Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FS-24-109860-00 Date: August 11, 2025
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
S.M. Applicant
- and -
J.M. Respondent
Counsel:
- Sangar Duraiappah, for the Applicant
- Rick Bickhram, for the Respondent
Heard: July 18, 2025
Reasons for Decision on Interim Parenting Motion
MANDHANE J.
Introduction
[1] The applicant/mother and the respondent/father started living together in May 2004, married in September 2006, and separated in January 2022. They have two children: a son, born 2007; and a daughter, born 2015. The son is seventeen and will be going away to college in September. He has high-functioning autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and anxiety; he is under the care of a hospital psychiatrist and takes daily medication to manage his symptoms. The daughter is ten; while she does not have any diagnosed disabilities, she has acute emotional needs.
[2] The parents appeared before me on an interim parenting motion in relation to the daughter. Determining her best interests is complicated because of the history of family violence: namely, the mother's allegations that the father was physically abusive towards the son in April 2024, and the daughter's revelation in August 2024 that the son had sexually abused her at least once when she was four and he was 11. The allegations of family violence and revelation of sibling sexual abuse completely upended the family's already precarious parenting plan. Before April 2024, the parties were exercising joint decision-making responsibility and equal parenting time pursuant to a separation agreement. As of the hearing of this motion in July 2025, the father and son were estranged, and the mother was only seeing the daughter for nine hours per week with no overnight parenting time. The core of the parents' disagreement stems from the mother's strong desire to work towards family reunification versus the father's allegation that the mother has not adequately prioritized the daughter's psychological safety over her care of the son.
[3] Before me, the parties sought diametrically opposing orders. The mother alleges that the father has used the daughter's revelation of sibling sexual abuse to alienate the daughter from her. She asks me to order reunification therapy, and a "black-out period" of 90 days during which time she would have sole decision-making authority and parenting time, followed by a new parenting regime whereby the daughter would see the father on alternating weekends. The father asks me to order that he have sole decision-making authority, and that the mother continue seeing the daughter twice per week, for a total of nine hours, with no overnight parenting time.
[4] Neither of these proposals are in the daughter's best interests. On the one hand, a reversal of primary parenting time is contrary to the daughter's views and preferences, and would inflame the parental conflict. On the other hand, the current arrangement risks permanently damaging the mother's caregiving relationship with her daughter even though she has never neglected, abused, or otherwise harmed her children. Her deficiencies as a parent stem from the family dynamics and her emotional dysregulation, which are issues that can be addressed in therapy.
[5] As a middle ground, I have adopted elements from both parties' proposals. On an interim basis, it is in the daughter's best interests that the parents continue to have joint decision-making authority, and that they use the services of a parenting coach to resolve any disputes between them. The parents shall also minimize their communication by using a parenting application, and conducting parenting exchanges at school.
[6] Stepping up the mother's parenting time so that she sees the daughter overnight on Wednesdays, and three out of four weekends is also in the daughter's best interests because it will deepen her relationship with the mother while also respecting her strong desire to remain in her father's primary care. The mother shall proactively engage CAS to help her develop a current safety plan. Neither parent shall unreasonably withhold consent to the other party travelling with the daughter within Canada.
[7] I would order two streams of therapy: continuing the SAFE-T therapy focused on the sibling sexual abuse and potential sibling reunification; and starting family therapy, with a focus on family dynamics, emotional regulation, and potential reunification. The parents will follow the recommendations of the family therapist in terms of the therapeutic interventions that may be necessary, including individual therapy for themselves or the children. They shall share the costs proportionally.
Overview
[8] Immediately after separating in January 2022, the parties lived separate and apart in the matrimonial home. In November 2022, the parents moved out of the matrimonial home and signed a comprehensive settlement agreement that gave them equal parenting time with both children on a week about basis. The parents followed the terms of the Separation Agreement for about a year and a half, until April 2024. Around that time, the father and son were in an altercation, the police were involved, and the father stopped exercising his parenting time with the son; the mother continued to see the daughter on a week-about basis pursuant to the separation agreement. The mother commenced a parenting and child support application in the Ontario Court of Justice in April 2024 but later abandoned it.
[9] In August 2024, the daughter disclosed the sibling sexual abuse to the father. The father took the daughter to the police station without telling the mother about the allegations or consulting her about what to do. The mother learned about the allegations from the police. When the police called her, the mother took the son to the police station and was present for his interviews with police and the CAS. While the police did not lay any charges, the CAS supported the family to develop a safety plan whereby the children would have no contact with one another.
[10] From August 2024 onwards, the father withheld the daughter from the mother in breach of the separation agreement. During this time, the father unilaterally selected a psychotherapist recommended by victim support services, Ms. Chloe Brown, to start providing services to the daughter. Around the same time, the father enrolled the daughter in extracurricular activities without informing the mother, including daily martial arts classes immediately after school, and bought her a dog.
