Coelho-Freeman v. Cuomo, 2025 ONSC 1617

COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-25453
DATE: 2025-03-17
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Tempe Aisha Coelho-Freeman, Applicant
AND: Adam Ryan Cuomo, Respondent
BEFORE: Deborah A. Kraft
COUNSEL: Applicant, In person; Respondent, In person
HEARD: 2025-03-06

Endorsement

Nature of the Motion

[1] This is a motion brought by the respondent, Adam Ryan Cuomo (“father”), seeking an order to permit the parties’ 14-year-old son, M., to move his primary residence from Toronto with his mother to Hamilton so he can live with the father and start Grade 10 at the Bishop Tonnos Secondary School (“BTSS”) in September 2025.

[2] The mother seeks an order dismissing the father’s motion on the basis that there has been no material change in circumstances since the order of Black, J., dated February 13, 2023, which granted her final decision-making responsibility over educational decisions and ordered M.’s primary residence to be with her in Toronto. Alternatively, if the court finds that there has been a material change in circumstances, the mother argues that it is not in M.’s best interests for his primary residence to be changed from her home in Toronto to live with the father in Hamilton.

Issues to be Decided

[3] The issues for me to decide on this motion are:

a. Has there been a material change in circumstances since the order of Black, J. was made on February 13, 2023, justifying a change in M.’s primary residence and a change in the parent responsible for making an education-related decision?

b. If the answer to a. is yes, is it in M.’s best interest to move to Hamilton and live primarily with the father so he can change schools for the start of Grade 10?

Background

[4] The parties have two children together, M. age 14, and A. age 12.

[5] Both children reside primarily in Toronto with the mother, step-father, 3-year-old half-sister and the step-father’s 13-year-old son who lives there half-time on the Toronto Island. Both children have always resided with the mother primarily since the separation in 2011, 14 years ago.

[6] The parties have never lived together except for the first year of M.’s life.

[7] The mother moved to Toronto in 2015. She has re-married, has a third child and a stepchild with her new partner. The father remained in Hamilton. He lives with his mother, uncle, uncle’s son, and half-brother in Hamilton.

[8] The mother is an elementary school teacher with the TDSB. The father is a personal trainer.

[9] In 2023 the parties reached a consent order, the terms of which are set out in a Final Court order of Black, J., dated February 13, 2023 (“2023 Final Black Order”). Among other things, the 2023 Final Black Order resolved the issues of parenting time, holidays, PA days, major decision-making, child support and s.7 expenses, and provides as follows:

a. The children reside primarily with the mother and have parenting time with the father on Tuesdays and Thursdays from after school to 8:00 p.m. and on alternate weekends from Friday, at 6:45 p.m. to Sunday, at 7:00 p.m.

b. The parties shall have joint decision-making responsibility and consult with each other on all major decisions, with the mother having final decision-making responsibility on all issues other than extra-curricular activities that occur during the father’s parenting time.

[10] On February 16, 2024, the father issued the within Motion to Change because M. had expressed a desire to live in Hamilton with the father and attend BTSS for his Grade 9 year. M. is a talented football player and wants to play on that school’s football team. The father is one of the coaches of that school football team.

[11] On July 29, 2024, the parties appeared before Shore, J. at To be Spoken To court because the father had commenced this Motion to Change. The father unilaterally registered M. at BTSS. Shore, J. cautioned the father about adhering to the terms of the 2023 Final Black Order pending the determination of the Motion to Change and directed the parties to attend a case conference on August 8, 2024.

[12] On August 8, 2024 the parties appeared before Shin Doi, J. at a case conference and a timetable was reached for the exchange of motion materials. In the meantime, the mother withdrew M.’s registration to BTSS and registered him at Northern Secondary School (“Northern”) for Grade 9 which started in September 2024. M. plays on the football team at Northern.

[13] On August 27, 2024, Justice Maxwell dismissed the father’s motion without prejudice to the father renewing the motion on a future date, where there is a more fulsome record that includes an independent account of M.’s views and preferences.

[14] In September 2024, M. started Grade 9 at Northern in Toronto.

[15] Both parents acknowledge that M. is a talented football player and support his involvement in football.

[16] Both parents agree that they do not co-parent well.

[17] On November 12, 2024, the father brought a motion seeking a Voice of the Child Report. The OCL was requested to complete a Voice of the Child report (“VoC Report”) by Des Rosiers, J.

