Meghan Deschamps v. William Deschamps

Court File No.: FC-20-5
Date: August 18, 2025
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Re: Meghan Deschamps, Applicant

-and-

William Deschamps, Respondent

Counsel:

• Kellie Stewart, for the Applicant
• William Deschamps, Self-represented

Heard: June 2-6, 2025, June 10-11, 2025, June 16, 17, and 19, 2025

Trial Decision

Justice J. Audet

Introduction

[1] The main focus of this trial, which proceeded virtually, for half days only, and for a period of three weeks, was the parenting arrangements that would be best for the parties' two children, Cadence (now 13) and Elara (now 9). There also remained the issue of child support from January 2020 onward, the father's claim for spousal support, and some focused property issues.

[2] Because the issue of parenting is most pressing due to many things, including the start of the children's school year which is coming up in a month, I am releasing this trial decision in two parts: the first part below focuses on parenting issues and the second part, to be released later, will deal with financial issues.

Background

[3] The parties met and started dating in 2005. They married on June 6, 2009.

[4] The father has a history of childhood trauma which resulted in various diagnosis including depression, anxiety, and PTSD. He went into foster care at the age of ten, after his father physically assaulted him causing him to run away. He explained that his father was an abusive alcoholic who died from a brain aneurysm when he was fourteen years old. As a result, the father spent most of his young life in foster care, with a few short stays at the Royal Ottawa Hospital, Robert Smart Cottages, in a number of group homes, and in detention centers. The father has an extensive criminal history for violent offences, including domestic assaults and multiple breaches of condition, dating back to 1999. He has an older sister with whom he is not very close. He does not currently have a relationship with his mother, or other members of his extended family.

[5] The father has three older children from earlier relationships who are now adults, and with whom he has little contact, if any. Following his separation from the mother, he became romantically involved with Ms. Nance, with whom he now has a three-year old daughter, Harley. He is no longer in a relationship with Ms. Nance, but he says that they have an amicable co-parenting relationship, and he has regular weekly parenting time with Harley.

[6] The father did not obtain a high school diploma, but he obtained his DZ driver's license and was employed as a truck driver for over twelve years, until the parties were in a car accident in 2012 which left them both with significant injuries. The father has not been employed in any capacity since 2012.

[7] The mother studied in Police Foundations at Algonquin College. While working two part time jobs, she eventually graduated from Carleton University with a Bachelors of Arts Degree in Criminology and Psychology. She worked as a constable at the House of Commons and as an armed bodyguard for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

[8] As will be discussed at more length below, the parties' relationship was plagued with significant and serious family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother, which significantly increased over the years. The mother reported having been estranged from her family due to the father's volatile behavior towards them. Although she was close to her family before marrying the father, during most of the parties' marriage the mother was estranged from them. She reconnected with her family post-separation and says that she currently enjoys a supportive relationship with them. She also re-partnered three years ago with Mr. Abourizk, with whom she has a one-year-old son.

[9] In November 2012, the parties were in a motor vehicle accident which left them both with serious injuries and the father with brain injuries. The father was required to undergo multiple surgeries and both parties continued to suffer from chronic pain, depression, anxiety, and PTSD. The parties were in a subsequent motor vehicle accident in March 2015, following which the mother was not seriously injured but the father sustained further serious injuries. Both parties stopped working following the 2012 accident, but the mother eventually returned to work in February 2017 as Committee Assistant for the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, at a much reduced income than what she was earning before the accident.

[10] As a result of the 2012 accident, the father was deemed catastrophically injured. In addition to these two motor vehicle accidents which resulted in acquired brain injuries, the father had suffered several concussions over his lifetime. He was placed in the care of a psychiatrist to stabilize on mood stabilizer due to Anti-Social Personality Disorder and mild\moderate neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury. The father never returned to the workforce after his 2012 accident.

[11] The mother's evidence, which was not seriously disputed at trial, is that the 2012 car accident affected the father's already limited ability to regulate his emotions, and he became more angry and violent, showing signs of extreme paranoia and anxiety. In the years that followed, and to this day, the father's pre-existing propensity for violence towards the mother gradually escalated. This was clearly evidenced by the multiple police and child protection interventions with this family over the years since 2012, which post-separation took an exponential turn.

[12] The parties' children, Cadence and Elara, were born in March 2012 and February 2016, respectively. The mother took a one-year maternity leave after Cadence's birth, which became a long-term disability leave after the 2012 accident that occurred when Cadence was eight-months old. The children lived with both parents in their family home in Kanata until the parties separated for a final time on August 1, 2019. After the parties' separation, the mother moved into a rental home in Kanata while the children remained in their father's care in the matrimonial home.

[13] The mother testified that removing herself from the toxic relationship, to regain her confidence and strength, was the first step to extricate herself from the cycle of violence in which she had been caught for fourteen years. After the mother moved into her own rental accommodations in Kanata, the father withheld the children and refused to allow the mother to leave the matrimonial home with them. Therefore, to see and parent the children, the mother was forced to spend time at the matrimonial home, where she would cook them dinner, clean the home and make the children's lunches. Between September and December 2019, during which the father would only permit the mother to see the children if she came to his home, she spent weekends sleeping on the couch to spend time with them. On November 29, 2019, the matrimonial home was sold, and the father purchased his own home in Almonte, where he and the children moved, resulting in a change of school for the children. It is not disputed that the father's move to Almonte with the children had not been previously discussed with, or consented to by, the mother.

