the counsellor would provide suggestions as to how to move forward.

[68] In addition to recommending the parents to access various services, including individual counselling, Dr. Wood also recommended the possibility of the Resolution Program for high conflict families postseparation or divorce available at Family Services Ottawa. He noted that this service, however, would be more reasonable once some reunification had been established, as well as the Families Moving Forward in Toronto (a multi-day family intervention in a “vacation style” lodging that is designed for the participation of the entire family and includes an aftercare component). He acknowledged, however, that he was not aware of the long-term outcomes of this latter program.

[69] Finally, Dr. Wood concluded the following:

It is also apparent that both parents were engaging in conflict and chaotic behaviours this past summer with police involvement and recording each other, all while in the presence of the children. Nevertheless, if it is determined that one parent is repeatedly speaking about the other parent or other professionals negatively in front of the children, providing alignment to the exclusion of the other parent, or if [the father] is providing a home environment that is chaotic or causing safety concerns (i.e. ongoing paranoid beliefs causing changes in routines), the Courts may have no choice but to make an extreme decision, such as having the children placed in a foster home, in the care of Kin, or in [the mother]'s care, which would undoubtedly have negative impacts on the children in the short-term but would also represent the least detrimental option in this circumstance. [Emphasis added.]

[70] It is important to note that, other than the parties themselves, the children and Ms. Pemberton, the FCC did not interview any other collateral witnesses (other than two of the mother’s counsellors from the Western Ottawa Community Resource Center), or any of the parties’ family members. While the FCC reviewed extensive medical records from both parents and the children, as well as the children’s education records, it does not appear that they had access to the many police occurrence reports related to the conflict that took place in the summer of 2019 (although they relied on the CAS’ evidence in that regard, filed in the context of the child protection proceedings), or those related to the conflict between the parties and Tony while the parties were still married.

[71] As will be discussed in more details below, significantly more evidence was obtained in the context of this trial which the FCC did not have access to at the time it completed its assessment. Furthermore, events which occurred after the FCC assessment have shed additional light on this family’s complex dynamics, past and present.

Dr. Leonoff”s Critique Report

[72] The mother did not agree with the recommendations made by the FCC, so she retained the services of Dr. Arthur Leonoff to provide a critique report. Dr. Leonoff’s critique was released to the parties on May 6, 2020.

[73] It is important to note that in the context of preparing his critique report, Dr. Leonoff made it readily clear that he did not meet with the parties or the children, and he did not access any other information than what was contained in the FCC assessment itself. His input was based solely on his review of the FCC report, and his focus was to provide some consideration of the issues raised in the FCC report, including of the recommendations that were made based on the FCC’s findings. Dr. Leonoff testified in this trial and was able to expand on the hypothesis, conclusions, and recommendations he made in his report.

[74] His first major hypothesis was that there was simply too much unresolved trauma, past and present, to give this couple much of a chance. He explained as follows:

If we take the reports of paranoid thinking in [the father], it is likely that he was deeply affected by the cumulative stress during the marriage, major home, work and marital pressures, and his sense of threat, which fed into fears of being followed and surveilled. [The mother] could not seemingly tolerate her husband’s anxiety and she appears to have handled it poorly after it got too much for her. She yelled and accused him of the one thing that would have almost certainly terrified him, which is that he was sick like his father.

[75] Dr. Leonoff opined that the mother’s anxiety and emotional exhaustion, abetted by physical pain, likely went into yelling and accusations against her overwrought husband. This led him to draw the children around him and seek their support as witnesses and confidants. They became a buffer between him and his frustrated, upset wife who had had enough of his persecutory anxiety and was losing her patience. According to him, the re-entry of the maternal family, who according to the father had always opposed the union, added to the strain and mayhem. The children, led by the capable older son, An.G., coalesced around their threatened father. Although Dr. Leonoff could only hypothesize, his impression was that the children saw him as imperiled and, in defense of him, stood forcefully against their mother.

[76] He added the following:

It is obvious that these children are alienated in precisely the ways that have been clearly described in the literature and observed clinically: absolute total rejection of a parent without any hesitation or equivocation, total unequivocal support of the other parent, and a refusal to even consider forgiveness or reparation. They now treat her as toxic and untouchable and do so without any guilt. This case has all the earmarks of alienation. Like all cases, however, it needs to be understood within the context it is occurring. It is a split world where there can only be one survivor. This radical solution of a sick, disqualified father or a villainous mother is a consistent theme that both parents have indirectly supported in their war.

Placing the focus on the father, … thus, as the sole cause of the alienation would miss the point that the refusal dynamics are almost certainly originating in the frame that encompasses the children and their parents. There is indication from the report that [the father] needs and seeks out the children’s support while, at the same time, they are very willing to vociferously offer it. They view their mother’s allegations of schizophrenia in their father as an attempt to wrest control by delegitimizing him. The older son, [An.G.], in particular, seems to lead the way in this mission of paternal protection. He was the one child who refused outright to see his mother during the assessment. From the report, it would seem that [An.G.] moved decisively to protect his father from his mother’s apparent blame and vitriol. He leads a concerted effort by the children to defend their father from what they apparently perceive as a plan to pathologize and even eliminate him as a valid parent.

[77] Based on his review of the FCC assessment report, Dr. Leonoff stated that he would not recommend reunification therapy for such a family. In his view, it would simply set the mother up to fail and go nowhere. The children would almost certainly view it as the mother’s attempt to strategically penetrate the barrier to attack and supplant their father. His sense was that it was the parents, and not the children, who would have to provide the corrective action needed. In his view, there was no solution for this family that did not involve them functioning as a parenting couple of these four affected children. To that extent, the parents needed to come together and figure out how to solve it.

[78] Dr. Leonoff was of the view that both parents needed therapy, individually if they chose but for sure together. They needed to find the spark that brought them together and analyze what went so wrong and why. They also needed to understand the trauma in their own family of origin and see the links to what had occurred in the family they made together. Involving the children should only take place with both parents in the room after they gained more insight and compassion for each other. In his view, there was no use in seeing the children separately until the parents themselves were able to change the message and expectation. Specifically, they would have to hear something very different from their father.

Withdrawal of the Child Protection Application and Continuation of the Family Law Proceeding

[79] When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the mother’s supervised visits with the children became virtual. As can be appreciated, this presented an additional challenge to what was already a very difficult situation. Ultimately, the visits had to be discontinued. The mother’s last visit with the children occurred in June 2020.

[80] On July 2, 2020, all parties to the child protection proceedings consented to the withdrawal of the CAS’ Protection Application on agreed upon terms. This included the parents proceeding with their family law application and an agreement by all that the FCC assessment completed in the context of the child protection proceeding, as well as all affidavits produced by the CAS could be produced and be made available to the court in the family law proceeding.

[81] The endorsement completed by the court on that day stated the following:

This is a very high conflict matter which resulted in the children becoming estranged from their mother. The possible causes for the family dysfunction are identified in the comprehensive FCC assessment released to the parties in March 2020 and detailed recommendations were made to ensure that the children's best interests are met by both parents. It is imperative that the family law proceeding be closely case managed by one judge to ensure its due and expeditious completion within a reasonable amount of time.

[82] Justice Engelking was appointed as case management judge shortly thereafter, and a first case management conference was held on July 28, 2020. On that day, an order was made requiring the parties to agree on a counsellor whom they would retain for reunification counselling, and on the terms of his/her mandate. If they could not agree, they were permitted to bring a motion on this issue.

[83] While the parties eventually agreed on Dr. Carol Milstone, a psychologist, to provide therapeutic assistance, they could not agree on the terms and the scope of her retainer. As a result, a motion on this (and other) issues was heard on October 15, 2020, and reserved.

Urgent Motion - Assault on An.G.

[84] On February 28, 2021, the father and children were packing up and moving out of the matrimonial home which had been sold. At one point, the father and An.G. got into an argument because of An.G. refusing to help. When the argument heated up, the father punched him in the face, resulting in three[^4] of An.G.’s teeth falling out. An.G. was immediately brought to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”) by his father.

[85] While at CHEO with An.G., the father saw a police officer who was in his marked cruiser in the parking lot of the hospital and walked to him advising him that he wanted to turn himself in. He admitted to the police officer that he had punched An.G. and had knocked teeth out.

[86] After An.G.’s medical procedure was completed at the hospital, two officers escorted him to a private room to be interviewed. However, An.G. told the officers that, on the advice of the emergency doctor, he did not wish to speak to the police and that he would require a lawyer or a parent to represent him. He thereafter refused to answer any of the officers’ questions.

[87] When the two police officers went to see the father after, he also refused to give any kind of statement or answer questions. In their police occurrence report from that day, the police wrote that they had “zero information from an uncooperative victim” and as result, the file was closed, and no charges were pressed.

[88] The father never notified the mother (or anyone else) of these events at the time they occurred. The mother found out by making inquiries through her lawyer for information as to why An.G. was taking antibiotics (which had been claimed from her work health insurance). As soon as the mother found out about the assault, she brought an urgent motion seeking the removal of the children from their father’s care and an order placing them with her. That motion was heard on April 8, 2021 and dismissed on April 29, 2021 based mainly on the fact that the CAS was involved with the family following these events, was working with the father and children to connect them with support and had determined that the children were not at risk such that they needed to be removed from their father’s care.

[89] In the same interim decision, the court released its decision in relation to the interim motion heard on October 15, 2020 (the same judge heard both motions), and made the following order in relation to Dr. Milstone’s retainer:

a. On consent, the parties shall jointly retain Dr. Carol Milstone, subject to her availability and agreement, to assist in all members of the family, and specifically both parents, with the repair and reunification of the children’s relationship with the Respondent. Both parties shall engage with this process, cooperate, participate, and facilitate and the support the children’s engagement and participation.

b. The parties shall share the cost of the above therapeutic process equally, without prejudice to the issue of whether one party should bear a greater share of the cost being determined at trial. The exception to this is that each party shall bear their own costs of any individual therapy in which they engage.

c. Dr. Milstone shall receive copies of the FCC report, Dr. Leonoff’s critique, and, if she requests it, copies of any court documents and police and CAS records.

d. Dr. Milstone may make recommendations on the therapeutic process, including with respect to individual therapy for the parties and the children, joint therapy for the parties, and family therapy.

e. Dr. Milstone may report to the court with her recommendations.

f. If the parties disagree on following Dr. Milstone’s recommendations or engaging in a process that Dr. Milstone has recommended, either may bring a motion to the court seeking an order on the recommendations, on short notice.

[90] Finally, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) was appointed to provide legal representation for the children.

[91] An.G. required reconstructive surgery to fix the damage caused by his father’s assault and re-attach his teeth. Throughout his testimony, the father referred to these events as “the unfortunate incident” between him and An.G..

Dr. Carol Milstone - First Report

[92] Dr. Milstone’s first order of business as a reunification therapist was to assess the family for its suitability for reunification therapy and to provide a treatment plan. In addition to reading all the materials provided by both parties and their counsel for this work, which included the FCC assessment and Dr. Leonoff’s critique report, Dr. Milstone met with the parties for an initial virtual session, followed by virtual sessions with each parent and a three-hour home visit with the children and the father. This work began in the summer of 2021.

[93] On August 8, 2021, Dr. Milstone produced a first report with some preliminary findings for the benefit of the parties, their lawyers, and the court. In that preliminary report, she expressed the view that both parents were highly intelligent, passionate, emotionally intense individuals who were both similarly pained with regards to the crisis that had befallen their family. At that time, she believed that both parents shared a profound desire to resolve this family crisis and restore communication between the children and their mother.

[94] After interviewing the children individually, she noticed that they were remarkably united on their position that they did not want contact with their mother unless she “owned up” to what she had done and “apologized” to them for the damage her behaviour has caused. She noted that their position was almost verbatim to their father’s position as well and opined that this was highly unusual.

[95] Despite her professional bewilderment (her words) over the children’s rejection of their mother, she was of the view that there could be benefits to resume some communication between the mother and the children. Before this process could begin, however, she believed that two requisite moves had to be completed.

[96] First, it was important that the parents present an alliance with each other, in the form of a united front, even if only superficial. She noted, however, that this would present a challenge given the complete lack of trust between the parents and the father’s adamant refusal to ever step foot in the same room as the mother.

[97] Dr. Milstone stated that the second requisite move before reconciliation talks could begin came from the children themselves. She stated that during her interviews with the children, they had all conveyed to her (almost verbatim) the same condition that the father expressed in his pleadings: that the mother “own up” to all the damage she had done to the family and apologized for it. More specifically, the children were seeking an apology for the mother yelling at them, biting them, accusing the older boys of being mentally ill and schizophrenic “like their father,” filming the children intrusively to use against their father, calling the police multiple times the summer of 2019, and trying to get their father committed.

[98] In that report, Dr. Milstone explained that, while the children’s allegations about being bit by the mother were serious and the children seemed to believe that this had indeed occurred, when she asked them to describe those incidents to her none of the children were able to describe such an incident. Dr. Milstone was quite skeptical about the veracity of some of the children’s allegations based on her interviews with them, their inability to provide details and the identical wording with which they made those allegations.

[99] Dr. Milstone also expressed that, while the children were tightly aligned with their father, she was not convinced that this alignment was solely born out of affection. She raised the possibility that the children might be aligning with their father out of fear of him, that the children might be refusing to see their mother to exercise control over the frightful chaos they experienced when both parents were still together, or that the children aligned with their father because he posed a lesser threat compared to their mother.

