COURT FILE NO.: FC-23-0226 DATE: 2024/12/31 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

David Turner Applicant – and – Fildaus Uwamahoro and Patrick Okenge Respondents

Self-represented Applicant J. Alison Campbell, for the Respondent, Fildaus Uwamahoro No one appearing for the Respondent, Patrick Okenge Kate C. Anderson, Office of the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: December 11, 2024 (by videoconference in Brockville)

RULING ON MOTION

Corthorn J.

Introduction

[1] The respondent, Fildaus Uwamahoro, is the biological mother of the four children who are the subject of the motion now before the court (“the Children”). The Children are (a) Dwayne Okenge (May 23, 2013); (b) Dowson Okenge (September 7, 2016); (c) Bella Turner (December 6, 2019; and (d) Lila Turner (March 19, 2022).

[2] The applicant David Turner is the biological father of the girls. Mr. Turner has, since February 2018, acted in loco parentis to the boys. Mr. Turner commenced this application in July 2024. The motion now before the court is the second of two motions heard in the latter half of 2024.

[3] The respondent, Patrick Okenge, is the boys’ biological father. He did not deliver responding materials for the motion.[1]

[4] In her notice of motion, Ms. Uwamahoro sets out thirteen forms of relief she is seeking. The topics covered in the list include (a) the Children’s primary residence; (b) a parenting time schedule; (c) that Mr. Turner participate in an anger management course; (d) that Mr. Turner’s parenting time be supervised; (e) child support; (f) counselling for the girls “if deemed appropriate”; and (g) Mr. Turner’s adherence to a medication regime, as prescribed by his treating physician.

[5] In her factum, Ms. Uwamahoro asserts that the issues to be determined on an interim basis are (a) a parenting time schedule, and (b) “Whether an Order should be made addressing decision making and, if so, whether same should be granted to one of the parties solely.” Yet, decision making is not one of the topics addressed in the forms of relief listed in Ms. Uwamahoro’s notice of motion. It would be unfair to both Mr. Tuner and Mr. Okenge if the court were to make a determination regarding interim decision making, when neither of them had notice that Ms. Uwamahoro would be requesting relief in that regard.

[6] At this stage of Ms. Uwamahoro’s motion, the court makes a temporary, without prejudice order related only to a parenting time schedule and matters ancillary to such a schedule.

Background

[7] It is undisputed that the Parties began living together in February 2018 and have never married. Neither of the Parties provided the court with evidence as to when they met; where they met; where they were living when they began cohabiting in February 2018; or where they lived prior to moving to Kemptville, Ontario in 2020.

[8] It is also undisputed that the boys resided with the Parties from February 2018 to July 2024. In that 6.5-year period, the boys have had infrequent, but consistent, parenting time with Mr. Okenge. It is undisputed that between their respective dates of birth and July 2024, the girls resided with the Parties. The only exception to the Children’s continuous residence with the Parties is a period of several days in the early fall of 2023, when Ms. Uwamahoro left the family home with the Children.

[9] Mr. Turner’s application and the first motion heard in 2024 were precipitated by Ms. Uwamahoro’s decision to leave the family home on June 26, 2024. Ms. Uwamahoro’s evidence is that she left the home, with the Children and the Children’s maternal grandmother, and went to a shelter for women experiencing domestic violence.[2]

[10] After leaving the family home on June 26, 2024, Ms. Uwamahoro spoke by telephone with a member of the Kemptville detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”). Ms. Uwamahoro’s evidence is that she did so to inform the OPP that she and the Children were safe.

[11] Ms. Uwamahoro’s evidence is that, in the four years after the family moved to Kemptville, she called the police on four occasions out of the fear of Mr. Turner’s “violent outbursts and controlling coercive behaviour”. In his responding affidavit, Mr. Turner does not dispute the prior calls to the OPP; he vehemently denies engaging in the behaviour described by Ms. Uwamahoro at paras. 64-74 of her November 14, 2024 affidavit.