[14] The violence between the parties escalated in late Fall 2019. The mother reported an incident in late November where the father became upset at her for leaving his home and vandalized her vehicle. On December 8, 2019, the father was arrested on two counts of mischief, forcible confinement, and criminal harassment.

[15] Despite the no-contact conditions in place, the parties continued to have contact for the purpose of allowing the children to see their father. The children were exposed to significant parental conflict each time the parties had contact for the purpose of exchanges or to allow the father to see the children. There was another domestic incident on December 20, 2019, during which the mother sustained a small fracture to her right ring finger while attempting to grab one of the children out of the father's arms.

[16] Then on December 28, 2019, the father was arrested again after a verbal altercation with the mother, following which he refused to return the children (who at the time were 3 and 7 years old) to her as agreed, and engaged in a high-speed police chase with the children in his vehicle. In February 2020, the father received a six-month conditional sentence which again included no-contact provisions.

[17] Following that incident, the children remained in the mother's primary care.

[18] This legal proceeding was commenced on January 2, 2020, on the eve of the father's release from jail, with the mother bringing an urgent motion without notice seeking a parenting order in her favor, no parenting time between the children and their father, and a restraining order. On that day, MacEachern J. granted the orders sought by the mother, on a temporary without prejudice basis, and required the motion to return before the Court within 14 days, once the father was served.

[19] On January 9, 2020, the mother filed an application seeking a divorce, sole decision-making responsibility and primary care of the children, supervised parenting time for the father, as well as the equalization of the parties' net family property and child support.

[20] On February 20, 2020, the father filed his Answer seeking a shared parenting arrangement, joint decision-making responsibility, child and spousal support, as well as the equalization of the parties' net family property.

[21] On February 6, 2020, the parties consented to an interim, interim, without prejudice order terminating the January 2nd restraining order and providing for parenting time between the children and the father once per week on Sundays, for three to four hours, supervised by a neutral third party or a private supervision service, as well as telephone access every day.

[22] On July 28, 2020, Engelking J. appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer ("OCL") to provide such service(s) as it deemed appropriate. On September 23, 2020, the OCL consented to providing a clinical investigator pursuant to s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. Ms. Nadine Crowley was appointed as clinician, and she began her investigation.

[23] On September 10, 2020, in the context of the parties' first case conference, they consented to an interim, without prejudice increase in the father's parenting time, adding a mid-week visit after school for two hours, supervised by Brayden Supervision at the father's home or in the community. Mackinnon J., who presided on that day, appointed herself case management judge.

[24] On January 19, 2021, Ms. Crowley released her investigation report. The content of her report will be discussed in more detail below. Based on all the information obtained during her investigation, she recommended sole decision-making responsibility and primary care of the children to their mother, with the father having parenting time on Thursdays for 3.5 hours after school, and on Sundays from 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., fully supervised. She also made many recommendations in relation to counselling services to be obtained by both parties, as well as programming.

[25] There were a few conferences heard in 2021 and in 2022, to resolve interim issues and deal with financial disclosure. On January 18, 2022, the parties consented to an interim, without prejudice order increasing the father's parenting time with the children and removing the need for supervision. The father's parenting time was thereby extended to every other weekend, from Friday after school to Sunday at 7 p.m., as well as every Wednesday from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

[26] On April 22, 2022, the matter was placed on the January 2023 Trial List.

[27] By the time the Trial Management Conference was heard by MacEachern J. on November 18, 2022, both parties were self-represented. For all the reasons set out in her lengthy endorsement of that day, MacEachern J. removed the matter from the January 2023 Trial List because it was simply not ready for trial. During two subsequent Trial Management Conferences heard on December 2, 2022, and May 5, 2023, the matter was pushed to the September 2023 Trial List.

[28] At each of these Trial Management Conferences, the father sought significant accommodations for the trial (such as requiring no more than three hours of trial per day) and sought adjournments to allow him to secure counsel. Given that the father was not providing the medical disclosure required to support his requests for accommodations, neither was granted to him.

[29] The trial initially began on September 18, 2023, before Shelston J. However, it became clear after only two days that the trial could not proceed and would need to be adjourned again. Among other things, the mother had served her voluminous Books of Exhibits only a few days before the beginning of the trial, and the father, who did not have a computer, had not been able to review the documentary evidence they contained. Further, there was significant financial disclosure that the father still had not produced, and which was ordered to be produced forthwith.

[30] At the time the trial began in September 2023, the mother had unilaterally suspended the father's parenting time with the children. Previously, the parties had agreed, without court intervention, that the children would share their summer vacation equally between their parents, on a week-about basis. This summer parenting regime had been in place since July.

[31] The mother's unilateral suspension of the father's parenting time followed her attendance at the father's guilty plea hearing, held on August 21, 2023, in relation to criminal charges laid against him following an incident of family violence between the father and his then partner, Ms. Nance, which had occurred in December 2022. During that hearing, the mother became aware of the nature and seriousness of the father's assault on Ms. Nance, the details of which were presented to the court by way of Agreed Statement of Facts. Although charged with three counts of assaults against Ms. Nance, as well as one count of unlawful confinement, and one count of harassment, based on the facts he admitted which were read into court, the father pled guilty to one count of assault and one count of unlawful confinement.

[32] Given the mother's unilateral denial of parenting time contrary to a consent court order, at the time he adjourned the September 2023 trial Shelston J. gave the father leave to bring an urgent motion to address his parenting time pending the resumption of the trial, which was placed on the November 2023 Trial List.

[33] The father did not bring his urgent motion to deal with parenting time promptly. Instead, and with less than two weeks' notice, he tried to bring his motion at procedural motions' court on November 14, 2023. It was not permitted to proceed on that day, for many reasons, including that it was not a procedural motion.

