ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-00016669-0000

DATE: 20250731

BETWEEN:

Adele Maria Tevlin

Applicant

– and –

Vladislav Sobolev

Respondent

Justyna A. Waxman and Nikita Mathew, for the Applicant

Self-Represented

– and –

Office of the Children’s Lawyer

Julia P. Tremain, for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: January 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 31, 2025

JUSTICE J.S. SHIN DOI

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] The parties began living together in January 2016 and separated 7 months later in July 2016. The Applicant gave birth to a son (the “Child”) on April 30, 2016. The Child was 3 months old when the parties separated and is now 9 years old. The Child resides with the Applicant who has been the primary caregiver since birth. The Applicant seeks sole decision-making responsibility for the Child, that the Child reside primarily with the Applicant, and that the Respondent be restrained from contacting the Applicant or the Child. The Applicant also seeks an order that the Respondent remove all social media postings and refrain from posting anything further to social media regarding the Applicant, the Child, or any issues in this litigation. The Respondent seeks equal parenting time and decision-making responsibility.

[2] The parties requested a bottom-line decision following the completion of trial and written closing submissions. On February 21, 2025, I made the following Order with reasons to follow:

(a) On a final basis, the Applicant shall have sole decision-making responsibility for the major decisions that affect the Child, including but not limited to health and medical care, education, religion, and extra-curricular activities.

(b) On a final basis, the Child shall reside primarily with the Applicant.

(c) The Applicant shall be permitted to travel with the Child and apply for and/ or renew the Child’s passport and other government issued documentation such as SIN card, birth certificate, health card, without the need to obtain the consent of the Respondent.

(d) If the Applicant travels with the Child outside of Canada, the Applicant shall inform the Respondent about the travel and dates of travel.

(e) Parenting time between the Respondent and the Child is in the best interests of the Child. Accordingly, the parties shall establish and implement the following reintegration/reunification plan for the Respondent and the Child in the best interests of the Child:

(i) The Respondent shall retain a qualified therapist (i.e., psychologist or social worker) to assist and provide counselling to him and the Child for the purposes of repairing and rebuilding his relationship with the Child.

(ii) The Applicant shall retain a qualified therapist (i.e., child psychologist) to provide the Child with therapy to assist him with re-building a relationship with the Respondent, if individual therapy is recommended by the reintegration therapist referred to (i) above.

(iii) The parties shall follow the recommendations of the reintegration therapists regarding the Respondent’s parenting time with the Child,

(iv) The Applicant shall encourage and facilitate the Child attending at the reintegration therapist’s office to any and all appointments.

(f) The Applicant shall arrange supervised video calls between the Respondent and the Child in accordance with the recommendations of the reintegration therapist and/or the child’s individual therapist. The Applicant shall determine the timing and frequency of the video calls in the best interests of the Child and in consideration of the recommendations of the therapists.

(g) The Applicant shall retain a professional supervision service to conduct the supervised video calls. The Applicant and the Respondent are entitled to obtain notes from the video calls made by the supervision service.

(h) The Respondent shall pay 50% of the costs of the professional supervision service retained to supervise the video calls between him and the Child.

(i) The requirement for supervision of the video calls shall be lifted in accordance with the reintegration therapists’ recommendations.

(j) The parties shall cooperate with each other in implementing the reintegration/reunification plan.

(k) The Respondent shall not post anything about the Applicant, the Applicant’s spouse, or the litigation on social media without the consent of the Applicant.

(l) The Applicant may pause the implementation of the reintegration/reunification plan at any time if the Respondent posts any social media about the Applicant, the Applicant’s spouse, or the litigation, or fails to remove such posts.

(m) Once the reintegration/reunification therapy process between the Respondent and Child is completed, the Respondent shall have regularized parenting time with the Child, based on the recommendations of the therapists. The regular parenting time schedule in effect prior to the Respondent’s relocation to the United States was that the Child resided with the Respondent on Mondays and Wednesdays, after school until 6:30 pm, and alternate weekends on Saturday and Sunday from 11 am to 5 pm.

(n) Commencing on February 1, 2025, and continuing the first day of every month thereafter, the Respondent shall pay fixed and non-variable child support to the Applicant in the sum of $500.00 per month, which sum is inclusive of table child support for one child in the amount of $304.00 and the Respondent’s contribution to the Child’s current section 7 expenses in the amount of $196.00. The sum is based on an imputed income to the Respondent of $35,000.00 per year.

(o) The Respondent shall pay the Applicant the sum of $17,024.00 as a full and final payment of retroactive child support from the date of separation to and including January 31, 2025. There is no payment owing by the Respondent to the Applicant for his contribution to the Child’s section 7 expenses for this period.

(p) The Respondent is in breach of the court order dated January 14, 2025, section 8. In particular, the Respondent has not deleted all the social media posts that refer to the litigation or the Applicant. Also, the Respondent has not filed a payment plan in accordance with section 11. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant the amount of $100 per day for every day that the Respondent is in breach of the court order dated January 14, 2025, in other words, until he takes down all social media posts about the litigation and/or the Applicant and/or the Applicant’s spouse.