[18] The OCL completed the VoC Report on January 28, 2024, which was conducted by Michelle Nagy, an OCL clinician. The report clearly identifies that M.’s views and preferences are that he would like to move to Hamilton, live with the father, and attend high school at BTSS in Ancaster, Ontario. Neither party disputes that M.’s views and preferences are that he wants to move to Hamilton.

Issue One: Has there been a material change since the 2023 Final Black Order was made?

[19] Since the parties are not married, the Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12 (the “CLRA”) is the applicable statute to address parenting issues.

[20] Section 29(1) of the CLRA sets out that the court can only vary a parenting order if 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.

[21] The party seeking the variation must establish that there has been a material change in the circumstances of the affected child that has “altered the child’s needs or the ability of the parents to meet those needs in a fundamental way… . The question is whether the previous order might have been different had the circumstances now existing prevailed earlier [citations omitted]”: Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, [1996] S.C.J. No. 52, at para. 12. In paragraph 13 of Gordon, the Supreme Court of Canada, noted:

It follows that before entering on the merits of an application to vary a custody order the judge must be satisfied of: (1) a change in the condition, means, needs or circumstances of the child and/or the ability of the parents to meet the needs of the child; (2) which materially affects the child; and (3) which was either not foreseen or could not have been reasonably contemplated by the judge who made the initial order.

[22] The test for a material change in circumstances set out in Gordon remains the threshold requirement to vary a parenting order: see Persaud v. Garcia-Persaud, 2009 ONCA 782.

[23] The father argues that the material change in circumstances which justifies the court considering M.’s school placement for Grade 10 are as follows:

a. The mother moved to the Toronto Island in January of 2024 which necessitates M. having about a one hour commute to his high school on the TTC each way;

b. M. has expressed that he does not like the long commute to Northern;

c. The father submits that M.’s lengthy commute to school takes away from M. socializing, doing homework and being involved in more extra-curricular activities;

d. He does not believe it is in M.’s best interest (or A.’s best interests) to have to commute between 45-60 minutes a day on the TTC to school;

e. M. wants to move to Hamilton and attend BTSS, which is a school where many of his football friends attend;

f. M. plays on a AAA Football team in Hamilton;

g. The father coaches football at BTSS and M. is very familiar with and likes the football program there;

h. M. has been assured that he has a spot at BTSS in Grade 10 for September 2025;

i. M. has not developed close friend relationships at Northern, despite being there since September 2024; and

j. M. will be able to see his mother and sister on alternate weekends and during the mid-week.

[24] The mother does not dispute that M. wants to attend BTSS or that he wants to move to Hamilton and live primarily with the father. She submits, however, that the parties agreed in 2023 that she would have decision-making responsibility over education-related decisions and nothing has changed since then to justify changing to the father now taking over these decisions.

[25] I am satisfied that the combination of M.’s lengthy commute to Northern twice daily on the TTC, coupled with him being on a AAA football team in Hamilton, and M.’s clearly articulated views and preferences to move to Hamilton to live with the father and attend BTSS meets the threshold of establishing a material change in M.’s circumstances justifying the court considering the issue of a move to M.’s primary residence and his resulting school placement for Grade 10, starting in September 2025.

Issue Two: Is it in M.’s best interests to move his primary residence to Hamilton and attend BTSS for September 2025?

[26] In making any determination regarding a child, the court is required to only consider the best interests of a child: s.24(1).

[27] In determining best interests, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of a 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).

[28] The best interests factors are set out in s.24(3) of the CLRA. Additional factors are also to be considered by the court in considering the impact of family violence on a child, set out in s.24(4) of the CLRA.

[29] With respect to the issue of M.’s school, in Thomas v. Osika, 2018 ONSC 2712, Justice Audet helpfully set out a number of general principles taken from the case law when considering the choice of school issue:

a. Sub-section 28(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act specifically empowers the court to determine any matter incidental to custody rights. The issue of a child's enrollment in a school program must be considered as being incidental to or ancillary to the rights of custody (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567);

b. It is implicit that a parent's plan for the child's education, and his or her capacity and commitment to carry out the plan are important elements affecting a child's best interests. In developing a child's educational plan, the unique needs, circumstances, aptitudes and attributes of the child, must be taken into account (Bandas v. Demirdache, 2013 ONCJ 679);

c. When considering school placement, one factor to be considered is the ability of the parent to assist the child with homework and the degree to which the parent can participate in the child's educational program (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567);

d. The emphasis must be placed on the interests of the child, and not on the interests or rights of the parents (Gordon v. Goertz);