[34] When the trial resumed on November 28, 2023, it became clear to Shelston J., given the father's conduct on that day, that his mental health prevented him from representing himself at trial. As a result, he requested that the Public Guardian and Trustee investigate legal representation for the father in this litigation. The trial was postponed once more.

[35] On December 5, 2023, and based on affidavits filed by both parties, Shelston J. made a temporary, without prejudice order restraining the parties from communicating with each other except to arrange virtual visits between the father and the children, and from being within 100 meters of one another. He added:

On the issue of parenting time, based on my own observations of the respondent's behaviour on November 27 and November 28, 2023, as well as reading the affidavit material filed by the applicant and the respondent's material filed before Associate Justice Fortier, on a temporary and without prejudice basis, I grant to the respondent supervised access to both children every Sunday for two hours through the Family Services Ottawa, the Muslim Family Services or through a private supervisory company such as Brayden or Renew. The costs of any such supervised access are to be shared by the parties. In addition to the zoom parenting time, I order that the children shall call the respondent on Mondays and Fridays at 6:30 PM for up to 40 minutes. If the respondent's parenting time is not followed by the applicant, the respondent may contact the Trial Coordinator's Office to schedule an urgent case conference before me.

The applicant has requested an order that she did not have disclose to the respondent the address of her residence if she moves from her current residence. On a temporary without prejudice basis, I grant that relief and order that the applicant shall not be permitted to change her residence without order of this court.

[36] Also on that day, and following receipt of a response from the Public Trustee and Guardian, Shelston J. invited the Attorney General and Legal Aid Ontario to make submissions with respect to his suggestion that Amicus be appointed for the father. This suggestion was based on his conclusion that the father was capable of making decisions and providing instructions to counsel, but that he was unable to represent himself in this trial. As per Shelston J.:

In my view, the respondent is able to make decisions regarding his position on the various issues before the court but that he cannot present his evidence dealing with parenting issues, income and property issues without significant assistance.

The respondent has been without counsel since spring 2022. He has on numerous occasions since that time indicated he is unable to represent himself as a result of sustaining a catastrophic brain injury in 2012. In this case, there are parenting issues, income determination issues and equalization of the net family property issues, including the applicant's claim to include the settlements related to the respondent's various injuries. All of these issues are serious and complex issues and the respondent's capacity to self represent is limited.

[37] When the parties re-appeared before Shelston J. on December 15, 2023, the Court was informed that after only one supervised visit, Renew Supervision had discontinued its services because the father had exhibited a condescending tone, raised his voice, and displayed a threatening demeanor. The father's behavior in court that day was consistent with this behavior. As a result, Shelston J. scheduled a motion to proceed before him on December 21, 2023, to deal with the father's parenting time pending trial.

[38] As the parties experienced challenges in locating a supervision service willing to supervise the father's parenting time, and the father was trying to get legal representation through Legal Aid, the motion was only heard on January 8, 2024. However, between December 21, 2023, and January 31, 2024, Shelston J. conducted several conferences to deal with various issues, including legal representation for the father and trial issues.

[39] At a hearing on January 8, 2024, the mother – who had re-partnered – advised that she was due to give birth on April 10, 2024. As a result, the trial was removed from the May 2024 Trial Sittings and added to the September 2024 Trial Sittings. At a hearing on January 31, 2024, the mother presented a motion seeking various relief, including the re-appointment of the OCL and permission to relocate from Kanata to Orleans with the children, as her home had been sold (or was being sold) and she wanted to move in with her new partner in Orleans. That motion was ultimately adjourned to March 18, 2024.

[40] In addition, having received the notes from the father's supervised visits with the children, Shelston J. reinstated the father's unsupervised parenting time as per the consent interim without prejudice order made on January 18, 2022 (providing the father with unsupervised parenting time every other weekend from Friday to Sunday, as well as every Wednesday from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.), to be gradually increased to that level over the course of four weeks.

[41] It is important to note that, during that particular appearance, Shelton J. made the following observations:

I accept that this is a high conflict parenting dispute which is highlighted by dysfunctional behavior by both parties, both in court and in virtual hearings. The parties yell at each other, interrupt each other, and show little respect for the court process or for this court.

I find that there is no reason for the respondent to continue to have limited supervised parenting time regarding his children. I find that the applicant has not facilitated the implementation of a gradual supervised parenting schedule. I originally suspended the respondent's parenting time as a result of his outburst in court on November 28, 2023, but find that over the recent conferences, he has properly addressed the court, been respectful and has indicated his sole desire to spend more time with his children.

[42] At a trial management conference held on March 26, 2024, Shelston J. advised the parties of his intention to bring a motion on April 4, 2024, seeking the appointment of Amicus for the father.

[43] On April 4, 2024, on consent of the parties and with the presence of counsel for both the Attorney General and Legal Aid, Amicus was appointed for the father. In the context of that hearing, the mother raised the issue of Amicus being appointed for her as well. Shelston J.'s lengthy endorsement on this issue can be summarized by the following excerpt:

The court is aware of the appointment of amicus is extraordinary and rare, but the court is of the view that while the respondent will have amicus, the court is seriously concerned about the applicant's ability to properly present her evidence including the allegations of domestic violence considering the mental health issues set out in the psychotherapist report. The court seeks a fair trial where both parties can have the relevant presented and this court is concerned about the applicant's ability to properly advocate for herself.

The court has attempted to intervene to focus the parties on the issues before the court, but to date, success has not been achieved.