[12] Ms. Uwamahoro’s evidence is that between June 26 and July 11, 2024, she communicated by email with Mr. Turner in an effort to arrange parenting time for him with the Children. Ms. Uwamahoro’s evidence in that regard, including as to the content of Mr. Turner’s responding emails, is uncontradicted. Mr. Turner does not dispute Ms. Uwamahoro’s description of him refusing to discuss or arrange parenting time in that two-week period.

[13] Mr. Turner brought an urgent motion for an order requiring Ms. Uwamahoro to return the Children to his care. Ms. Uwamahoro did not deliver responding materials or appear on the return of the motion on July 10, 2024. Ms. Uwamahoro’s evidence is that she received the motion materials by email on July 9, 2024, but did not see them until after the motion was heard.

[14] On July 10, 2024, Justice Abrams ordered that the Children be returned to Mr. Turner’s care within 24 hours of the date of order (“the Abrams order”). On the same date, Ms. Uwamahoro received a copy of the Abrams order by email; the email was sent to her by a member of the court’s administrative staff. With the assistance of the OPP, Ms. Uwamahoro returned the Children to Mr. Turner on July 11, 2024, with the exchange taking place at a restaurant.

[15] Ms. Uwamahoro and her mother have not returned to the family home. They continue to reside at a shelter, pending a subsidized housing unit becoming available to Ms. Uwamahoro.

[16] For approximately 2.5 months, between July 2024 and the end of September 2024, Ms. Uwamahoro did not have any parenting time with the Children. From the court’s review of Mr. Turner’s affidavit materials[3], there is no evidence to contradict Ms. Uwamahoro’s evidence that Mr. Turner did not take any steps to arrange or facilitate the Children having parenting time with their mother during that 2.5-month period. That period ended on September 25, 2024—the date on which the motion now before the court was first returned before this court.

[17] On August 16, 2024, Justice Johnson made an order for the referral of the matter to the Office of the Children’s Lawyers (“OCL”).

[18] On September 25, 2024, at Mr. Turner’s request, Justice Schwartz adjourned Ms. Uwamahoro’s motion to December 11, 2024 (“the Schwartz order”). Justice Schwartz addressed procedural issues and made a ‘without prejudice’ order for Ms. Uwamahoro’s parenting time with the Children. The Schwartz order provides that Ms. Uwamahoro shall have parenting time with the Children as follows:

• 15 to 30-minute video calls on every Monday at 7:00 p.m., and every second Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.;
• in person every Wednesday after school, between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., commencing on the date of the order; and
• in person on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m., commencing on Friday, September 27, 2024.

[19] The Schwartz order (a) stipulates where and how the exchanges of the Children shall occur, and (b) addresses communication between adults in attendance at the exchanges (i.e., no negative commentary). On the consent of the Parties, the Schwartz order includes the following term: “There shall be no negative commentary about the parties, by anyone, in front of or within the hearing [range] of the children”.

[20] Pursuant to the litigation schedule in the Schwartz order, the following materials were filed by the Parties prior to the return of the motion and were before the court on December 11, 2024:

a) Ms. Uwamahoro’s notice of motion dated September 17, 2024; b) Ms. Uwamahoro’s September 17, 2024 affidavit; c) Ms. Uwamahoro’s November 14, 2024 affidavit; d) Mr. Turner’s November 22, 2024 affidavit; and e) A factum from each of Ms. Uwamahoro, Mr. Turner, and the OCL.

[21] Before turning to the substantive issue of a parenting time schedule, I will first address two procedural matters raised by Mr. Turner at the outset of the hearing on December 11, 2024.

Request for Leave to File Additional Affidavits

[22] On December 11, 2024, Mr. Turner informed the court that he intended to rely on two additional affidavits; he had not served and filed either affidavit in accordance with the litigation schedule set out in the Schwartz order. The additional affidavits upon which Mr. Turner sought to rely were sworn by him on September 29, 2023, and July 5, 2024. Each affidavit was previously delivered in support of an urgent motion, brought by Mr. Turner, for the return of the Children.

[23] For the following reasons, Mr. Turner’s request for leave to rely on the additional affidavits is denied.