e. The importance of a school placement or educational program will promote and maintain a child's cultural and linguistic heritage (Perron v. Perron, 2012 ONCA 811);

f. Factors which may be taken into account by the court in determining the best interests of the child include assessing any impact on the stability of the child. This may include examining whether there is any prospect of one of the parties moving in the near future; where the child was born and raised; whether a move will mean new child care providers or other unsettling features (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746);

g. The court will also look to any decisions that were made by the parents prior to the separation or at the time of separation with respect to schooling (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746);

h. Any problems with the proposed schools will be considered (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746);

i. A decision as to the choice of school should be made on its own merits and based, in part, on the resources that each school offered in relation to a child's needs, rather than on their proximity to the residence of one parent or the other, or the convenience that his attendance at the nearest school would entail (Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479);

j. Third party ranking systems, such as the Fraser Institute’s, should not factor into a Court’s decision. These systems of ranking do not take into consideration the best interest of the particular child in a family law context (Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479);

k. If an aspect of a child's life, such as school placement, is to be disrupted by an order of the court, there must be good reason for the court to do so. Thus, before a court will order a child to transfer schools, there must be convincing evidence that a change of schools is in the child's best interests (Perron v. Perron, 2012 ONCA 811);

l. Custodial parents should be entrusted with making the decision as to which school children should attend. When a sole custodial parent has always acted in the best interest of a child, there should be no reason to doubt that this parent will act in the best interest of the child when deciding on a school (Adams v. Adams, 2016 ONCJ 431);

m. Those cases are very fact-driven. The courts are not pronouncing on what is best for all children in a general sense but rather deciding what is in the best interests of this child before the court (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567).

[27] This is not a motion about whether Northern as compared with BTSS is a better fit for M. Rather, this motion is more about M. moving his primary residence to Hamilton. The mother does not dispute that BTSS is a fine school any more than the father does not dispute that Northern is a fine school.

The Mother’s Position

[30] The mother argues that it is not in M.’s best interests to move his primary residence to Hamilton with his father and/or change schools to BTSS for Grade 10 for the following reasons:

a. The 2023 Final Black Order was made only 2 years ago, after a lengthy process. It was agreed that the children would continue to reside primarily with the mother since they have always lived with her since birth and she has always been their primary caregiver and decision-maker.

b. M. resides with his sister and mother along with his blended family. They have a stable household. If he moves to Hamilton with the father, he will be living in a house with the father, the father’s uncle, and the uncle’s son. The father’s uncle was convicted for domestic violence. The mother has concerns about M. being exposed to this. The mother also has concerns about M. no longer primarily with his sister A.

c. The father has a prior criminal conviction for sports betting. She is aware that the father and M. participate in a fantasy football league, which is betting on football teams without any monetary profit, but the mother is concerned that the father continues to be engaged in sports betting and/or that fantasy football is a gateway to sports gambling.

d. The father regularly denigrates the mother and makes negative comments about her in their texts/messages back and forth without any accountability and, given the history of family violence, the mother is concerned that M. will be exposed indirectly or directly to negative talk about her if he moves his primary residence to Hamilton which is damaging to M. and not in his best interests.

e. The children were not raised Catholic and while she does not dispute that BTSS is a good school, she has concerns about the school’s view of the LGTBQ+ community, of which his sister, A. is a member.

f. The father does not ensure that M.’s homework is completed when he spends time with M., and the mother is worried that that if he moves to Hamilton, the priority will be more about football than school / academic performance.

g. The father does not follow the terms of the 2023 Final Black Order in his failure to let her know if he will be exercising his parenting time on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and he will not abide by the timelines to let her know his summer holiday plans. The mother is concerned that, given his failure to follow the terms of the current order, if M.’s primary residence is changed to Hamilton, the father likely will not respect and/or follow the terms of any court order that grants her parenting time.

h. The mother fully supports M.’s involvement in football. For example, she signed M. up for the Junior Argos team in 2025 and paid the fee. After first agreeing to M. playing on the Junior Argos team, the father then decided he did not want M. to play for that team unless the mother agreed to take him to all practices and games, which the mother could not do. The father did not reimburse the mother and now refuses to pay his proportionate share of this expense. The mother is concerned that this pattern will only get worse or continue if M. moves to Hamilton.

i. Despite the mother raising all of her concerns with the court and the father about why she feels it is not in M.’s best interests to move to Hamilton and attend BTSS, the father has not addressed any of the concerns raised by her which have to do with M.’s primary residence being moved from Toronto to Hamilton. The father could have served and filed reply material and chose not to do so.