(q) If the parties are unable to agree on costs, the Applicant shall serve and file written costs submissions of up to 5 pages, not including Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle, within 10 days. The Respondent shall serve and file written costs submissions of up to 5 pages, not including Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle, within 7 days of being served with the Applicant’s costs submissions.

[3] The following are my reasons.

II. BACKGROUND FACTS

[4] The parties met in May 2015 and started dating. The parties co-habited from January to July 2016 when they separated. The Child was three months old at the time of separation and is now 9 years old.

[5] The Child resides with the Applicant and her spouse, David Binns. The Applicant has been the primary caregiver since birth.

[6] Initially, the parties did not have a formal parenting plan. The parties were able to agree on the Respondent’s parenting time with the Child.

[7] The Applicant became aware that the Respondent was attending protests and refusing to comply COVID-19 protocols and government directives. The Applicant had concerns about the Child’s health and safety due to the Respondent’s actions.

[8] In July 2020, the Applicant brought an urgent motion seeking interim custody, parenting orders, restraining orders, including a publication ban. On July 7, 2020, the court ordered on a temporary basis that the Child have primary residence with the Applicant. The court further ordered that the Respondent’s parenting time shall be by video only, three times weekly on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays at 12:45 pm; the Respondent may apply to the court for resumption of in-person parenting time after he obtains a negative test result for COVID-19 or self-isolates for fourteen days; and the Respondent follows government and public health protocols. The court also ordered on a without prejudice, temporary basis, that the Applicant shall have sole decision-making authority for the Child on all major decisions regarding the Child’s health and medical care, education, and extra-curricular activities. The court ordered the Respondent to delete all social media posts and refrain from creating new social media posts that refer to the issues in the litigation, that denigrate the Applicant, or that refer to the Applicant, the Child, and the pandemic.

[9] In the Fall of 2020, the Respondent relocated to Vancouver, British Columbia. The Respondent did not exercise any in person parenting time with the Child between 2020 to 2022. The Respondent did not have any virtual parenting time with the Child for approximately 8 months during that period.

[10] In the spring of 2022, the Respondent asked the Applicant for a reinstatement of his parenting time. The Applicant did not agree, and the Respondent started a social media campaign against the Applicant. On July 28, 2022, the Applicant brought a motion to expand the restraining order granted by Justice Akbarali on July 7, 2020. Justice Faieta granted the restraining order and ordered the Respondent to remove all existing social media posts that refer to the litigation, the Applicant, Mr. Binns, and/or the Child.

[11] The Respondent was charged with criminal harassment and impeding justice. The Release Order dated August 10, 2022, provides that the Respondent shall not contact or communicate in any way directly or indirectly with the Applicant and Mr. Binns. The Release Order further provides that the Respondent shall not be within 500 metres of any place where he knows that the Applicant and Mr. Binns live, work, go to school, frequent. In addition, the Release Order states that the Respondent shall not create any social media posts denigrating the Applicant or Mr. Binns, not share their address or contact information, and not call for others to communicate with the Applicant or Mr. Binns.

[12] On October 14, 2022, the court ordered on consent that the Respondent shall have parenting time with the Child every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, at 4:30 pm, by video conference, until no later than 5 pm. On Saturday, October 29 and Saturday, November 5, from 12 pm to 5 pm, the Respondent shall have supervised parenting time with the Child. Both parties were restrained from posting any pictures, videos, or recordings of the Child or any personal information regarding the Child on any social media platforms or any public forums.

[13] On December 22, 2022, the parties attended a case conference and agreed to parenting time for the Respondent: (a) every Monday and Wednesday from after school to 6:30 p.m.; and on alternating weekends, on Saturdays (pick up by the Respondent at 11:00 a.m. until pick-up by the Applicant at 5:00 p.m.) and Sundays (drop off by the Applicant at 11:00 a.m. until drop-off by the Respondent at 5:00 p.m.).

[14] On April 3, 2023, the parties attended a further case conference. The Applicant informed the court that the Respondent has repeatedly cancelled or been late to parenting visits, disrupting the Child’s schedule and the Applicant’s schedule.

[15] On June 19, 2023, the parties attended To Be Spoken To court and consented to the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

[16] On June 21, 2023, the Respondent appeared at a park where the Child was with his classmates to celebrate the last day of school. An incident erupted involving the parties and the Child, and the police were called.

[17] On June 22, 2023, the Applicant served a Notice of Motion for an order that the Respondent’s parenting time with the Child be suspended, and that the Respondent’s parenting time not proceed until he submitted to an assessment of his health. The motion was heard on June 29, 2023. On July 4, 2023, the court dismissed the Applicant’s motion and ordered that the parenting schedule ordered on December 22, 2022, remain in place, and that during the summer months, the Respondent shall have parenting time with the Child from 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm.

[18] In the Fall of 2023, the Respondent relocated to Mexico with his then partner and two children. The Respondent then left Mexico and relocated to Miami, Florida.