[11] In September 2024, the mother commenced this application seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary parenting time in relation to the son, and joint decision-making responsibility and equal parenting time in relation to the daughter. In response, the father brought an urgent motion asking the court to suspend the mother's parenting time with the daughter and to change her school to one that was closer to his home.
[12] The parties appeared for an urgent case conference before Justice Shaw on September 18, 2024. On consent, the court requested that the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) conduct an assessment pursuant to s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. Referring to Ms. Brown, the court noted that the daughter was currently seeing a therapist and emphasized that "both [parents] are entitled to the same information [from the therapist] about [the daughter]." The parties also agreed that "a therapist must be consulted as soon as possible to provide guidance and direction regarding next steps for this family," noting that "reunification therapy may or may not be warranted at this stage." Justice Shaw also encouraged the parties to pursue individual counselling to deal with the daughter's revelations.
[13] On September 26, 2024, the parties returned before Justice Shaw who endorsed that "[t]he parties have agreed on a therapist and will be making arrangements to commence therapy." The parents retained Accendus Group to conduct family therapy. As of October 2, 2024, CAS had verified a single incident of sibling sexual abuse. In its reporting letter, CAS closed its file on the basis that "it is understood that your family is receiving support services that you believe will adequately address your family's needs at this time."
[14] Accendus Group delivered its interim report on November 1, 2024; it recommended that the mother start having overnight parenting time with the daughter immediately. At an appearance on November 18, 2024, the parties confirmed to Justice Shaw that "counselling had commenced and an interim report was produced," and that they had agreed on some daytime parenting time between the mother and daughter which was "meant to be the first step" towards expanded parenting time. The father terminated the family therapy with Accendus Group shortly after receiving the interim report, alleging bias and that it was too expensive.
[15] On December 9, 2024, on consent of the parties, Justice Shaw ordered a step-up parenting time schedule whereby the mother would have equal parenting time with the daughter on an 2-2-5 schedule as of January 2025. Justice Shaw ordered that the son not be present during the mother's parenting time, and that the mother "not initiate any discussions about [the son] with [the daughter] during her parenting time." The mother admits that she has taken calls from the son during her parenting time with the daughter, explaining that her son has high needs and that she cannot simply abandon him. The mother also admits that the daughter inadvertently saw the son once during her parenting time.
[16] The parties were following the schedule ordered by Justice Shaw until the OCL disclosure meeting on January 31, 2025. That is when the parties learned that the OCL would be recommending that the father have sole decision-making authority and primary parenting time with the daughter, without the mother having any overnight parenting time. After the disclosure meeting, the father unilaterally reduced the mother's parenting time, and the mother withdrew her consent to the daughter's therapy with Ms. Brown after alleging bias.
[17] The parties next appeared before Justice Shaw on February 7, 2025, at which time she noted that "the conflict continues and seems to have intensified." The parties were not able to agree on a counsellor for the daughter, with both parents alleging bias. Justice Shaw expressed concern for the trajectory of this family, while also noting that "the OCL report is necessary to address ongoing parenting."
[18] After the last conference with Justice Shaw, the mother agreed to temporarily reduce her parenting time with the daughter consistent with the OCL's recommendation and pending the hearing of this motion. Since February 2025, the mother has been seeing the daughter on Thursday evenings and on Saturdays during the day (for a total of 9 hours per week); she does not have any overnight parenting time.
[19] The OCL delivered its report on March 28, 2025. After receiving it, the parties agreed to follow the OCL's recommendation to start therapy with the SAFE-T Program (Sexual Abuse Family Education, Treatment) at the George Hull Centre. Both parents are actively involved in the SAFE-T therapy, which focuses on addressing the sibling sexual abuse and exploring sibling reunification. The SAFE-T therapy does not offer individual therapy, parent coaching, or address family reunification.
[20] Unfortunately, despite commencing the SAFE-T therapy, the parties' conflict has only intensified in the intervening months. The father refused to give the mother extra parenting time on Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, or on the daughter's birthday. The mother refused to consent to the father taking the daughter on a shopping trip to Buffalo or visiting the extended paternal family in Vancouver, claiming that he was a flight risk. Counsel have become aligned with their clients and enmeshed in the conflict.
[21] The father filed a motion for sole decision-making authority and primary parenting time with the daughter on June 8, 2025; the mother filed her motion the next day. The parties appeared before me to argue the interim parenting motions on July 18, 2025.
