Omer v. Reiban, 2025 ONSC 1236

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: Omer v. Reiban, 2025 ONSC 1236

COURT FILE NO.: FS-23-00038246

DATE: 20250228

BETWEEN:

ALED OMER

Applicant

– and –

RICHARD REIBAN

Respondent

Stephanie Okola, for the Applicant

Ella Aiaseh and Adina Schild, for the Respondent

HEARD: October 3, 2024

VELLA J.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1The Appellant/Respondent, Richard Reiban (the “Appellant” or “Father”), appeals from the final order of the Honourable Madam Justice Paulseth (the “Motion Judge”) of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated August 14, 2023 (the “Paulseth J. Order”).

2In his Amended Notice of Appeal, the Appellant seeks an order setting aside paragraphs 2, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 of the Paulseth J. Order, and seeks the following orders in their stead:

(a) an order for joint decision-making responsibility with respect to the major decisions of the child of the relationship, M.O., born January 22, 2019 (“M.O.”), or alternatively vesting sole decision-making responsibility with the Appellant with a duty to inform and meaningfully consult with the Respondent, Aled Omer (the “Respondent” or “Mother”);

(b) an order that both parties are entitled to ask for and receive, subject to any applicable laws, information about M.O.’s well-being, including in relation to her health and education, from any other person who is likely to have such information, pursuant to ss. 20(5) and 28(8) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12;

(c) both parties shall be included (with their full names and contact information) as M.O.’s parents on all forms pertaining to M.O., including, but not limited to, any medical forms required by M.O.’s family doctor, any school forms required by M.O.’s school, etc.;

(d) the Appellant shall pick up M.O. at her daycare school camp at 3:15 p.m. If M.O. is not otherwise in daycare school camp, and unless if otherwise agreed to between the parties, then the Appellant shall pick her up at the Respondent’s residence. Unless otherwise agreed to between the parties, all drop-offs shall be at the Respondent’s residence.

(e) if the Respondent cancels the Appellant’s parenting time because of school, employment, non-medical reasons, and/or non-emergency medical reasons (including, but not limited to, a mild cough, regular colds, and the child generally feeling unwell or sad), the parents shall agree on make-up time pursuant to that which was missed, which shall take place within 14 days of the missed parenting time. Non-emergency medical reasons, including, but not limited to, specialist, doctor, or dentist appointments, shall not constitute grounds for cancelling the Respondent’s parenting time. In the event M.O. has a non-emergency medical appointment scheduled during the Appellant’s parenting time, the Appellant shall be entitled to accompany M.O. to that appointment and shall then continue with his regular parenting time thereafter;

(f) the Respondent shall provide the Appellant with a copy of all M.O.’s documents and government issued identifications, including, but not limited to, M.O.’s social insurance number, within 10 days of the date of this order. If the Respondent fails to provide such documentation and identification requested by the Appellant, he shall be permitted to obtain a copy of M.O.’s government issued identification from Service Canada, Service Ontario, or any other relevant organization, directly and without the Respondent’s consent or participation, and costs.

3In the alternative, the Appellant seeks an order that the Paulseth J. Order be set aside and that the Appellant’s Motion to Change be remitted back to the Ontario Court of Justice for a new hearing before a different motion judge, and costs.

4The Respondent sought relief, in addition to requesting that the Appellant’s appeal be dismissed, including an order prohibiting the Appellant from contacting any of M.O.’s service providers, and an order requiring pick-ups and drop-offs to be in a public location to be determined by her, amongst other orders set out in her factum and affidavit.

Background and Juridical History

5The parties were married under Islamic religious law on August 5, 2018. They separated on October 20, 2018. They are the biological parents of M.O., who was 5 years old at the time of the hearing of the appeal.

6In December 2019, the Mother (who is the Applicant in the Application) commenced a family law proceeding at the Ontario Court of Justice, in North York, seeking decision-making responsibility, a parenting schedule for the Appellant Father, child support, and related relief.