[24] In his endorsement dated July 10, 2024, Justice Abrams refers to a temporary order obtained by Mr. Turner in October 2023. Mr. Turner’s September 2023 affidavit was filed in support of an urgent motion brought by Mr. Turner at that time. As noted by Justice Abrams in his July 2024 endorsement, after obtaining a temporary order in October 2023, Mr. Turner informed the court that he would not be proceeding with his application at that time (i.e., in the fall of 2023).

[25] It would not be reasonable or fair to Ms. Uwamahoro to permit Mr. Turner to rely on his September 2023 affidavit. That affidavit was filed more than a year ago, prior to the commencement of this (or any) application. Within a matter of days after filing the September 2023 affidavit, Mr. Turner decided not to proceed with an application.

[26] Mr. Turner could have included in his November 2024 affidavit any portion of the substance of the two earlier affidavits; he chose not to do so. As of September 25, 2024, Mr. Turner had been served with Ms. Uwamahoro’s September 20, 2024, affidavit. Mr. Turner had approximately a week, after being served with Ms. Uwamahoro’s November 14, 2024 affidavit, within which to finalize his responding affidavit. In summary, Mr. Turner had from September 25 to November 22, 2024 to draft his affidavit in response to the motion now before the court.

[27] The Schwartz order clearly stipulates that the Parties would not be permitted to file further evidence, outside of the litigation schedule ordered, without leave of the court. If Mr. Turner were permitted to rely on either of the earlier affidavits, Ms. Uwamahoro would be deprived of the opportunity to deliver a reply affidavit.

[28] I turn next to Mr. Turner’s request for an adjournment of the motion.

Request for an Adjournment of the Motion

[29] Mr. Turner requested an adjournment of the motion to permit him to file a revised or additional factum. He wished to respond, in writing, to matters raised in Ms. Uwamahoro’s factum that he had not anticipated would be addressed in that document.

[30] For the oral reasons given on December 11, 2024, that request was denied. To those oral reasons, I add the following reasons for denying the request for an adjournment.

[31] Ms. Uwamahoro’s motion had already been adjourned once at Mr. Turner’s request. The Parties and the Children will benefit from the court’s determination of an interim parenting time schedule – with the court’s goal being to assist the Parties in returning stability and certainty to the Children’s lives.

[32] Mr. Turner had been in possession of a copy of the notice of motion for more than two months. He was aware of the various forms of relief Ms. Uwamahoro is requesting on her motion—including that decision making is not addressed in the notice of motion. Mr. Turner had more than two months, following service on him of a copy of the notice of motion, to draft his responding materials. The Parties were otherwise required to follow the litigation schedule set out in the Schwartz order.

[33] As a result of a last-minute change in Ms. Uwamahoro’s representation, Mr. Turner’s factum was delivered before Ms. Uwamahoro’s factum was delivered. The court does not fault Ms. Uwamahoro’s present counsel of record for that circumstance. That timing, alone, results in minimal prejudice to Mr. Turner in responding to the motion.

[34] With the motion having been adjourned for over two months (from late September to mid-December 2024), the Parties and the Children would be prejudiced if the motion were adjourned yet again. They would face continued instability and uncertainty. That prejudice outweighs the minimal prejudice to Mr. Turner of being first to deliver a factum for the motion. That balancing exercise is tipped even more in favour of denying the request for an adjournment because the issue of decision making is not before the court at this time.

The Issue

[35] As stated above, in para. 6, the sole issue determined at this interim stage of Ms. Uwamahoro’s motion is a parenting time schedule that is in the best interests of the Children.

The Law

[36] When making a parenting time order, “the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with” s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”). As the primary consideration, “the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being”: s. 24(2).

[37] The CLRA includes a non-exhaustive list of the “factors” related to the circumstances of a child”; that list is found in s. 24(3)(a)-(k). The factors listed therein are addressed below under Issue 1 and 2.

[38] One of the factors listed in s. 24(3) is “family violence”; the court must consider the impact of family violence on parenting and co-operation between the parties: s. 24(3)(j). Factors specific to family violence are stipulated in s. 24(4).