[44] Shelston J. adjourned the motion to allow the Attorney General and Legal Aid to consider his request, and to make submissions. On April 8, 2024, when the motion returned before the Court, the Attorney General advised that if Amicus was to be appointed for the mother as well, then one Amicus would be appointed as friend of the court for both parties to assist them in presenting their evidence to the court. At that point, the father objected to Amicus being appointed for him at all and expressed the wish for Legal Aid to provide him with his own lawyer. Shelston J. refused his request, and stated:

The respondent indicates he may be entitled to further legal aid. However, the evidence before this court is that he was initially denied legal aid, his appeal was denied, and he still does not have counsel with the trial being five months away.

During the motion, the respondent raised his voice, refused direction to stop arguing and conducted himself in the same manner that caused me to adjourn the trial on November 28th, 2023. I also observed the respondent's conduct was causing significant stress to the applicant, which also I observed at the trial on November 27-28, 2023. The conduct of the respondent and the applicant's response confirms that Amicus must appointed so that the evidence can be presented at trial.

[45] At the end of May 2024, Ms. Sharp was appointed as Amicus for both parties. On July 5, 2024, Shelston J. heard a motion to deal with various issues. He was of the view that the children's best interests required the re-involvement of the OCL to provide an updated s. 112 investigation report because three years had passed since the first investigation was completed, there were significant changes in circumstances affecting the children (including the mother's re-partnering, new baby and her wish to relocate with the children to Orleans), and that the respondent's mental health status was a significant factor for which no information was being provided from the father or his health professionals, despite numerous court orders requiring him to do so.

[46] In addition, Shelston J. dealt with the mother's request to relocate with the children to Orleans and denied same. By then, the mother had already sold her home in Kanata with a closing date of August 15, 2024, and was in the process of moving in with her new partner in their new home in Orleans (Mr. Abourizk's childhood home, which the parties purchased from his parents). Shelston J. stated:

29. The issue of the applicant's request to move from Kanata has been before the court since January 2024. After Amicus was appointed, during a teleconference with the parties, the issue of the applicant moving to Orleans was identified as a triable issue and one that must proceed to trial in September for the court to receive all the relevant evidence to determine what is in the best interests of these two children.

30. While the court cannot prevent the sale of the applicant's home and her move to Orleans, her unilateral action is not condoned by this court. At the trial, the court will take into consideration the applicant's unilateral action and its effect on the children's relationship with her father.

31. Consequently, I adjourn the applicant's motion for permission to move to Orleans to trial. The move to Orleans is a significant material change in circumstances that will inevitably influence the respondent's parenting time.

[47] On the issue of the father's summer parenting time with the children, Shelston J. concluded that, while the parties' relationship was volatile and dysfunctional, there was no evidence presented that there was any issue in relation to the father's parenting time since it was reinstated in February 2024, or that the children did not enjoy their time with their father. As a result, an equal parenting time schedule was ordered for the summer months (on a week-about basis), as the parties had agreed to do over the past two years, with the father's regular parenting schedule resuming in the Fall (every other weekend and Wednesdays after school).

[48] Finally, Shelston J. denied the mother's request for significant medical evidence from the father's treating physicians, not because it was irrelevant, but mainly because he had appointed the OCL for an updated investigation report, and he concluded that the father's medical evidence would be obtained and explored within the context of the investigation. He did, however, make an extensive disclosure order against the father who had still not complied with several detailed disclosure orders previously made.

[49] Based on all the above, the matter was once again removed from the September 2024 Trial List, and provisionally added to the November 2024 Trial List, subject to the OCL's response and ability to complete an updated report by then.

[50] By the Fall 2024, the OCL confirmed that it would not provide an updated investigation report but would appoint counsel to represent the two children, with the assistance of a clinician if needed. Also, due to serious health issues, Ms. Sharp was replaced by Ms. Tashebaeva as Amicus for the parties. The trial was adjourned to the January 2025 Trial Sittings, to allow both Ms. Tashebaeva and Ms. Barron, counsel for the children, to get appraised of this complex matter and get ready for trial.

[51] As she was by then living in Orleans with her new partner, the mother unilaterally registered the children in a new school in her catchment where they began their school year in September 2024.

[52] On October 6, 2024, the father was charged with one count of uttering threats against the mother's partner. The father allegedly became upset with information provided to him by Cadence during a visit and threatened to come to the mother's home and beat up her partner. This charge is still pending.

[53] On December 12, 2024, Shelston J. heard a motion to deal with Christmas parenting time. This motion was made necessary because the father had been withholding Cadence in his care for two weeks following events that occurred at the mother's home and during which she had allegedly used excessive force against Cadence, who was refusing to go back to her mother's. The Children's Aid Society was involved (once again) to investigate this most recent complaint, but they had not completed their investigation at the time of the motion before Shelston J. Cadence did not attend school at all during the two weeks that she was withheld by the father.

[54] Following the motion hearing, Shelston J. implemented an equal time-sharing regime over the 2024 Christmas Holidays, and advised the parties that his order was to be complied with, regardless of Cadence's expressed preference to remain with her father. The Children's Aid Society (CAS) later confirmed that no protection concerns were verified following the completion of their investigation in relation to the events which led to the father withholding Cadence.

[55] In the context of a trial management conference held on January 9, 2025, Shelston J. was required, once more, to adjourn the trial to the June 2025 Trial Sittings, because the parties had not yet fully cooperated with the children's counsel resulting in her inability to complete her work and trial preparation. Among other things, Shelston J. ordered both parties to sign all necessary consents as required by the OCL by January 16, and to permit the OCL and appointed clinician to have observation visits with both children.