7The Ontario Court of Justice family proceedings resolved by way of a consent order issued by the Honourable Justice Zisman, dated December 16, 2021 (the “Zisman J. Order”). Justice Zisman ordered the following, inter alia, on a final basis:

(a) The Respondent Mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility for M.O. over her health, education, and extra-curricular activities, provided she consulted with the Appellant Father in advance. As further specified in the Zisman J. Order, including at para. 1(j), if after at least three email exchanges the parties are unable to agree with respect to the subject decision, the mother has final decision-making authority without prejudice to the Father’s right to bring an urgent motion challenging the decision;

(b) The Appellant Father was provided with parenting time, with the proviso that if his parenting time is cancelled for non-emergency medical reasons, he is entitled to make-up time, as further specified in the Zisman J. Order;

(c) The Respondent Mother was to sign the necessary form to facilitate a change in name for M.O. by adding the Appellant Father’s surname as her middle name. This change in name was intended to facilitate the Appellant Father’s access to M.O.’s information from third party care providers/record holders.

8The Zisman J. Order also provided for holiday time schedules, a dispute resolution mechanism, and child support; however, those portions of the Order were not the subject of the motion to change before Paulseth J., with the exception that the Father wanted Mother’s Day and Father’s Day to be addressed.

9The Father commenced a motion to change in November 2022. He alleged, inter alia, that the Mother has repeatedly breached the Zisman J. Order by cancelling his scheduled parenting time without providing him with a reasonable opportunity for make-up time and failing to facilitate his parenting time. Furthermore, he alleged that the Mother failed to comply with the term of the Zisman J. Order requiring her to sign the form necessary to facilitate M.O.’s change in name and refused to provide information to him or consult with him with respect to major decisions.

10In his motion to change, the Father sought to reverse the decision-making order such that he would now have sole decision-making responsibility for M.O., and that he, in turn, would have to consult with the Mother. He did not seek to change M.O.’s primary residence, which is with the Mother. Alternatively, he sought joint decision-making authority.

11As well, the Father sought a variation in the Zisman J. Order to further timetable make-up time for cancellation of his parenting time, an expansion of holiday parenting time to include Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, clarification regarding the pickup location which he submitted should be at M.O.’s school, and an order mandating the use of Our Family Wizard as the method of communication tool between the parties concerning parenting issues.

12The Motion to Change was heard on August 14, 2023, by Zoom before Paulseth J. The parties filed affidavit evidence. Both parties and their lawyers were in attendance at this motion.

13After hearing submissions from both parties, Paulseth J. delivered an oral ruling at the motion. The transcript of Her Honour’s Oral Ruling formed part of the appeal record.

Issues

14The parties agree that the threshold issue before the Motion Judge was whether there was a material change in circumstances. If so, did the best interests of the child require a variation of the Zisman J. Order? They also agree that this threshold issue of a material change in circumstances was met. The main point of contention before the Motion Judge was identifying which parent was the cause of the material change in circumstances; namely, in the words of the Motion Judge, the issue was whose conduct made the Zisman J. Order “unworkable.” The identification of the parent who caused the material change informed the variations made by the Motion Judge to the Zisman J. Order.

15The issues to be determined are as follows:

(a) Did the learned Motion Judge err in finding that it is in M.O.’s best interests that sole decision-making remain with the Mother?

(b) Did the learned Motion Judge make a palpable and overriding error in limiting the Father’s ability to contact and seek information from M.O.’s third-party care/service providers?

(c) Did the learned Motion Judge err in finding that the Tim Horton’s exchange location serves M.O.’s best interest more than having the Father pick up the child at school and drop her off at the Mother’s residence?

(d) Did the learned Motion Judge err in finding that it is in M.O.’s best interests that there be no video calls between M.O. and the Father?

(e) Did the Motion Judge err in not ordering the Mother to provide the Father with a copy of M.O.’s government issued documentation, such as her SIN?

(f) Did the learned Motion Judge err in not ordering the Mother to comply with M.O.’s name change order forthwith?

16For the reasons that follow, the Motion Judge did not commit a palpable and overriding error with respect to her Oral Ruling. Her Honour was alert to the Father’s evidence and the Father’s positions taken at the hearing. Her Honour did not ignore or misapprehend the Father’s evidence. Rather, the Motion Judge made findings of fact which were open to her based on the evidentiary record.

17Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Standard of Review on Appeal

18The parties agree that the standard of review applicable on this appeal is that of palpable and overriding error.