[39] When allocating parenting time, “the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with the best interest of the child”: s. 24(6).

Analysis

a) The Positions of the Parties

▪ Ms. Uwamahoro

[40] Ms. Uwamahoro requests that she immediately have two weeks of consecutive and uninterrupted parenting time with the Children. Ms. Uwamahoro proposes that Mr. Turner would have a video call with the Children three times during each of those two weeks.

[41] Ms. Uwamahoro proposes that, following the initial two-week period with her, the Children would (a) continue to reside with her at the Lanark County Interval House (“LCIH”), and (b) have parenting time with Mr. Turner one night a week (for two hours) and every second weekend (Friday evening to Sunday evening). Ms. Uwamahoro asks the court to order that Mr. Turner’s parenting time with the girls be supervised until he has completed an anger management course. In addition, she requests that the boys have parenting time with Mr. Turner, “as per their views and preferences and when/if is safe.”

[42] Ms. Uwamahoro asks the court to take into consideration that the Children have to date been raised Muslim. Ms. Uwamahoro submits that she is the parent who is committed and best-suited to continue raising the Children as Muslims.

▪ Mr. Turner

[43] In his factum, Mr. Turner requests that he be granted “full custody” of and decision-making authority for the Children. He requests that the Children continue their schooling and extra-curricular activities at his discretion in Kemptville. In the list of relief he seeks, Mr. Turner does not address a parenting time schedule for Ms. Uwamahoro with the Children.

[44] Mr. Turner’s position is that it is in the best interests of the Children for their primary residence to be the family home in Kemptville. Mr. Turner highlights the Children’s established routine in Kemptville including school, sports activities, and time with their friends. Mr. Turner also relies on the proximity of the family home to parks and other outdoor environments.

[45] Regarding the Children’s religion, in his submission, Mr. Turner asked the court to make an order prohibiting Ms. Uwamahoro from continuing to raise the Children as Muslims.

b) The Children’s Views and Preferences

[46] One of the factors to be considered by the court is “the Child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the Child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained”: s. 24(3)(e).

[47] The OCL’s involvement in this proceeding is pursuant to the August 2024 order of Justice Johnston, made after the Children were returned to Mr. Turner’s care.

[48] As explained by the OCL, at para. 4 of their factum and in oral submissions, because of the urgent nature of Ms. Uwamahoro’s motion, the OCL did not have sufficient time to obtain a “clinical assist” who could provide affidavit evidence of the Children’s view and preferences. In addition, the OCL did not have the opportunity to (a) have “two good interviews” with the three older children, (b) collect the relevant third-party records for each child, and (c) after reviewing the records, conduct a third interview of each of the three older children.

[49] The OCL emphasized in their oral submissions that they would present the court with an interim position, pending the completion of the document review and interview process. I found the OCL’s submissions to be thorough; balanced regarding the Parties; based upon a thoughtful consideration of the interviews with the three older children; and compelling.

[50] The Children’s views and preferences, as presented by the OCL, are summarized below.

▪ Bella – Age 5

[51] The OCL found Bella to be challenging to interview—even when compared to other four-to-five-year-old girls. At para. 54 of their factum, the OCL summarizes Bella’s views:

a) She loves her Mom, Dad, brothers, and sister. b) She is comfortable in the care of both parents. c) She likes spending time at the shelter with Mom and likes spending time at home with Dad. d) She likes school and making new friends.

▪ Dowson – Age 8

[52] The OCL cautions the court regarding the views and preferences expressed by eight-year-old Dowson. First, the OCL highlights that Dowson appears to be experiencing stress because of his role, as he understands it, in the proceeding and its potential outcome.

[53] For example, Dowson was interviewed on September 24, 2024. As of that date, Dowson had been made aware, by Mr. Turner, of the September 25, 2024 return date for the motion. Dowson reported that Mr. Turner had told him in advance that the OCL would be meeting with him. When interviewed on that September date, Dowson asked the OCL if that interview was his “last chance” to say what he wanted.