[100] Dr. Milstone noted that the children had experienced menacing actions on the part of their mother, calling the police on their father, trying to get him committed, and filming the children as evidence to use against their father. On the other hand, she remarked that the children had experienced an unrelenting verbal campaign against their mother. She concluded that the father lacked the capacity to filter his barrage of accusations against the mother and, as a representative from the CAS had also reported to her, she had experienced first-hand his long-winded rants against the mother including in the presence of the children.

[101] While the father’s dedication to raising the children was hard to deny, Dr. Milstone noted that he also had a combative and even assaultive streak. She reported the following:

I have been at the receiving end of his verbally aggressive and intimidating speaking style, upon the slightest provocation for an administrative misunderstanding.

More serious though, [the father] lost his cool upon slight provocation with his son on moving day last February, assaulting him by punching him in the face and causing three front teeth to fall out.

[The father] is profoundly remorseful for this assault of his son, and said he was willing to go to jail for it. I understand that the police did not press charges for this assaultive act.

[The father] reported to me loudly in the children’s company how he “might have” assaulted one of their sons years ago when he was a toddler (causing a broken leg and hospital visit and cast), and he is now willing to “go to jail for it.”

[102] She concluded as follows:

When I think about children living with a parent who holds such a propensity to aggression and violence, I have to wonder how authentic their professed allegiance is for this parent. And if this allegiance is genuine, I must wonder if the preference is born strictly out of affection, or in part at least from having to choose between the lesser of two threatening parents.

Regardless, these children need some sense of control in their lives to mitigate further threats, whether the threats be physical or emotional.

[103] Considering all the above, Dr. Milstone offered the following recommended next steps. First, the parents had to work towards being able to share the same physical space, to be in a position to participate in joint therapy sessions with her. Secondly, in order to grant the children the control that they needed to move forward, their request for an apology from their mother would have to be seriously considered.

[104] She was of the view that the children should not be forced to see their mother for the time being. In her view, they had gone through enough family chaos, and their need for control had to trump the mother’s desire to see them for the time being, as forcing them to do so would only cause further damage. She identified an esteemed child psychologist who was willing to work with the children, in consultation with her.

[105] Finally, if her work was to continue with these parents, she made it clear that they needed to accept that whether the mother bit the children was not something she would resolve, they needed to respect that her role was to remain neutral, and they needed to stop making unsolicited allegations against each other during sessions with her.

November 5, 2021 - Visit Between the Mother and the Children at Dr. Milstone’s Office

[106] The parties’ respective testimony as to the events that took place on that day, including that of Grace, the children’s paternal aunt, are very different (in various ways) from the version provided by Dr. Milstone in her last report and during her testimony. For reasons that will become clear later in these reasons, I accept Dr. Milstone’s version of what took place on that day.

[107] At Dr. Milstone’s request, and with both parties’ consent, a meeting was arranged between the three younger children (An.G. refused to attend) and their mother, and took place on November 5, 2021 at Dr. Milstone’s office. This had been discussed in advance with both parents, and the children had been informed of this upcoming meeting.

[108] I accept that this was not meant as a reunification meeting between the children and their mother, but rather an opportunity for Dr. Milstone to observe (for the first time) the dynamics between the children and their mother before producing a further report. Dr. Milstone had clearly informed the father that the children would be brought together in the same room as their mother, that they would not be forced to see her or stay in the room with her, and there was no formal agenda or expectations on either part. The children knew that they were going to Dr. Milstone’s office, and they knew that they would be meeting their mother there.

[109] When the children arrived at the office, they were accompanied by their father and Grace. After Dr. Milstone greeted them in the reception area, she asked if the children and anyone would like to join her in the adjacent boardroom where their mother was sitting. She described what unfolded as follows:

[The father] and Grace declined but the children agreed, robotically walked to the board room, single file, without a word, and then robotically filed out of the board room, single file. [Al.G.] was first in the single file, then [M.G.], then [E.G.]. [E.G.] was the last to enter and leave the board room. Her eyes were briefly locked on her mother, she was briefly suspended before following suit with her brothers. Except for this brief visual exchange between [E.G.] and [the mother], the children’s behaviour did not seem spontaneous, it seemed rehearsed.

[110] Respecting the children’s wishes, as she had indicated she would, Dr. Milstone followed them in the reception area. When asked if any of the children would like to speak with her privately, they all declined. When she asked the father whether he wanted to meet with her privately he “stared me down with menacing contempt and told me in front of children and staff that he had ‘nothing to say to me’”. As Dr. Milstone was standing outside the boardroom with the father, the children and Grace, the mother came out of the boardroom towards the children who were standing in a line behind their father. The mother came out crying, literally falling to her knees, begging, pleading, beseeching them to see her. As she was crying on her knees the children remained robotically silent, and the mother ended up being yelled at and mocked by Grace, who yelled at her to stop being so dramatic and just “tell the truth” and “own up” to what she did to the children. The mother then responded to these verbal attacks by yelling back at Grace, until Dr. Milstone stopped them both by requiring the mother to go back to the boardroom, which she did.

[111] Once the mother left, Dr. Milstone spoke with the children trying to ascertain why they had refused to see their mother. She came to form the view that the children’s expectations around this meeting, as conveyed to them by their father, were completely incorrect and these children had no intention to see their mother during this visit, regardless of how things unfolded. Before leaving her office with Grace and the children, the father told Dr. Milstone in front of the children and staff that because of this meeting and “everything” she had done with this family, he was going to seek legal action against her through his lawyer and report her to her “association.”

[112] Following this interaction with the children and the parties, on November 17, 2021, Dr. Milstone wrote a very brief second report to the court and the parties advising that she had reached the conclusion that outpatient reunification therapy was contra-indicated for this family, and that existing family factors – some of which might compromise the safety of persons involved in this matter – would interfere with such therapy. She also advised that the pieces of information she had collected during her involvement with this family revealed such severity for potential violence that she had filed a report with the Ottawa Police who in turn were contacting child protection services.

[113] As a result of Dr. Milstone’s report to the police, the CAS was once again involved with the family, but only very briefly. Following a short investigation, the CAS closed the file based on the following:

1. “Caregiver with a problem – risk that the children are likely to be harmed”: This allegation was not verified. While the Father acknowledged that on-going life stressors have affected his mental health, there was no indication that this posed a risk of harm to [the] Children. The Children did not report any concerns regarding his mental health, nor did they appear to be negatively impacted by it.

2. “Caregiver causes children’s emotional harm/risk of emotional harm due to exposure to ongoing post-separation caregiver conflict”: This allegation was not verified. The Children did not report being exposed to any inappropriate messaging by their Father and reported that they felt free to make their own decision regarding contacting [their Mother]. The evidence did not support this allegation. [Emphasis added.]

[114] The above conclusions, considering the history of this family, coupled with the significant concerns noted by previous child protection workers in relation to the father’s alienating behaviours, as well as his recent and violent assault on An.G., are very difficult to understand. Looking at the notes of the child protection workers involved at the time (Ms. Pemberton was no longer involved), it appears that the CAS workers simply chose to believe what the children told them, without going deeper, and accepted the father’s (false) narrative that the children had been very poorly prepared for this first reunification meeting with their mother, leading to a disastrous outcome for them all. The workers accepted the children’s statements that there was no negative messaging by their father about their mother at home, and that they wanted to be allowed to make their own decision regarding their contact with their mother, without more.

Dr. Milstone’s Last Report

[115] At the request of the case management judge, on February 9, 2022 Dr. Milstone released a third and last report. She explained that she had prepared this much more comprehensive report after reviewing the literature on risk factors and recommendations for best practices regarding children who refuse seeing parents, and family violence. She also consulted with three experts in this field who were naïve to this family’s situation and, quite notably, she sought legal counsel.

[116] She reiterated her earlier opinion that outpatient reunification therapy was contra-indicated for this family, due to various family factors as well as what she viewed as severe potential for violence. She stated the following:

I am of the opinion that outpatient reunification therapy would not work with this family, and in fact may make things worse. I present four pillars of support for rejecting reunification for this family: 1) the severity of rejection by all the children toward the mother, 2) the length of time the rejection has been going on for, 3) the parents are prohibited from being in the same space together. Related to these three pillars, I present a list of other factors with this family that experts have established as constituting severe parental alienation and also contraindications.

[117] Some of those factors and contraindications, according to Dr. Milstone, included the following:

• The children’s severe refusal to see their mother, in person or virtually, as evidenced by them facing the wall during supervised visits, and their refusal to even read her emails;
• The father’s alienating behaviours reaching the level of emotional abuse/harm, including the father’s intimidation of the children to reject their mother. It was Dr. Milesone’s view that there was implicit intimidation of the children by the father by “flexing his assaultive nature in front of the children”, for instance when he yells in their presence that he broke the leg of one of the children when a toddler out of rage, when he assaulted the children’s mother and when he assaulted An.G. causing three teeth to get knocked out;
• The children and father holding fixed beliefs with a stated desire to not change these beliefs, as evidenced by the children stating that they would not talk to their mother until she “owned up”, even though the mother had already provided such apology, and considering the children’s refusal to accept any communication from their mother;
• The father’s unwillingness to fully participate in intervention, despite his contrary statements of cooperation. Dr. Milstone was of the view that despite the father’s initially stated desire to participate in the reunification process, his actions in the months that followed showed the exact opposite; he refused to “ever step foot” in the same room as the mother; he continuously disparaged her and expressed his intense contempt for her, including in front of the children; and he had engaged in an escalating campaign to discredit her as a facilitator in the reconciliation process;
• Dr. Milstone’s suspicion that the children and father’s repeated allegations of physical and emotional abuse by the mother were unsubstantiated. For instance, their allegations that the mother was “biting” the children (even though there was no evidence to support this claim and the children were unable to provide any specifics of such incidents);
• The father exhibiting features of several mental illnesses, including severe depression, psychosis and paranoia, as well as personality disorders, including recorded paranoid behaviours, his belligerence towards her and his escalating campaign to intimidate and discredit her;
• The existence of threats to the safety of the other parent, the children and herself, as evidenced by the father’s assaults on the mother and two of the children, as well as the father’s attempts to discredit Dr. Milstone by filing outlandish complaints and threatening legal action;
• The risks of abduction Dr. Milstone perceived with the father, should the court not rule in his favour;
• Dr. Milstone’s own unsuccessful attempts to put into place outpatient interventions for this family;
• The likelihood that the father will sabotage any treatment plan put into place by his alienating behaviours and attempts to discredit potential facilitators; and
• The existence of outstanding criminal charges (at that time, assault charges were pending against the father and it was not yet clear to Dr. Milstone whether there would be additional charges filed as a result of the father’s assault on An.G.), as well as existing no-contact orders in place.

[118] After listing all the evidence she had reviewed in the context of her work, including her own observations and experience of this family during her interactions with the parents and the children, she concluded that she was in the presence of severe parental alienation; the children had a pre-existing positive and loving relationship with both parents; the father had many of the characteristics frequently found in an alienating parent, and; the children’s complete rejection of their mother could not possibly be justified by the mother’s relatively minor flaws as a parent.

[119] Based on all the above, Dr. Milstone was of the view that, unfortunately, the relationship between the mother and the two older children was beyond a mandated intervention and would have to happen one day organically, if at all. However, she was of the view that the two younger children had a reasonable shot at reconciliation with their mother under strict terms of transferred custody and no contact with the father, their older siblings, or the father’s relatives for a period of time. She concluded the following:

Given the severity of fractious elements in this family, and the length of time that the alienation has occurred, there are no guarantees that a successful reunification between mother and children will be achieved.

Regardless of the chances for success, I believe there is a moral imperative that all parties involved make best efforts in this process, as extreme and directive as they may seem to some. It is my opinion that these children will be further failed by the professional and personal adults in their lives if full remediation strategies are not attempted with sincerest of efforts.

PARENTING

Legal Framework

[120] Any decision relating to a child must be made having regard, exclusively, to their best interests. When considering a child’s best interests, the court is required by virtue of s. 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) to consider the following legal principles:

Best interests of child

16 (1) The court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or a contact order.

Primary consideration

(2) When considering the factors referred to in subsection (3), the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

Factors to be considered

(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including

(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 spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

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

(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 cooperate, 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 cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

Factors relating to family violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h) any other relevant factor.

Family Violence

[121] Recent amendments to the Divorce Act and provincial family legislation have highlighted the importance of taking into consideration the presence of family violence in any family matter dealing with the parenting of children.[^5] The Divorce Act specifically recognizes that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interest analysis: see ss. 16(3)(j) and (4).

[122] Family violence is broadly defined in s. 2(1) of the Divorce Act as “any conduct, whether or not the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, by a family member towards another family member, that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person”. In the case of a child, family violence includes “the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct”. Section 2(1) provides a non-exhaustive list of the many forms of family violence which include physical abuse, forced confinement, sexual abuse, threats to kill or to harm, harassment including stalking, psychological abuse, and financial abuse.

[123] Coercive control as a form of family violence is a pattern of intimate partner abuse which has been the focus of much academic research over the past several years, and has been exposed increasingly in recent court’s decisions, including by the Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22. In a very recent research study commissioned by the Department of Justice Canada,[^6] the authors described coercive control as a pattern of abusive behaviours used to control or dominate a family member or intimate partner. They explain the following at p. 18:

The behaviours that are the spokes and rims of the wheel, such as economic abuse, intimidation, minimizing, denying, blaming and physical and sexual abuse, are used by the abusive person to maintain the pattern of coercive control. Understanding patterns of abuse is also an important counter to “gaslighting” (extended psychological manipulation of a victim that leads them to question the validity of their own thoughts and reality) by perpetrators of abuse, who often embrace an incident-based definition of domestic violence to disconnect their actions from one another in time and space, thereby allowing them to minimize their violence as “not that bad” and to support victim-blaming.