j. The parties have been experiencing co-parenting issues since the consent order was entered into in 2023. The mother believes that separating M. from his sister A. will only serve to heighten any conflict between the parties. For example, the mother took M. for an orthodontics consultation in November and December and was told that M. needs to have his pre-molars removed, followed by braces. The mother scheduled the tooth extractions prior to the Christmas school break so M. could recover before school resumes and communicated all of this information to the father. The father did not agree to M. having the tooth extraction and wanted to take M. to a dentist he knew to see if could get a lesser estimate for the cost of braces, to which the mother agreed. The father took M. to a friend of his who is a dentist who filled a cavity. The father’s dentist friend’s wife is an orthodontist. When the mother asked the father what was said about M.’s braces, the father refused to respond. The messages between the parents demonstrate that the mother asked for follow up to this issue on multiple occasions. The father’s refusal to communicate with the mother effectively has now delayed the extraction of M.’s teeth which will, in turn, delay M. having braces put on.

k. M. is adjusting well to Northern. He is on the football team. He recently joined the school Rugby team. He is well known by the coaches and gym teachers and is seen by the school as an excellent athlete. The mother believes that M. will continue to make more connections and friends at Northern. If M. stays in Toronto and continues to attend Northern, he will also have the benefit of maintaining his relationships in Hamilton through his football team there.

l. She does not dispute that BTSS is a good school or that it has a good football team. She does not agree, however, it is in M.’s best interests to reside primarily with the father.

Application of the Law to the Facts of this Case

[31] Both parents agree that M. is a talented football player. Both parents support M. being involved in and playing on his high school football team, as well as playing football at a more competitive level on an extra-curricular basis.

[32] Neither parent made submissions that either Northern as compared with BTSS offers a better academic opportunity or environment. In other words, neither party takes issue with the quality of Northern or BTSS in terms of a high school.

[33] The VoC report clearly identifies that “the court requested to hear M.’s views regarding whether he wants to attend high school in Ancaster as opposed to his current high school in Toronto, and whether or not he wants to move in with his father for this purpose.”

[34] M. expressed the following views and preferences to Michelle Nagy, the OCL clinician, as reflected in the VoC report:

a. He is aware that his mother makes decisions related to school, while his father is responsible for decisions about sports. However, he noted that for him, these decisions are connected.

b. He played for the Hamilton Tycats outside of school and it was challenging for him to play football in Hamilton while mainly living in Toronto.

c. The season for football runs from April to August. M. has practice on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and takes the subway to Union Station from school, then takes the GO train to Hamilton and upon arriving takes an Uber or his father would pick him up at the station. The next morning, he would leave his father’s place early to get back to Toronto for school.

d. M. explained that during the off season, he trains frequently with his father, who is a personal trainer, and attends tryouts.

e. Additionally, M. plays on his school football team, with the season running from September to November.

f. M. explained that football opportunities are better in Hamilton, as they have AAA teams, while in Toronto, he could only play on AA teams.

g. M. explained that his goal is to go to the NFL, and he has been told that he has the potential to do so.

h. M. indicated that it is difficult to train when he is at his mother’s home. He explained that his father has a home gym and is a personal trainer.

i. He really wants to move to his father’s place in Hamilton and reverse the current schedule, so he would spend alternate weekends with his mother.

j. M. indicated that he has many friends in Hamilton who attend the high school he would like to go to.

k. M. indicated that another reason he wants to move to Hamilton is because it currently takes him a long time to get to school in Toronto. He explained that he lives on the Toronto Island and attends Northern Secondary School because it is the best school in Toronto for football, although he does not like their football program since they rarely let grade nine students play.

l. He stated that it takes him about 1.5 hours to get to and from school each day, and if he misses the ferry for any reason, he has to wait 30 minutes for the next one.

m. M. stated that his father supports whatever he wants regarding the living and school situation. He explains that his mother wants him to continue living primarily with her, as she believes he is too young and not responsible enough to make decisions himself. M. shared that his mother also worries because she does not think his father is a good person, but does not want him to know the reasons why she feels this way. M. indicated that he disagrees with his mother’s perspective. He believes he is old enough to make his own decision, understand what is going on, and feels that his voice should matter.

n. M. mentioned that he enjoys seeing his sister but accepts that it is not always possible for them to be together most of the time anymore. He suggested that they could probably adjust the weekend schedule so he can always see her on weekends.

