P.N.R. v. M.Y.R., 2025 ONSC 1802
COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-00098562
DATE: 2025-03-21
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
P.N.R. (Applicant)
— and —
M.Y.R. (Respondent)
Heard: January 13-17, 20-23, 2025
Reasons for Judgment
Renu Mandhane
Introduction
This case was routine for Peel Region, and it was fraught. The Respondent/Mother/M.Y.R. testified in detail to a pattern of intimate partner violence (IPV) and called corroborating evidence. The Applicant/Father/P.N.R. countered with accusations of fabrication, informational gatekeeping, and parental alienation. The Father has never been convicted of a criminal offence, but the record was replete with references to previous investigations conducted by child welfare agencies, police, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL). After five years of ongoing litigation, counsel became aligned with their clients and enmeshed in the conflict. The emotional dynamics in the courtroom created a pressure-cooker situation with both parents’ identity, reputation, worldview, and family and parenting relationships tied up in the mix.
On a balance of probabilities, I find that the Father engaged in a five-year pattern of psychological, sexual, physical, and financial abuse, coupled with controlling behaviors. The cycle of violence typically began with arguments about money, escalated to name-calling and financial abuse, and culminated in a violent incident (such as hair-pulling, pushing or shoving, or sexual coercion). The violent incident was generally followed by a brief separation (for example, the Mother sleeping in another room or going to a shelter), after which the Father would promise to change and plead for her to return to the family. The parents would eventually reconcile after the Father agreed to couples counselling. Things would get better for a time, before the cycle repeated itself. The family dynamics came to a head when the Father was charged with assaulting the Mother and was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Since then, the conflict has continued, with the Father continuing to exert financial control by refusing to pay support, and the Mother being hyper-vigilant about the Father’s parenting role. The upshot is that both children have been exposed to ongoing conflict, and the elder child is now consistently refusing parenting time with the Father.
This is what the epidemic of IPV looks like through the distorted lens of the adversarial justice system, and this case made me question deeply my role as a judge. Criminal courts hold perpetrators accountable; child welfare courts protect children from harm; and civil courts award damages to victims; but what is the role of family courts when making parenting orders? In my view, our role must be restorative, rather than punitive, preventative, or even reparative. This is because, despite a history of IPV, parents will often maintain a relationship for years into the future because of their strong parental, familial, social, and financial ties to one another, and because maintaining a relationship is generally in their children’s best interests.
Recognizing this reality, the children’s best interests require courts to make parenting orders that restore family relationships to the extent necessary to meet the children’s ongoing needs. A restorative approach means restoring dignity, trust, emotional resilience, and peace to the family relationship. At its core, a restorative approach acknowledges the complex family dynamics that underpin violent relationships, encourages each party to take responsibility for their role, builds each parent’s capacity to meet their ongoing parenting role within the family, and reduces conflict so that the parents can focus on their children’s current and future needs. It goes without saying that adopting a restorative approach means favouring therapeutic orders over ones that “punish” or “reward” either parent, and approaching quasi-criminal orders with extreme caution. A restorative approach emphasizes that the trial and final order should mark a turning point in terms of the dynamics within the family relationship.
Overview
The parents met online and started dating in 2009. The Father bought a four-bedroom home in Mississauga in July 2011, putting down $200,000 (“the Home”). The Mother started living in the Home permanently in the spring of 2012. They were engaged in 2013 and married on September 5, 2015. They have two children: the Son/G.R. (born September xx, 2016, now eight years old), and the Daughter/E.R. (born, July xx, 2019, now five and a half years old) (collectively, “the Children”).
The Father was the primary breadwinner and responsible for managing the household finances during the marriage. The parties’ relationship was rocky throughout, with arguments about finances, intimacy, and family dynamics, and periods of separation and reconciliation. The marital discord escalated in the spring of 2020 when the Mother called Peel Children’s Aid Society (“PCAS”) to report that the Son was making concerning statements about the Father. The Son, who was three years old at the time, told PCAS and Peel Police that he had lied to the Mother, but could not explain why. The Father took a polygraph test, PCAS did not verify a risk of harm, and no criminal charges were laid.
On May 6, 2020, the parents had an argument, and the Father was charged with assaulting and threatening the Mother. In a letter dated November 2020, PCAS verified a risk of harm to the Children due to exposure to “adult conflict.” After being charged, the Father moved in with the Paternal Grandparents because his bail conditions required him to stay away from the Mother; the Mother stayed in the Home with the Children.