[124] Coercive control may involve a range of behaviours during a relationship, and following separation, including the following:

• Intimidation, making threats to harm the victim or themselves (self-harm, suicide);
• Minimizing and denying the abuse;
• Isolating the victim from friends, family, or work/school;
• Emotional abuse such as constant criticism and degrading verbal abuse;
• Economic abuse and control; and
• Stalking and monitoring.

[125] Coercive and controlling behaviour has been found to encompass the following types of behaviours as well:

• Making numerous unsubstantiated allegations against the other party;
• Unilaterally changing court-ordered parenting time terms without justification; and,
• Regularly engaging in behaviour that has the effect of undermining the other parent’s authority or influence and alienating the child from that parent: M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207, at para. 187.

Coercive and Controlling Behaviours

[126] I conclude, based on all the evidence before me, that the parties’ relationship was plagued with family violence including in the form of coercive and controlling behaviour on the part of the father. While the father’s control over the mother was more subtle at the beginning, it increased significantly over the years. The mother’s experience of her relationship was described as follows by Dr. Wood in the FCC report at p. 38:

While [the mother] described [the father] as controlling and dictating throughout the entirety of their relationship, it appears that she had tolerated this up until the past summer. She noted that she was essentially cut off from family and friends as a result of [the father], and that she had not contested this or made any attempts to go against his wishes until the past year. She had also described [the father] demonstrating concerning behaviours towards the children, but she did not report this to any professionals at the time, which raised concerns about her ability to protect the children throughout the years if these reports are true. One possible explanation could be that [the mother] became increasingly passive throughout the years in response to [the father]'s behaviours and her desire to commit to the family. Also, if the relationship with [the father] is at all what [the mother] described, it would suggest that [the mother] was a victim of coercive control and domestic violence, where she described being progressively isolated from family and friends, letting [the father] manage all the finances, and being subjected to ongoing ridicule and criticism. If this was the case, it would (explain) why it took [the mother] so long to leave this relationship, where getting out of these relationships can be quite complex due to slow progression of the controlling behaviour and limiting social supports. Although, the lack of information pertaining to this family prior to CAS involvement makes it difficult to appreciate the evolution of this family over the years and whether the description provided by [the mother] is accurate. Also, the conflicting reports provided by [the mother] and [the father] make it more difficult to determine the underlying issues leading up to the conflicts that brought police and CAS into the picture.

[127] As stated earlier, from the very beginning of the parties’ relationship, the father has progressively isolated the mother from her friends and family. Krista Wells, one of the mother’s colleagues and a close (work) friend since 2005, testified at trial. She explained that while the father came across as charming, warm, and caring, she came to understand that behind the scenes, he appeared very controlling and demanding of the mother and the children. She explained that she did not socialize much with the mother outside of work, as the mother’s life was devoted to her family.

[128] Ms. Wells explained that over the many years she had known and worked with the mother, she had frequently confided in her about the conflict in the home. Ms. Wells noted an increased distress from the mother about her relationship with the father throughout their phone calls. She could also, at times, overhear the parties’ conversations on the phone while the mother was at work. She observed that the father would call the mother way too much and would continue calling repeatedly if she did not pick up. He always wanted to know what she was doing, when she would be home, and what errands she had to do before coming home each day.

[129] There was much evidence provided during this trial in relation to the father’s significant controlling behaviour towards the mother. For instance, Tony testified that when the parties travelled to Lebanon with the children to attend a family gathering, the family attended the celebration but were rarely seen thereafter. When the mother travelled to Lebanon in 2010 to visit with her father who was terminally ill, against the father’s objections, he continually harassed her by phone, calling her several times a day and demanding that she return home to her family.

[130] The social isolation of this family was noted by Dr. Wood in his report. While Ms. Wells was a close friend of the mother until 2018, this was only because they could see each other at work every day. Myriam Guirguis, a parent of children who attended the same school as the Ginese children, also developed a personal friendship with the mother between 2009 and 2019. She explained that she met the mother regularly at birthday parties, school activities and graduations involving their children, but that the mother always declined her invitations to go for a coffee, citing various family obligations. She also recounted how, during a family event in a park in 2017, the father had become tense as she approached the family and had immediately warned her to leave them alone and to not talk to the mother. Following that incident, Ms. Guirguis chose to distance herself from the family.

[131] Ms. Morales-Santander, another parent of kids who attended the same school as the Ginese children reported the same thing. Despite her several invites, the father always made excuses for the family not being able to attend and when she brought it up with the mother, she explained that the father did not like her socializing with other people.

[132] Indeed, aside from friendships the mother maintained through her work or because of the children’s schooling or their involvement in various extracurricular activities, I have no evidence that the parties had any friends with whom they would socialize at home or on weekends. Any contact they had outside of the home occurred at work or during the various activities (school, sports and music) the children attended.

[133] The father was estranged from his entire family throughout the parties’ relationship. As a result, the parties and the children had no contact whatsoever with their paternal family (including their grandmother) until they moved in with Grace following the parties’ separation. Although the father called many supporting witnesses in this trial, none of these witnesses were close enough to this family to be in a position to offer much in terms of evidence in relation to what might be occurring at home. They were either work colleagues who had not had any in person contact with the father since he started working remotely from home in 2014, or parents of children who were friends with the parties’ children and who only interacted with the father briefly at soccer games or during their extracurricular activities, mostly after the parties separated.

[134] The on again, off again conflict between the father and the mother’s family, particularly Tony, demonstrates the father’s propensity to create conflict around him to further isolate the mother from the people who loved her and could provide her with support. The mother during her testimony explained that following conflict between the father and her family members, he would forbid her and the children from having contact with her family. She explained how during the years of no-contact, she would still secretly go online to find out information about her family or attend her mother’s church briefly to make sure she was still alive.

[135] I accept the mother’s and Tony’s testimony that following the initial family conflict caused by the parties’ elopement, and after the parties were married religiously in front of friends and family (the mother’s family, as none of the father’s extended family members were present), the relationship between the father and the mother’s family members improved. Tony testified that up until on or about 2013, he shared a positive relationship with the father whom he regarded and treated as a brother. As stated earlier, he was the father’s groomsman and emcee at his wedding, and he is also the godfather of two of the parties’ children.

[136] While the father would have me believe that the relationship between him and the maternal family was very negative, that he was constantly ridiculed by them and subjected to racist and demeaning remarks for being Italian and not Lebanese, I do not believe this. It strikes me that many of the father’s accusations against others in this matter tended to be a reflection of his own personal attributes towards others. As an example, I find as a fact that it was the father who, in the context of disputes with the mother, would often make very demeaning comments about the mother’s culture and heritage including in front of, and to, the children.

[137] In any event, while I do not believe the mother’s evidence to the effect that everybody in her family “adored her husband” either, I accept that their relationship with the father was positive and cordial, and that everybody made genuine efforts to make him feel accepted and part of their family although he was easily insulted and everyone walked on egg shells in his presence “in an effort to avoid his rage”.

[138] Following the maternal grandfather’s death, on or about 2013, there was conflict between the parties and the maternal family over the maternal grandmother’s wish to transfer a piece of property belonging to her husband’s estate to Jonathan, the mother’s younger brother, to fund his medical studies. I find as a fact that the father was objecting to this and the mother, who always took her husband’s side when there was disagreement between him and her family, was opposing the transfer as well and refusing to sign the relevant documents (as a beneficiary of the estate). This led to a rift between the maternal family and the parties.

[139] Caught in the middle of a conflict opposing her husband and her family, and following her family’s pressures to sign the documents, the mother eventually caved in, which infuriated the father. Faced with her husband’s wrath, the mother regretted signing the documents and to show her loyalty to him, she called her mother in anger, ending her phone call by telling her mother that “she wished she was dead!” – or something to that effect. When Tony arrived home that night and found his mother in tears, he called his sister and left an equally aggressive message on her cell phone, telling her that he also wished her and her kids dead.

[140] Both Tony and the mother testified at trial in relation to the circumstances in which these harsh words were exchanged, and both acknowledged that they had acted and reacted very poorly at the time, out of anger. Even though it was the mother who had first said those words, the father insisted on going to the police to report “death threats” having been made by Tony against them, using the voicemail message left on the mother’s phone. The police report concludes “there was no direct threats made in regard to killing anybody”. Yet, throughout this trial the father maintained that Tony had threatened to kill them all and, sadly, this is exactly what the children believe now.

[141] As will be seen in the balance of my decision below, filing complaints to the authorities for all matters big and small to achieve his ulterior goals is a weapon that the father has used extensively in his adult life.

[142] Although there were no charges laid against Tony following this incident, from that moment until 2017, the father refused to allow the mother and the children to have any contact with their maternal aunts, uncles, grandmother and many cousins, with whom the children were then very close.

[143] In March 2014, one of the mother’s cousins passed away and Tony felt it was important for the mother to be notified. Since the parties were not on speaking terms at the time, and Tony did not want to attend the parties’ home and cause a confrontation with the father, one of Tony’s work colleagues, Eric Ebeltoft, offered to drop by the parties’ home to tell her.

[144] Eric testified during this trial and related what had happened on that day. It is important to note that Eric and the parties had never met. He was someone that neither party knew. Tony drove Eric to the parties’ home and stayed in his car on the other side of the street while Eric walked to the home. When the father answered the door, Eric told him that he was a friend of the Fadel family and that he simply wanted to let the mother know that her cousin had passed away and offer his condolences.

[145] Eric testified that the father immediately became agitated and very upset. He demanded to know who had sent him and demanded that he come into the house to talk. When Eric declined the invitation to come in, the father grabbed his arm and began trying to pull him into the house by force, which led to Eric physically resisting, and the two men to scuffle. At that point, Tony rolled down his car window and shouted, “what are you doing?” to the father. According to Eric, when the father saw Tony on the street, he became completely hysterical and started screaming and swearing at both. Eric testified that he was shocked by the father’s swift aggressive behaviour and as soon as he was able to free himself from the father’s grip he immediately went back to the car, and they left.

[146] Eric explained that this encounter left him so shaken he attended the police station to report the assault he had been subjected to. Not long after, the police showed up at Tony’s place of work notifying him that the father had filed a complaint against him alleging that he (Tony) had attacked him, and that he would be charged with criminal harassment.

[147] The father’s version of what took place on that day simply makes to rational sense. If Tony intended to harass or otherwise mistreat the father on that day (even though he had had no contact with him for several years by then), why would he send his friend Eric (whom the father did not know) to the house to convey to his sister the news of their cousin’s passing? Eric testified in this trial, and I found him to be very genuine and credible. His account of the events which took place on that day mirrored Tony’s. The father maintained during this trial that since the police had laid criminal charges of harassment and mischief against Tony in relation to these events, this meant that his version of the facts had been believed by the police and this was clear proof that he was right.

[148] Tony explained that the criminal charges laid against him meant that he was no longer able to travel to the U.S. until the criminal trial was held, which he was required to do for his work. In addition, he was getting married the following summer in Hawaii, and if the trial was not held before then (which was very likely), he would have to completely change his wedding plans. As a result, and on the advice of his lawyer, he agreed to enter a peace bond in exchange for which the criminal charges were dropped.

[149] No criminal trial was ever held in relation to these charges and based on the evidence presented in this family trial, I am convinced that Tony did not commit the crimes for which he was charged. Indeed, I find that Tony and Eric were not the aggressors on that day; the father was.

[150] After these events and until 2017, there was no contact between the Ginese family and the maternal family. When Tony reached out to the mother for the first time after many years in 2017, to tell her that he loved and missed her and the children, and very much wanted them to be part of their family again, the mother told him that she would speak to the father. When she called him back, she explained that the father was prepared to allow the resumption of contact, so long as Tony apologized for his actions.

[151] Although Tony did not believe he had anything to apologize for, his desire to reunite with the mother and his niece and nephews was stronger and he agreed to attend the home to apologize. However, according to Tony (and the mother), as soon as he knocked on the door of the parties’ home, the father welcomed him by yelling profanities at him, calling him names, becoming physical and threatening to kill him right there in front of E.G. and Al.G., who were standing in the doorway crying and pleading with their father to stop. Ultimately, Tony was able to disengage and deflate the conflict, but the father demanded that he apologize to every single member of the family, one by one, which he did. As a result, the mother (and children) was able to resume some contact with the maternal family for the next two years.

[152] The father’s propensity to blow up minor or insignificant transgressions into critical, life-threatening aggressions to control the narrative, the people or to justify his subsequent retaliation, is made evident when considering the outcome of his relationship with Dr. Chan, Dr. Milstone, Kelly Pemberton, Tony, his own family members, and many other witnesses who testified in this trial.

[153] In her final report, Dr. Milstone explained how she had been subjected to an escalating campaign of intimidating and discrediting behaviour by the father when he realized that she would not be taking his position against the mother. It started with a belligerent phone conversation with her about what can only be described as a minor administrative error, which led to complaints and false allegations about her first report, followed by attempts to have her replaced with another psychologist, menacing behaviour toward her in her office, and culminating with a complaint to her professional governing body.

[154] As will be explained in more detail below, the father engaged in the exact same pattern of behaviour against Dr. Chan, the children’s family doctor, for what any objective person looking at the situation would find to be a very minor “omission” during a very invasive medical examination of the children requested by the father. Dr. Chan’s omission, which was of absolutely no consequence, cannot possibly justify the extent to which the father went to discredit him afterwards by filing what I consider having been a vexatious complaint to his professional college.