19In Bors v. Bors, 2021 ONCA 513, 60 R.F.L. (8th) 36, a parental alienation case, the court confirmed that parenting orders involve issues of mixed fact and law. Accordingly, at para. 18, the court stated that “intervention on appeal is warranted only where there is a material error, a serious misapprehension of the evidence, or an error of law.” Furthermore, decisions about parenting time and schedules are “inherently exercises in discretion” and “case by case consideration of the unique circumstances of each child is the hallmark of the process.”

20The Father is disputing the findings of fact made in the face of his evidence to the contrary and submits that the Motion Judge misapprehended the evidence in finding that his conduct was primarily responsible for making the Zisman J. Order unworkable. Accordingly, the Father is challenging findings of fact and findings of mixed fact and law, but does not identify an extricable legal error: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at paras. 8, 10, and 36.

21The Father alleges that the Motion Judge “seriously misapprehended” the evidence by not considering the Father’s evidence, allegedly only relying on the Mother’s evidence, which he submits was false and contradicted by his own evidence (including documentary evidence). He submits that this also gives rise to an error in mixed fact and law.

22The result of the Motion Judge’s alleged palpable and overriding error was that Her Honour found that the material change justifying variation of the underlying Zisman J. Order (his excessive communication and controlling manner over both the Mother and M.O.) had the effect, inter alia, of unjustifiably reducing the Father’s ability to have input into M.O.’s life and to access information from third parties regarding M.O.’s health and education.

Material Change of Circumstances and Best Interests of the Child

23Section 29(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) provides that there shall be no variation of a parenting order or contact order “unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child who is the subject of the order.”

24Pursuant to Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, there is a two-part test applicable to motions for change:

(a) First, the moving party must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances affecting the child;

(b) Second, if the threshold is met, the court must undertake a new inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child’s needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.

25In considering what parenting orders are in the best interests of the child, the court must consider the factors set out in s. 24 of the CLRA. In reviewing the non-exhaustive list of factors set out in s. 24(3), the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being: s. 24(2), CLRA.

26In determining what parenting orders are in the best interests of the child, the court will take a holistic approach in examining the child, her needs, and the people surrounding her: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480, 55 R.F.L. (8th) 442, at para. 47.

27The reasons reflected in the Oral Ruling show that the Motion Judge took a holistic and pragmatic approach to determining M.O.’s best interests in accordance with the factors and primary consideration set out by s. 24 of the CLRA. In the Oral Ruling, the Motion Judge noted the fundamental importance of M.O.’s relationships with her service providers, heightened by the medical and developmental challenges she faces as a result of having been born prematurely. The evidentiary record supported this finding and neither party disputed this reality for M.O..

The Paulseth J. Order

28The Motion Judge found that a material change in circumstances occurred as a result of what Her Honour found to be excessive and counterproductive communications and controlling behaviour by the Father regarding M.O. with the Mother and M.O.’s various service providers, including at her daycare, and with her healthcare professionals. This communication put the child’s well-being at risk by compromising the willingness of these service providers to continue in the face of the Father’s excessive communications and demands. Also, his demand of 60 days notice in order to provide input into M.O.’s extra-curricular activities compromised the Mother’s ability to enrol M.O. in extra-curricular activities. The Zisman J. Order provided for 60 days advance notice or as much notice as was possible. The communications between the Mother and Father evidenced a high level of conflict between them over M.O.’s well-being and best interests. These findings required some modifications to the Zisman J. Order with respect to its parenting aspects.

29As a result, the Motion Judge found there was a material change in circumstances satisfying the first part of the motion to change test.

30The Motion Judge then embarked on an inquiry into the best interests of M.O..

31The Motion Judge observed at the outset of the Oral Ruling that the matter before her was complicated by the fact that the parties never co-parented M.O. together, as they separated before her birth. Of further relevance to the context of this parenting situation was the fact that M.O. had serious medical issues, having been born prematurely at 23 weeks. M.O.’s relationship with, and access to, her professional healthcare team and daycare providers is therefore very important. Of particular importance are her relationships with the specialists at SickKids (for her medical conditions of hydrocephalus and asthma) and Holland Bloorview (regarding her developmental delays).