[22] The father asks me to order that he have sole decision-making authority, with the mother seeing the daughter twice per week for daytime parenting time. The mother alleges that the father has alienated the daughter from her and seeks an order for reunification therapy and a "black-out period" of 90 days wherein she would have sole decision-making authority and parenting time, followed by a new parenting regime whereby the daughter would live with her primarily and see the father on alternating weekends.
[23] The father says that restriction of the mother's parenting time is necessary because the mother has not prioritized the daughter's psychological safety in the wake of the sibling sexual abuse revelations, because the daughter has not coped well with previous expansions in the mother's parenting time, and because it is consistent with the daughter's views and preferences and the OCL's recommendations. The mother says that the restrictions on her parenting time have already had a negative impact on her relationship with the daughter, especially in terms of her marginalized caregiving role. She says that equal parenting time is in the daughter's best interest because she has a robust safety plan in place, because she is committed to therapeutic reunification with the daughter, and because of the father's history of family violence towards the son.
[24] In addition to the parties' evidence, I also had before me the OCL report prepared by clinician Tricia Ryan, sworn March 26, 2025. The OCL report is based on interviews with the parents, children, and extended family; observational visits between the parents and children; interviews with schools, doctors, health professionals, and social workers supporting the family; review of the Accendus report; review of reports from schools, police, and CAS; and review of court documents. While neither party sought to cross-examine the clinician for the purposes of this motion, they disagree on the weight that I should give the OCL report on an interim motion.
Analysis
[25] The only issue before me is what temporary parenting orders are in the daughter's best interests, pending a full hearing on the merits. To determine this issue, I must answer the following questions:
a) What weight should I give the OCL's conclusions and recommendations on an interim motion?
b) What are the daughter's needs and circumstances?
c) What orders are in the daughter's best interests?
[26] When making parenting orders, I must stay laser-focused on the child's best interests: Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 16(1); Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 24(1). Parental preferences or "rights" play no role except as far as they are necessary to ensure the best interests of the child: Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 74-77, 159, 210. "Past conduct" is not relevant to determining the best interests of the child "unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of the person's decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to the child": CLRA, s. 24(5); Divorce Act, s. 16(5).
[27] There is no presumption in favour of joint parenting time and the term "maximal contact" is not found in the Divorce Act or the Children's Law Reform Act. The legislation states that "in allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child": Divorce Act, s. 16(6); CLRA, s. 24(6). Clearly the idea of a presumption in favour of one type of parenting order is anathema to the court's unrelenting focus on the child's best interests. The most one can say is, all things being equal, the child deserves to have a meaningful and consistent relationship with both of their parents so long as it is in their best interests: E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264, at para. 71.
a) What weight should I give the OCL's conclusions and recommendations on an interim motion?
[28] As a preliminary matter, the parties disagree on the weight that I should give the discussion and recommendations contained in the OCL report. The father says that I should give the discussion and recommendations significant weight after applying the factors set out in Bos v. Bos, 2012 ONSC 3425, at para. 26. The mother says that I must be wary of relying on the OCL's conclusions and recommendations on an interim basis and that I should give the OCL report limited weight after applying the Bos factors.
[29] As a rule, I am caution about relying too heavily on the conclusions and recommendations contained in an OCL report, especially on an interim basis. OCL reports are prepared for the purposes of trial and their authors usually do not face cross-examination on a motion: Calabrese v. Calabrese, 2016 ONSC 3077, at para. 21. Moreover, I cannot assume the trial judge will arrive at the same conclusions as the OCL, especially in a high conflict matter like this one: Batsinda v. Batsinda, 2013 ONSC 7869, at para. 32.
[30] Applying the Bos factors, I refuse to rely on the discussion and recommendations contained at pages 25-29 of the OCL report. First, the status quo itself is a contentious issue that must be decided based on a fulsome evidentiary record. At one level, the change sought by the father and supported by the OCL is consistent with the interim legal and practical status quo. The parents have been abiding by the parenting schedule recommended by the OCL since January 2025, initially because the father changed the schedule unilaterally, and later with the mother's consent. Yet, at another level, the change sought by the father is inconsistent with the status quo as it existed during the marriage and post-separation—the mother was equally involved in both children's lives right up until the revelation of sibling sexual abuse in August 2024, after which the father unilaterally withheld the daughter from her.