[56] In the context of the last trial management conference before Shelston J., held on April 10, 2025, and on the eve of his retirement from the Bench, Shelston J. ordered a trial de novo before another judge.

[57] In the end of March 2025, Cadence decided that she wanted to remain in her father's care. She made arrangements with her father to be picked up from school by him, without notice to the mother, and thereafter refused to return to her mother's home. From that date until the trial was held in June, Cadence did not see her mother in person, although she communicated with her by phone on a few occasions. It is not disputed that Cadence did not attend school in person for the rest of the school year, other than on a handful of days.

[58] The father testified that, due to his brain injuries, he is unable to drive long distances in traffic. Since the mother moved to Orleans in the summer of 2024, she was ordered by Shelston J. to do all the driving to and from an exchange location in Kanata to allow the father to exercise his parenting time with the girls. Given the distance between the father's home in Almonte and the children's school in Orleans, the father stated that he was unable to drive Cadence to school every day and, since Cadence refused to return to her mother's home, she missed the balance of her school year. Although the father testified that she completed assignments and other schoolwork through Google Classroom, the evidence is clear that she completed very little schoolwork, and essentially did not attend school for the balance of the school year.

[59] Following the events of March 2025, the mother decided to retain her own counsel to represent her in this trial. During her testimony, she explained that she originally sought to have Amicus appointed for her because of the stress and anxiety caused to her by the father's abusive behavior, and because she could not stand to be cross-examined by him at an eventual trial. Given the limited – and dual – role played by Amicus, she ultimately decided to retain her own counsel for the purpose of this trial.

Parenting Issues

Parties' Position

[60] Any decision relating to a child must be made having regard, exclusively, to their best interests. When considering a child's best interests, the court is required by virtue of s. 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) to consider the following legal principles:

Best interests of child

16 (1) The court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or a contact order.

Primary consideration

(2) When considering the factors referred to in subsection (3), the court shall give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

Factors to be considered

(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including

(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 spouse, each of the child's siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child's life;

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

(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 cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

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

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

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

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

Factors relating to family violence

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall take the following 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 their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor.

The Parties' Physical and Mental Health, and Its Impact on Their Parenting Ability

[61] The mother has struggled with depression, PTSD and chronic pain following her motor vehicle accident in 2012, during which she also suffered a concussion. She has taken pain injections regularly to manage the chronic pain in her neck, lower back, and shoulders, and was on a course of anti-depressant for a few months in 2020. Since the parties' separation, the mother has been actively engaged in therapy to work on the trauma she has experienced in her relationship with the father, working on enhancing her self-esteem, mindfulness, and resiliency. Since leaving the relationship, returning to work and re-partnering, she is doing much better from a mental health perspective, although she still suffers from chronic pain and PTSD.

[62] The father has a history of depression which was characterized by a lack of motivation, anxiety, abandonment issues, poor coping skills, chronic sadness, and apprehension. He has a long-standing history of difficulty controlling his impulsivity, anger, and emotions which, according to the mother, has taken a turn for the worst since the 2012 motor vehicle accident.

[63] The father also has a long history of suicidal ideations and suicidal attempts, with the last one occurring in 2020, shortly after being released from jail and at a time when he was at his worst emotionally and mental health wise, having had no in-person contact with the children for a long time. He was taken to the hospital three times between March and May 2020, because of suicidal attempts or ideations. However, there is no evidence before me that this has happened again since.

[64] In a letter to the court by Dr. Kunjukrishnan of the Royal Ottawa Hospital dated July 3, 2015, which was included in the OCL's investigation report completed in 2021, he indicated that the father had a lengthy history of impulse control/anger management problems; posttraumatic stress disorder with symptoms of anxiety and depression by history and secondary to the motor vehicle accident of 2012; conduct disorder; borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. He added that the father showed some hypervigilance almost amounting to paranoia, but that he did not lose touch with reality. He confirmed that the father had participated in various treatments/programs over the years but his ability to manage his emotions/anger was still a serious concern at the time.

[65] Based on the evidence provided at trial, the father's ability to manage his impulsivity, emotions and anger is still a serious concern, and he can become completely dysregulated whenever triggered for whatever reason.

[66] There is also evidence suggesting that the father suffers from a substance use disorder which was never medically treated. After he was arrested and incarcerated in December 2019 following the high-speed police chase, the father began using cocaine while in prison, something he continued to do for roughly six months, by his own admission.

[67] During the Easter weekend of 2020, the mother had to call the police while retrieving the children from their father's care after a visit as he had been drinking and she was unable to deal with him in the state he was in, leading to a physical altercation between them in front of the children.

[68] In April 2020, the mother drove the father to a rehabilitation center in Brockville where he stayed for only one day before being asked to leave because he was high and disruptive to the point where the police had to intervene.

[69] Addiction treatment was recommended to the father while he was hospitalized in May 2020 for suicidal ideations, and the father was scheduled to go to a rehab treatment center in Toronto, but he opted not to go due to the cost of the program.

[70] The father reported to the OCL in 2020, and to this Court during the trial, that he had stopped using cocaine on his own volition in May 2020, and that he has remained clean since. Although he never completed any substance use programming, there is indeed no evidence that the father has used cocaine since May 2020. However, as will be discussed in more detail later in these reasons, on or about December 24, 2023, the father drank three full bottles of rhum and became so intoxicated that he blacked out, following which he assaulted his (then) partner, Ms. Nance, in the presence of their (then) eight-month-old baby, to the point that she lost consciousness, twice. The father's testimony at trial was that he does not remember any of the events which led to his being charged with, and pleading guilty to, one count of assault and unlawful confinement.