[155] The situation was completely the opposite for those individuals whom either believed the father or expressed views about him that were positive. He only had glowing comments to say about anyone who supported him in this trial, or who had been supportive of his position during this litigation. For instance, the father expressed the outmost respect for Ms. Pyett and Mr. Schonbacher – two of the child protection workers who supported the outcome that he wanted in the child protection proceedings and subsequent investigations – as well as for some of the police officers who intervened with the family in the summer of 2019, taking time to thank them profusely during his examination in chief on account of their “extraordinarily diligent and professional work” with his family. However, he was overly accusatory and aggressive in his cross-examination of Ms. Pemberton, Dr. Chan, Dr. Milstone and several police officers who had questioned his motives or expressed serious concerns about his behaviour, making a point of reminding these witnesses that formal complaints had been made against them by him for the unprofessional and incompetent work that they did.

[156] I had to reprimand the father several times throughout the course of his examination in chief of witnesses he felt were favourable to his case, as he went on and on paying them tribute and thanking them profusely for their outstanding work in this case. Similarly, I had to intervene and reprimand him constantly for being overly aggressive and belligerent in his cross-examination towards those who had not supported his position in this litigation, and to stop making unkind and disrespectful comments about them and the mother’s counsel. I lost count of how many times I had to ask the father to “tone it down”, to stop being argumentative and accusatory in his questioning (for instance, by refraining from answering “shame on you!” to questions by the mother’s counsel that he did not like), and to stop expressing his own personal views about witnesses instead of asking questions.

Gaslighting

[157] The father’s ability to psychologically manipulate others, including the children, to make them believe his distorted version of the truth was quite evident in this trial. I am unable to determine whether the father truly believes the version of events that he fabricated, or if he is consciously repeating a false or inaccurate narrative for the purpose of convincing others of its truth.

[158] His distorted description of what took place during the meeting between the children and the mother at Dr. Milstone’s office is a good example of this. There were countless more examples of this type of behaviour during this trial, including the father’s attempts to have me believe that it was the mother, not him, who proposed DNA testing after the birth of each child to confirm whether he was the biological father (which he claimed was part of her pattern of emotional abuse towards him).

[159] The extent of the parents’ involvement of the police during the summer months of 2019 was primarily responsible for the involvement of the CAS with this family. The father’s narrative, parroted by the children, that the mother “called the police 8 or 9 times” after the parties’ separation is contrary to the evidence and a deliberate distortion of the facts by the father designed to discredit the mother to the children and the professionals involved at the time. The fact is that both parties involved the police an equal number of times during the summer of 2019. Where the calls/visits to the police differ is that the mother reported contemporaneous issues of discord between the parties, whereas the father reported historical ones, in retaliation or as pre-emptive means of striking back at the mother and using the children for that purpose.

[160] The evidence supports the conclusion that the father was using the police attendance on July 4 to perpetuate his narrative, with the children and the police, that the mother was dangerous and had to be separated from her children. In that regard, the father testified that on his way to the police station, he reminded the children that their mother tried to kill him the previous summer with a knife. The father involved the children by reporting to the police that they were witnesses. However, the police were suspicious. The police occurrence report of the events from that day states as follows:

His witnesses were his children that were clearly not objective and easily influenced by him… I also witnessed GENESE influencing all the children with a false narrative regarding actions directly in front of me to promote mistrust in police, and sympathy for him.

[161] When Constable Eva-Gonzalez did not proceed to charge the mother with “attempted murder” – the purpose of the father’s attendance at the police station – the father proceeded to tell the children that the police did not believe them, and they believed the children were all “liars”. During the father’s testimony, it became clear that police reports were only accurate to him when they corroborated his version of the facts.

[162] The events that unfolded with regards to Dr. Chan, the children’s family physician, are a remarkable example of the father’s attempt to control the narrative, and to promptly and aggressively turn against anybody who dares question his motives, his integrity, or his self-righteous view of himself.

[163] Dr. Chan has been An.G.’s family physician since he was two years old, and the other three children’s doctor for their entire lives. Prior to the parties’ separation in 2019, he noted no concerns whatsoever about the children or about the parties as parents. He testified in this trial and confirmed that he saw both parents in his office with the children at various times, and that he had observed a close bond and loving interactions between the children and their mother.

[164] On February 21, 2020, the father brought all four children to Dr. Chan’s office seeking a referral to have them undergo a very invasive medical examination of their private parts to rule out any possible sexual abuse by him. He explained to Dr. Chan (in front of the children) that the mother was accusing him of being a pedophile, and at the recommendation of his therapist (Dr. Cuffaro), he needed the children’s genitals to be examined to confirm that he did not sexually abuse them.

[165] Dr. Chan explained to the father that such an examination would not necessarily allow him to disprove sexual abuse, just like it would not necessarily allow others to prove it. Seeing as the father was so intent on having the children examined for this purpose, Dr. Chan convinced him to allow him to perform the examination, since the children knew him very well and would feel more comfortable if he was the one doing this very invasive procedure instead of a pure stranger.

[166] The same day, the father brought all four children to Dr. Chan’s office for that purpose. After Dr. Chan completed his examination of the first child’s genitals, the father insisted that he also examine their anuses. Dr. Chan complied by doing this for all four children while the father observed. Once each child’s examination was completed, the father left with them.

[167] It was later discovered that the father had, without the knowledge of Dr. Chan and without his consent, recorded the entire medical visit. It is not disputed that Dr. Chan did not wear gloves when he examined the children. It is also not disputed that the father was well aware of that fact, having been present throughout the examination of all four children.

[168] On April 21, 2020, Dr. Chan contacted the Society to raise his concerns about the children. This phone call followed a meeting between Dr. Chan and the mother a few days prior, when the mother attended his clinic to retrieve a copy of the children’s medical records and told him that the children were completely refusing to have any contact with her. Dr. Chan explained that, given his past experience with this family, the recent invasive medical exam requested by the father, and the information received from the mother, he became very concerned about the children and the possibility that the father was maliciously (his words) influencing the children against their mother.

[169] Dr. Chan was so worried that he reached out to many people to report his concerns; the children’s lawyer, Dr. Wood from the FCC and the CAS. When he was finally able to speak to Ms. Pemberton, Dr. Chan reported the following to her (as per her notes from that conversation);

• The kids are completely distant from their mom. They are acting as an extension of what [the father] wants them to say. They are with their dad because somebody expressed that is what they want to do. Not sure they can make a logical decision. I think he is programming them and I think there is some mental illness. Can’t see [the mother] being the malicious one… There have been other instances where he has said stuff with underlying paranoia.
• He’s the type of guy that if you don’t do what you want he harasses you.
• Typically if a parent has been implicated in sexual abuse, they are not the actual parent who brings the child in to be checked and they are certainly not in the room. He’s the only person who has done this; he had all four children with him to talk about all of his past and his own sexual abuse and about his parenting. Dr. Chan has seen enough of custody access situations and there is all sorts of things that don’t normally happen but is happening with [the father].
• He wanted to share his observations. Underlying paranoia in his thoughts but nothing outward that you can see where there are delusions. He’s always been like that but it seems a bit more. Dr. Chan hasn’t had any concerns over the years. He just seemed more anxious about things.
• He’s okay with [the father] knowing that he called but always worried that he will get angry and maybe come into the office and become confrontational.

[170] Dr. Chan also remarked that he had heard the father make very negative comments about the mother in front of the children while in his office, that he was concerned about the father’s mental health, and that he had never seen a situation like this before.

[171] The father was not aware of Dr. Chan’s communications with the CAS until their records were disclosed to both parties in the context of this litigation, in 2023. As soon as the father found out about the nature of the observations reported by Dr. Chan to Ms. Pemberton, he filed a complaint against him to the College of Physicians (in September 2023). His complaint against Dr. Chan to the College of Physicians was based on his having performed the medical exam on the children without wearing gloves.

[172] Several times during his testimony, the father referred to Dr. Chan – with much more contempt than a reasonable observer could possibly justify – as a “sexual boundary violator”. He testified with extraordinary emotion, that Dr. Chan’s boundary violations against the children had caused him and the children much duress, as well as significant mental and emotional harm. He explained that as a result, the children no longer wanted to have him as a family doctor. On several occasions during his testimony about these events, the father was literally sobbing.

[173] What is remarkable about these events is that the father, during his entire testimony, appeared completely oblivious to the fact that he was the one who had put the children through this extremely invasive examination, for the sole purpose of protecting himself from the mother’s alleged accusations during the months leading to the separation that he was a pedophile (which I find were either fabricated, exaggerated, or completely taken out of context). The campaign of discreditation that the father initiated against Dr. Chan had nothing to do with any alleged harm caused to the children because of his failure to wear gloves, and everything to do with his desire for vengeance against someone who had dared report concerns about him to the CAS. This is made crystal clear by the timing of his complaint against Dr. Chan, which was filed some three years after the examination took place, and upon gaining knowledge of Dr. Chan’s call to the CAS and others.

[174] Naturally, the father used this invasive medical examination as an opportunity to further poison the children against their mother, making it clear to them that it had been made necessary because of their mother’s false accusations of pedophilia against him (which he stated loud and clear in front of the children when they attended Dr. Chan’s office on that day). The father’s surreptitious recording of the children’s visit at Dr. Chan’s office also shows the father’s paranoid tendencies, and the care he takes to create evidence which he will later be able to use against anyone who dares disagreeing with him.

[175] Making false allegations against the mother of abuse, abandonment, and poor parenting was also the father’s way of pre-emptively creating evidence which he would be able to use in any future litigation to defend himself against the mother’s own allegations of abuse. This type of behavior started well before the tumultuous summer of 2019, and was flaring up frequently during the months leading up to the parties’ separation.

[176] The mother’s decision to re-establish contact with her family did not sit well with the father. As the situation in the home deteriorated, the mother spent more time in her bedroom speaking on the phone with her family seeking their moral support. The father tried to make her feel guilty for spending so much time with her family and “away from her own” and used the children to guilt her as well. The mother reported that the parties would fight almost daily about this during the two years leading up to the parties’ separation. During the trial, the mother entered in evidence a text message she had received from An.G.’s cell phone on February 20, 2018 (a school day), following a dispute between her and the father. It read as follows:

Hi, Daddy called me crying saying that he is deeply hurt by your actions. You need to stop. Lately, technology has been consuming the majority of your time. I understand that you love your family but you have us. I did not say anything wrong but you have to change. I want the old [mother’s name].

It’s wrong that you are calling my best friend wacko. He dedicates every single second helping us and making us better.

We are not on anyone’s side. I just want you to do more and love us.

Stop abusing.

[177] That the father would call An.G. while he is at school to report, crying, poor behaviour on the part of his mother is bad enough. But that he would be able to manipulate An.G. into agreeing that the mother spending more time her family meant that she was neglecting her own family is quite shocking.

[178] To protect himself from the mother’s possible report of abuse at the hands of the father after conflict had occurred in the home, the father has attended the police station on many occasions in the summer of 2019 (including while the mother was on the phone with 911 or the police) to file his own complaint against the mother for alleged physical assaults occurring in the home.

[179] I find that this is exactly what happened when the father brought An.G. to the police station on August 8, 2019 to report a physical assault that he had allegedly been the victim of at the hands of his mother two months earlier, when the parties were still together.

[180] On June 1, 2019, the entire family attended a Redblacks game, described by the mother as a fun family outing with lots of laughs, photos and rides. Before the game, the mother explained that the father was demanding her to convince the children, who were protesting, to go to the game. An.G. was the hardest to convince but he eventually agreed at the urge of his mother.

[181] It was only two months later (on August 8), after significant involvement of the police and the CAS with this family, that the father drove An.G. to the police station to report an alleged assault that had occurred on that day (June 1). According to An.G., and the father, to convince An.G. to attend the game with the rest of the family, the mother pushed him into a bathtub in the bathroom where he had barricaded himself to protect him from his mother’s physical and verbal abuse and gave him a serious beating in front of the maternal grandmother.

[182] The mother’s evidence, which I believe, is that An.G. locked himself in the bathroom that day and she pleaded with him to get ready to join the family to the Redblacks game. The undisputed evidence is that An.G. eventually agreed to join the family and attended the game, interacting normally with his mother and siblings. The father’s evidence at trial was that he had discovered a “huge welt” on An.G.’s head on that day and saw marks on his arms but chose not to report this because “he loved his family too much” and did not want the mother to be charged with a criminal offence.

[183] Not only was the father’s evidence as to the events of that day not credible at all, the following evidence also significantly discredited it. First, it is not disputed that on June 20, the mother took Al.G. and An.G. to their family doctor, Dr. Chan, for a medical appointment. Dr. Chan made no note of an alleged “huge welt” on the back of An.G.’s head, nor did he remark anything special about the mother’s relationship with An.G..

[184] Secondly, the evidence reveals that An.G. wrote a first draft of his statement to the police the day before he and his father attended the police station to report this alleged assault, and that this first draft had been prepared by An.G. with the help of his father. It is not difficult to see, when reading An.G.’s statement to the police and the draft he prepared at home, that his words had been more carefully chosen on the final version which was much more polished.

[185] No criminal charges were laid against the mother in relation to this alleged assault, as the police after investigation were of the view that the children, including An.G., were significantly influenced by their father.

[186] The father also alleged that the mother, in the summer of 2018, attempted to “kill him with a knife” in the family home. Although this assault allegedly occurred in the summer of 2018, it was only a year later, when the post-separation conflict in the home reached its peak, that the father started to report these allegations to the police and the CAS, and the children began parroting his version of the story.