32The key findings made by the Motion Judge in her Oral Ruling are as follows (pinpoint references are to the page number of the transcript of the Oral Ruling of Paulseth J. rendered August 14, 2023 – “Transcript”):

(a) The Father’s motion was a motion to change the Zisman J. Order in the best interests of the child (Transcript, at p. 41);

(b) Both parents have a very good relationship with M.O. (Transcript, at p. 42);

(c) Both parents are very keen (Transcript, at p. 40);

(d) All of the relationships are important to M.O., and it is important to ensure that M.O. keeps the third-party professionals that she needs involved with her (Transcript, at pp. 43 - 44);

(e) It was clear that the Zisman J. Order was “not working” due to the high conflict between the parents (Transcript, at pp. 40 – 41);

(f) The conflict between the parents was such that the parenting time and decision-making did not continue in a cooperative way following the Zisman J. Order (Transcript, at p. 41);

(g) The high conflict between the parents, constituted a material change requiring a different parenting order in the best interests of M.O. (Transcript, at p. 41).

(h) The parental conflict implicated M.O.’s registered healthcare providers which was not in her best interests (Transcript, at p. 41);

(i) The Father’s communication with M.O.’s various third party educational and healthcare providers was excessive, and posed a real risk that these service providers would terminate their relationships with M.O., and that would not be in her best interests (Transcript, at pp. 42-44, 54);

(j) The Father was seeking to exert too much control over the Mother with respect to M.O., even though he consented to her having sole decision-making responsibility (Transcript, at pp. 42-43);

(k) The Mother is the primary caregiver and is providing better than competent care to M.O. (Transcript, at p. 43);

(l) The Mother failed to facilitate the name change contrary to the Zisman J. Order (and was ordered to comply within six months or else there would be costs of $500 per month against her) (Transcript, at p. 44);

(m) As a result of the above findings, it is in the best interests of M.O. that the Mother continue to have sole decision-making authority (Transcript, at p. 44);

(n) The parenting schedule was not altered, except that Father’s Day and Mother’s Day were added to the holiday schedule (Transcript, at pp. 45-46);

(o) Video calls between the Father and M.O. were not in her best interests (Transcrpt at p. 56);

(p) The parenting exchanges should occur in a public place, and Tim Hortons by the University and Dundas subway station was the best place (Transcript, at p. 50);

(q) The issue of whether the Mother should provide the Father with M.O.’s SIN for purposes of opening a RESP, or rather whether the Father should instead contribute to the RESP opened by the Mother for M.O., was deferred to the next appointment before Paulseth J. (Transcript, at p. 51);

(r) Our Family Wizard was the appropriate way for the parties to communicate about M.O. (draft Order referenced throughout the Oral Ruling).

Analysis

33An appeal from the Motion Judge’s hearing is not a rehearing of the underlying motion on its merits. On questions of fact and mixed fact and law, deference to the Motion Judge applies, and the role of the appellate court is limited.

34My task is to examine the reasons underlying the Motion Judge’s Oral Ruling, and the underlying evidentiary record to determine whether there was a palpable and overriding error. My role is not to second guess the Motion Judge or determine whether I might have made a different decision by weighing the evidence differently.

35This task requires me to scrutinize the evidentiary record that was before the Motion Judge to determine whether there was a misapprehension of the evidence, including, as urged by the Father, a complete failure to consider his affidavit evidence.

36The Father raised arguments that were not before the Motion Judge. I will not consider these arguments, nor will I enter into a de novo hearing on the merits of the underlying motion that gave rise to the Order in order to substitute a new parenting order, contrary to the submissions of the Father.

37As stated, the parties agree that the threshold issue under Gordon has been met – since the Zisman J. Order was made, there has been a material change in circumstances affecting M.O..

38Further, it is clear from the Oral Ruling that the Motion Judge undertook a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of M.O., having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child’s needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.

39For example, the Motion Judge stated, several times, that the motion comes down to the best interests of the child, M.O. (e.g.: p. 41, Transcript). The Motion Judge then made findings based on the evidentiary record demonstrating the relevant circumstances relating to M.O.’s needs and to the respective abilities of each parent to meet those needs. At p. 42 of the transcript, the Motion Judge stated:

And … the information flow…to ask the daycare to report on every day that the mother and child has been at the daycare …for one thing it’s overreaching, and secondly, daycares don’t provide reports like that, and they’re not going to start photocopying their files for him. It’s overreaching and its smacks of control. It really smacks of control.