Since moving in with the Paternal Grandparents, the Father has continued to work the nightshift, earning an average of about $93,500 annually post-separation. He has not paid any child support or spousal support. His availability for parenting time is largely dictated by his work schedule, with the Paternal Grandparents facilitating the parenting exchanges. The Father says that the Mother has repeatedly blocked his parenting time in the years since separation. He blames her for his more marginal role in the Children’s lives. He accuses her of using the criminal law to evict him from his Home and keep him away from the Children, poisoning them against him, and refusing to provide him with information about their health and educational progress.
The Mother says that she is supportive of the Children’s relationship with the Father, but that she is concerned that the Father has not made child-focused decisions in the past. The Son sometimes refuses to attend parenting time with the Father, but he cannot yet articulate his reasons for doing so. The Mother wants the Son to attend counselling, which has also been recommended by his doctor, PCAS, and the OCL. The Father maintains that the Mother is coaching the Son not to attend; he refuses to consent to counselling because the Children are “normal” and “happy” in his care. He is confident that the Son will stop refusing parenting time if the exchanges take place at school, where he will be outside the ambit of the Mother’s influence.
This matter has been before the courts for four and a half years. As of the trial, the Father seeks joint decision-making responsibility, mid-week and weekend parenting time, imputation of income to the Mother for child support purposes, unequal division of net family property (NFP), and set offs for carrying costs and occupation rent. He asks me to find the Mother in contempt of interim parenting orders, and for the police to enforce his parenting time going forward. The Father denies owing any retroactive support because he paid the carrying costs of the Home post-separation. The Father says the Mother is not entitled to spousal support because she is purposefully unemployed.
The Mother asks for sole decision-making responsibility and primary parenting time. She agrees with the Father’s proposed schedule for his parenting time, and that parenting exchanges take place at the school to minimize conflict. She is hopeful that the Son will be more willing to attend parenting time after attending counselling, but does not favour police enforcement because it will be too traumatic for the Children. She asks for retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, based on the Father’s reported income. She says that she is entitled to half the equity in the Home after it is sold because it was the matrimonial home during the marriage, and because she contributed to the carrying costs post-separation.
Adopting a restorative approach, I find that it is in the Children’s best interests that their daily routines remain stable, the standard of living in both households be roughly comparable, their emotional and psychological needs be met, their relationship with their Father be strengthened over time, their exposure to conflict be minimized, and that the parents take concrete steps to more effectively fulfil their parenting roles. Consistent with the Children’s best interests, the Mother shall have decision-making authority in all domains, save and except that the Father shall have decision-making authority over extracurricular activities. The Father’s parenting time shall be gradually expanded after he builds his parenting capacity by completing the therapeutic interventions recommended by the OCL. Parenting exchanges shall take place at school. If that is not possible, exchanges shall be facilitated by a neutral third-party (ideally, the Maternal Uncle). There will be no police enforcement. The parties will limit their contact to parenting issues and use a parenting communication application (AppClose). The Mother is not in contempt of the interim parenting orders, and the Father is not restrained from contacting the Mother. If the parents want to change the parenting orders in the future, they will use a parenting coach before resorting to the courts.
The Father shall pay retroactive child support from May 6, 2020, as well as ongoing support based on his income and the Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”). The parties shall share s. 7 expenses proportionally. The Father owes retroactive spousal support at the mid-end of the range from the date of separation until the Home is sold (no earlier than July 30, 2025), and ongoing spousal support at the high-end of the range after the Home is sold. The support payable should be calculated based on the Mother’s actual income from the date of separation until January 1, 2026; after that date, the Mother’s income shall be calculated based either on her taxable income or an imputed income of minimum wage, whichever is higher. Spousal support will be reviewable after January 1, 2028. The amount the Father owes in retroactive support will be paid out from his share of the equity in the Home after it is sold.
For the purposes of their respective NFPs, the Father’s pension shall be valued at $65,000, he is entitled to deduct $43,500 for date-of-marriage debts, and the Mother shall include the $14,000 balance in the Child’s joint trust account in her NFP. The equalization payment owed by the Father to the Mother shall be adjusted to reflect an unequal division of NFP in the Father’s favour, in the amount of $250,000.
The Mother does not have an equitable interest in the Home post-separation. The Father shall not be allowed to attend the Home to recover his belongings before it is sold.
[The full reasons for judgment continue in the original document, including detailed analysis, findings, and orders.]
For the full text, see the official decision.