[54] Dowson shared information received from Mr. Turner to the effect that Dowson would be living with Mr. Turner, would be permitted to see Ms. Uwamahoro, but would not be staying over with her. The OCL does not ascribe to Mr. Turner any intention to influence Dowson.

[55] Second, Dowson expressed concern about the OCL sharing with either of the Parties any information he provided to the OCL. In the end, Dowson did not consent to the OCL sharing with the court all of the details from the interview.

[56] Remembering that Mr. Turner is not Dowson’s biological father but has been in loco parentis for Dowson since February 2018, the OCL summarized Dowson’s “clear and strong” views as follows:

a) He identifies Mr. Turner as “Dad”. b) He loves both parents, specifically Mr. Turner and Ms. Uwamahoro. c) He likes being able to see his mother again. d) He likes being able to see his biological father, Mr. Okenge. e) He prefers to reside in his home as compared to the shelter where his Mom resides. f) He likes his school. g) He does not know what he would want in a parenting time schedule if the decision was up to him.

▪ Dwayne – Age 11

[57] The OCL asks the court to give significant weight to Dwayne’s views and preferences. The OCL describes Dwayne as exceeding the expectations one might have for a boy his age. The only caveat to that assessment is the OCL’s concern about unintentional influence; Dwayne observed Mr. Turner to be “stressed out” and emotional as a result of conflict between the Parties and the separation.

[58] The OCL asks the court to consider Dwayne’s strong preference to reside primarily in the family home in Kemptville with Mr. Turner. The OCL emphasizes that Dwayne’s preference in that regard is “in large part due to [Dwayne’s] strong dislike for residing in a shelter in another community.”

[59] From the OCL’s interview with Dwayne, the court has information, not evidence, regarding the environment for the Children when they are with their mother at LCIH. Their rooms at the shelter are private. They share communal space with children whom they do not know. Dwayne told the OCL that he would not otherwise choose to be friends with the children he encounters at the LCIH. Dwayne pointed out that when the Children are with their mother, they are removed from their friends in the Kemptville area. Last, Dwayne reported that it is challenging, as an older brother, to keep his little sisters entertained when the Children are at LCIH with their mother.

[60] Like his brother, Dwayne would like to have time with Ms. Uwamahoro and to continue to see his biological father (the latter, routinely every two months if possible).

c) The Children’s Cultural and Religious Upbringing and Heritage (s. 24(3)(f))

[61] In her affidavits, Ms. Uwamahoro describes Mr. Turner as racist towards the boys (whose biological parents are both persons of colour), demeaning towards her because of her race, and dismissive of the Muslim faith and traditions.

[62] As noted in the preceding section of this ruling, on the return of the motion, Mr. Turner requested that the court make an order, the effect of which would be to terminate the Children’s upbringing as Muslims “until they are mature enough and informed enough” to make their own choice regarding faith. The court informed Mr. Turner that the court would not make such an order on the motion. Mr. Turner was directed to focus his submissions on the issue before the court—a parenting time schedule.

[63] In H.(S.) v. M.(A.), 1998 CarswellNS 554 (N.S. Fam. Ct.), the court determined custody of a mixed-race child, with the dispute being between the child’s paternal grandparents and the mother. At para. 16, Family Court Justice Levy says, “Thus, the issue of race in this, and comparable cases, is much more than a question of whether an applicant for custody is racially biased, and is much more than a question of good intentions. It is a question of the ability to transmit to the child an understanding of her world and the capacity to flourish in it.”

[64] Ms. Uwamahoro relies on the decision in H.(S.) in part because of the following summary, at para. 16 of the decision, of the evidence given by a social worker commissioned by the court to prepare a report:

I took however from his evidence not less than this: that “ all things being equal ” it is probable that a family or parent of a minority race would better understand, and could better equip a child to deal with, the inevitable realities with which she would have to deal as she matures. This capacity, this “cultural competence”, involves more than simply being aware of certain facts, it includes a set of learned “skills” capable of being passed on, band because of their own experiences, “… blacks start from an advantaged position.”

[65] Family Court Justice Levy’s decision in H. (S.), is eloquent and thoughtful. The decision is not, however, of assistance to the court in determining a parenting time schedule for the Parties and the Children.