[187] The mother explained that frequently, the father would fabricate things to convince the children that their mother was at fault. She gave the example of this alleged “knife incident”, during which she remembered yelling at the father, during a long-winded argument, “What will it take for you to stop!! Do I need to hit you in the face with a wooden spoon??”, following which he yells back (loud enough for the children to hear) “Ho my god! She’s trying to grab a knife! She is going to kill me!!”.

[188] To the best of her recollection, this is the incident that the father reported to the police in the summer of 2019, and which he used to file a complaint against her for attempted murder. When independently interviewed by the police and the CAS about this alleged assault with a knife, the children’s versions of what took place that day were not only vague, they were also inconsistent with one another. As time went by, their mother’s alleged attempt to kill their father with a knife became part of their common narrative, and one of the things they continued to raise as part of their accusations of abuse at the hands of their mother.

[189] The father’s description of various events which took place between himself and third parties who were completely unrelated to this family is also disconcerting when compared to these third parties’ recollection of events. In her last report, Dr. Milstone commented that the father’s report of what took place during the children’s meeting with their mother at her office on November 5, 2021 was “so bizarre, so out of touch with reality”, that it pointed to the possibility of the father suffering from serious mental health issues.

Emotional and Verbal Abuse

[190] The mother testified to multiple incidents during which the father had been verbally and emotionally abusive towards her during the relationship, which abuse had reached extraordinary levels after the parties separated and while they remained in the same home with the children.

[191] The mother testified that in the later years of the parties’ marriage, she constantly had to walk on eggshells around the father, as any little thing could trigger him. She explained that their fights could last for hours, sometimes for days. The father would hold grudges for a long time, and he would frequently bring up things that she thought had been settled months earlier. Whenever a fight broke out, there was nothing that the mother could do to stop the father, and the conflict would go on and on until the mother simply left the home to allow him to calm down.

[192] The mother testified that the father used to yell at her “I want my children to know the truth, you're a gypsy, you know how dirty your mom is”, in front of the children. She reported that he told the children, “Your grandma is dirty, your grandma is a slut”. He would also say to the children “I'm sorry that you have contaminated blood, disgusting blood”. The mother reported that the father told E.G. “Don’t you fucking dare ever look at or marry a Lebanese guy”, following which he spit on the ground in front of E.G. and, waving his finger, said “I will kill you, I will kill you”.

[193] The father’s verbal and emotional abuse towards the mother continued well passed the end of their relationship. His contempt for the mother was shared by him with many, including all the professionals who were retained to assist this family. In her February 2022 report, Dr. Milstone stated that the father “obsesses about his contempt for [the mother]. He cannot regulate and filter his extreme negative sentiment about [the mother], to the point where it seems clinically pathological. When speaking to me from his home while the children were present, [the father] referred to [the mother] as ‘criminal’, ‘sick’, ‘diabolical’ and has done ‘vicious’ things.” Similar observations were shared by Dr. Wood, Ms. Pemberton and Dr. Chan, among others.

Physical Abuse

[194] The father’s propensity for physical violence is also undisputable. There were several undisputed incidents during which the father became physically abusive towards others during the parties’ relationship, and thereafter, including towards the mother, the paternal grandmother, and two of the children. Such propensity for violence appears to be heightened when the father is under significant stress, or emotionally dysregulated.

[195] The mother testified that during the parties’ relationship, she was often subjected to physically threatening behaviours on the part of the father, for instance with arm twisting. She testified that the father had “put his hands on her” before the children were born because she was wearing a skirt that he considered too short. Tony testified to these events and confirmed that he had picked the mother up from the home after she called him crying and had brought her to the maternal grandmother’s home until the father called to apologize, and promised he would never hit her again.

[196] In November 2019, the father was charged with assault against the mother as well as mischief following events that took place on July 16, 2019 after the parties’ separation but while the parties were still living in the same home. The video of what took place on that day was presented to me during this trial. The video was taken by the mother during a dispute between the parties which took place in their bedroom, with all four children present. It shows the father walking slowly towards the mother as she yells at him to stay back. The father continues to slowly approach her stating that the light from the phone is hurting his eyes, and repeatedly asking “why did you attack me with a knife the year before?”. Once he gets close enough to the mother, he is seen slapping the phone off her hands before the video ends.

[197] It is important to note that following these events, An.G. surreptitiously deleted this video recording from his mother’s phone (this fact was not disputed). The police had to retrieve the mother’s cell phone itself to be able to recover the video that was made on that day. I strongly suspect that An.G. did so at his father’s biding, and because he knew his father would be in trouble if the police saw the video.

[198] While the mother filed a report with the police on that day, charges of mischief and assault were only laid against the father in November 2019. The charges were resolved with the father agreeing to a one-year peace bond and no-contact order. During his testimony, the father consistently tried to minimize his actions by suggesting that “he did not know it was illegal in Canada to flip one’s cell phone from another person’s hands”, immediately adding that nonetheless, he took full responsibility for his action by signing a peace bond, just as he had taken full responsibility for assaulting An.G. two years later by self-reporting to the police.

[199] When the father disclosed to his elderly mother (the paternal grandmother) that he had been subjected to sexual abuse by his older sister as a child, she responded with scepticism, asking him why he had not disclosed this before, and commenting that “maybe he had enjoyed it”. When she made this last comment, the father violently slapped her across the face. While the father’s deep hurt from his mother’s insensitive and inappropriate response is complexly understandable, there can be no possible justification for a grown man to violently slap his elderly mother across the face as the father did. Not only was the evidence of these events undisputed by the father, but his own sister Grace was forced to admit during her testimony that following this assault, she and her sister had changed the locks to their mother’s home to protect her from any further physical harm at the hands of the father. Her attempts to minimize her brother’s physical assault towards their mother at trial on the basis that “she had now forgiven him” had a negative impact on Grace’s overall credibility at trial (there were other reasons why I did not find her testimony very credible).

[200] In his testimony, the father tried to justify his assault against An.G. by explaining that this occurred on the day he was left with the entire responsibility of moving the family out of the home, and that he was under an incredible amount of stress. The father’s contrition at the time of this trial, including his claim that he had self-reported to the police and “was willing to go to jail for it”, is nothing but an obvious attempt to control the narrative, particularly since he refused to provide a statement to the police following this assault (and I seriously suspect that An.G.’s refusal to do so was the result of his father’s influence as well). The reality is that such a forceful act of violence towards a child is impossible to justify and gives significant support to the mother’s allegation that there was physical violence, aggressive behaviours and/or threats of physical violence in the home during the parties’ relationship.

[201] When Al.G. was three years old, he broke his femur causing him to be in a cast for months. It was the mother’s evidence that she went upstairs to take a shower leaving the father alone with Al.G., when she heard a loud scream from him. When she arrived downstairs, Al.G.’s femur was broken, and the bone was sticking out. When she asked what had happened, the father reportedly told her that he was mad as Al.G. would not be still. As he was beginning to panic, he told the mother to not “fucking say anything” when they (the medical staff) asked what had happened, as they would take the children away from them.

[202] While the father vehemently denied during his testimony that he had anything to do with Al.G.’s broken leg, during his interviews with Dr. Milstone he admitted that he was responsible for Al.G.’s broken leg, and that he was prepared to go to jail for it. He reported that at the time he was under intense stress because of his mother dying, and he had lost control. Dr. Milstone further reported that during an interview between her and the father, he was yelling in the children’s presence that he had broken Al.G.’s leg when he was a toddler out of rage, which she later came to view as him “flexing his assaultive nature” to intimidate the children.

[203] Whereas no third party has ever reported any aggressive or abusive behaviour on the part of the mother – other than the father and the children themselves (who are parroting the same allegations than their father) – the father’s aggressive and threatening demeanour has been observed by many of the witnesses who testified in this trial in addition to the many more already referred to so far in this decision. For instance:

• Cst. Jesse Hewitt, who was dispatched at the parties’ home on July 4, 2019 regarding a domestic dispute between the parties, observed that the father was “rambling on passionately and red-faced” about the altercation of the day, and insisting on pressing charges against the mother for “attempted murder”;
• Dr. Milstone expressed that in her lengthy career as a mental health professional, she had never been as threatened by a client as she had been by the father;
• Ms. Guirguis testified that after her affidavit sworn October 3, 2023 was served on the father, she and her 16-year-old daughter were approached by him at Staples. She stated that the father began interrogating her daughter about issues related to this trial and when she told him to stop and began walking away, the father aggressively yelled at her that “plagiat is a crime!”. She said she and her daughter were quite upset with the father’s behaviour that day;
• Ms. Wells and Ms. Morales-Santander also testified to events during which they observed a significant level of anger and aggressivity on the part of the father, and how this had caused them to distance themselves from the father and the family; and
• On the day the purchasers of the matrimonial home attended the home for a walk through after the sale had been concluded, the father insisted to have a word with them – in the children’s presence – about what he considered to have been an afront to his family when the prospective purchasers had been observed to “celebrate” in front of the home on the day the purchase offer had been accepted. The father’s angry confrontation on that day caused the purchasers to consider getting out of the deal, but they could not.

Parental Alienation and Alienating Behaviours

[204] There has been much research over the past decades in relation to the concept of alienation and other parent-child contact problems. In Ontario, Dr. Barbara Jo Fidler, Pr. Nicholas Bala, Pr. Rachel Birnbaum, Pr. M.G. Saini and Dr. Shelley Polak, among others, have been prolific researchers and writers on this very challenging topic.[^7] In a recent article penned by Dr. Fidler and Pr. Bala,[^8] they explain that there are many possible intersecting predisposing, precipitating and perpetuating factors that can contribute to the development of different types and cases of parent-child contact problems. Widely recognized factors include:

1. child factors (age, cognitive capacity, temperament, vulnerability, special needs and resilience);
2. parent conflict before and after the separation;
3. sibling relationships;
4. favoured parent factors (parenting style and capacity, negative beliefs and behaviours, mental health, and personality, including responsiveness and willingness to change);
5. rejected parent factors (parenting style and capacity, negative reactions, beliefs and behaviours, mental health, and personality, including willingness to change);
6. the adversarial process/litigation;
7. third parties such as aligned professionals and extended family; and
8. lack of functional coparenting, and poor or conflictual parental communication.

[205] According to these authors, there is a growing consensus among those who use the concept of alienation about typical behaviours and perceptions exhibited by an alienated child, favoured parent, and rejected parent which lead to a conclusion that a parent is engaging in alienating behaviours. After reviewing 58 studies of parent-child contact problem cases in 2016, researchers found that “there is remarkable agreement on the behavioural strategies parents can use to potentially manipulate their children’s feelings, attitudes, and beliefs in ways that may interfere with their relationship with the other parent. The cluster of symptoms or behaviour indicating the presence of alienation in the child can also be reliably identified.”[^9] Typical behaviours in those cases include:

1. portraying the other parent as dangerous;
2. exaggerating and exploiting the other parent’s behaviour, negative attributes and challenges;
3. undermining;
4. parentifying the child;
5. oversharing legal and other inappropriate information with children;
6. co-opting children as messengers, spies and confidants;
7. conspiring with children to withhold information, keep secrets and mislead the other parent;
8. surreptitiously contacting the children when they are with the other parent;
9. withholding parenting time and being inflexible around scheduling;
10. withholding love and affection from the child if they do not share and act on the parent’s views;
11. disparaging the other parent’s family members;
12. co-opting neighbours, therapists, school personnel and others in an effort to garner support and turn them against the other parent; and
13. believing it is their right, supporting or permitting a child or adolescent to make a life altering decision to never see a parent again.

[206] Alienating behaviours also include what the parent does not do, such as actively supporting the child’s relationship with the other parent, failing to correct the child’s defiant, aggressive, destructive, and omnipotent behaviour, or without admonishment permits the child to change the established practice and refer to and call the other parent by their first name.[^10]

[207] It is also widely accepted that there is a wide range of severity in parent-child contact problem cases; natural affinity with the favoured parent, alignment with the favoured parent (arising from a loyalty conflict), realistic estrangement (often because of a rejected parent’s past abuse or poor parenting), and true alienation (where the estrangement from the rejected parent is unjustified). Even in the context of the latter, the severity of the alienation can range from mild to severe. Severe alienation (which often includes mental illness and/or personality disorders in the alienating parent) is seen when the alienating parent, “feeling above the law and with malice, deliberately fabricates or knowingly makes unfounded abuse allegations to intentionally discourage, interfere or prevent the child’s contact with the other parent.”[^11]

[208] It is now widely acknowledged by researchers and academics[^12] that parent-child contact problems are best understood from a multi-factorial perspective. While there are cases in which a child’s rejection is totally the fault of one parent, in most cases both parents bear some responsibility for the estrangement and rejection.

[209] I find as a fact that in this case, the children are severely alienated from their mother. While there are a number of factors which contributed to such alienation to occur, including but not limited to the presence of family violence (by the alienating parent), pre-existing and long-standing dysfunction within the home and mental health issues on the part of both parents which impacted their ability to cope with their separation in a healthy way, I find as a fact that the father’s extreme alienating behaviours are the main cause for the children’s complete and unjustified rejection of their mother. In other words, if the father had not engaged in such severe alienating behaviours, the children’s absolute and total rejection of their mother, without hesitation or equivocation and without the slightest openness to repairing their relationship, would not have occurred.

[210] The court appointed experts, various CAS workers, police officers and professionals involved with this family after the parties separated witnessed consistent and persistent alienating behaviours on the part of the father.

