Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-24-831
Date: 2025/02/20
Court: Superior Court of Justice – Family Court – Ontario

Applicant: Jonathan Granda
Respondent: Brenna Duffey

Before: Owen Rees
Counsel:

• John Guest for the Applicant
• Marina Tronin for the Respondent

Heard: February 11, 2025

Type: Temporary Parenting Time

Endorsement

Overview

[1] The applicant father, Jonathan Granda, and the respondent mother, Brenna Duffey, have one child from their relationship, Rosalyn Granda, born on April 9, 2021. The parties began living together in February 2015, were married on August 11, 2018, and separated on July 21, 2023.

[2] In November 2023, the parties entered into an “interim, interim”, without prejudice, settlement agreement (“Interim Agreement”). This provides that Mr. Granda would have parenting time every other weekend from Friday afternoon after daycare until Monday morning at daycare; and every week from Wednesday evening after daycare until Thursday morning at daycare.

[3] Mr. Granda brings a motion for a temporary parenting order. He seeks equal parenting time on a 2-2-3 schedule.

Mr. Granda’s Position

[4] Mr. Granda argues that before their separation, the parties were equal caregivers to their daughter. He argues that Ms. Duffey has taken steps to unilaterally create an artificial perception that she is the child’s primary caregiver by initially withholding the child and subsequently refusing to hold a review of the parenting plan under the Interim Agreement.

[5] Mr. Granda was diagnosed with bipolar disorder before meeting Ms. Duffey. He argues that he has successfully managed to treat his condition. He contends that he has put forward a comprehensive safety plan should there ever be any concerns.

[6] Mr. Granda also argues that his evidence demonstrates his excellent care of Rosalyn.

Ms. Duffey’s Position

[7] Ms. Duffey opposes the motion. She wishes to retain the schedule under the Interim Agreement.

[8] Ms. Duffey disputes that Mr. Granda was an equal carer for Rosalyn before the couple’s separation. She contends that she was the sole carer for Rosalyn in her first 18 months of life. She also contends that Mr. Granda was verbally and physically violent towards her, and this occurred in front of Rosalyn on occasion.

[9] Ms. Duffey denies that she refused to review parenting time under the Interim Agreement. Rather, when Mr. Granda requested the review, she took the position that there should not be a change to the parenting schedule and that the existing schedule was in Rosalyn’s best interests.

[10] Finally, Ms. Duffey contends that changing the parenting schedule is not in Rosalyn’s best interests. In addition to concerns regarding Mr. Granda’s mental health and family violence, she argues that Rosalyn requires stability rather than frequent transitions. In respect of the latter, she claims that Rosalyn struggles with transitions between her parents, has difficulty with being away from Ms. Duffey for a long time, gets easily overstimulated and has meltdowns. Ms. Duffey believes that Rosalyn is neurodivergent, but there is no formal assessment or expert diagnosis before the court.

Analysis

[11] In making a temporary parenting order, s. 16(1) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. 3 (2nd Supp.), provides that the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child. The court is required to consider all the factors related to the circumstances of the child, including those set out in s. 16(3). The court must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being: s. 16(3). Where there is family violence, the court must take into account the factors relating to family violence set out in s. 16(4). Finally, in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the child’s best interests.

Mr. Granda’s Mental Health

[12] A significant portion of the evidence and argument was focused on Mr. Granda’s mental health. Mr. Granda was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2010. Since then, he has been under the care of a psychiatrist and physician.

[13] His most recent decompensation was in 2020. It arose from a change in medication and the stress of the parties’ relationship. Mr. Granda sought treatment from his psychiatrist, who prescribed sleep medication and returned him to his previous medication. Mr. Granda stabilized within a week.

[14] Mr. Granda does not have delusions, psychosis, or paranoia from bipolar disorder. Nor does it cause him to be violent.

[15] Further, Mr. Granda has the support of his parents, who would be able to intervene if he were not doing well.