[31] Second, the father's evidence does not strongly support the OCL's recommendations because it is counteracted by the mother's evidence. Both parties filed multiple affidavits and voluminous exhibits, and key facts remain in dispute. It is impossible to resolve these credibility issues because there were no cross-examinations, and the parties have not conducted questioning on the pleadings. Moreover, much of the information contained in the affidavits is either irrelevant or inadmissible. For example, I did not consider substantial portions of both parties' affidavits because they contained inadmissible hearsay from the two children, from family members, and from professionals who have treated them over the years. I also ruled at the outset of the hearing that I would not consider portions of the mother's affidavits that revealed the parties' settlement discussions before Justice Shaw. Both parties also sought to rely on hearsay and opinion evidence proffered in the form of expert reports, letters, and notes; they seemed to assume that any frailties would go to weight rather than admissibility. This is incorrect. Hearsay is inadmissible absent an exception, and opinion evidence is inadmissible absent it being necessary and reliable. Bearing this in mind, the Accendus Group report dated November 1, 2024 ("Accendus Report"), SAFE-T Assessment Reports for both children, the letter from the son's psychiatrist, and letters from the CAS and the police are all inadmissible for the truth of their contents or opinions offered.
[32] Moving on to the third criteria from Bos, it is possible to consider parts of the OCL report without relying on the assessor's analysis, conclusions, or recommendations. Indeed, the OCL report contains useful information based on the assessor's personal interactions and observations, and which does not contain double hearsay, her opinions, or her analysis.
[33] Fourth, I find as a fact that the OCL's analysis, discussion, and recommendations are contentious. The mother has an outstanding motion before this court to file her dispute to the OCL report late; she says that she missed the deadline because of her counsel's inadvertence. Meanwhile, the father has refused to consent to late filing and opposes the motion. Given that the OCL recommendations align entirely with the father's position on this motion, I have no trouble concluding that the mother always intended to dispute the OCL report and that she missed the deadline because of inadvertence. The prejudice to her of not being able to file a statement disputing its contents is obvious, which makes the father's refusal to consent to late filing unreasonable. I would grant the mother leave to file her dispute late and, for the purposes of this motion, I accept her evidence that she disputes the contents of the OCL report for the reasons outlined in her affidavits.
[34] After applying the Bos factors, I am not prepared to rely on the assessor's summary of the situation (pp. 2-3), identification of the parenting issues and responses (pp. 10-14), discussion (pp. 25-29), or recommendations (pp. 30-31). I also refuse to rely on the information contained in Appendix B to the OCL report for the truth of its contents because it is inadmissible double hearsay and opinion evidence from community service agencies and professionals that have been involved with the family. That all being said, I am prepared to rely on the following as part of my analysis of the daughter's best interests: the summary of the assessor's interviews with the family members, including the children's stated views and preferences (pp. 4-8, 18-25); the assessor's observations of the parents with the children (pp. 14-17); and the assessor's summary of the parents' views of the children (pp. 17-18, 21).
b) What are the daughter's needs and circumstances?
[35] Having determined the proper weight to give to the OCL report, I turn now to the statutory factors relevant to determining the daughter's needs and circumstances.
Family Violence
[1] "Family violence" is defined broadly in s. 2(1) of the Divorce Act and in s. 18(1) of the CLRA as conduct by a family member towards another family member that is violent, threatening, or that constitutes a pattern of controlling behaviour; 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. Subsection 16(4) of the Divorce Act and s. 24(4) of the CLRA provide guidance about some of the factors I must take into account when determining the impact of "family violence" on children, including: the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence; whether the family violence is directed toward the child; whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence; the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child; any compromise to the safety of the child or other family members; whether the family violence causes the child or other family members to fear for their own safety or for that of another person; and any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring, and improving their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child.
[36] At this point, it is uncontroversial that the son sexually abused the daughter at least once when she was four and he was eleven. It is unclear whether it was a single incident or ongoing, and the parties disagree about the extent to which the mother knew about the abuse when it was happening. The daughter has clearly formed the impression that the mother initially did not believe the allegations, or that she only believed some parts of them. The daughter told the OCL that she recalls telling her mother about the abuse when she was four or five, and her mother minimizing it as "tickling" but also telling the son, who was 11 or 12, to stop. The daughter admitted that she has never talked to the mother about the abuse again, but also explained to the OCL that her mother has been dismissive of her when she has tried to bring it up. The mother says that the daughter never told her about the abuse and that she first found out about it when the father reported it to police. To the extent that these issues may be relevant to parenting, I am not prepared to resolve them on the record before me. They are best explored through therapy, or at trial if truly necessary.
[37] Either way, I am concerned that the mother initially minimized the sibling sexual abuse because it was historic and the children were young, that she made excuses for the son's behaviour based on his age and disabilities, that she minimized the daughter's psychological needs by abruptly terminating her therapy with Ms. Brown, and that she did not take reasonable steps to ensure that the daughter was not exposed to the son during her parenting time. On the other hand, I recognize that the mother has taken many steps to mitigate the risks posed by the son, for example, by supporting his therapy, treatment, and post-secondary education. Overall, the mother seems to have difficulty drawing boundaries when it comes to her parenting role in relation to the son—which makes sense given his high needs—but she must recognize that this has also caused hardship for the daughter. This is something the mother and daughter need to explore in therapy.