[211] During his cross-examination, Dr. Wood stated that among the 85 to 90 assessments that he has personally been part of through the Family Court Clinic, there had only been two other cases where children had been so highly resistant to seeing a parent. Both these cases involved very high-conflict separations where there had been unconscious or deliberate attempts to alienate the children.

[212] Ms. Pemberton testified that in seventeen years of child protection work, she had never seen children completely reject their parent as the children had been in this case.

[213] Dr. Milstone testified that this case had all the hallmarks of severe alienation, as identified in her report, and she went further, stating that the alienation in this case was so severe that it was not just about “resistance” to seeing the mother, but “absolute rejection”.

[214] I, for one, have never seen such an extreme case of complete and unequivocal rejection of one parent by a child (four in this case). What is shocking is the speed with which the father was able to manipulate the children into believing his distorted narrative about their mother and bring them to reject her so completely, including anyone associated with her. Of all the “typical behaviours” frequently displayed by severely alienating parents identified by Dr. Fidler and Pr. Bala above, the father ticked every single box.

[215] While the father had already begun to negatively influence the children against their mother months (if not years) before the parties’ separation, it is when the mother left for Quebec City on June 27 – despite the father’s objections and making it clear that a separation was imminent – that the father’s campaign to discredit the mother in the eyes of the children amplified. I find as a fact that the father repeatedly told the children during the week the mother was away that she had abandoned them, portraying himself as a victim. There is simply no other way to explain why the children would be so mean to their mother upon her return, ignoring her and openly refusing her hugs and kisses.

[216] After the mother made her decision to separate clear, the father surreptitiously accessed her cell phone to check who she was calling and found out she was calling lawyers. He googled those lawyers and then began telling the children every time their mother left the home that she was leaving to meet lawyers. In the weeks and months that followed, the father quickly reinforced and imprinted in the children’s minds the following messages, among others, about their mother:

• That she was accusing him of being a pedophile;
• That she was making false accusations against him for the purpose of having him committed or imprisoned;
• That the mother had been abusive towards him and towards them (including by repeatedly biting them);
• That the mother had threatened to kill him;
• That they were not safe in their mother’s care;
• That the mother and her family members were a threat and that they should fear them;
• That the mother was refusing to contribute in any way to the home expenses, their activities or to support them generally, which was threatening their safety and well-being, and that she was the reason why they were “forced out of their home”, and;
• That it was entirely their choice whether they wanted to have a relationship with their mother and whether they wanted to spend any time with her (while making it clear, expressly or by his behavior) that he did not and would not approve of them maintaining a relationship with her.

[217] The entire evidence before me, including the parties’ own testimony, makes it abundantly clear that, up until June 2019, the children had a strong and loving relationship with their mother, and a secure attachment to her. This was observed by many of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the mother in this trial, including Dr. Chan, Tony, parents of other children as well as work colleagues. The mother was the children’s primary caregiver up until 2014, when the father took on a larger role in their day-to-day care as he began working full-time from home. Not only were the children strongly and healthily attached to their mother, but they were also very close to their maternal family members which included their grandparents as well as many uncles, aunts, and cousins.

[218] There is not a shred of evidence, other than the unfounded allegations that the father began to vehiculate in June 2019, which have been ingrained by him in the children’s brains and parroted by them thereafter, that would suggest any abusive or aggressive behaviour by the mother towards the children or anyone else. If the mother indeed committed some of the acts that the children accuse her of (such as having slapped them or bit them on the arm), the gravity of these acts cannot possibly justify their complete rejection of her as is the case for these children (particularly when one considers the father’s violent assault against An.G., which did not lead to a long-term breakdown of their relationship).

[219] The evidence before me overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the children were very closely bonded to their mother and shared a very loving relationship with her before the summer of 2019. Even the father admitted to this during his interview with Dr. Wood and Dr. Milstone, during his questioning, and during his testimony at trial. This is impossible to reconcile with the father’s (and the children’s) deeply ingrained conviction that the mother was physically and psychologically abusive towards the children while the parties were together.

[220] The father’s belittling of the mother, his control over and manipulation of the children, and his mounting campaign of denigration of the mother and her family to the children resulted in their becoming increasingly guarded in their willingness to show affection to their mother, to speak to her or to even acknowledge her in their father’s presence, out of fear of his reaction. The following events clearly establish this pattern:

• On June 2, the entire family went together to watch Al.G., on guitar, and M.G., on drums, performing at a local pub;
• June 17 was Al.G.’s year end school trip to Quebec City. The mother packed him, took him for breakfast, and sent him a text as she left him at the bus, filled with emotion. She told him that she loved him, to have fun and not to “think about anything” (referring to the parental conflict occurring in the home). When Al.G. was able to access Wi-Fi on the bus, he responded saying “I love you too” and sent his mother a smiling selfie;
• June 19 was Al.G.’s graduation. The mother states, and I accept her evidence, that the father would not permit Al.G. to go to the graduation with his mother. The mother begged the father not to ruin Al.G.’s special day, but he did not budge. Ultimately, Al.G. went to the graduation with his father, and his mother had to follow separately;
• On June 20, the mother took Al.G. and An.G. to their family doctor’s appointment (Dr. Chan). Both went along with her without any objections, as they had always done (the mother was primarily responsible to take the children to their medical appointments);
• On June 22, E.G.’s dance studio was performing at the Stittsville Fair and the mother, Al.G., M.G. and E.G. spent the day there together and had a great time, although the father had objected to them going to the fair with their mother. When he found out she had left with the children, the father called the mother incessantly demanding that she return home with them immediately. When she did not, the father drove to the fair and forced the children to leave with him, with the mother returning home alone;
• On July 3, the mother returned from her trip to Quebec City, having been gone for only a few days. Upon her return, all children ignored her and refused to acknowledge her presence or to speak to her, accusing her of having abandoned them;
• On July 7, the mother took Al.G., M.G., and E.G. to her brother Tony’s house for a pool party with their cousins. Tony’s evidence was that the children interacted lovingly towards their mother, but that the boys initially refused to eat there saying to each other that “dad’s going to kill us” if they eat. Tony was nonetheless able to convince them to enjoy his steaks;
• On July 13, the mother took E.G. on a trip to Montreal, over the father’s objections, and upon returning quite late decided to sleep over at her mother’s home with her. Pictures of E.G. on her mother’s back, hugging her mother and smiling on camera in the streets of Quebec City, were adduced in evidence by the mother. This is the same child who less than two months later would tell her mother during a CAS supervised visit that she is not her “mother” and does not want her mother to touch her;
• July 19 was An.G.’s birthday, and the father refused to allow the mother to participate in a family outing to the park. Over the father’s objections, the mother followed the family to the park, only to be ridiculed by the father (with the children following in tow). By then, whenever the father was present, the children would generally join him in ridiculing their mother, ignoring her, telling her demeaning things, or falsely accusing her of the same misgivings as their father (you abandoned us, stop calling the police for nothing, etc.);
• On July 20, the mother took E.G. and Al.G. shopping for a fashion show E.G. was in later that day. While Al.G. and E.G. were eating at the food court with their mother, the father tried to take all the children home, but Al.G. and E.G. stayed with their mother after E.G. told her father she was having fun with “Mommy”. On July 22, the mother took E.G. to Chapters where they read a book and spent the day together without any issues;
• On August 4, the mother tried to take the children to the Busker Festival but was told by them that their father did not want them to go and had directed them not to go with their mother. When the mother later took Al.G. and one of his friends to the festival and tried to take a picture of them, Al.G. told his mother that he did not want to smile in the pictures in case his father saw them and became mad at him;
• August 9 was Al.G.’s birthday. The father insisted that Al.G. choose between his mother and his father, explaining that both could not attend his birthday party. Al.G. told his mother that he wanted to be with her, but that “Daddy” did not want her to join them. To avoid a fight, he asked his mother to stay back and not come with them; and
• August 15 was E.G.’s birthday. The mother bought her a birthday cake, but the father excluded her from E.G.’s birthday celebrations. E.G. later told her mother that she could meet them at Putting Edge, but the father’s pressure on the children was apparent when the traditional singing of “Happy Birthday” in English, Italian and Lebanese was silent when the mother sang in Lebanese.

[221] As stated earlier, the parties’ inability to shield the children from their conflict supported the father’s alienating behaviours. Unfortunately, in response to the father’s constant attacks, the mother yelled and screamed back, at times becoming hysterically emotional in the presence of the children and pleading with them to help her stop their father’s abuse. To protect herself from false allegations from the father and fearing that her report of abuse by the father would not be believed, she began videotaping the parties’ altercations. This led the father to further draw the children around him and seek their support as witnesses of their mother’s “abuse and erratic behaviours”. They became a buffer between their parents, and at their father’s prompting, they began videotaping their mother during those altercations to protect their father, becoming active participants in the parental conflict.

[222] The father adduced some of these recordings in evidence during this trial, being convinced that these videos would support his allegations of erratic and abusive behaviours on the part of the mother. Unfortunately for him, they had the opposite effect. While these videos show that both parties engaged in significant conflict in the presence of their children, which included yelling, screaming and hysterical outbursts, they also show the extent to which the father manipulated the children into becoming involved in the parental conflict, and taking his side. The father maintained during this trial that it was the mother who recorded him and the children repeatedly. Yet, it is the father who supplied most of these videos to the various professionals involved with this family, including at trial, not the mother.

[223] The mother’s attempt to have the father committed under a Form 2 provided the father with the ultimate weapon he needed to completely alienate the children against their mother. I accept the mother’s evidence that during the years leading to the parties’ separation, the father’s obsessive and paranoid behaviour intensified and became very concerning to her. This was one of the main causes for the increasing conflict in the home. Although the father denies this, the evidence clearly supports a finding that he has a deep distrust of authorities, and that he came to believe over the years that he was being followed and subjected to surveillance by governmental authorities including the police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“CSIS”). He shared with Dr. Wood that in 2019 he had made a request for information pursuant to the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, to obtain a copy of all records on him. Although the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, CSIS and Communications Security Establishment Canada confirmed having no such records, he was still not convinced that he had not been followed.

[224] The father’s paranoid behaviours and distrust of others were observed by all professionals involved with this family, including by many of the witnesses who testified in this trial including family members, friends and acquaintances who had contact with the family over the years. Ms. Wells, Ms. Guirguis and Ms. Morales-Santander all testified to the bizarre paranoid behaviours they had witnessed on the part of the father during many of these encounters.

[225] As she faced more and more rejection from the children at home during the summer of 2019, leading to the CAS initially leaning towards the father’s position in the conflict, the mother panicked. Her attempt to have the father committed under a Form 2 was a desperate attempt at regaining control over her children, and over her life. Unfortunately for her, this last action on her part was pivotal to the father’s ability to gain the children’s unfettered loyalty and support.

[226] All three professionals who provided expert opinions about this family in the context of this proceeding noted important concerns in relation to potential mental illnesses and/or personality disorders on the part of the father, although neither one provided a formal diagnosis.

[227] Dr. Milstone noted in her last report that the father’s combination of histrionic display of intense emotions, emotional dysregulation, black and white thinking (for instance about the mother being so bad), and history of explosive violence upon slight provocation was often seen in people with borderline personality disorder. While Dr. Milstone never heard a direct threat from the father to commit suicide, she noted that there was a veiled or implied threat in a virtual session with her where the father was sobbing and begging her for help and declaring emphatically to her “that he ‘wouldn’t survive,’ he ‘wouldn’t make it,’ if he had to go to trial and lost”.

[228] Ms. Pemberton also noted that the father’s presentation changed drastically between the investigation phase of the CAS’ intervention in the summer of 2019, and after the children were apprehended, placed in his care and the file was transferred to ongoing services. During the investigation, he presented as passive and meek. However, from the moment the file was transferred to ongoing services he became more demanding, abrupt and somewhat rude when speaking to workers.

[229] The father’s paranoid tendencies, hostile behaviour, and the speed with which he unexpectedly went from one extreme to the next, were certainly in full display during this trial. One of the most telling examples was the drastic change in the father’s position in relation to Dr. Leonoff’s opinion evidence. The father went from sternly objecting to its admissibility, requiring a voir dire on both qualifications and threshold admissibility (a position he had held since his critique report had been shared), only to end up pleading with him during his cross-examination in a tearful and intense display of emotion, to accept to take on a therapeutic role with his family post-trial to help them heal. It is noteworthy that in his closing submissions, the father seeks this very relief.

[230] As stated earlier, the research shows that severe alienation often includes mental illness and/or personality disorders in the alienating parent.[^13] While I do not have the qualifications required to come to any conclusions about the father suffering from any such illnesses or personality disorders, the evidence presented during this lengthy trial does raise serious concerns in that regard. It also demonstrated that the father has absolutely no insight whatsoever into his alienating behaviours. He refuses to acknowledge any responsibility in the children’s rejection of their mother, putting one hundred percent of the blame on her. He was completely oblivious to the significant emotional and psychological damage – past, present and future – that the children’s distorted view of their mother and rejection of her would have on them, regardless of how many professionals have brought these serious concerns to him.

[231] Sadly, the father enabled the children by allowing them to chose whether or not to see their mother. He asserted to whomever was prepared to listen that the children had the right to decide, all the while making it clear to them (by his ongoing disparaging words, attitude, and accusations towards the mother) that they had to pick sides (his), and that the consequences of having a relationship with their mother would be very serious and never forgiven. He encouraged the children to feel the same contempt about their mother as he felt himself. Despite his assertions that he is prepared to support the children’s relationship with their mother – but only if they want to, the father has been and continues to be an enabler who is either unwilling or unable to meaningfully take any of the steps required to support the children in repairing their relationship with their mother. This is because he sees himself as a blameless victim and, on some level, he feels that the mother is only getting what she deserves for having chosen to separate from him.