[19] In November 2023, the Respondent returned to Toronto to attend his criminal trial, was arrested, and denied bail because he was a flight risk. The Respondent subsequently pled guilty to criminal harassment charges and entered into a probation order. The probation order dated November 28, 2023, requires the Respondent not to contact the Applicant and Mr. Binns, access to the Child pursuant to a court order, delete all social media posts that refer to the Applicant and Mr. Binns, and not make any social media posts that name or refers to the Applicant or Mr. Binns.

III. ANALYSIS

1. What parenting arrangement is in the best interests of the Child?

[20] It is in the best interests of the Child that the Child resides primarily with the Applicant and the Respondent have parenting time with the Child. The parties shall establish and implement a reintegration/reunification plan for the Respondent and the Child in the best interests of the Child, as set out above.

[21] In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to the Child, the court shall only take into account the bests interests of the Child (Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 24(1)). The court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the Child, and in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the Child’s physical, emotional, and psychologic safety, security, and well-being (s.24(2)). The factors related to the circumstances of the Child are set out in s. 24(3) as follows:

Factors

(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(k) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(l) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and

(m) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

Factors relating to family violence

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3) (j), the court shall take into account,

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

(a) the Child’s needs, given the Child’s age and stage of development, such as the Child’s need for stability

[22] The Child is still young and needs care and stability. He has lived primarily with the Applicant since separation. The Applicant has been the Child’s primary caregiver since birth. He lived with the Respondent for only 3 months before the Child lived primarily with the Applicant. The Child also lives with the Applicant’s spouse, Mr. Binns, with whom the Applicant started cohabiting on February 1, 2020, and married on September 18, 2021.

[23] The Applicant is committed to maintaining a stable, child-focused life, and upbringing for the Child. The Applicant and Mr. Binns provide a stable home environment and a consistent routine for the Child. The Child is active and thriving and is a good student with friends.

[24] The Child has always lived in Canada. The Child has travelled to the United States with the Applicant and had brief parenting time visits with the Respondent during the Child’s trips.

[25] The Respondent does not have a stable residence and presence in either Canada or the United States. He currently lives in Miami, Florida in a temporary residence with no immediate plan to return to Canada. The Respondent has also lived in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Mexico.

[26] The Respondent has had an inconsistent presence in the Child’s life. There are periods where the Respondent has not had parenting time or in-person parenting time with the Child. The Applicant alleges that in the past, the Respondent has cancelled or been late for his parenting time with the Child.

(b) the nature and strength of the Child’s relationship with each parent, each of the Child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the Child’s life

[27] The Child has a strong and loving relationship with the Applicant who has been the primary caregiver since his birth. The Applicant describes the Child as a kind, thoughtful, beautiful boy who is intelligent, emotionally intelligent, and considerate.

[28] The Child formerly had a loving relationship with the Respondent. The Respondent submits photos and videos of the Child enjoying time with the Respondent. The strength of the Child’s relationship with the Respondent has been weakened by the long absences of the Respondent, irregular parenting time, the high conflict between the parents, and the Respondent’s livestreaming of the Child.

[29] The Applicant’s spouse, Mr. Binns, plays a very important role in the Child’s life. The Child first met Mr. Binns when the Child was approximately two years old. The Child has a close bond with Mr. Binns. Mr. Binns considers himself as an “additional” father figure in the Child’s life and has approached his relationship with the Child thoughtfully. Mr. Binns shared that he, too, did not grow up in a traditional family and was a child of divorce and raised by separated parents. He states that he is particularly attentive to what it means to be a stepparent because he has one. He maintains a strong and loving relationship with his own stepmother. Mr. Binns states that he has never diminished, spoken ill of, or put down the Respondent in front of the Child. Mr. Binns explains that his role is to love his wife, love the Child, protect and provide for his home, and to provide a fun, loving, and safe environment for them. I reject the Respondent’s allegation that Mr. Binns has sought to replace the Respondent as the Child’s father. Mr. Binns clearly understands his role as a stepparent and respects the relationship the Child has with the Respondent.

[30] The Respondent objects to Mr. Binns cutting the Child’s hair which the Respondent alleges is intimate. The Respondent also complains that Mr. Binns, at times, co-sleeps with the Child and that the Child kisses Mr. Binns on the lips. Mr. Binns states that the co-sleeping and the kissing happen on occasion, initiated by the Child. The Respondent complains that the behaviour started when the Child was younger than four years old, and the Respondent questions why Mr. Binns saw nothing wrong in preventing such behaviour. The Applicant and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer do not raise concerns about the behaviour. I am not persuaded on the specific facts of this case that the instances of such behaviour are not more than innocent expressions of affection.

[31] The Child has a strong and loving relationship with the Applicant’s extended family in Toronto including her brother, sister-in-law, nieces, and nephews; and her parents who reside part-time in Florida.

[32] The Child has had occasional video calls with members of the Respondent’s extended family during his parent time. The Child does not maintain a relationship with his paternal grandparents, uncle, or cousins. The Child also does not maintain a relationship with the Respondent’s other two children whom he shares with his former partner, Sara Kheirkhah.