[71] Although there is no evidence of the father abusing alcohol since that event, a person's ability to drink three full bottles of hard liquor without needing emergency medical treatment is indicative of an individual who is used to drinking. If nothing else, the events of December 24, 2023, suggest that the father's impulsivity and inability to control his emotions may place him at an enhanced risk of substance abuse, which in turn may place the children at risk of harm if he were to consume while they are in his care.

[72] Despite countless orders requiring the father to provide fulsome disclosure of ongoing treatments, diagnosis and medical and therapeutic records, the father has provided none following the OCL investigation concluded in 2021. It was only in the context of this trial that the father, for the first time, presented documentary evidence confirming that he had completed the 12-week Managing Powerful Emotions program (although he attended and actively participated in only eight of the twelve virtual sessions), and that he had participated in ten psychotherapy appointments between May and October 2024 delivered both in person and virtually.

[73] While he has accessed an extraordinary number of services after the 2012 and 2015 motor vehicle accidents, there is no medical evidence before the Court of any treatment, diagnosis, or prognosis in relation to the father's mental health, anger management, and emotional regulation, since the OCL investigation was completed in early 2021. There is also no evidence of his current health status (mental and physical) and overall functioning from health professionals, other than those two letters set out above, which does not give the Court much evidence at all about the father's current mental health state. The father did not call any mental health professional to testify on his behalf at trial.

[74] In his testimony, the father maintains that he is doing much better now, has remained sober from drugs and alcohol – other than marijuana which he takes to manage his chronic pain, and practices self-care in various ways. Considering his very heavy history as detailed above, and his refusal to provide court-ordered disclosure, significant concerns remain as to how his current mental and physical health status impacts his ability to parent and keep the children safe.

Family Violence

[75] Family violence, and its impact on the mother and the children, were at the heart of this trial.

[76] The father has a significant criminal history and has faced multiple charges going back to 1999, almost all of which involve criminal offenses perpetrated by the father against existing or former partners with whom he has had children.

[77] During her testimony, the mother recounted in painful detail the abuse she had suffered at the hands of the father. At times, the Court needed to take recesses to allow her to compose herself as she shared the specifics of the many traumatizing events of her life with the father. I found her testimony related to these events very credible, whereas the father's testimony on these events was not.

[78] The mother explained that their relationship was a mix of normal life and significant family violence. She gave many examples of events where the father would spit on her, call her names, destroy her things, physically restrain her, hit her, and choke her. She explained that the father's abuse would come in waves. For several months, he would be decent and loving, and then his state would change, and he would become volatile, angry, and violent for no apparent reason. Anything could trigger him. Then it would take days or weeks for him to calm down and settle back to a good place.

[79] There was also a significant level of coercive and controlling behaviors on the part of the father. The mother explained how he gradually isolated her from friends and family to the point where she rarely saw them anymore. She testified to how the father would use the children to get the mother to do his bidding, under the various threats including that he would take the children away from her. One time, the father videotaped a sexual encounter between the parties without the mother's knowledge and thereafter used the recording as a threat to coerce the mother into remaining in the relationship, failing which he threatened to send the video to her parents, her friends, and her work colleagues. While the father claimed that he did not remember having done this, the mother's undisputable evidence confirms the mother's testimony in relation to these events.

[80] In her investigation report released in 2021, Ms. Crowley came to the following conclusions about the existence of family violence in this relationship, and its impact on the children's well-being:

"Mr. Deschamps acknowledged to this writer that he was abusive towards Ms. Deschamps during the marriage. Mr. Deschamps has a long-standing history of abusing his partners and has served time in jail for his actions. The ongoing conflict between parents has taken place in the presence of the children. With each incident, the children are further exposed to police and CAS intervention and situations that are frightening and unsafe for them. The conflict has escalated since Mr. Deschamps was arrested in December 2019 and was released in early January 2020. Mr. Deschamps went through a period of emotional destabilization after being released from jail. This instability has contributed to the escalation of parental conflict.

The various collateral sources and this writer found that Mr. Deschamps presented as a very loving and caring father who appears to prioritize his 2 children when they are together. However, the evidence strongly suggests that the children cannot be assumed to be safe in the unsupervised care of the father, despite how well he does with them when he is not angry/dysregulated. Due to Mr. Deschamps' extreme impulsivity, inability to regulate his emotions, his response to negative stimuli and to his various triggers and his inability to adhere to his conditions of release, it is highly likely that he will continue to expose the children to conflictual situations, creating concern for the safety of the children if left unsupervised in the father's care."

[81] At the time of the OCL investigation, the CAS did not approve of unsupervised parenting time between the children and their father until the father followed through with treatment and showed some improvement with his mental health and addictions. For these reasons, the clinical investigator recommended that the children remain in their mother's primary care, and that parenting time between them and their father remain supervised. The clinician concluded:

Recommendations can only be made based upon the current situation and the evidence gathered, and not based upon improvements one may hope to happen in the future. There is so much the father has to work on, most of which involves the father acknowledging his contribution to the issues and taking accountability for his actions. Things are going to have to really change for there to be a change in the father's access. His participation in the treatment programs doesn't mean he will automatically become stable. In order to expand the access to unsupervised, the father would have to show a period of stability with respect to his ability to regulate his emotions; to refrain from contacting the mother and breaching his conditions of release and to engage in the various services provided to him. The father would also have to demonstrate that he is able to manage his triggers and to remain clean of any substances for a substantial period of time.