[232] The father’s complete and severe alienation of the children against their mother is simply the continuation, post-separation, of the family violence and coercive control that permeated the parties’ lengthy relationship.

The Children

[233] Despite everything that they have been through, the children are doing surprisingly well from an academic and extracurricular perspective. All four children were excelling in school and in their extracurricular endeavours well before the parties separated. This has continued to this day. Perhaps throwing themselves in their studies and extracurricular activities is their way to cope with the family trauma they are experiencing.

[234] At the time of the FCC assessment, all the children seemed to be functioning well academically and socially, where they were all involved in a number of extracurricular activities that occurred about six out of seven days a week. An.G. was also employed on a part-time basis while remaining future-oriented about his post-secondary education and career goals. There were no concerns about substance abuse or inappropriate behaviours for any of the children.

[235] By the time the trial was held, An.G. was in his second year of university in bio-medical studies. The father reported that he was thriving in school, that he had an average of over 95 percent this past academic year, and that he was the recipient of a Merit Scholarship, although no documentary evidence was submitted to confirm this. An.G. used to excel in piano although he had taken a pause from this activity, and the father testified that he had a huge group of friends. He is a part-time science and math tutor, volunteers at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, and is a team captain and coach in a summer soccer league.

[236] Al.G. (16) is also doing very well according to his father. He has high academic grades, is on the Honour Roll in High School, excels at piano, takes guitar lessons, and he continues to be heavily involved in competitive soccer. He works part time at a local store and a fast-food restaurant.

[237] M.G. (15) is reported to excel in maths and received the Principal’s Award and Critical Thinking Certificate during the 2022-2023 school year. He takes piano and drums lessons, and he is part of a band at school. He also continues to be heavily involved in competitive soccer.

[238] E.G. (12) is also very successful academically, she excels at piano, and she is taking violin lessons. She is heavily engaged in competitive dancing. Ms. Lapalme, her school Principal, reported no concerns about her from an academic or social perspective, although she was the victim of bullying in Grade 5 which was eventually addressed satisfactorily. E.G. was observed by Ms. Lapalme to be a “happy-go-lucky” child at school.

[239] It is not disputed that there is a very strong bond between the children, and between the children and their father, although some professionals involved with this family have questioned whether this is out of affection or fear, or both.

[240] Nonetheless, aside from all the serious concerns discussed above in relation to the father (family violence, potential mental health issues and extreme alienating behaviours), it cannot be disputed that the father has provided excellent day-to-day care to these children for the past five years. This dichotomy is clearly what caused the professionals initially involved with this family significant pause. It also played an important role in the CAS’ position and the FCC’s recommendation that the children remain in their father’s primary care.

[241] Given that it has been two years since any professional has had access to them, it is impossible to say how the children are currently doing from a psychological and emotional perspective. Dr. Wood in his assessment noted the following risk factors for alienated children:

Children that have been exposed to high conflict separations and alienating behaviour are at higher risk to struggle with reaching their optimal potential in various adult Milstones, such as education, employment, relationships, and even their own parenting abilities. While each of the children appear to be functioning well at the present time, research has shown that there can be long-term consequences overtime in these cases, where they may grow to resent the aligned parent (i.e. the father) if they feel that they missed out on developing a relationship with the other parent or if they felt that they are manipulated in some way as a child. This may then lead towards identity confusion as well as emotional difficulties.

[242] Although the father would want this court to believe that all four children are extremely well behaved, polite, and respectful (except in the presence of their mother), I believe that this is an exaggerated embellishment of the facts. While the evidence before me supports the conclusion that the children are well behaved in school and that no concerns have been reported by their teachers or their coaches about their behaviour, there are reports of the children’s regression in certain areas of their development over the past five years. Further, the father’s control over whom the children are allowed to have contact with is such that there is no doubt he has and will remove from their lives anyone who might dare raising concerns about his parenting.

[243] Although during this trial Grace maintained that she had no concerns whatsoever about the children’s behaviour, on January 31, 2020 she reported to Ms. Pyett that An.G. needed treatment for his anger, which she complained the CAS was failing to offer him. She reported having observed negative behaviours by Al.G. towards his sister but that no one was asking her what she saw. Following the father’s assault on An.G., Grace was interviewed by a CAS intake worker, and she tried to justify her brother’s aggression on the basis that the children were very disrespectful to him.

[244] While she has been unable to have any contact with her children for some four years, the mother has tried to remain informed about their schooling, activities, and overall well-being by contacting their teachers, Dr. Chan (until he stopped his contact with the family due to the father’s complaint against him), and by looking at social media. She learned that An.G. had engaged in an (unauthorized) fight club at school, something that was confirmed by Ms. Guirguis whose son attends the same school. Ms. Guirguis reported that she saw An.G. change from a well-behaved kid at school before separation to an angry and aggressive kid after separation.

[245] Al.G. was reported to have engaged in a big fight in school, with a bunch of children watching the fight which found itself on social media. M.G. made a racial remark to another student at school for which he was given benefit of the doubt and only reprimanded. E.G. might have started to act out in school recently by showing disrespect towards a supply teacher.

[246] While all the above may very well be simple minor transgressions due to the children growing up and becoming teenagers, they may also be the early signs of aggression and emotional dysregulation resulting from years of exposure to family violence, extreme parental conflict, and severe alienating behaviours.

[247] There is evidence that the children have assimilated some of their father’s paranoid tendencies and there is indication that they, too, are now quite suspicious of strangers and the authorities. During the CAS’ involvement in the summer of 2019, protection workers have noted that the two older children also believed that they were being followed.

[248] Additionally, the level of verbal and emotional abuse demonstrated by the children towards their mother during the months following the separation, and during the children’s supervised visits with her, is shocking. An.G., especially, has shown significant aggression and abuse towards his mother, which their siblings have come to mimic over the years. In September 2019, Ms. Pyett remarked the following:

The oldest child [An.G.] has very much aligned with his father and is now quite verbally abusive towards his mother. [An.G.] will stand there and repeatedly say to his mother, ‘you’re lying, you don’t do anything around this house, why don’t you just fuck off’. The second child [Al.G.] is now starting to follow the example of his brother [An.G.] and be very negative towards his mother. The youngest child [E.G.] and the second youngest [M.G.] are emotionally caught in the middle and can often be seen crying and begging the parents to stop fighting. Over a month and a half the two youngest have moved to being very negative towards their mother.

[249] There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the children have learned such behaviours by observing their father’s own abusive behaviour towards the mother while the parties were still together, and long after. Both before and after the parties’ separation, the father has reinforced the children’s belief that it was not only appropriate and permissible to behave this way towards their mother; after the separation he encouraged them to do so.

Nonetheless, the father’s love for his children cannot be disputed, and he has been able to provide them with a stable home life, proper day-to-day care, and has met all their physical, educational and medical needs. Sadly, he has psychologically and emotionally abused them by severely alienating them from their mother.

The Mother

[250] Despite my very harsh findings about the father, I come to the conclusion that the mother, too, has played a role in the children’s estrangement from her. During the months leading to the parties’ separation, the mother engaged in significant conflict with the father in the presence of the children. While I appreciate that her retaliating against the father’s abuse was the necessary first steps towards claiming back her power, independence and self-determination, the mother showed a significant lack of insight by exposing the children to such significant conflict and by involving them in same. In addition, she fuelled the conflict by videotaping what was happening in the home, over the children’s clear objections.

[251] Out of anger, the mother has shouted hurtful things to the children including accusing them of being “mentally ill” and “paranoid” like their father, which was later used by the father to vilify her in the eyes of the children. Some of the video recordings presented during this trial show the mother’s complete inability to control her emotional outbursts in the children’s presence, yelling, shouting, and crying hysterically in their presence despite their pleas for the parents to stop fighting, and for the mother to stop videotaping them.

[252] In her investigative report completed on September 9, 2019, Ms. Pyett put it this way:

The parents have no boundaries when they get into an argument and the children are exposed to all the verbal assaults parents perpetrate on one another. Neither parent appears to have the ability to step out of the argument for the sake of the children. The mother will often make statements to the father that will be sure to enrage him or ensure his continued arguing. This statements the mother makes to the father: you are sick; you need psychiatric help; you’re paranoid; no one’s following us etc. The father then gets into making statements to the mother about her Lebanese cultural background. That she is a murderer for her people bombing in Lebanon; that she is dirty Lebanese. The children are now caught in the middle of this family conflict. The four children know way too much about the home finances, who paid for the cars, what the breakdown of household tasks are however, they see their father as doing all the work.

[253] While I can understand the mother’s level of desperation in the summer of 2019, as the parental conflict escalated and she was seeing her children become more distant and abusive towards her, her constant involvement of the police (to the knowledge of the children and for things as futile as the father leaving for a bike ride with the children against her will), followed by her attempts to have the father committed to a psychiatric ward under a Form 2, were unhelpful. These actions significantly contributed to fuelling the conflict in the home and enabled the father in his attempts to vilify the mother in the eyes of the children.

[254] Additionally, two of E.G.’s dance teachers testified during this trial of a very awkward interaction they had with the mother in August 2019 when she brought E.G. to the dance studio. They reported that the mother entered the studio very frazzled and distraught and, while standing in the lobby area which is directly next to the dancers’ change room, she began sharing with them what was happening at home while crying hysterically and at an earshot of E.G., the dancers and the other parents present. This encounter, understandably, made the staff very uncomfortable and caused them to be weary and resistant to sharing information about E.G. with the mother once they were removed from her care. Clearly, the mother struggled significantly with her emotional regulation at that time, and she continued to do so at the time of this trial.

[255] Dr. Milstone reported that the mother tended to express inappropriate affection concerning her children, calling them “her best friends” and lacking the necessary insight to understand that this is an inappropriate role for children with their parents. She believed the mother to be overly guarded about her own flaws and unable to acknowledge that she ever did anything wrong with the children. Dr. Milstone also observed a communication style which I also observed during the mother’s testimony, and which in her opinion did not serve her well with the children. The mother’s answers to questions were generally long-winded, circuitous, and often filled with facts that were sometimes irrelevant to the questions asked. The mother was also very intense emotionally, at times appearing overly passionate and joyful while recalling good memories, and at other times crying hysterically on the stand while recounting difficult ones.

[256] Child protection workers who supervised the mother’s visits with the children all reported concerns with the mother’s response to the children’s abusive behaviour. She demonstrated an ongoing inability to read the children’s queues and she frequently failed to respect their wishes when they asked her to stop touching them or to get out of their personal space. Her emotional neediness towards the children during supervised visits negatively affected the Society’s efforts at reunification.

[257] E.G.’s school principal recounted an incident which occurred in May 2022 during which the mother after leaving the school (where she had retrieved some of E.G.’s school records) climbed on the school fence to shout at E.G. who was in the school’s playground that she loved her (“Je t’aime [E.G.], je t’aime [E.G.]”). Some of the kids who were outside pointed at her and yelled at E.G. that it was her mother, which caused E.G. to quickly run to another area of the school yard, embarrassed and denying that it was her mother. While I can understand that the mother would discreetly attend the children’s schools from afar in the hope of having a glimpse of them, her public display of emotions in front of all the children on that day shows an important lack of insight.

[258] Following the parties’ separation, the mother was diagnosed with severe Major Depressive Disorder and severe Anxiety. She began seeing Dr. David Hemings in June 2019. Dr. Hemings prescribed anti-depressants but initially the mother chose not to take the medication because she was concerned that this would be used against her in the ensuing parenting litigation.

[259] At some point during the summer of 2019, the mother started taking her medication and has been compliant with all recommendations made by Dr. Hemings since. However, and understandably, the mother’s inability to have contact with her children for the past five years has caused such a high level of acute stress that the mother continues to show severe signs of emotional distress and dysregulation which have only increased over the years. According to Dr. Hemings, the deterioration of the mother’s mental health has gotten a lot worst since 2020, and has been the direct consequence of the legal situation which has kept her separated from her children for years, and her constant worries about her children’s health and welfare.

[260] Based on what I have seen during the mother’s testimony during this trial, including some of the videos she has recorded for her children (but which she has not sent to them, knowing they would only be rejected by them), the mother’s mental health continues to be extremely fragile, and she is highly vulnerable emotionally and psychologically.

Conclusions on Parenting

[261] The passage of time between the parties’ separation and the time this trial was held was way too long. In cases of severe parental alienation, time is of the essence. To correct the course of action effectively and in a long-lasting way, intervention must be timely, and sometimes drastic.[^14] Judicial case management by one judge and expeditious involvement of skilled professionals to assess the causes of a child’s estrangement from one parent and proposed remediation is essential.

[262] In many of these extreme cases, the alienating parent’s behaviours and strategies are easy to detect early in the process, based on written evidence. But an important number of those extreme cases also raise allegations of family violence and of significant and complex mental health issues. These allegations must be carefully explored and are sometimes very difficult to assess without a trial in which all the evidence is presented and tested.

[263] The level of complexity in these cases is compounded when there are allegations of family violence against children – as was the case here – and these allegations come from the children themselves. When an alienating parent is a highly skilled manipulator – as was also the case here – it can be very difficult for police officers, child protection workers, assessors and motions judges to determine with any degree of certainty whether those allegations have any merit at all. In the face of uncertainty, the natural tendency is to lean on the side of caution. This gives a severely alienating parent the leverage needed to complete their malicious work. In those extreme cases, there is simply no fast and simple solutions.