(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the Child’s relationship with the other parent

[33] Each party has little willingness to support the development and maintenance of the Child’s relationship with the other parent. At the beginning of the separation, the parties were willing to do so but conflict between the parties arose during the pandemic. The parties have a high conflict relationship which is exacerbated by the Respondent’s social media posts about the Applicant, the Child, and Mr. Binns. The Applicant brought a motion in June 2023 to suspend the Respondent’s parenting time.

[34] The Applicant facilitated a brief video call for the Respondent and the Child on the Child’s sixth birthday on April 30, 2022. The Respondent alleges that the Applicant denied further video calls with the Child until the Respondent’s return on May 16, 2022.

[35] The Applicant states that she would always say to the Child, “Papa loves you in the best way that he does.” The Applicant explains that she would never get into details or discuss things about the Respondent that were not appropriate for the Child’s age. The Applicant would never say anything negative about the Respondent or spoke ill of the Respondent but would speak the truth to the Child about the Respondent not following rules.

[36] I accept the evidence of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer that it is abundantly clear from the Respondent’s social media posts that it is unlikely that he will support the Applicant’s relationship with the Child, and that he completely and utterly rejects Mr. Binns as the Child’s stepparent. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer points to the Respondent’s description of the Applicant and Mr. Binns as “child abusers” and the Respondent’s allegation that the Applicant is conducting a campaign of “parental alienation.”

[37] The Respondent states that the Applicant has withheld the Child and did not allow parenting time for the Respondent. The Respondent relies on the supporting testimony of Edward Jamnisek about the park incident. The Respondent alleges that the Applicant assaulted Mr. Jamnisek in the park in front of the Child during her violation of the restraining order against the Respondent. The Respondent says that the Applicant involves the Child in the conflict between the parties. The park incident is analyzed in Tevlin v. Sobolev, 2023 ONSC 5915. The court criticized the behaviour of both parties.

(d) the history of care of the Child

[38] The Applicant is the primary caregiver for the Child. The Applicant’s spouse, Mr. Binns, and Nanny assist her with childcare. The Applicant states that the Nanny has cared for the Child since he was two and a half years old and has been an integral part of the family to help support the Child.

[39] The Applicant states that she had concerns about the Child in the Respondent’s care. She says that the Respondent fed the Child herbal shakes for meals which the pediatrician asked to stop immediately because those shakes could damage his liver and kidneys. The Applicant states that the Child got a terrible sunburn because the Respondent forgot to put sunscreen on the Child, and the Respondent was not able to provide for the Child. The Applicant also complains that the Respondent is an anti-vaxxer and that the Respondent delayed many preliminary vaccinations that children receive. The Respondent responds that the Applicant did not give the Child the COVID-19 vaccine.

[40] Prior to the pandemic, the Respondent had gradually increased his parenting time with the Child to two overnights per week by 2019. The Respondent’s friend, Mr. Vitalii Tichkevitch, testified that in 2019 and 2020, the Child was happy to be in the care of the Respondent and they had a good time wherever they went. The Respondent played with the Child in the park and the Child biked with him.

[41] The Respondent’s friend, Mr. Paul Brevetti, criticizes the Respondent’s care of the Child. Mr. Brevetti states that the Respondent would be focussed on his phones and social media, and not the Child. Mr. Brevetti says he has witnessed the Respondent to be “much more pre-occupied with his public image as a parent than actually being one.” Mr. Brevetti further states that the Respondent would involve the Child in the conflict between the parents by discussing the conflict with the Child. Mr. Brevetti observed that the Child had a look of terror, fear, and embarrassment when the Respondent livestreamed their interactions.

[42] The Applicant states that the Respondent had planned to take the Child to a rally during the COVID-19 lockdown and she feared for the Child’s health and safety as well as her and Mr. Binns’ health and safety because they were spending a lot of time with their elderly parents. In 2020, the Applicant brought a motion to restrict the Respondent’s parenting time due to his participation in anti-government protests and rallies in connection with the pandemic. The Respondent then had video parenting time only. In the Fall of 2020, the Respondent relocated to British Columbia and did not care for the Child. The Respondent did not have any video parenting time with the Child for approximately 8 months, without any explanation to the Applicant.

[43] The Respondent then did not have any in person parenting time with the Child between July 2020 and October 2022. On October 14, 2022, the court re-instated the Respondent’s parenting time which gradually increased to two evenings per week and daytime visits on alternating weekends. The Applicant states that the Respondent would sometimes be late to pick up the Child from school or would not show up and tell the Nanny at the last minutes. The Applicant says the Respondent would sometimes not feed the Child any dinner. The Applicant complains that the Respondent would not listen or respect the wishes of the Child such as not wishing to have his hair cut. The Applicant explains that having his hair cut was a traumatic experience for the Child.

[44] The Respondent did not have parenting time with the Child for six weeks in March and April 2023 when he travelled to Mexico for the birth of his daughter.