[66] All things are not equal as between the Parties. On the motion before this court, I place significant weight on the views and preferences of the Children, specifically of Dwayne’s views and preferences. Dwayne is described by the OCL as exceeding expectations for a child of his age. He had the maturity to consider his younger sisters’ needs, as well as what he considers to be the challenged faced in attempting to meet those needs when the Children are with Ms. Uwamahoro at the LCIH.

[67] Any concerns the court may have about Mr. Turner’s lack of “cultural competence” or religious competence do not tip the balance in Ms. Uwamahoro’s favour on the issue of a parenting time schedule.

[68] The issue of decision making regarding the Children’s religion is not before the court on this motion; it may be before the court in the future if the Parties are unable to resolve the issue between them. Better evidence from the Parties would be required. Reliance on anecdotal evidence, intended to tarnish the court’s view of the opposite party will not suffice. Much more thoughtful and considered evidence on the importance of cultural and religious upbringing and heritage will be necessary.

[69] In addition, the Parties must be mindful of the approach the Supreme Court of Canada directs be taken regarding cultural identify: “It is important that the custodial parent recognize the child’s need of cultural identity and foster its development accordingly” (see: Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1014, at p. 1,039). When addressing decision making, the court may choose to apply that approach by analogy to decision making regarding the Children’s religion.

d) Other Factors

[70] It is important for the Children to have certainty and stability in their lives. The Parties both contributed to the instability the Children have been experiencing since July 2024. For example, Ms. Uwamahoro uprooted the Children by leaving the family home. In providing that example, the court makes no finding regarding the merits of Ms. Uwamahoro’s reasons for leaving the family home in July 2024.

[71] To Ms. Uwamahoro’s credit, after leaving the family home in July 2024, she communicated with the OPP and made efforts for the Children to have parenting time with Mr. Turner.

[72] Mr. Turner contributed to the instability in the Children’s lives for 2.5 months by failing to make arrangements for them to have parenting time with Ms. Uwamahoro. Mr. Turner appears to continue to place little importance on the Children’s parenting time with Ms. Uwamahoro, as evidenced by his failure to address the topic in the relief he seeks in response to the motion. The court reminds Mr. Turner of the factor listed at s. 24(3)(c): “each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent”.

[73] To those examples of creating instability, the court adds (a) discussions by either of the Parties with the Children about the court proceeding, and (b) each party’s negative comments made about the other party, to or in earshot of the Children.

[74] As of the date on which the motion was heard, Ms. Uwamahoro continued to reside, with her mother, at “LCIH in Carleton Place. To maintain the privacy and safety of individuals who reside there, the address for LCIH is undisclosed.

[75] Ms. Uwamahoro is attempting to secure a subsidized house unit. She is, however, uncertain as to when she will be successful in doing so. As a result, Ms. Uwamahoro is unable to say when her residence will be somewhere other than LCIH.

[76] Ms. Uwamahoro does not provide the court with any evidence as to the type of accommodation she currently occupies; the daily routine within LCIH; where the Children stay and how they are accommodated when they are with her after school or on weekends; or how the Children appear to her to have fared during their parenting time with her, since late September 2024, at LCIH.

[77] Mr. Turner does not provide the court with any evidence about the family home in Kemptville. For example, there is no evidence as to the size of the property on which the home is situated; the number of bedrooms in the home; whether any of the Children share a bedroom; the proximity of the home to the three older children’s school; or extra-curricular activities in which the Children are engaged.

[78] Mr. Turner is home from work in time to receive the three older children from the school bus following the end of the school day. On those occasions when he is unable to be home in time for the school bus, one of Mr. Turner’s adult daughters from a prior relationship is present to receive the three older children.

[79] The OCL highlights that as of the return date for the motion, the Parties had struggled for two months to adhere to the terms of the Schwartz order. The Parties encountered significant challenges implementing the scheduled video calls.