[16] Most importantly, Mr. Granda has proposed a safety plan for his mental health, which would be supervised by his psychiatrist. This includes providing his psychiatrist irrevocable consent to contact Ms. Duffey if Mr. Granda’s mental health compromised his ability to care for Rosalyn. It would also allow his psychiatrist to suspend Mr. Granda’s parenting time with Rosalyn if his mental health compromised his ability to look after her.

[17] I am persuaded that Mr. Granda’s mental health does not place Rosalyn at risk. He has an adequate plan in place to mitigate the risk to her.

Allegations of Family Violence

[18] Ms. Duffey makes allegations of primarily verbal, but also physical, violence. Her evidence is that Mr. Granda was verbally abusive towards her on several occasions during their relationship and, on two occasions, shoved her. In one instance, Mr. Granda’s verbal abuse was witnessed by their therapist.

[19] Mr. Granda acknowledges that he yelled at and swore at Ms. Duffey during arguments, but his evidence is that the swearing was essentially mutual. Further, he accepts that Rosalyn would have witnessed all the couple’s arguments when she was not sleeping. He admits that he yelled during one of the couple’s sessions with their therapist. Mr. Granda regrets these arguments.

[20] Ms. Duffey also suggests that Mr. Granda injured the parties’ cat in 2017. Mr. Granda denies that he injured the cat intentionally but acknowledges that it could have happened when he tossed the cat off the counter onto the floor.

[21] The arguments ended once Ms. Duffey left the matrimonial home. Communications now appear to be respectful.

[22] I am persuaded that Mr. Granda repeatedly engaged in yelling and swearing at Ms. Duffey and that he once shoved Ms. Duffey during their relationship. I am also persuaded that this negatively impacted Rosalyn because she witnessed the couple’s arguments. But there is no evidence that Mr. Granda is verbally or physically abusive during his parenting time with Rosalyn after she and Ms. Duffey left the matrimonial home. And I am persuaded that the parties are now able to communicate respectfully after separation, particularly regarding Rosalyn.

[23] This history of family violence does not cause me concern with the current parenting arrangements. Nor is it the most significant factor, given the passage of time and the improvement in the parties’ relationship. In my view, it weighs neither for nor against increasing Mr. Granda’s parenting time on a temporary basis.

Rosalyn’s History of Care and Her Needs

[24] The primary drivers on this motion are the history of Rosalyn’s care and her needs given her age and stage of development, especially her need for stability pending the final determination of the application.

[25] I find that Ms. Duffey was Rosalyn’s primary caregiver before the separation and has remained so afterward. Ms. Duffey’s evidence is more persuasive on this point. For example, Ms. Duffey takes care of Rosalyn’s medical needs, though Mr. Granda has attended her appointments since Ms. Duffey and Rosalyn left the matrimonial home.

[26] Since the parties entered into an Interim Agreement, Rosalyn has been primarily residing with Ms. Duffey. Mr. Granda has parenting time with Rosalyn every other weekend and one overnight a week. Even on the current schedule, Mr. Granda relies on his parents to help. He has not persuaded me that he is well positioned to care for her on a 2-2-3 schedule. On the record before me, I find that Ms. Duffey is better able to provide for Rosalyn’s needs until the application can be finally adjudicated.

[27] Moreover, I find that Rosalyn requires more stability than a 2-2-3 schedule would provide. I accept Ms. Duffey’s evidence that Rosalyn struggles with transitions and that the current schedule presents challenges for her. Increasing transitions through a 2-2-3 schedule would exacerbate these difficulties.

[28] In light of this, I need not address Mr. Granda’s proposed holiday schedule. I encourage the parties to proactively address holiday schedules rather than bring a further motion.

Disposition

[29] Mr. Granda’s motion is dismissed.

[30] The parenting schedule under the Interim Agreement shall remain in place on a temporary basis. Mr. Granda shall have parenting time every other weekend from Friday afternoon after daycare until Monday morning at daycare; and every week from Wednesday evening after daycare until Thursday morning at daycare.

[31] Ms. Duffey is presumptively entitled to costs. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they can each make written submissions to me of no more than 750 words, accompanied by cost outlines, within a week of the release of this endorsement. These are to be sent by email to my judicial assistant.

Justice Owen Rees
Date: February 20, 2025