[45] The Respondent has not had parenting time with the Child since he moved to Florida in 2023. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer notes that despite the court order permitting parenting time, the Respondent chose not to return to Canada for in-person parenting time and that he did not engage in any virtual parenting time since he has moved to Florida.

(e) the Child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the Child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained

[46] According to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the Child’s view and preference is not to have contact with the Respondent at this present time. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s position is that there be no contact until the Child expresses a wish to do so. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer states that the Child’s views and preferences are clear; he does not wish to have parenting time with his father right now. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer further states that there were positive visits in the past but the lengthy periods of separation and the most recent parenting time in the spring of 2023 was challenging for the Child. The Child expressed that he felt pressured by the Respondent to stay with him overnight, felt very uncomfortable when the Respondent cut his hair, and felt confused about why the Respondent showed him videos of the Respondent talking in front of lots of people.

[47] The Applicant states that the Child cried on the kitchen floor, stating that the Respondent should not have come to their house for a surprise visit in 2022. The Applicant describes the Child as inconsolable. Mr. Binns recalls that the Child cried for 45 minutes and had an emotional breakdown after the Respondent livestreamed the visit with the Child. The Respondent disputes that the Child had an emotional breakdown and shows a video of the Child smiling with the Respondent. However, there is no video of the Child after the interaction with the Respondent. So, I rely on the evidence of the Applicant and Mr. Binns that the Child was emotional after he had seen the Respondent.

[48] Mr. Binns describes parenting time transitions as stressful for the Child. The Applicant also states that the Respondent made the Child scared and upset when the Respondent tried to pry and coax him into overnight visits. The Applicant explains that the Child did not want to sleepover at the Respondent’s residence and made that abundantly clear to the Respondent. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent tried to manipulate the Child to stay the night, in a heartbreaking way.

[49] I accept the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s submission that the Child has good reasons for wishing to have no contact with his father, given that his father has failed to acknowledge his contribution to the Child’s distress. In the event that video parenting time is ordered, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer suggests that video parenting time take place with the assistance of a qualified therapist, either a social worker or a psychologist, who has experience with children have not had contact with a parent for a significant period. It is the position of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer that any parenting time by the Respondent should be supervised by a neutral party.

(f) the Child’s cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage

[50] The Applicant is Jewish, and the Respondent is Christian. In a memorandum of understanding dated September 11, 2019, the mediator notes that the parties agreed that with respect to decisions pertaining to religion and spiritual upbringing, both parents may share with the Child their beliefs and expose him to experiences and celebrations which are important for them. The mediator also notes that the parties agreed that they would value the other parent’s beliefs, and neither parent would steer the Child toward or away from a specific belief system.

[51] However, the Applicant states that the Respondent refused to permit the Applicant to have the Child circumcised. The Respondent explains that he, himself, is part Jewish but believes that circumcision is an unnecessary procedure with some risk. The Respondent further explains that he agreed to a naming ceremony for the Child to honour the Applicant’s faith. I am not persuaded that the Respondent respects the Applicant’s religion. The Respondent has inappropriately disparaged the Applicant and her family’s religion in a social media post.

[52] The Child is being raised Jewish by the Applicant and considers himself a Jewish boy. The Applicant states that the Child’s religion is something that the Child can decide in the future when the Child is older. The Respondent suggests that the Child would not be exposed to Christianity if the Respondent does not have parenting time with the Child. The Applicant responds that Mr. Binns is Christian and that the Child is exposed to Christian holidays and their family celebrates both Jewish and Christian holidays.

[53] The Respondent says that the Child had been speaking Russian fluently with him. The Respondent states that the Child no longer has the opportunity to speak the Russian language because the Child does not reside with him. The Respondent states that his Russian roots have been eliminated.

(g) any plans for the Child’s care

[54] The Child is thriving in a stable and predictable home life in the care of the Applicant and Mr. Binns. Mr. Binns explains that on Mondays, he or the Applicant will take the Child to guitar lessons and help the Child with homework. During weekends, the family goes skiing in the winter and running or hiking in the summer. Mr. Binns describes the house as a sanctuary that is quiet and very calm.

[55] The Respondent proposes that the Child resides with him for an initial period of at least 90 days where the Child would come and live with him in Florida. After that period has elapsed, the Respondent proposes that he and the Applicant would share time with the Child. It is not clear how this arrangement would work since the Respondent resides in Florida and the Applicant lives in Ontario.

[56] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer states that the Respondent gives no indication where the Child would live and how the Respondent would financially support the Child.

[57] The Applicant states that if there were to be any virtual parenting time moving forward, it would have to be through supervision. The Applicant would want to ensure though a supervised person that the conversations between the Child and the Respondent were child appropriate given the nature of the conversations they have had in the past.

[58] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer agrees with the Applicant that the Child needs therapeutic support and supervision by a neutral party if the Respondent had parenting time. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer emphasized that the Child must feel comfortable and must rebuild his relationship and trust with his father. There is no dispute that the Child enjoyed time together with his father in the past. The Applicant supports the framework proposed by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer including therapeutic support for the Child and a neutral person involved. The Applicant states that the Respondent also must be part of the solution in any reintegration plan.