[38] Beyond the sibling sexual abuse, the mother alleges that the father engaged in a pattern of physical, emotional, and verbal abuse towards the son, including threatening him with violence, imposing degrading punishment, and choking him in April 2024. The son told the OCL worker the same thing—including showing her the holes the father punched in his bedroom wall, and alleging that the father forced him to sleep on the floor for a month after he broke a household rule. In terms of the April 2024 incident, the son told the OCL that he and his father argued, that his father told him that he was "ruining everything," and that his father choked him and "threw" him around. The father admitted to the OCL that he smashed the son's computer and phone during an argument over his technology use and that, when the son told him to fuck off, the father reacted by "getting physical with him," pressing him up against a wall, and demanding that the son say it again to his face. The father admitted that the son was crying and saying, "you are choking me," but denied that this was true. The father says that the daughter was in the backyard with the dog when this all happened. After the son fled to the mother's workplace, she called the police who eventually attended at the father's home with CAS but did not lay any charges. The father stopped having any parenting time with the son after the April 2024 incident. He says that the son is not welcome in his home anymore and that there is no room for him.
[39] The son told the OCL that he does not want to see his father ever again, that he is not sure whether his father loves him, and that he wants to stay with his mother because she does not get as mad at him. The father says that he wants to have a relationship with the son but that he would "need to answer a lot of tough questions" before they can spend time together. The father seems intent on punishing the son for his conduct in relation to the daughter rather than pursuing therapeutic approaches that are more consistent with his age and stage of development. The father laments that, "no one is making [the son] take responsibility for his behaviour." While the mother sees potential in the son, there is no grey in the father's assessment of him. In his affidavits, the father offers no positive information about the son or their relationship. He repeatedly characterizes the son as an "abuser," as mentally unstable, and as an ongoing risk to the daughter and others. Rather than viewing the son as a child who is struggling, the father accuses him of being manipulative, telling the OCL that the son's autism spectrum disorder "comes out when its convenient for him," and that "he gets a lot of passes."
[40] Since April 2024, the father has also stopped being involved in arranging for therapeutic interventions for the son. This is troubling given the son's diagnosed developmental and mental health disabilities, his relatively young age, and the persistence of his problems. Even if the son refused to see him, I would have expected the father to have been actively involved by supporting the mother and providing information to the son's care team, with the goal of increasing the son's mental well-being and decreasing his risk to others. To date, he has left this responsibility solely to the mother.
[41] While the nature and extent of the father's violent behaviour towards the son is best explored at trial, on the record before me, I find that the father has engaged in emotional abuse and physical violence in relation to the son, that he has neglected the son's mental health disabilities, and that his disdain and animosity towards the son has exacerbated the son's problems. While the father seems to believe that his behaviour towards the son is irrelevant to my assessment of his parenting abilities in relation to the daughter, I disagree. I must assess each party's parenting ability's wholistically. I cannot judge a parent's caregiving abilities based solely on their actions towards the favoured or "easy" child; it is important to also consider how they have cared for the less favoured or "difficult" child. Here, the father's behaviour towards the son shows that he does not properly understand his parenting role, that he makes poor parenting decisions when under stress or directly challenged, and that he is resistant to family reunification. I have concerns that the father will not be able to manage the daughter's psychological needs effectively if they start to manifest themselves in more defiant behaviours as she matures into adolescence.
[42] The parties disagree about whether the mother was the children's primary caregiver during the marriage, or whether the father was an equal caregiver. Suffice it to say that the parties were both working outside the home during the marriage, and they continued to live together with the children in the matrimonial home for a year post-separation. After separation, they agreed to joint decision-making and equal parenting time, and abided by that agreement until the April 2024 incident.
[43] Determining the interim status quo is not straight-forward. After the April 2024 incident, the mother was caring for the son by herself, and the father admits to effectively relinquishing his parenting role. He says that he is simply respecting the son's preference not to see him or to reconcile. After the daughter's revelation of sibling sexual abuse in August 2024, the father became more involved in the daughter's day-to-day care because he refused to allow the mother to have any parenting time until November 2024. After November 2024, Justice Shaw stepped up the mother's parenting time. However, the father unilaterally decreased the mother's parenting time again in January 2025, which the mother consented to in April 2025.
[44] Since August 2024, the father has made major decisions about the daughter's care, for example, by immediately reporting the sibling sexual abuse to the police without first advising or consulting the mother, by enrolling the child in therapy with Ms. Brown, by enrolling the child in Girl Guides and martial arts, and by buying her a dog.