o. M. indicates that football season typically ends at the start of the summer, but he does the most training over the summer with his father to prepare for the next season. He explained that he trains five or six days per week and expressed that he would want more time with his father during the summer to better prepare for the upcoming season.

p. M. mentioned that his father does not have many rules, but he expects this to change if he starts living there full-time.

q. M. said he does not usually get in trouble with his father, unless it is related to football. He explained that his father might yell at him about football, but also pointed out that his father yells at everyone.

r. M. indicated that he understands this is a big change. He explained that he has good friends in Hamilton, and in fact, they are better friends than the ones he has in Toronto. M. also mentioned that he feels more comfortable in the Hamilton area, as he has trained with many of his friends there. Additionally, he noted that his father trains with a lot of people in Hamilton as well. He stated that he is ready for this change.

s. M. indicated that his wishes are not about not wanting to be with his mother. He explained that everything is perfectly fine with her, except for the inconvenience of having to take the ferry to get everywhere from her place. He clarified that his mother does not do anything wrong, but he just wants to live with his father more at this time. M. mentioned that living on the Toronto Island is inconvenient for him.

t. M. reiterated that his reasons for wanting to move are the long commute from the Toronto Island to his school, the fact that he has many friends in Hamilton, the better football program in Hamilton, and that his father is the head coach of the team. He also shared that Bishop Tonnos Catholic School is only a 15-20 minute drive from his father’s home.

u. M. states that he would want to spend alternate weekends with his mother, with flexibility around his football schedule.

v. M. once again indicated that he wants to try to get back on the AAA team in Hamilton, but if that does not work out, he would like to play for the AA team in Brantford. He explained that, regardless, he would still prefer to stay in Hamilton for training purposes.

w. M. also emphasized that he wants to be able to train daily with his father. He explained that it is difficult for him to train in Toronto. He stated that while he can use the gym at school during lunch, he has recently been unable to do so due to schoolwork. M. mentioned that there is no gym on the Toronto Island, and there is not one in Toronto that he can join.

x. Once again, M. expressed a desire for more time with his father during the summer months to train. He clarified that there are no other reasons for his decision.

y. He explained that while his mother says he cannot move, he tells her that he wants to move and that she cannot stop him. M. also added that even if mother does not allow it, he could still go to Hamilton to train and play football, as he knows how to navigate the GO train.

z. M. stated that he hopes the Court can resolve the issues at hand. He also mentioned that his father had told him he could come to his home and refuse to leave if necessary, and M. stated that he would do so if it comes to that.

aa. M. stated that he enjoys the Toronto Island in the summer and finds it fun to live here. However, he also mentioned that there is not much to do on the Toronto Island, and in the winter, it gets cold and the ferries can be a problem if you miss them.

[35] The Court is persuaded that M.’s view and preferences about moving to Hamilton and attending the BTSS are clearly articulated and independent. M.’s views and preferences are an extremely important factor the Court must consider in making the decision as to whether it is in M.’s best interests to move his primary residence to Hamilton with the father. These views, however, are only one of a number of factors the court takes into account in making this determination.

[36] The mother has always been the primary decision-maker for both M. and A. As recently as two years ago, the father consented to the 2023 Final Black Order granting her decision-making responsibility over education-related decisions. There has been no decision made by the mother that the father has pointed to, in an effort to demonstrate that she has made a decision that was not in M.’s best interests. I see no reason, therefore, to change the terms of the 2023 Final Black Order with regard to decision-making responsibility.

[37] The mother raised numerous valid concerns about M.’s primary residence changing to Hamilton. These concerns include M. being separated from his sister, M. being exposed to gambling, the father not assisting M. with schoolwork and prioritizing football over academic performance and, most importantly, M. being exposed to the father speaking about the mother in a negative manner which impacts M.’s emotional and psychological security, safety and well-being.

[38] In terms of the mother’s concern about a higher potential for M. to be exposed to the father denigrating the mother, this is of great concern to this court. This particular concern addresses a number of best interests factors set out in s.24(3) of the CLRA, including,

a. the father’s willingness to support the maintenance of M.’s relationship with the mother;

b. the ability and willingness of the father to communicate and co-operate with the mother on matters affecting M.; and

c. the past family violence and its impact on the appropriateness of making an order that would require the parents to cooperate on issues affecting M.

[39] Further, in terms of family violence, s. 24(4) of the CLRA requires the court to consider the nature, seriousness, and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred, whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour on the part of the father to the mother, whether M. will be directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence and any emotional and psychological risk of harm to M.