[80] The court also considers the conflicting evidence on the subject of family violence. Ms. Uwamahoro alleges a longstanding pattern of emotionally and psychologically abusive behaviour on Mr. Turner’s part. Ms. Uwamahoro alleges that Mr. Turner’s behaviour is directed towards her and towards some, if not all, of the Children. In response, Mr. Turner alleges that Ms. Uwamahoro has, on at least one occasion, been physically violent towards him.

[81] At this stage of Ms. Uwamahoro’s motion, and based on the conflicting evidence, the court does make any findings of fact regarding family violence. The court is aware of the outcome of the child protection investigations carried out by the Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (“FCSLLG”).

[82] First, in a letter dated September 23, 2024, from the FCSLLG addressed to Ms. Uwamahoro, a child protection worker says, that “the reported concern in relation to [Ms. Uwamahoro] included physical force against your child. These concerns are not verified.” The end result of that investigation is that Ms. Uwamahoro’s name is placed on a provincial database accessible by other Children’s Aid Societies in the event of reports of concerns in the future.

[83] Second, in a letter dated September 24, 2024, addressed by the FCSLLG to Ms. Uwamahoro, from the same child protection worker, that worker says, “The verified concerns are in relation to Mr. David Turner and include inappropriate discipline, post separation conflict and emotional harm. These concerns have been verified, therefor the file will be moving to ongoing services to ensure further assessment and safe planning with your family.”

[84] The court expects that the Parties will work with the FCSLLG to address verified concerns, modify behaviours as required, and educate themselves regarding appropriate methods of discipline, minimizing conflict, and preventing against emotional harm. When Ms. Uwamahoro’s motion is again before the court, it will be incumbent upon the Parties to provide the court with further evidence regarding the involvement of the FCSLLG with the family.

e) Conclusion – Parenting Time Schedule

[85] I am persuaded by the OCL’s submissions, including the practical approach advocated by the OCL, that the parenting time schedule proposed in the OCL’s factum is in the Children’s best interests at this time.

[86] The family moved to Kemptville in 2020. The three oldest children each attend the same elementary school. The youngest child is not yet of school age. For the girls, the Kemptville home is the only home they have known. It would not be practical or in the Children’s best interests to uproot them from their family home of more than four years and have them spend a significant amount of time at a shelter located in another community. The life the Children know is in Kemptville, in their neighbourhood, at their school, and with ready access to their friends.

[87] The three children who were interviewed clearly expressed their respective desire to spend time with Ms. Uwamahoro. It is important that the Children continue to have the opportunity to spend time with their mother. The court anticipates that once Ms. Uwamahoro finds a home for herself and the Children, the Children will enjoy their time with their mother even more than they do now and view their mother’s home as contributing to stability and certainty in their lives.

[88] The order made below is a temporary and without prejudice order. Ms. Uwamahoro’s motion, including as it relates to a parenting time schedule, is adjourned.

[89] The parenting time schedule must be reviewed as soon as practicably possible after Ms. Uwamahoro’s housing arrangements are settled. With that goal in mind, the order requires the Parties to return to court for a case conference at the earlier of (a) late March 2025, and (b) the date on which Ms. Uwamahoro secures housing in a residential setting. The purpose of the case conference is for the court to be brought up as to date, (a) on the status of Ms. Uwamahoro’s efforts to secure a home, and (b) as to whether the Parties have been able to manage the parenting schedule ordered below.

Disposition

[90] At the conclusion of the hearing on December 11, 2024, the Parties were directed to attempt to agree upon a parenting time schedule for the holiday period (ending on January 5, 2025). They were successful in doing so. The parenting time schedule agreed upon is set out in the court’s endorsement released the day after the hearing of the motion: Turner v. Uwamahoro (December 12, 2024), Brockville, FC-23-226 (S.C.).

[91] The parenting time schedule ordered below provides for the Children to have parenting time with their mother on alternate weekends. The first such alternating weekend commences on Friday, January 17, 2025. The respondent mother’s first weeknight, after-school parenting time with the Children is Thursday, January 9, 2025. Those dates are based on the Children having parenting time with their mother from December 29, 2024 to January 4, 2025, in accordance with the holiday parenting time schedule agreed upon by the Parties.