Each parent's willingness to support a relationship with the other parent
[45] The mother alleges that the father has used the revelations of sibling sexual abuse to alienate the daughter from her. While there is no evidence of alienation before me, I am certainly concerned that the father has not been supportive of the mother's relationship with the daughter since August 2024. First, it was completely unacceptable for the father to report the sibling sexual abuse to the police without consulting the mother, and then withholding parenting time from the mother for more than three months in clear breach of the Separation Agreement and without a court order. Throughout August, the mother proposed parenting plans that ensured that the children would not be exposed to one another; the father rejected each of her proposals. He rejected her proposal that they exchange the children on alternating weeks on the basis that he refused to have the son in his home. He refused her proposal to have the son stay with the maternal grandparents while the daughter was with her. The father demanded that a third party supervise the mother's parenting time, despite CAS never finding either parent to pose a risk of harm to the daughter. The mother eventually filed this urgent motion for parenting time with the daughter. Since doing so, the father has continued to minimize the mother's parenting role.
[46] While the father says that he is committed to family reunification, his actions say otherwise. The father unilaterally withdrew from the family therapy with Accendus Group after receiving their interim recommendations but before the mother had any joint sessions with the daughter. The father has not enrolled in any therapy focused on reunification with the son, or to assist with the daughter's reunification with the mother. Moreover, the father breached Justice Shaw's interim, interim parenting orders, which were made with his consent, by refusing to step up the mother's parenting time after receiving the OCL report.
[47] At the same time, the mother is also not supportive of the father's parenting role. On this motion, she seeks a complete reversal of parenting time, which seems designed to punish the father rather than meet the daughter's needs. She has refused to consent to the father taking the child on a Girl Guides camping trip, or to see his family in Vancouver. She is paranoid about the role that the father's new partner is playing in the daughter's life, even though the new partner and daughter are bonded.
The parents' ability to communicate
[48] What is most apparent is that the parents have lost sight of the extent to which their conflict is causing emotional distress in both their children. The son told the OCL that that his parents fought all the time when they were living together and that, when they fought, they would get madder at him. Since the parties started living separately, the son has struggled to manage his emotions and has threatened self-harm. Immediately after the April 2024 incident, the father had the son admitted into hospital. The son says that he feels caught in the middle of the conflict and that he has trouble understanding both of his parents' points of view, including in relation to this motion.
[49] Meanwhile, the daughter told the OCL that she remembers isolating herself in her room when her parents used to fight, which happened every day or at least weekly. She appears to blame herself for their fighting, telling the OCL that she tried to intervene but was unable to stop it. The daughter does not know why the relationship ended, but said that she is happier now that her parents have separated. The daughter feels uncomfortable when her mother puts her in the middle of the parental conflict, for example, by "asking her to ask her father about adding more time." She feels that the parents should be able to sort out these issues amongst themselves. She wishes that her parents could be friends, that they would not argue, and that they would respect her wishes in terms of parenting time. She wonders why her mother consistently talks badly about the father and why she will not let her go on trips with him.
The daughter's views and preferences
[50] The OCL interviewed the daughter on November 22, 2024. At that time, the daughter told the OCL that she had recently started seeing her mother again which was "good." She rated her time with her mother as a five out of ten, and her time with her father as a ten out of ten. At the second interview on December 12, the daughter had started seeing her mother more, and now rated her time with her mother as seven out of ten. She said that the rating went up because they spent time with the mother's extended family in Huntsville. She expressed wanting to do more activities with her mother during their parenting time.
[51] The daughter told the OCL that the hardest thing since separation is her mother thinking she knows what the daughter wants in relation to parenting time. She says that the mother assumes that she wants equal parenting time with both parents, when she only wants to see her mother three or four evenings per week, and for a few hours on the weekend. She is worried about spending long periods of time with her mother unless there is a special activity, such as a movie, a playdate, or dinner. She does not want to have any sleepovers at the mother's house because she is afraid that the son might be there and hurt her. She is fine to sleep at the mother's house if the son was away from the house. She wishes that the mother could promise to keep her safe but she never does that.
[52] The daughter told the OCL that she does not feel comfortable asking the mother questions because she notices that whenever she brings up a difficult subject, her mother will give her a "weird look," after which she would tell her mother that she forgot what she wanted to talk about. She says that you can only talk about happy things with the mother. In contrast, she says that she feels like she can talk to the father more freely. She said that she likes living at her father's house because she can see her friends more, and because the son is not there. She said that there are more rules and discipline at her mother's house versus her father's. That said, at one point in the interview, the daughter admitted that she misses her mother's house.
