Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: FC-25-195
Date: 2025-06-11
Family Court

Between:
Sunil Varghese, Applicant
and
Hasina Visram, Respondent (Moving Party)

Applicant Counsel: David Sinclair
Respondent Counsel: Kerry Fox

Heard: Wednesday, May 14, 2025

Decision on Motion
Justice Charles T. Hackland

Introduction

[1] In this motion the respondent (the mother) seeks an Order, under s. 46 of the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3 and s. 35(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12, restraining the applicant (the father) from directly or indirectly contacting or communicating with the respondent and the children. There are three children of this 17-year marriage, ages 14, 12, and 11. Both parents are medical doctors. The evidence before this court suggests both parents clearly love their children and are devoted to their well-being.

[2] The applicant left the matrimonial home in February of 2023 but the parties formally separated in October of 2023. The respondent mother continues to occupy the matrimonial home with the children. At this point in time, there is no court order in place granting the applicant father parenting time. The applicant provides this explanation:

29. Since our separation, I have asked Hasina on numerous occasions to discuss and negotiate a parenting plan for our children. I have always wanted to have a schedule with the children where I would have regular and meaningful contact with the children. Ideally, I would like the children to live equally with both of us.
30. Hasina has always refused to discuss a parenting plan or agree to me having regular contact with the children.
31. We tried to attend mediation in the fall of 2024 to discuss parenting but we did not proceed past the intake process. Other than this, Hasina has refused to discuss the parenting of our children in a meaningful way.
32. Hasina has taken the position that the children can decide for themselves if they want to spend time with me or not. I disagree. I believe that Hasina and I, as parents, should agree upon a parenting schedule for our children so they have contact with both of us.
33. I have asked Hasina for the children to participate in therapy on multiple occasions.
34. As Hasina refused to negotiate a parenting schedule, I only saw the children when they were attending their extracurricular activities.

Allegations of Harassment

[3] The respondent says that she and the children are being harassed by the applicant. The alleged harassment consists of the applicant father showing up at the children’s sporting events to watch them compete. He sits with the other parents who are supporting their children. He sometimes attempts to speak to his own children and on occasion has embraced them and encouraged them. He shares a love of the sport of karate with the three children and has sought to observe and interact with them on occasion at the karate studio. Finally, he is an active and involved person in the family’s religious community and has sought to speak with and interact in that context with the children.

[4] The respondent views the applicant’s behavior, as described above, as controlling behavior and as harassment. She has recently made it clear to the applicant, both directly and through her lawyer, that he is not to approach the children at their sporting events. She has taken photographic images of the applicant at these events. She has attempted to engage the police in regard to her feelings of being harassed.

[5] The respondent has not sought to obtain a court order providing him with parenting time with the children. This is unfortunate but until recently he believed he was welcome to attend the children’s sporting events and see them at their place of worship. The children have unfortunately developed the idea that they do not want to have their father attend their sporting events and have e-mailed him expressing this wish. The respondent advises the court that she must support her children in their refusal to interact with their father and she must “protect them” in this regard.

Change in Parental Cooperation

[6] The court has some concern about the respondent mother’s stated belief as to the necessity for an order prohibiting the father from having any contact with the children. Following the parties' initial separation in February 2023, both parents continued to share the responsibility of driving the children to their particular sporting activity and attending such activities. The mother would communicate to the father which events he was to take which child to and this necessary co-operation worked out smoothly. Relations between the parents deteriorated in late 2024, but even then the mother notified the father that he was welcome to communicate with the children and attend their sporting activities. On December 19, 2024, the mother e-mailed the father, stating (ex. “E” to the respondent father’s affidavit):

“I encourage you to continue to reach out to the kids directly, phone, snap chat, google chat, etc. – they do not require a voicemail on the home line for you to communicate with the kids” and “I will continue to bring them to JK regularly, BUI, and their sporting events. Do not approach me or speak to me at any of these. I will ensure that I am apart from the kids if you are there for enough time so that you may approach the kids and be with them directly.”