[82] The father's inability to gain insight and change his behavior is evidenced by his lengthy criminal record going back to when he was a youth. Between 1994 (once he became an adult) until the parties' relationship began in 2005, the father was convicted of 21 criminal offences including several charges of assault, criminal harassment, mischief, uttering threats, and several breaches of conditions. While he was able to remain relatively – but not entirely – free of criminal charges during his relationship with the mother, once the parties separated the father began facing multiple charges once again, most – if not all – of them related to his abusive behavior towards the mother or former partner Ms. Nance.

[83] From the Fall of 2019 to the present, the father was charged with multiple offences including assault, mischief, unlawful confinement, and multiple breaches of the no-contact provisions in place. As will be discussed below in the section related to the mother, in the first six months or so following the father's December 2019 arrest and detention, the parties continued to be in contact despite the no-contact conditions in place, and the mother allowed some unsupervised contact between the father and the children although the CAS had clearly instructed her not to do so. Nonetheless, there were also many breaches thereafter that the mother did not consent to, and for which the father was charged.

[84] The mother was also charged with assault following events that took place in August 2020, when she attended the father's home to retrieve the children. According to the father, the mother "started an altercation with him where she punched him five times, cut open his lip and reached into his pockets and ripped his shorts", and thereafter "broke his front door, broke into his home, grabbed his house phone and called the police". While I accept that on that day, the mother fiercely fought back the father's own aggressions, including physically, I do not accept the father's version of these events as related by him to Ms. Crowley and to this Court during trial. Nonetheless, the mother was indeed charged with an assault against the father as a result of these events, but these charges were later completely withdrawn.

[85] As stated previously, the OCL investigation and the information it contains are more than four years old. The children have had unsupervised parenting time with their father for three years now, including for weeks at a time over the past three summers (including this summer) and, as far as Cadence is concerned, she has been in his full-time care since the end of March 2025 (albeit against the existing court order and without the mother's consent).

[86] The evidence before me confirms that while the father continues to be abusive towards the mother, he has never been violent or abusive towards the children directly, nor is there any allegations to that effect. However, the presence of the children (or any child) has never deterred the father from being abusive towards the mother, former partners and third parties generally. There are multiple examples of this in the evidence presented to me during this trial, including – but not limited – to the following.

[87] In December 2016, the father's mental health state had severely deteriorated, and the parties were arguing while the father was holding Cadence (then 4) in his arms, branding a large knife at the mother. When the mother called 911 for help, the father started to chase her around the house, grabbed her by the hair, and dragged her in the living room, with Cadence present. This particular event led to police and then CAS intervention.

[88] In April 2019, the parties were involved in a road rage incident during which a tractor-trailer was pushing their vehicle off the roadway, while the children were in the vehicle. When the police arrived, the father was verbally aggressive and belligerent towards the other driver and the police. He was described as yelling, swearing and there were concerns that he was going to engage in a physical altercation with the other driver. The father was criminally charged following this event because he disobeyed the police, was agitated and interfering with police work.

[89] The mother explained that while the parties were still together, the police and the CAS intervened on several occasions following incidents of domestic violence between the parties. Each time, the mother would lie to the police and CAS, minimize the father's abuse, and convince them that this was a one-off incident due to a temporary deterioration of the father's mental health and PTSD. Each time they intervened, the CAS workers concluded that while the children's exposure to family violence was verified, the mother was protective of them, and the file was closed. On a few occasions, the mother refused to allow CAS workers to speak to Cadence, as she knew that the child would relay to them the violence and abuse going on in the home.

[90] During the fall of 2019, after the parties physically separated and the father refused to allow the mother to exercise parenting time with the girls outside of his home, there were countless altercations between the parties while the children were present, and during which the father would get physically violent, threaten, damage her car, and physically confine or restrain her in his home. Every time, the children were present.

[91] In December 2019, during an altercation between the parties, the mother sustained a small fracture to her right ring finger while attempting to grab one of the children out of the father's arms.

[92] On December 28, 2019, the father was arrested again after a verbal altercation with the mother following which he refused to return the children to her as planned and engaged in a high-speed police chase with both children in his vehicle.

[93] As the parental conflict increased post-separation, exchanges became a significant source of stress for the children who were constantly exposed to their parents' ongoing conflict and their father's abuse towards the mother. They expressed to the OCL clinician that there were nervous and would get worried in the hours leading up to an exchange between their parents. Both children reported to Ms. Crowley and their counsel that both their parents engaged in yelling and screaming in their presence.

[94] In her interview with Ms. Crowley, Elara reported being witness to significant conflict and abuse between her parents. She stated:

Elara told this writer that her mommy and daddy don't live together because they "hate" each other. She reported that she always watches them and she sees them hitting each other. She said that Cadence cries when she sees her parents yelling and hitting each other. Elara shared that she is aware her mother called the police on her father because "dad was stealing her phone and trashing her phone." Elara disclosed that her father pushed her mother down the stairs and her mother called somebody and said "help me." Elara stated that she did not see her father push her mother down the stairs but thinks her mother told them about the incident. Elara stated, "I remember everything." She said "mom called the police then we left and went to grandma and grandpa's and they gave them ice cream. Cadence was still crying.