[53] The daughter told the OCL that she does not want to have any contact with the son. She felt scared when the mother continued to answer the son's calls during their parenting time, and wondered why she could not tell the son that she was not available to talk to him. The daughter knows that the mother wants her to start seeing the son again, but that she is scared about having any physical contact with him because he might hurt her again. She feels guilty that she does not want to see the son, but says that he is "not nice," and that he once pulled a knife out and put it close to her eyes while smiling. She also recalled that the son would play rough with her and that, if she would start crying, he would make fun of her. The daughter told the OCL that the son's inappropriate behaviour towards her was frequent and would happen in the basement of the home.
The daughter's needs and each party's ability to meet them
[54] The daughter urgently needs therapeutic interventions focused on the sibling sexual abuse and the family dynamics. While both parents have recently prioritized the SAFE-T programming to address the sibling sexual abuse, there are currently no therapeutic interventions in place to address the daughter's psychological needs around the family dynamics. Neither parent has been able to meet the child's needs in this area: the mother has not supported the daughter's therapeutic relationship with Ms. Brown, the father has not supported the family reunification interventions recommended by the Accendus Group, and the parties have never engaged a coordinator or coach to help them rebuilt their parenting relationship.
[55] The daughter needs a living environment that is safe and in which she will not come into inadvertence contact, whether directly or indirectly, with the son. Without a doubt, the father has been more successful in terms of ensuring the daughter's psychological safety in this regard—he has done so by cutting off all contact with the son, and making it clear that the son is unwelcome in his home. While the mother says that she has consistently tried to meet the daughter's needs, the record is a bit more complicated. While she has worked with CAS to develop and implement a safety plan whereby the daughter would not be exposed to the son at all, she has not always abided by the plan. The daughter told the OCL about numerous times when the mother answered calls from the son in her presence, and when she inadvertently saw the son. While I am sympathetic to the mother who feels caught between two children who both have high needs, she could have avoided these situations through planning and clear communication in advance with both children.
[56] The daughter needs the parents to minimize their ongoing conflict, and reduce her exposure to it. Both parents have contributed to the ongoing conflict, and neither party seems to have done much to reduce it. The mother continues to denigrate the father to the daughter, which is causing her significant distress. The father continues to breach court orders which further inflames the parental conflict. As a first step, the parents need to limit their contact and communication to therapeutic settings or parenting coaching sessions.
[57] In relation to her parents, the daughter needs to feel like she has a voice, that she is heard, and that she is believed. The father has a close relationship with the daughter and meets her needs in this regard. Yet, I am concerned that he has done so by spoiling the child (for example, buying her a dog), by failing to impost adequate discipline or boundaries (for example, encouraging the daughter to call his new partner, "mom"), and by relinquishing his parental responsibilities towards the son. While these approaches may win the daughter's trust in the short term, I am concerned about the long-term impact on their relationship.
[58] For her part, the mother has struggled to meet the daughter's emotional needs since her revelations of sibling sexual abuse. The mother has felt torn between her obligations to both children, and had found it difficult to validate the daughter's experiences and emotions. In my view, the mother's own emotional dysregulation as gotten in the way of her being able to centre and meet her child's needs.
c) What orders are in the child's best interests?
[59] To judicially determine a child's best interests, 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": Divorce Act, s. 16(2); CLRA, s. 24(2).
[60] Based on my analysis of the statutory factors, I find that daughter's direct experience of violence and her exposure to it favours crafting an interim order that: gives significant weight to her views and preferences, offers stability in terms of her day-to-day life, minimizing the conflict between her parents, strengthens her relationship with he mother over time, and prioritizes therapeutic intervention interventions over legal ones.
Decision-making responsibility
[61] On an interim basis, it is in the daughter's best interests that the parents continue to have joint decision-making responsibility. I am very concerned that the father has made decisions unilaterally and without consulting the mother in the absence of any court order granting him sole decision-making authority. More troublingly, the father has cast the mother as the bad guy because she has not agreed to his decisions after the fact (for example, the therapy with Ms. Brown, or the Girl Guides trip). The father has also made poor decisions. I am concerned that the father has not been supportive of family therapy which is clearly in the child's best interests. It is unrealistic to expect that the two sides of the family will simply go their separate ways given the young ages of the children. The father's decision to terminate the therapy with the Accendus Group seemed motivated by his own self-interest rather than the daughter's needs. Finally, I am concerned about the father's decision-making in relation to the son which suggests that he does not make child-focused decisions when under stress or challenged.
[62] On the other hand, the mother has never neglected or abused the children. She has made good parenting decisions in relation to the son. Her main issue is her own emotional dysregulation in the wake of this family crisis and her inability to validate her daughter's emotions. She is clearly feeling extremely worried about the prospect of losing her caregiving role. While this is understandable, the Mother has started to make poor decisions as a result—for example, by abruptly terminating the therapy with Ms. Brown, and refusing to consent to the overnight Girl Guides trip.