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the Child

[59] It is clear that the Applicant is able and willing to care for and meet the needs of the Child. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer states that in the Applicant’s care, the Child attends school full-time, is engaged in extracurricular activities such as lacrosse, skiing, and running, and is growing up as a healthy, engaged, and bright child.

[60] The Respondent’s ability and willingness to care for and meet the needs of the Child have not recently been tested because the Respondent has not been present for much of the Child’s life. I note that even though the Respondent is willing to care for the Child, the Respondent does not have a clear plan about how he would care for and meet the needs of the Child in Florida.

(i) he ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the Child

[61] The parties have difficulty communicating and co-operating on matters affecting the Child. The Respondent has been ordered not to communicate with the Applicant due to his negative social media posts about the Applicant and Mr. Binns. The Respondent has repeatedly attempted to communicate with the Applicant through inappropriate social media posts.

(j) any family violence and its impact

[62] The Respondent alleges family violence by the Applicant but states he did not report it. I find no evidence to support the allegation of family violence by the Applicant.

[63] I find the Respondent committed acts of family violence against the Applicant and Mr. Binns with his social media posts.

[64] The Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 18(1) defines family violence as follows,

“family violence” means any conduct by a family member towards another family member that is violent or threatening, that constitutes a patter of coercive and controlling behaviour, or that causes the other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person, and in the case of a child, includes direct or indirect exposure to such conduct.

[65] A family member includes a member of a household of a child or of a parent, as well as a dating partner of a parent who participates in the activities of the household. Subsection 18(2) provides that “family violence” includes harassment, psychological abuse, threats to kill or cause bodily harm.

[66] In S.B. v. J.I.U., 2021 ONCJ 614, the court found social media postings to be family violence. The court held at para. 38,

It is evident from the father’s social media postings that he is intent on hurting, humiliating and intimidating the mother. This is cyberbullying. It is family violence.

In Rubio v. Leigh, 2024 ONSC 6215, the court also found that the father’s use of social media was psychological abuse and constituted family violence.

[67] The Respondent made numerous social media posts that show his intent to hurt, humiliate, and intimidate the Applicant and Mr. Binns. I find that the social media posts were a form of harassment, psychological abuse, and threats against the Applicant and Mr. Binns. In one social media post, the Respondent states, “you should have not messed with my son and my family, strong fathers will burn the system to the ground and all abusive and manipulating women will be exposed for garbage humans they are.” The Respondent states that it was a metaphorical statement and not violence. I disagree with the Respondent. I also reject the Respondent’s suggestion that his social media posts were a form of education. The evidence is clear that the Respondent repeatedly targeted and harassed the Applicant, Mr. Binns, as well as the Applicant’s extended family members in his social media posts.

[68] The Respondent admits that his social media has caused harm to the Applicant, the Child, and Mr. Binns.

[69] The Applicant and Mr. Binns testified that they feared for their safety and had to move house because of the social media posts by the Respondent. Their fear and move would have impacted the Child.

[70] I accept the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s submission that the Child has been exposed to a substantial number of challenging events surrounding recent parenting time with his father, and that has been extremely difficult for the Child to manage. I agree with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer that the Respondent’s actions put the Child and his family at risk, specifically by publishing identifying information about them on social media and encouraging his followers to contact them directly. The Respondent’s actions on social media were so disturbing that they led to criminal charges and a conviction against the Respondent.

(k) (any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security, and well-being of the child

[71] The Respondent was convicted of criminal harassment in November 2023 and is subject to a three-year probation order. The Respondent states that he will not return to Canada as he is not safe here.

[72] I find that the Respondent endangered the safety, security, and well-being of the Child through the social media posts that identified the Child and the Child’s family. The Respondent was repeatedly ordered by the court and the police to remove those social media posts.

Conclusion

[73] In consideration of all the factors related to the circumstances of the Child, I conclude that it is in the best interests of the Child that he continues to reside primarily with the Applicant. In my analysis, I have given primary consideration to the Child’s physical, emotional, and psychologic safety, security, and well-being.

[74] I also conclude that it is also in the best interests of the Child that the Respondent has parenting time with the Child. I appreciate the Child’s current views and preferences about not having contact with the Respondent at the present time, but the Child is still young, and the Child’s views and preferences may change over time. I can not ignore the evidence that the Respondent exercised parenting time with the Child in the past and there have been positive parenting time visits. The Child did at times enjoy his visits with the Respondent. An order for no parenting time for a father is rare.

[75] The Child and the Respondent must have an opportunity to repair and rebuild their relationship. The Respondent must also abide by the orders that the court has made with respect to social media so the Respondent can build a trustful relationship with both the Child and the Applicant as well as Mr. Binns. The parties will require professionals to support them and encourage and facilitate reintegration. Given the inappropriate videotaping by the Respondent, the video calls should be supervised and in accordance with the recommendations of a reintegration therapist and the Child’s therapist. I note that the Applicant and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer support that type of framework. The costs of the provisional supervision service shall be shared equally. Once the reintegration/reunification therapy process is completed, the Respondent shall have regularized parenting time with the Child, as detailed above.