[92] For the reasons set out above, the court makes the following order on a temporary and without prejudice basis:

1. The Children shall reside with the applicant father at all times other than those set out in this order for the respondent mother’s parenting time with the Children and as may flow from paragraph 3, below (the respondent father’s parenting time).

2. The respondent mother shall have parenting time with the Children pursuant to the following schedule: a) Alternate weekends, from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. commencing on Friday, January 17, 2025; b) Where the Friday on which the applicant mother is scheduled to commence parenting time with the Children is a holiday or P.D. day, the respondent mother’s parenting time shall commence at 6:00 p.m. on the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday holiday or P.D. day; c) Where a holiday or P.D. day falls on the Monday immediately following a weekend on which the respondent mother has parenting time with the Children, the respondent mother’s parenting time shall be extended from Sunday at 6:00 p.m. to Monday at 6:00 p.m.; d) Alternate Thursdays after school from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., commencing on Thursday, January 9, 2025; e) On Islamic holy days and holidays, including Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha; f) An additional three days during the Children’s March Break to extend their regular weekend: i) If the regular weekend in paragraph 2(a), above, falls on the first weekend of the March Break, then the respondent mother’s parenting time with the Children shall be extended from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Wednesday at 6:00 p.m.; ii) If the regular weekend in paragraph 2(a), above, falls on the second weekend of the March Break, then the respondent mother’s parenting time with the Children shall be extended and occur from Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m.; and g) Such other times as the applicant father and respondent mother may agree in writing.

3. The respondent father shall have reasonable parenting time, with the two older children, on reasonable notice to either the applicant father or the respondent mother.

4. The applicant father and respondent mother shall exchange the Children at the Barrhaven Costco located at 4315 Strandheard Drive. Each party may delegate the exchange to a third party designate. At the exchanges, there shall be no negative commentary among the Parties or their delegates.

5. The Children shall have video calls on Saturdays and Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m. The applicant father and respondent mother shall ensure the calls take place, are flexible in length (from 15 to 30 minutes), and take place without unreasonable interference with or supervision of the calls: a) If the Children are in the care of the applicant father at the scheduled time, the call shall be with the respondent mother; b) If the Children are in the care of the respondent mother at the scheduled time, the call shall be with the applicant father.

6. No party shall remove any one of the Children from the province of Ontario without the written consent of both the applicant father and respondent mother. The parties shall provide written notice to the applicant father and the respondent mother prior to travelling with the children beyond a 100 km radius of Kemptville, Ontario.

7. The parties shall not engage in negative commentary, and shall not permit negative commentary by anyone, about the parties in front of or within earshot of the hearing of the Children.

8. None of the parties shall discuss with the Children the legal issues in this proceeding or adult matters related to it.

9. The parenting schedule shall be reviewed upon the respondent mother securing permanent housing. The respondent mother shall arrange for a case conference to take place at the earlier of (a) late March 2025, and (b) as soon as practicably possible following the date on which Ms. Uwamahoro secures housing in a residential setting.

[93] Regarding item 9(b), above, the triggering event is the date on which Ms. Uwamahoro secures housing (i.e., on which she is informed housing will be available to her) and not the date on which she moves into the housing. It is in the Children’s best interests that the Parties plan ahead for Ms. Uwamahoro’s move to a residential setting.

[94] Ms. Uwamahoro’s motion is adjourned and shall be brought back in the usual manner, in accordance with the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 and the notices to the profession applicable for matters heard at the Brockville Courthouse. The costs of the materials for and the appearance on December 11, 2024 are reserved to the judge hearing the motion.

Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn Released: December 31, 2024

Footnotes

[1] Because Mr. Okenge did not respond to the motion, I refer hereinafter to Ms. Uwamahoro and Mr. Turner, collectively, as “the Parties”.

[2] The maternal grandmother has been residing with the Parties and the Children for many years.

[3] Mr. Turner’s affidavit materials do not comply with document standards for court documents. In addition, the form in which Mr. Turner chose to present his evidence renders his affidavit materials challenging to read.