[40] The father did not address the mother’s concerns in this regard. He denied any family violence in his oral submissions and told the Court that he has had no charges of domestic violence. Further, the father argued that the mother’s comments were “opinionated and judgmental.”

[41] Attached to the mother’s affidavit as Exhibit “F” are copies of the parents' communications on AppClose, a co-parenting web application. The court has reviewed these messages and finds that the father’s messages to the mother are aggressive in nature, dismissive, non-responsive, emotionally abusive, and rude even though the mother’s messages are neutral.

[42] The early messages from the father attached to the mother’s affidavit from 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 clearly demonstrate that the father calls the mother terrible names in messages to her, including calling her “stupid”, “whore”, “stubborn”, “selfish”, “selfish piece of shit”, “C-nt”, “fucking mental”, “fat lazy ass”, “fuckin joke,” and “Fucking pig.” In frustration, he has suggested that the mother, “jump off the balcony” and he threatened her saying, “I’m gonna fuck you with the stick you selfish cunt.”

[43] The definition of “family violence” in s.18(1) of CLRA is a broad definition as includes conduct by a family member towards another family member that is violence, threatening or that constitutes a pattern of controlling behaviour, that causes that other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person, and/or in the case of a child, the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct.

[44] It is also important to note that the definition of “family violence” in s.18(2) also lists examples of criminal and non-criminal conduct that constitutes “family violence” including physical, sexual, psychological and/or financial abuse, as well as threats, harassment and stalking.

[45] Some particularly concerning examples of the father’s more recent messages to the mother are as follows:

a. 2/9/2025 Adam Cuomo texted, “Friday is a PA day, how do plan on dictating when I get my children?”

Tempie Coelho-Freeman texted, “Are you using your parenting time on Thursday? You can bring them home instead of sending them back to me Thursday evening.”

Adam Cuomo texted, “You are responsible for getting the kids here. Focus on that.”

b. 2/5/2025, Adam Cuomo texted, “Wonder if its possible to get an order that we never have to speak again. That would be amazing. Let me know if/when you are ready to discuss details to our new order… for the court’s records. You have lied about driving the kids to school when you moved to Toronto Island. You have lied to the school about living in the area for A. to attend Forest Hill. You very rarely drive the kids here for their weekends and force them to take the GO when A. has stated many times she does not want to. Last spring you refused to bring M. to practices and games. There are the reasons I do not agree to M. joining football in Toronto.”

c. 1/4/2025 Tempie Coelho-Freeman texted, “Also, are you taking over football again, Team Ontario and Argos/T-C. I haven’t heard anything from…”

Adam Cuomo texted, “Football in Hamilton is not an option unless he is living in Hamilton. Football in Toronto is not an option because he will be living with me in the summer. I contacted Children’s Lawyers office months ago and am still waiting. So unless you change your position and allow him to come for 2nd semester, M.’s football development unfortunately will have to suffer again for your decision.”

Tempie Coelho-Freeman texted, “Ok, so I’ll take care of football.”

d. 1/24/2025 Tempie Coelho-Freeman texted: “A. has a sleepover she’d like to attend tomorrow afternoon/evening. Can I pick her up so that she can attend? She really wants to go.”

Adam Cuomo texted, “Kids are due here no later than 6:45 p.m.”

e. 1/14/2025, Adam Cuomo texted, “So then I miss time with A. if I pick him up first. Another decision you made affecting my life. What are you not understanding about this situation that you always create? YOUR LIFE SHOULD NEVER AFFECT MINE! I’m not your friend. We don’t co-parent and I don’t like you. I believe I’ve made that very clear. You make selfish decisions on a regular basis that affect me.”

f. 1/18/2025 Tempie Coelho-Freeman texted, “I know you booked a lawyer and 2 appointments for A. while it wasn’t your time with them. If you add things to the shared calendar, I can alert you when a mistake has been made so you don’t have to do so much rescheduling.”

Adam Cuomo texted, “You kept A. on time PA day. Not the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time you’ve manipulated the schedule to fit your life. Not my fuckin job or responsibility to adjust to your life. SO save the bullshit, I’m tired of it. We will be back before a judge very soon and all this bullshit can finally end.”

g. 1/12/2025 Tempie Coelho-Freeman texted, “Its incredibly irresponsible of you to once again make M. think he’s going to BT. This time he thinks he’s going next semester because ‘you sent me a message and told me he was.’ Do you have any idea the kind of damage you’re causing? Incredible short-sighted and harmful behaviour on your part.”