40The Motion Judge made findings that the parents are unable to effectively co-parent or communicate with each other.

41The Motion Judge identified M.O.’s educational and health needs as they relate to her service providers and highlighted the critical nature of preserving her relationships with her healthcare professionals at SickKids and Holland Bloorview.

42In assessing what order is in M.O.’s best needs, the Motion Judge made particular note of the Father’s “excessive” communications with M.O.’s daycare and her healthcare providers.

43There was an evidentiary basis open to Pauleth J. to make these findings.

44The Motion Judge also found that, contrary to the Mother’s position, an order denying the Father the ability to ever contact M.O.’s service providers was not in M.O.’s best interests. The Father adduced into evidence before the Motion Judge a letter from M.O.’s doctor indicating that the doctor (Dr. Barozzino) did not have a communication problem with the Father. While the Motion Judge did not specifically reference this letter in the Oral Ruling (nor did Her Honour review the evidence in the course of the oral ruling), the Father’s lawyer specifically drew this doctor’s letter to the Motion Judge’s attention during the motion (Transcript, at p. 54).

45The Motion Judge’s finding of excessive communication is based on the overall pattern of the Father’s communication with M.O.’s various service providers, not just one specific professional healthcare provider. The fact that the Motion Judge made this overall determination, in the face of Dr. Barozzino’s letter, does not mean that the letter was ignored.

46To the contrary, the Motion Judge had evidence from M.O.’s daycare providers stating that the Father was contacting them excessively and requesting information that they did not ordinarily provide to any parent.

47Furthermore, there was ample evidence from both parties demonstrating their inability to communicate with each other regarding M.O. in a productive manner, and otherwise demonstrating that the conflict between the parents regarding M.O. was significant.

48The Motion Judge relied, in part, on the rapidity with which the parties “fell off” the directions set out by the Zisman J. Order and were back in court fighting over same.

49The Motion Judge also found in the Father’s favour on some points and was responsive to his concerns about her limiting his ability to contact M.O.’s professional service providers.

50By way of examples, the Motion Judge rejected the Mother’s position that the exchanges should be at a police station. While she rejected the Father’s proposed location, the Motion Judge fashioned a compromise that Her Honour determined appropriate. The Motion Judge made a point of clarifying that while she was limiting the number of times the Father could proactively contact M.O.’s service providers, she clarified that the Father was entitled to all the communications that the Mother would receive. As well, the Motion Judge agreed with the Father’s request that the parties be required to communicate on Our Family Wizard.

51The findings of fact, and mixed fact and law, made by the Motion Judge were available to Her Honour on the basis of the evidentiary record, and were made after embarking on a fresh inquiry into M.O.’s best interests. Therefore, the second part of the motion to change test was satisfied.

52The Motion Judge then fashioned an order that Her Honour found to be in the best interests of M.O.. As stated, the Motion Judge restricted the Father’s ability to proactively contact M.O.’s service providers to twice a year, rather than denying him the ability to ever contact the services providers (as urged by the Mother), having found that the past frequency and number of such requests was excessive and not in the best interests of the child.

53In relation to the decision-making order, the Father did not submit (or adduce any evidence demonstrating) that the Mother was not making decisions that were in the best interests of M.O.. His main complaint was that he was not having sufficient input into those decisions as a result of the Mother’s noncompliance with the Zisman J. Order, justifying reversing decision-making responsibility or making it joint. However, the Motion Judge found that changing the decision-making responsibility from the parent with whom the child lived (remembering that the parents separated before M.O. was born) to the parent who had limited parenting time made no sense. Furthermore, changing the decision-making responsibility to be joint did not make sense in light of the high conflictual nature of the parents’ relationship and their inability to communicate in a productive matter. Again, there was evidence in the record that could reasonably support this decision.

54In terms of the decision to change the pick-up/drop-off location to Tim Hortons, the Motion Judge took into consideration the Mother’s evidence that having the exchange at M.O.’s school was problematic, and the Father’s evidence that having the exchange at a police station (advocated for by the Mother) was also problematic. The Motion Judge found that a public location was an appropriate place for the exchanges to take place. The Motion Judge was alive to the fact that the Tim Hortons location chosen (close to a subway station accessible to both parents) was next door to a police station. There was no palpable and overriding error in this determination.