2. What decision-making regime is in the best interests of the Child?

[76] It is in the best interests of the Child that the Applicant has sole decision-making responsibility for the Child. The Applicant is the primary caregiver and has had temporary sole decision-making responsibility for the Child since the order of Justice Akbarali in July 2020. As discussed above, the Child is thriving under the Applicant’s sole decision-making. I am not inclined to disrupt the status quo.

[77] The Respondent has had limited day to day decision-making responsibility for the Child during the Respondent’s in-person parenting time. The Respondent’s in-person parenting time has not been consistent or regular. The Respondent currently does not have in-person parenting time with the Child and is not involved with the Child on a day-to-day basis.

[78] I agree with the Applicant that a joint decision-making regime or consultation process over decisions is not practical or feasible with the Respondent in the circumstances because of the absence of the Respondent from the Child’s life and the communication difficulties between the parents.

[79] Accordingly, on a final basis, the Applicant shall have sole decision-making responsibility for the major decisions that affect the Child, including but not limited to health and medical care, education, religion, and extra-curricular activities.

[80] In addition, the Applicant shall be permitted to travel with the Child and apply for and/or renew the Child’s passport and other government issued documentation such as a SIN card, birth certificate, health card, without the need to obtain the consent of the Respondent. If the Applicant travels with the Child outside of Canada, the Applicant shall inform the Respondent about the travel and dates of travel.

3. How much child support is the Respondent required to pay?

[81] The Respondent is required to pay table child support in the amount of $304.00 per month, commencing February 1, 2025, on an imputed income of $35,000.00 per year.

[82] The Respondent, as a parent, has a legal obligation to support his child financially pursuant to the Family Law Act, s. 31(1). The Respondent is required to pay child support to the Applicant who is the parent with whom the Child primarily lives.

[83] A court may impute income to a parent where the parent is under employed or unemployed (s.19(1)(a)). In Drygala v. Pauli, (2002) 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (C.A.), Gillese J.A. held at para. 32,

Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this legal obligation, a parent must earn what he or she is capable of earning.

[84] There is evidence that the Respondent is capable of earning a minimum wage. The Respondent states that he had earned an income of $35,000.00 in 2023. He worked for six weeks in restaurants in Mexico as a bartender and then started a venture renting out a building as a “freedom hotel.” The Respondent states that he is currently working online as a health coach. He says that he ran out of money because he put all his money into the building. The Respondent confirms that he is capable of working many different jobs. The Applicant submits that the Respondent is a healthy, 45-year-old man, who can work multiple jobs. I conclude that the imputation of income of $35,000.00 for the Respondent for child support purposes is reasonable and appropriate.

[85] The table amount of child support under the Federal Child Support Guidelines is $304.00 per month for a parent with an annual gross income of $35,000.00 with one child. The table set out in the Federal Child Support Guidelines applies to this case pursuant to the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, s. 3(1). For the purposes of determining the correct table amount of child support each year, the Respondent must provide income information. The Respondent shall provide financial disclosure as required by the Child Support Guidelines, s. 21, commencing on June 1 of each year, until child support is no longer payable.

[86] Based on the table amount of $304.00 per month, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant the sum of $17,024.00 as a full and final payment of retroactive child support from the date of separation to and including January 31, 2025. The Respondent states that he paid child support to the Applicant after separation, except for the period of June to December 2018 and then stopped making payments in March 2020. There is no evidence of those past payments. The Respondent has not provided any financial disclosure.

4. What is the proportionate share of section 7 expenses, payable by the parties?

[87] The Respondent’s proportionate share of section 7 expenses is 9.1% based on an imputed income of $35,000.00 and the Applicant’s proportionate share is 90.9% based on an income of $350,000.00.

[88] The Ontario Child Support Guidelines, s.7(1) provides that in an order for the support of a child, the court may provide an amount to cover all or any portion of expenses including childcare expenses, medical and dental insurance premiums, health related expenses, extraordinary expenses for education, and extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities. Subsection 7(2) provides that the guiding principle is that the expenses is shared by the parents in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child.

[89] The Applicant claims only childcare services provided by the full-time Nanny in the amount of $32,780.00 per year. There is evidence to justify the claimed childcare expense as necessary and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. I note that the Applicant’s actual total special and extraordinary expenses exceed that amount.

[90] The Respondent’s 9.1% share of that expense is $228.00 per month. However, the Applicant is willing to accept $196.00 per month so that the Respondent pays a sum of $500.00 per month including child support.

[91] The Applicant does not make any claim for arrears of section 7 expenses from the date of separation to and including January 31, 2025, even though she has incurred special and extraordinary expenses including the Child’s tuition.

5. What penalty should be imposed on the Respondent for his failure to remove social media posts, contrary to a court order?