[63] Given the problems with the parental decision-making to date, the parents are more likely to make child-focused decisions if they arrive at those decisions together. I am confident that, the parents can overcome their respective flaws by addressing their issues in therapy and using the services of a parenting coach.
Parenting coach
[64] Of course, I am mindful that forcing the parents to make decisions jointly could inflame their conflict which is not in the daughter's best interests. Therefore, the parties shall immediately retain and participate in parent coaching services, and shall provide proof of the same before seeking any relief before this court. A parenting coach can provide guidance on the selection of the family therapist, on parenting challenges, and can help with managing conflict. The parents shall provide the parenting coach with a copy of the OCL Report, the endorsements and orders in this matter, and a copy of this decision. The parents shall share the cost of the parent coaching proportionally.
[65] Effective immediately, the parties shall also communicate through a third-party application, and only about the safety and wellbeing of the children. The parties shall obtain information about the children directly from schools, doctors, and therapists.
Therapeutic interventions
[66] Therapy is the proper milieu to address the family's complex emotional and psychological needs. The party's should spend their limited resources on therapy not litigation. To that end, I would order two streams of therapy that should commence immediately. First, the family shall continue to participate in the SAFE-T program and follow the advice of the team.
[67] Second, the parents shall immediately retain a family therapist (other than the Accendus Group) to provide therapy focused on family dynamics, emotional regulation, and potential reunification. The parents will follow the recommendations of the family therapist in terms of any other therapeutic interventions that may be necessary, including individual therapy for themselves or the children. Neither party shall unilaterally discontinue family therapy unless it is recommended by the treating therapist, or doing so is on consent of both parties. The parties shall share the costs of family therapy and any individual therapy that is recommended proportionally.
[68] The parents shall provide the SAFE-T team and the family therapist with a copy of the OCL Report, the endorsements and orders in this matter, and a copy of this decision. The parents shall fill out all necessary consents to allow the parenting coach, SAFE-T team, and family therapist to communicate freely with one another to best support the family.
Parenting time
[69] Finally, on the most contentious issue of parenting time, it is in the daughter's best interests to have expanded parenting time with the mother, including overnight parenting time. While the daughter says that she does not want to have overnight parenting time with the mother, I note that her main concerns relate to the lack of open communication with the mother and the potential for exposure to the son, and that her views of her mother became more positive after she spent more time with her. These factors make me think that a gradual expansion in parenting time, with the appropriate therapeutic interventions and safety plans in place, could mitigate the daughter's concerns and allow her to have a deeper relationship with the mother. This is especially the case since the son will be away at college as of September 2025. On the other hand, I find that a complete reversal of primary parenting time would be counter-productive because it does not align with the daughter's strong views and references and might make the daughter more resentful of the mother in the long run.
[70] Pending trial or further court order, the father shall continue to have primary parenting time with the daughter. The mother's parenting time shall be expanded as follows:
a) The mother shall immediately consult the CAS to assist her with developing and implementing a safety plan; pending its completion, the mother shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the daughter is not exposed to the son during her parenting time, whether directly or indirectly;
b) The mother shall have overnight parenting time from Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to Thursday, August 14, 2025 at 11:00 a.m., which shall include a special outing – for example, a dinner, movie, or playdate.
c) The mother shall have overnight parenting time from Saturday, August 23, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, August 24, 2025 at 11:00 a.m., which shall include a special outing – for example, a dinner, a movie, a playdate.
d) The mother shall have overnight parenting time with the daughter from Friday, August 29, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., until school drop off on Tuesday, September 2, 2025.
e) Commencing September 9, 2025, the mother shall have overnight parenting time with the daughter three out of four weekends from Fridays after school to Monday school drop-off. For clarity, the mother shall have parenting time the weekends of August 29 through September 2, September 5 to 8, September 12 to 15, and the father will have parenting time during the weekend of September 19 to 22.
f) The parents shall facilitate the daughter's attendance at school, extracurricular activities, and therapy appointments during their parenting time.
g) The daughter shall be able to contact either parent at her sole discretion during the other parent's parenting time.
[71] The daughter shall continue attending her current school, and parenting drop offs and pick ups should take place at school whenever possible. If it is not possible, the parents should arrange to exchange the daughter at a neutral public location, such as a coffee shop or gas station. The parents should avoid attending at each other's homes.
[72] Neither parent poses a flight risk and the travel they have proposed to date has revolved around family gatherings or extracurricular activities. These types of trips are in the daughter's best interests. The parents can travel within Canada with the daughter with consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Costs
[73] Success was divided. No costs.
Next Steps
[74] I remain seized pending issuance of the temporary parenting order.
[75] The mother has leave to file her dispute to the OCL report on or before August 22, 2025.
[76] The parties shall schedule a settlement conference.
Mandhane J.
Released: August 11, 2025