55The Motion Judge denied the Father’s request for video calls. The Motion Judge maintained the status quo with respect to parenting time, with the exception of granting the Father additional parenting time on Father’s Day. There was no palpable and overriding error in the Motion Judge’s exercise of discretion under s. 28(1)(c) of the CLRA in determining parenting time.

56The Motion Judge determined that the matter of provision of M.O.’s SIN and the Father’s desire to open a RESP independent from the RESP opened by the Mother was adjourned to the next court appearance, for which a date was fixed before Her Honour. This was because the parties could not come to an agreement on this issue during the course of the motion, when they were diverted to virtual breakout rooms, and the court ran short of time. There was no palpable and overriding error in the decision to adjourn this last issue to the next court appearance which was scheduled at the motion to October 30, 2023 (two and a half months after the hearing).

57Finally, the Motion Judge found that the Mother was in noncompliance with the terms of the Zisman J. Order requiring her to facilitate the change of M.O.’s name to add the Father’s name as a middle name within the period ordered. Rather than requiring the Mother to comply “forthwith,” the Motion Judge extended the time for compliance by six months, with the proviso that if she did not comply, she would be effectively fined $500 a month for noncompliance.

58This court will not infer, as the Father would have it, that the Motion Judge ignored all of his evidence because it is not explicitly referenced in the Oral Ruling. The Oral Ruling does not expressly reference much of the evidence. However, the Motion Judge was not required to make explicit reference to all of the evidence upon which Her Honour ultimately relied in the Oral Ruling. This is not required of judges. It is clear from the context of the Oral Ruling when taken as a whole and which followed after hearing comprehensive oral submissions from the parties, that the Motion Judge considered all of the evidence.

59An appellate court will not assume that a motion judge did not consider all of the evidence because the motion judge did not reference the affidavits and exhibits in the reasons. As stated, the Motion Judge did not reference any of the affidavits expressly in the Oral Ruling that followed. This does not mean that the Motion Judge ignored the evidence. As stated, it is clear from the Oral Ruling that the Motion Judge made the findings having regard to the evidentiary record, which Her Honour found supported the key findings of the high conflict between the parents, the Father’s pattern of seeking to control the Mother’s caregiving for M.O., and his excessive and counterproductive communication with M.O.’s service providers and caregivers.

60What is required of motion judges in expressing a ruling is that the reasons be responsive to the live issues in the motion and address the parties’ key arguments: R. v. Walker, 2008 SCC 34, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 245, at para. 20. Put another way, the reasons must state what has been found and ordered, and why.

61Furthermore, it must be recognized that the Ontario Court of Justice is an extremely busy court where judges must make decisions regarding the best interests of children in a timely manner. Justice Paulseth is the case management judge for this matter. Efficiency and timeliness of decisions are important objectives in the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99. This is particularly so where at issue are parenting orders that must be made in the best interests of the child. The issues in the motion to vary did not radically alter the parenting order of Zisman J. After finding that there was a material change in circumstances (not contested), the Motion Judge varied the Zisman J. Order to make it more “workable” and in the best interests of M.O..

62The Oral Ruling was responsive to the issues raised and addressed the arguments of both parties. The parties know what the ruling is, and why it was reached.

63There was ample evidence in the record before the Motion Judge to reach the conclusions expressed in the Paulseth J. Order and to support the orders made.

64The Motion Judge did not “ignore” or misapprehend the Father’s evidence.

65The Motion Judge found a material change in circumstances and then properly applied the best interests of the child test to the parenting issues before Her Honour by conducting a new inquiry.

66There was no palpable and overriding error with respect to the findings of fact and findings of mixed fact and law.

67The appeal is dismissed.

Costs

68If the parties cannot agree on costs, the Respondent shall have 10 days to provide her written submissions and cost outline, and the Appellant shall have 10 days thereafter to respond. The parties shall deliver their respective submissions (not to exceed 3 double spaced typed pages each) to my judicial assistant at maria.kolliopoulos@ontario.ca.

Justice S. Vella

Released: February 28, 2025

CITATION: Omer v. Reiban, 2025 ONSC 1236