[7] However, in late December 2024, the mother stopped sharing the children’s activity schedule with the father and stopped requesting that he take the children to their activities. On January 14, 2025, in response to inquiries from the father’s counsel, mother’s counsel, Ms. Fox, advised that her client was not required to provide details of the children’s schedule and further that he was not to attend their activities or contact them and that he was to cease all contact with the children. There is nothing in the record before this court to explain what appears to be an extreme and unreasonable change of position that mother has recently adopted. There is no incident or change in circumstances addressed in the evidence to explain this. None was provided in submissions before the court.

Law and Analysis

[8] As noted, the respondent mother brings this motion seeking an interim restraining order against the applicant father from having any contact or communication with the mother or the children pursuant to s. 46 of the Family Law Act and s. 35 of the Children’s Law Reform Act; or in the alternative, a no contact order, with police enforcement, under s. 28 of the Children’s Law.

[9] The requested relief is available in circumstances wherein the applicant has reasonable grounds to fear for her safety or the safety of her children. The case law establishes that this relief is reserved for clear cases. The rationale for this includes the caution that an interim restraining order can have a serious impact on a family law proceeding. It immediately impacts all future decisions in the proceeding, particularly as they pertain to parenting matters. Such an order lessens the prospect of shared parenting and shared decision making, see A.H. v. M.T., 2021 ONSC 2365, para 17.

[10] This court sees no evidentiary basis to justify issuing a restraining order against the father in relation to his interactions with his children. He has not harassed or endangered them in any way. Attending his children’s sports activities is not controlling behavior or harassment, particularly when that was part of the family routine before and after separation.

[11] The children’s very recent reluctance to interact with their father is concerning and remains unexplained. Some appropriate counselling is urgently required and reasonable parenting time should be sought in the form of a court order, if necessary, as appears to be the case. Given the children’s ages, their wishes are entitled to consideration and they should be involved in any counselling. In the court’s opinion, the father should be encouraged to communicate with them online (as he has been doing) and then to have appropriate personal interactions with them as soon as possible.

[12] A restraining order against the father, preventing any contact with his children, as sought on this motion, is an ill-conceived idea in the circumstances and has the likelihood of aggravating an already difficult situation.

[13] The respondent mother has also failed to demonstrate any objectively harassing conduct on the applicant’s part arising subsequent to the parties’ original separation in February 2023. Her lengthy affidavit describes an emotionally abusive marriage which has left her with concerns about her own safety and well-being when interacting with the applicant. She advises that she formed the view after 18 months of separation that she needed to stop taking directives from the applicant about aspects of their relationship and “started to take further steps towards independence” in August, November and December 2024. She advises she has “a reasonable fear for her physical, emotional and psychological safety, and that of my children”. This correlates with the time when the father was no longer welcome to attend the children’s sporting activities, which is the main issue on this motion.

[14] While the court accords full respect to the respondent’s concerns, on the evidence before the court there remains at this time no objective basis to conclude that the father’s conduct endangers the mother or their children’s safety or well-being. The applicant should be permitted to text or e-mail the respondent, with discretion, about matters of importance concerning the children and he must not attend the former matrimonial home without the respondent’s express permission. He would be well advised to avoid the children’s sporting events until counselling involving the children begins or until he is accorded parenting time, by agreement or court order. These are suggestions and are not requirements imposed on this motion.

Conclusion and Disposition

[15] For the reasons expressed herein, the respondent’s motion seeking a restraining order, or alternatively a no contact order, is dismissed, in relation to both the respondent herself and the children.

[16] If the father wishes to seek costs of this motion, he should submit a concise written submission within three weeks of the release of this endorsement and the mother may respond within three weeks of receiving the father’s costs submission.

[17] I would also repeat the direction of the Associate Justice who scheduled this matter on May 14, 2025, who directed that this matter proceed to an urgent case conference to deal with the issues of the father’s contact and parenting time with the children and concerning the need for a section 30 assessment.

Justice Charles T. Hackland
Released: June 11, 2025