Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-00000126-0000 DATE: 2024-06-19 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Sanmeet Singh, Applicant AND: Shirin Sodhi, Respondent

BEFORE: Kurz J.

COUNSEL: Parul Ahluwalia for the Applicant Melanie Battaglia & Selene Ali for the Respondent

HEARD: June 19, 2024, appearance by videoconference

Endorsement

[1] This is a motion by the Applicant Father for an order reinstating parenting on a week-about basis, as the parties agreed in their January 26, 2024 separation agreement. The Respondent Mother brings a cross-motion for the appointment of the OCL, the right to put the parties’ eldest child in counselling, and supervised parenting time.

[2] Following the separation agreement, the Father enjoyed equal-shared week-about parenting time (as he says that he has since separation in 2022). But he chose to go to India on March 31, 2024, leaving the children in the Mother’s exclusive care. While the Mother argues that he effectively abandoned the children to her care in order to move to India, that does not appear to be the case. The Father has given two explanations for the move, first that he was visiting his ailing mother and second, that he needed to clear his head in regard to his relationship with the Mother. They have had an ambiguous, up-and-down relationship since separation.

[3] In any event, the Father returned less than six weeks later. He never gave up his job or residence here. But he also never informed the Mother of his anticipated return date.

[4] While he was away in India, the father maintained contact, particularly with the oldest child, aged 10. The younger child is 4 years old. However, the parties appear to have engaged in an escalating dispute, primarily regarding their relationship, while the Father was away. That led to the Father making statements in a text string to the Mother which led to his being charged with uttering threats to her. He was arrested upon his return to Ontario on or about May 11, 2024. He denies the charges.

[5] The bail terms imposed on the Father prohibited contact with the children absent a family court order or direction of the children’s aid society. That term is most unfortunate in that the presiding justice of the peace effectively made a one-sided parenting order, knowing little to nothing about the actual parenting of the children. It is not clear whether the justice of the peace was aware of the terms of the separation agreement, which the parties entered into just a few months earlier or their earlier parenting arrangements. I note that the bail terms did not even allow parenting time upon the agreement of the parties. As a result, the Father has not seen the children since he left for India, more than two and a half months ago. That should not have been the case.

[6] I wish to be clear: justices of the peace should not be making such restrictive parenting orders, even when they allow for family court orders. It can take weeks and even months to obtain such an order. Frankly, justices of the peace are not equipped to make parenting orders and should be careful when they do so.

[7] Here, the bail term did not help the children who are ostensibly being protected by the order. In truth it is likely to the contrary.

[8] The parties agree to an order that the OCL be involved. I believe that a s. 112 order is appropriate here. This is a case that has quickly gone from low to very high conflict in just a matter of weeks. The Mother is now making serious allegations of family violence against the Father, both historical and rooted in more recent events. Any allegations of family violence require serious consideration.

[9] For his part, the Father is concerned that the Mother is now adversely influencing the oldest child to the extent that she has told him that she wants no contact and that he should stop electronically following her. He argues that her comments to him mirror those of the Mother. Just as family violence allegations warrant serious consideration, so too do allegations of improper influence of a child.

[10] It is vital that the circumstances of this case be explored at this stage before they deteriorate further. Thus, I request the assistance of the OCL in providing the court with a s.112 clinical investigation report. The parties will fill out and deliver their intake forms to the OCL within seven days.

[11] The Mother wants me to order counselling for the whole family, beginning with the oldest child. She has unilaterally arranged counselling despite the shared decision-making terms of the separation agreement. Those terms remain in effect notwithstanding the bail order and charges against the Father. Nonetheless, I suggest to the parties that they explore a mutually agreeable counselling arrangement and discuss it before or when they return for the case conference scheduled below.

[12] The children are in daycare this summer on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. After some discussion, they have agreed that the Father will have parenting time with the children alternate weekends, Friday to Monday, with pickup and return at the daycare during the summer. They have also agreed that he shall also have Wednesday overnights, again with pickup and return at the daycare during the summer. I so order.

[13] These terms shall equally apply while the children are in school, with pick-up and return at school rather than daycare. The Father’s first weekend will be this Friday.

[14] The children are not in daycare Thursdays during the summer but the Mother believes that she can arrange with the daycare provider for an exchange on their premises. She will make best efforts to do so.

[15] A case conference in this matter is scheduled for July 23, 2024 at 11:30. At that time, the progress of the parenting arrangements as well as next steps will be discussed.

[16] No costs of today as success was divided and most of the terms of my order are on consent.

Electronic Signature of Justice Marvin Kurz Date: June 19, 2024