“Furthermore, he’s working on a culminating task for science at 10:30 at night because you didn’t ensure he completed his homework while he was with you this weekend. But you want him to live with you full time.”

Adam Cuomo texted, “Keep your fucking opinions to yourself.”

h. 12/21/2024, Adam Cuomo texted, “No. Drop off is 11am. If you wanna bring an hour later, sure. You’re not bringing her a full day later.”

Tempie texted, “I’ll try my best. We’ve got a busy day with the car today, so let me see what I can do.”

Adam Cuomo texted, “I could care less about you and yours. My life does not revolve around yours. You plan your life around the schedule we have, not the other way around… You are constantly pulling this bullshit off. I’m sick of it.”

Tempie texted, “Try for a second to look at this as A. is still sleeping, she has to pack, she doesn’t like to be rushed. It’s her first day of the holidays, she had a rough day yesterday and was very emotional and tired. I don’t want to rush her and wake her up. Since you guys don’t have anything planned today, and you’ve had M. for my time without me demanding time back, maybe you could just say ok and be done with it… I’m not trying to screw you. I just want her to take it easy today.”

Adam texted, “Of course I could but since I hate you and you screw me over everyday of my life, including forcing me to go to court to have my son live with me, maybe you can ‘try for a second to look at this.’”

[Emphasis added]

[46] The examples of the above-listed text messages from the father to the mother clearly indicate that the father has a strong dislike (if not hatred) of the mother. In addition to calling her derogatory names and making threats toward her, the father unabashedly admits that he does not “like” her and does not “co-parent” with her. I note that despite being texted regularly by the father in the toxic manner the father texts the mother on AppClose, the mother has, nonetheless, continued to ensure that the children spend time with the father in accordance with the 2023 Final Black Order and have a meaningful relationship with him. The mother’s responses are neutral and non-reactive. In this manner, the mother places the children’s best interests ahead of her own, recognizing that inciting further conflict with the father will not be in either M.’s or A.’s best interests.

[47] The Court, after reviewing the evidence on the record, is not persuaded that if M.’s primary residence were changed to Hamilton that the father would likewise encourage M. to maintain his relationship with the mother. Further, the Court is not persuaded that the father will shield M. from his strong, negative feelings about the mother. This would be different, if the father were able to demonstrate improvement in the way in which he communicates with the mother. The father’s pattern of toxic communication with the mother demonstrates that he is unable to place the children’s needs or best interests ahead of his own need to denigrate her and disrespect her. This inability to self-regulate is evident. If the father acknowledged this pattern and provided the Court with some assurances as to how this may change in the future there may be some evidence to allay the court’s concerns in this regard. Instead, the evidence on record shows that the father has repeatedly told M. he could move to Hamilton, he has encouraged M. not to abide by the 2023 Final Black Order and defy the mother’s decisions, when at the same time, the father consented to the mother having decision-making responsibility.

[48] In Armstrong v. Coupland, 2021 ONSC 8186, Chappel J. stated:

The definition of family violence specifically recognizes that conduct that may not constitute a criminal offence can constitute family violence for Family Law purposes. The examples of conduct that constitute family violence is expansive, but it is non-exhaustive. The broad definition recognizes the many insidious forms that domestic violence can take other than physical violence and accords each equal weight in the best interests assessment. The specific inclusion of this factor as a mandatory consideration in determining the best interests of children recognizes the profound effects that all forms of family violence can have on children. These consequences can be both direct, if a child is exposed to the family violence, or indirect, if the victimized parent’s physical, emotional and psychological well-being are compromised, since these consequences in turn often negatively impact that parent’s ability to meet the child’s physical and emotional needs.

[49] Section 24(2) of the CLRA sets out that the court must “give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being”, while considering “all factors related to the circumstances of the child.”

[50] I find that the father’s messages to the mother and the manner in which he responds to the mother constitutes family violence within the definition set out in s.18(1) of the CLRA. Given this, I cannot order M.’s primary residence be changed to Hamilton because of the probability he will be exposed to psychological harm living with the father who, to date, has taken no accountability for the toxic manner in which he interacts with the mother. There is no doubt that M. and A. are aware of how the father feels about the mother. This loyalty bind will only intensify for M. if he resides primarily with the father. The evidence on record shows that the father blames the mother for M. not being able to simply move to live with the father in Hamilton. It is clear that the father has little, if any, insight into how his own behaviours and conduct has impacted this particular issue. If the parents worked cooperatively and fashioned a solution together, M. would not be in the position he currently finds himself in. The mother has taken whatever steps possible to shield M. from this conflict. She does have decision-making responsibility authority over M.’s education. This was agreed to by the father.