[92] A penalty should be imposed on the Respondent for his failure to remove social media posts, contrary to court orders. The Respondent shall pay the amount of $100.00 per day to the Applicant until he takes down all the social media posts about the litigation and/or the Applicant and/or Mr. Binns. In addition, the Applicant may pause the implementation of the reintegration/reunification plan at any time if the Respondent posts any social media about the Applicant, the Applicant’s spouse, or the litigation, or fails to remove such posts.

[93] If a person fails to obey an order, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter pursuant to Family Law Rules, s. 1(8). The court has discretion in making the order and may make an order to pay an amount to a party as a penalty or fine and an order postponing any other step in the case. (s.1(8) (a.1)).

[94] The Respondent failed to obey the following orders to remove social media posts:

(a) Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 12 of the Order of Akbarali, J dated July 7, 2020;

(b) Paragraph 4(b) of the Order of Shore, J. dated July 4, 2022;

(c) Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Order of Faieta, J dated December 13, 2022;

(d) Paragraph 3 of the Order of Shore, J dated December 22, 2022;

(e) Paragraph 12 of the Endorsement of Myers, J dated July 26, 2023;

(f) Paragraph 9 of the Endorsement of Vella, J dated April 10, 2024; and

(g) Paragraph 6 of the Endorsement of Nakonechny, J. dated December 11, 2024.

[95] On January 14, 2025, I ordered the Respondent to delete any social media posts (i) that refer to the issues in this litigation, (ii) that denigrate the Applicant; or (iii) that refer to the Applicant and/or the Child. I further ordered the Respondent to remove social media posts referencing Mr. Binns and/or the Child including but not limited to the posts made on his Facebook account during the period June 19, 2022 to and including June 27, 2022 under the Facebook aliases “Vladislav Sobolev” and/or “Valdislav Freedom” and under the Instagram alias(es) “coachvlad” and “hugs_overmasks”. I also ordered the Respondent to file a payment plan for outstanding costs and provide financial disclosure.

[96] Through the trial, I gave the Respondent multiple opportunities, court time, and adjournments, to remove the offending social media posts and obey the court orders. The Respondent did remove some of the social media posts but was not able to complete the removal because he said that he does not have the password to access some of the posts. The Respondent did not provide any supporting evidence that he needed the password, that he made attempts to obtain the password, and that he had no other alternate ways to complete the removal of the social media posts.

[97] The Applicant advised the court that she would also take steps to try to remove the social media posts. The Applicant informed the court that she did not have any issue with positive posts about the Child but was concerned about references to the litigation, the dispute between the parties, or to the Applicant and Mr. Binns personally. I also noted during the trial that the Applicant did not seek an order that the Respondent deletes or removes any social media posts referring to the pandemic on its own which the Respondent has claimed is part of his freedom of expression.

[98] The Applicant seeks significant consequences for the Respondent’s failure to obey court orders with respect to the social media posts referencing the Applicant, Mr. Binns, and the litigation. I agree with the Applicant that there must be significant consequences. There have been multiple court orders and multiple opportunities given to the Respondent to comply and obey. I am persuaded that the Respondent’s non-compliance has been deliberate, wilful, and flagrant. The monetary penalty of $100.00 per day payable to the Applicant is reasonable and appropriate. The more significant penalty is the ability of the Applicant to pause the implementation of the reintegration/reunification plan if the Respondent posts any social media about the Applicant, Mr. Binns, or the litigation, or fails to remove such posts. That penalty is justified given the harm caused by the Respondent’s social media posts about the Applicant, Mr. Binns, and the litigation.

[99] The Applicant seeks a further penalty in the form a restraining order against the Respondent from taking any future steps in any proceedings with respect to the Child including but not limited to any appeal of any final order made in this proceeding or any motion to vary any aspect of any order made in this proceeding unless the Respondent receives leave and provides documentary evidence that he is in compliance with court orders. The Respondent submits that a permanent restraining order would negatively impact his job applications. In my view, the penalties imposed are sufficient and a further penalty in the form of a restraining order is unnecessary at this time.

IV. CONCLUSION

[100] It is in the best interests of the Child that the Applicant have primary residence of the Child and sole decision-making responsibility. It is also in the best interests of the Child that the Respondent have parenting time with the Child through a reintegration/reunification process. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant the sum of $500.00 per month, commencing as of February 1, 2025, for child support ($304.00) and section 7 expenses ($196.00) based on an imputed income of $35,000.00. The Respondent shall pay child support arrears in the sum of $17,024.00 from the date of separation to and including January 31, 2025. The Respondent’s share of section 7 expenses is 9.1% and the Applicant’s share is 90.9%. The Respondent shall pay $100.00 per day to the Applicant if he fails to remove social media posts about the Applicant, the litigation, or Mr. Binns. The Applicant may pause the implementation of the reintegration/reunification plan if the Respondent makes any such social media posts or fails to remove such posts.

JUSTICE J.S. SHIN DOI

Released: July 31, 2025 Amended to insert paragraph 2(q) on costs and delete paragraph 101.

COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-00016669-0000

DATE: 20250731

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Adele Tevlin

Applicant

– and –

Vladislav Sobolev

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUSTICE J.S. SHIN DOI

Released: July 31, 2025