[264] Unfortunately, this case had all the above features. The mother is of the view that the system failed her children. I certainly cannot blame her for that. However, I am of the view that this is one of those exceptionally complex cases which have and will continue to baffle legal and mental health professionals alike for years to come.

[265] This family received all the services available within the family law system to allow for early assessment and intervention. The Children’s Aid Society’s involvement lasted for over a year (August 2019 to October 2020), and although the workers ultimately saw the clear signs of alienation over time, they deferred to the recommendations of a comprehensive Family Court Clinic assessment. In the face of the children’s serious allegations of abuse against their mother (which they could not rule out at that stage) and their complete rejection of her, the highly skilled FCC professionals felt it was not open to them to place the children in their mother’s care at that stage without intensive therapeutic intervention. At that point, they believed the father’s professed desire to support the children’s relationship with their mother and to engage in necessary services. This unfortunately proved to be untrue.

[266] Unlike many litigants, the mother was represented by experienced counsel throughout and was able to fund the services of experts – Dr. Leonoff and Dr. Milstone – to provide second opinions and reunification therapy. The legal proceeding was case managed by one judge not long after the family application was allowed to proceed (once the child protection proceeding was terminated), and the case management judge offered to expedite the trial to the May 2022 or September 2022 trial sittings if it could be reduced to two weeks. Otherwise, she ordered that it be placed on the November 2022 trial sittings. For reasons unknown to me, but which I suspect had to do with the need for extensive disclosure from all intervenors (CAS, police and medical records) and other procedural complexities, the trial was only heard in January 2024.

[267] In a limited number of cases, the merits of the parents’ allegations of family violence, child abuse, alienation and poor parenting are too many, too complex and too intermingled to be determined with any degree of certainty at the interim or the assessment stage. This, in turn, impedes on the court’s ability to intervene early and swiftly. Sadly, this was one of those cases.

[268] There is no doubt that the very lengthy delay in bringing this matter to trial has enabled the father in his campaign to completely eliminate the mother from the children’s lives. These kids have not had any meaningful contact with their mother, or anyone associated with her, for the best of five years. The delay has been such that the oldest two children have “aged out” of viable orders of the court. For this reason, the mother at this stage is asking for a custody reversal for the two youngest children only, who are now 15 and 12 years old.

[269] The parties are asking this court to fix long-standing consequences of significant past trauma, and years of family dysfunction. The only solution for this family lays in the hands of the only person who has demonstrated time and again that he cannot, or will not, meaningfully participate in any process proposed or imposed by the court; the father. Indeed, the evidence of what has transpired over the past five years shows unequivocally that the father will actively interfere, thwart and obstruct any attempts to reunite these children with their mother. I have no confidence that the father will gain the necessary insight into his behaviour to effect meaningful change in the future, at least not on the short or mid-term.

[270] While I am of the view that it would be in the children’s best interests to be placed in the full-time care of their mother, with no access to their father until such time as he has accessed all the mental health and counselling services that he needs to address the many issues outlined above, the evidence presented to me in this trial convinces me that this plan is doomed to fail and would only cause the children further significant harm. To put it simply, the mother does not have the emotional and psychological stability and strength necessary to handle what she will be faced with if these two children are placed in her care: severe rejection, significant emotional and psychological abuse as well as potential physical abuse and ongoing unfounded allegations of abuse.

[271] The mother has suffered years of emotional abuse and coercive control before she finally gained the strength to leave a very toxic marriage. Despite all the steps she took to deal with the devastating damage caused by those years of abuse and the loss of her children, she is still very fragile from an emotional and psychological perspective. The evidence strongly suggests that she does not have the emotional strength, or the level of insight into her own problematic behaviour, that she would need to handle what will come if the children are placed in her care in the present circumstances.

[272] This is clearly demonstrated by how she reacted to the children’s mounting contempt towards her during the months following the parties’ separation (while they were still residing in the same home), how she docilely accepted her children’s verbal and emotional abuse during supervised visits in the year that followed, her demonstrated inability to read the children’s queues and to respect their personal space (as evidenced by the mother’s emotional display at E.G.’s school), and her emotional struggles and dysregulation as revealed during her testimony at trial. I do not believe that her reaction to the children’s rejection and abuse today would be any different then her reaction to it at the November 5, 2021 meeting at Dr. Milstone’s office.

[273] While the mother’s emotional reactivity is quite understandable given that she has been cut out of her children’s lives for five years, this is not the emotional reaction that the children will need to overcome the deep emotional and psychological consequences of years of alienating behaviours and psychological and emotional abuse at the hands of their father.

[274] Both Dr. Leonoff and Dr. Milstone have expressed the unequivocal view that reunification therapy will not work with this family, because of the father. Even if the father had a moment of epiphany and was able to gain some insight into his toxic behaviour, this family would need a team of mental health professionals working intensively with each member of the family to successfully restore healthier dynamics among them and reunite the children with their mother. In my view, this would take years and the full commitment and engagement of both parents. When asked what his recommendations would be if the father refused to engage in this grieving process, Dr. Leonoff expressed the view that there would be no solution. In his opinion, one cannot send these children to their mother expecting them to speak to her when their father, whom they favour and protect, will not even sit in the same room as her.

[275] If it was open to me to do so, I would remove all four children from the father’s care and place them in the care of extended (and insightful) family members, only allowing limited supervised parenting time to both parents. Ideally, this would be accomplished by removing the father from the family home, thereby allowing the children to remain in their own home but under the care of the appointed/chosen extended family member(s) who would have to agree to care for them for an extended period (up to a year, or more). I would then impose intensive individual therapy for each child to deprogram them from years of highly toxic, negative and harmful influence and programing by their father, while requiring both parents to engage in intense individual therapy, as recommended by Dr. Leonoff. If the reunification efforts proved positive, I would reintegrate the mother into the home and allow her to resume full-time care of the children and would require further assessment and monitoring before allowing the father to resume any parenting time with them.

[276] This model would cause the least disruption to the children’s lives, as they would remain together in the same home in their own community, attend the same school(s), participate in their existing extracurricular activities, and frequent the same circles of friends while all members of the family would engage in the services they need to fix the deep family dysfunction.

[277] While it would be tempting, as Dr. Milestone suggests, to right the wrong done to the mother and the children based on moral imperatives, I am required by the legislation to make an order that focuses exclusively on the children’s best interests. Placing the two younger children in the mother’s sole care, as she seeks, would lead to more fraction within the family as the four children, who are very close and are undoubtedly relying on each other for support, would now be separated in two completely isolated groups. E.G. and M.G. would have to move to a different school, different groups of peers, different sports teams, and an entirely different community than the one they grew up in, which may very well jeopardize the only two areas of their functioning which appear to have consistently worked well: their academic life and extracurricular activities.

[278] Further, I question this court’s ability to impose on M.G., who is 15 years old, an order which goes against his expressed wishes and preferences – even if held because of extreme alienation and against his best interests. M.G., especially, is old enough to vote with his feet, and may place himself or his mother at risk of physical harm if forced to move to his mother’s home in Gatineau. With children having endless means to access technology, there is simply no way given M.G and E.G.’s age by which this Court could prevent ongoing contact between them and their father; something that would be essential to maximize the potential for success of a custody reversal.

[279] In support of her position for a custody reversal, the mother submitted an impressive body of caselaw in which the court imposed a custody reversal after making a finding of parental alienation.[^15] Many of those decisions were upheld on appeal. While highly informative, these decisions were made based on the specific circumstances presented in each case. This case presents unique features not found in those cases.

[280] It is therefore with much regret, and incredible sadness, that I have come to the conclusion on the specific facts of this case that it would not be in E.G. and M.G.’s best interest to place them in their mother’s exclusive care at this point, by way of a custody reversal. They have already been through too much trauma and stress, and the chances of this custody reversal succeeding are – at best – minimal, whereas the risks to the children’s emotional, psychological, and physical well-being associated with a custody reversal are simply too high at this stage.

[281] For those reasons, I make the following final order (the children in this order refer to Al.G., M.G. and E.G., since An.G. is no longer a child):

1- The children will remain in their father’s primary care for the time being, and he will have sole-decision making responsibility for them, subject to the following:

a. The father shall not change the children’s primary residence so as to remove them from the greater City of Ottawa without the mother’s written consent or a court order. If the father changes the children’s primary residence within the greater City of Ottawa, he shall notify the mother at least 60 days before the intended move, in writing;

b. The father shall not travel outside of Canada without the mother’s written consent or a court order;

c. The father shall not obtain official documents, including a passport, for minor children without the mother’s written consent or a court order;

d. The father shall not change the children’s school without the mother’s written consent or a court order, unless a child must be registered in another school as a result of having completed a specific grade (for instance, moving from primary school to junior high). The father shall promptly inform the mother of any school changes, and provide all necessary contact information;

e. The mother shall at all times be listed as the children’s mother on school records, health records and other official records, and her contact information shared by the father with all such record holders.

2- Contact between E.G., M.G. and their mother will be in accordance with their wishes and preferences. The children shall be free to establish any form of contact that they wish with their mother, by any means, as well as with any member of their extended maternal family.

3- The mother shall be entitled to receive information about the children’s school, and to communicate independently with teachers and other professionals in the children’s schools, without restrictions.

4- The mother shall be entitled to receive information about the children’s health professionals, and to communicate independently with them, in a manner that is sensitive to the children’s age and their entitlement to a certain level of privacy, as may be determined by the professional in question (and not by the father or the children).

5- The parties shall, unless in the event of an emergency, communicate exclusively through the software program Our Family Wizard.

6- The father shall, not less than six times per year (every two months or so), provide the mother with a written detailed update as to the children’s health, schooling, extracurricular activities, and any other important milestones or events in the children’s lives. These bi-monthly reports shall include pictures and videos of the children, including videos of them participating in extracurricular activities. The father is hereby refrained from sharing with the children, in any shape or form, the fact that some of these pictures and videos will be shared with the mother.

[282] Costs will be addressed once my decision on financial issues is released.

Madam Justice Julie Audet

Released: April 24, 2024

COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-2026

DATE: 2024/04/24

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

SALVATORE GINESE Applicant

– and –

RITA FADEL Respondent

TRIAL decision – PART 1: PARENTING

Madam Justice J. Audet

Released: April 24, 2024

[^1]: The content of the police occurrence reports and the Society’s records in relation to the events that transpired in July and August 2019 were concisely summarized in the Family Court Clinic assessment, which in turn was consistent with the evidence adduced before me during this trial. As a result, I have reproduced that summary here, with some edits and additions. [^2]: On July 2, 2020, and in the context of the child protection proceedings, I made an order on consent of the parties confirming that the Family Court Clinic assessment as well as all affidavits produced by the Society could be produced and be made available to the court in the family law proceeding. [^3]: An expression that the father used on multiple occasions during this trial referring to the mother or her counsel. [^4]: The evidence was contradictory as to how many teeth had actually been knocked out; two, three or four? I use three, which was the number most referred to in relation to this incident. [^5]: See also Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22. [^6]: Peter G. Jaffe, Nicholas Bala, Archana Ledhekar, Katreena L. Scott, and Casey Oliver, Making appropriate parenting arrangements in family violence cases: Applying the literature to identify promising practices, (February 2023), online: Department of Justice Canada <www.justice.gc.ca>. [^7]: A helpful and detailed list of their most important research on this topic can be found in the bibliography included at the end of the paper: B.J. Fidler & N. Bala, “Concepts, controversies and conundrums of “Alienation”: Lessons Learned in a Decade and Reflections on Challenges Ahead” (2020), 58:2: Fam. Ct. Rev. 576 (“Fidler & Bala, 2020”). [^8]: Fidler & Bala, 2020. [^9]: See M.A. Saini, J. Johnston, B.J. Fidler, & N. Bala, “Empirical studies of alienation”, in Leslie Drozd, M.G. Saini, and Nancy Olesen, Parenting Plan Evaluations: Applied Research for the Family Court, 2 ed (New York: Oxford Academic, 2016); Fidler & Bala, 2020. [^10]: Same as above. See also Fielding v. Fielding, 2013 ONSC 5102, 39 R.F.L. (7th) 59, at paras. 136-143. [^11]: B.J. Fidler & P. Ward, “Clinical decision-making in parent-child contact problem cases: tailoring the intervention to the family’s needs”, in Abigail M. Judge & Robin M. Deutsch, Overcoming Parent-Child Contact Problems: Family-Based Interventions for Resistance, Rejection, and Alienation, (New York: Oxford Academic, 2017) (“Fidler & Ward, 2017”). [^12]: Fidler & Bala, 2020. [^13]: Fidler & Ward, 2017. [^14]: Such as imposing a custody reversal or limiting the alienating parent’s contact with the children to professionally supervised parenting time. [^15]: See W.C. v. C.E., 2010 ONSC 3575, 93 R.F.L. (6th) 279; K.K. v. M.M., 2021 ONSC 3975, aff’d 2022 ONCA 72, 67 R.F.L. (8th) 1; A.M. v. C.H., 2018 ONSC 6472, aff’d 2019 ONCA 764, 32 R.F.L. (8th) 1; A.G.L. v. K. B. D. (2009), 2009 CanLII 943 (ON SC), 93 O.R. (3d) 409 (S.C.); S.G.B. v. S.J.L., 2010 ONSC 3717, 102 O.R. (3d) 197; C.S. v. M.G. (2007), 2007 CanLII 6240 (ON SC), 37 R.F.L. (6th) 373 (S.C.).