[51] If the father interacted differently with the mother and demonstrated an ability to effectively communicate with the mother and collaborate with her, there would likely be a very different result on this motion.

[52] It is noteworthy that in the VoC Report, M. reported that he knows his mother is concerned about him being in his father’s primary care but that she will not tell him why. M.’s comments in this regard align with the mother’s submissions that she has shielded M. from the father’s treatment of her because she does not want him to know about the past family violence. In this manner, the mother has placed M.’s needs ahead of her own. Given the brazen way in which the father messages with the mother, knowing that these messages are being sent on AppClose and can be viewed by the court confirms the Court’s concerns that if M.’s primary residence is moved to be with the father, it is quite probable that M. will be exposed indirectly to family violence which is clearly not in his best interests.

[53] It is also noteworthy that in the VoC Report, M. reported that “his father has told him he could come to his home and refuse to leave if necessary.” This fact confirms the Court’s concern that if M. were to reside primarily with the father in Hamilton, the father may well marginalize the mother’s role in M.’s life and minimize the importance of M. maintaining a meaningful relationship with her. Having already demonstrated that he has advised M. how to breach the terms of the 2023 Final Black Order, the father’s messages confirm that he has told M. he will be permitted to move to Hamilton and attend BTSS, all of which demonstrate that the father has placed his own needs and interests ahead of M.’s best interests.

[54] Having made this conclusion, the Court has not ignored M.’s views and preferences to move to Hamilton to play football there. The primary consideration for the Court, however, is that M.’s best interests must be given priority over all considerations and that includes consideration of M.’s safety and his right to be protected against all forms of physical and mental violence, bullying and degrading treatment.

[55] On this basis, I decline to make an order moving M.’s primary residence from Toronto to Hamilton. If M. makes the Hamilton Tycats football team again, he can take the TTC and GO Train to Hamilton for practices during football season as he indicated in the VoC Report he is prepared to do. I am prepared, however, to change the regular parenting schedule so that M. spends three weekends out of four each month with the father in Hamilton and to change the Summer Vacation paragraphs in the 2023 Final Black Order so that M. can reside with the father primarily in Hamilton during the summer months. In this way, it will be more convenient for M. to train with the father on weekends and to train with the father in the summer months preparing for the upcoming football season.

Order

[56] This Court makes the following order:

a. The father’s motion to change M.’s primary residence from Toronto to Hamilton and for M. to attend the Bishop Tonnos Secondary School in September 2025 for Grade 10 is hereby dismissed.

b. The regular parenting schedule set out in the order of Black, J, dated February 13, 2023 shall change as follows:

i. M.’s regular parenting schedule (not including P.A. days, holidays and summers) shall be as follows:

1. During the school week,

a. M. shall reside with the mother primarily and the Father will have parenting time on Tuesdays and Thursdays, from after school until 8:00 p.m.

b. M. shall reside with the mother one weekend out of every four weekends, and with the father three weekends out of every four weekends, from Friday at 6:45 p.m. to Sundays, at 7:00 p.m.

c. M.’s weekend schedule shall coordinate with A.’s weekend schedule so that he has two weekends out of every four weekends with his sister.

c. The Summer Vacation schedule set out in the Order of Black, J., dated February 13, 2023, shall change as follows:

i. M. shall reside primarily with the Father during summer vacation. Except for during an extended vacation period, when the mother shall have M. in her care for 2 uninterrupted weeks during the summer. M. shall spend alternating weekends with the Mother during the summer vacation, following the same weekend schedule as A. and shall have 2 uninterrupted weeks with the Mother during her extended vacation period.

ii. A. shall share her residence equally between the parties on a week-about basis, except for during an extended vacation period, where each parent shall have the opportunity to have the children in their care for 2 uninterrupted weeks during the summer.

iii. For clarity, the summer vacation starts on the last day of school and ends on Labour Day Monday.

d. All other terms in the Order of Black, J., dated February 13, 2023 shall remain in full force and effect.

e. There shall be no costs of this motion.

f. If the parties require any clarification of a term of this order, they shall contact my judicial assistant, Josie Harvey at Josie.Harvey@Ontario.ca to arrange a conference call/zoom appointment before me.

Deborah A. Kraft
Date: March 17, 2025