[95] During his interviews with Ms. Crowley back in 2020, the father attributed his abusive behavior to his history of depression, his abandonment issues, the historical abuse in his family when he was a child, and his brain injuries. At that time, the father was actively working with several mental health professionals. For over two years prior to 2021, the father had accessed the services of a social worker, an occupational therapist, and a rehabilitation assistant. He also attended the Seeker's Center pain clinic with Dr. Nahas for pain injections once per week. He was given a prescription for medical marijuana but indicated that he only used CBD instead. He had also been seeing a psychologist, Dr. Andrew Payne, until December 2019, and a counsellor in Smiths Falls. He was starting Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with his probation officer, was meeting with an Acquired Brain Injury specialist, and was on the waiting list for a treatment group at Lanark County Mental Health, in addition to undergoing the intake process for the Anger Clinic at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. Finally, the father attended several community programs in the past, including the New Direction program, as well as psychotherapy and individual counselling.

[96] Unfortunately, none of these extraordinary mental health supports and community programing have led to a decrease in the father's abusive behavior towards the mother and ongoing contact with her, in breach of his criminal no-contact conditions. Nor have they prevented the father from severely assaulting Ms. Nance, his former partner, in December 2022, while their eight-month-old baby was with them.

[97] The detail of this conviction came to light after the mother was notified by Victims Services that the father had been charged with multiple counts of assaults against Ms. Nance, including a charge of unlawful confinement, and one charge of harassment. For oral reasons given in the context of a mid-trial ruling on admissibility, I found that the transcript of the Court's oral decision in relation to these charges, which included the Agreed Statement of Facts establishing the offences for which the father pled guilty, was admissible in evidence in this trial. While it is not disputed that the father had blacked out before committing this serious assault due to alcohol intoxication, the level of violence deployed against Ms. Nance, who was pleading for her life while the parties' young baby was crying, is chilling.

[98] While the father claims he does not know whether the events stated in the Agreed Statement of Facts are true or accurate, since he does not remember anything from those events, he acknowledged during his testimony that he had agreed to those facts because this is what Ms. Nance said he did, and she is an honest person. The father also failed to call Ms. Nance as a witness in this trial, as he had initially indicated he intended to do. I find that the events which led to the father pleading guilty to these charges occurred as outlined in the Agreed Statement of Facts read in court on August 23, 2023.

[99] During his testimony at trial, the father explained that he drank three bottles of alcohol (rhum) because the mother had refused to allow him to see the children at Christmas (which based on the evidence before the Court was not true: he chose not to take them that year although the parties had previously agreed he would). This, coupled with the detailed account of the vicious assaults that followed, in the presence of the father's young baby, demonstrate that when the father is triggered or in a very poor state of mind, he exercises poor judgement, has no ability to regulate his emotions and his impulsivity, and the consequences can be devastating, even lethal.

[100] I was not provided with a full account of all criminal charges laid against the father since Ms. Crowley's investigation was completed because the father refused to sign consents allowing the children's lawyer to access his criminal records from the Ontario Provincial Police, who has jurisdiction in Almonte where the father resides. He also refused to sign consents for the release of any records held by the Lanark child protection services, which has jurisdiction in Almonte.

[101] Unfortunately, the father's lack of impulse control and abusive behavior is not exclusively directed at partners or ex-partners; they extend far beyond this. The evidence presented to me during this trial confirms that the father has lashed out at Ms. Crowley, Ms. Barron (the children's counsel), CAS workers, the police, access supervisors, the children's teachers, the paternal grandparents, and the Court. Essentially, when he is triggered, the father becomes belligerent, aggressive, or threatening towards anyone who either disagrees with him or complains about his behavior and demeanor.

[102] Despite significant supports obtained and programming completed in the past, any gains the father has made in addressing his anger, propensity for violence, and emotional dysregulation (including through his work with his probation officer in 2020) has not led to permanent, sustainable change. In his testimony in this trial, the father continues to mostly blame others for his actions and behavior. While they may very well be the direct consequences of the father's traumatic brain injuries, the cause(s) of his behavior is not my concern. My concern is how the father's lack of emotional and impulse control, which leads to poor judgement and violence, impacts the children's well-being and create a continued safety risk when they are in his care.

The Mother

[103] In the first year following the parties' separation, the mother's outlook on the father was that he was sick and needed help, and she genuinely wanted him to see the children and have a healthy relationship with them. After the father was charged with multiple offences towards her in December 2019, and the children were placed in her care following the father's high speed police chase and subsequent arrest, he was under strict no-contact conditions that the mother knowingly breached on many occasions to allow the children the see their father. This led to the father being charged with several breaches of his no-contact conditions, some of them having been enabled by the mother herself (with no intention of having him charged with further breaches).

[104] As she slowly extricated herself from the toxic cycle of violence she was in, the mother's stance towards the father slowly changed. While previously she saw him as a victim and felt the need to support and care for him, she became resentful towards him for the violence and abuse suffered at his hands and became hyper-focused on whether he was complying with his conditions, where he was going and who he was with, which fueled the conflict. The mother's changing attitude towards the father was already noticeable by Ms. Crowley at the time of her investigation in 2020-2021. She reported:

Ms. Deschamps has difficulty understanding how Mr. Deschamps remains unaccountable by the legal system for his actions. She expressed her displeasure to this writer and the probation officer about the fact that the father did not have to pay court costs for the July Motion and over the criminal courts allowing him to move freely in the community even though he was on house arrest.

[105] By the time this trial was held, Mr. Thompson, the clinician assisting Ms. Barron in her role as the children's lawyer, reported that a review of the files from the Ottawa Police Services since Ms. Crowley's 2021 investigation report were mostly related to the mother trying to have the father charged with criminal harassment or breach of his terms of release. These calls to the police by the mother, and her calls to the CAS, increased significantly after the mother became aware of the nature and seriousness of the assault he had committed on Ms. Nance, and as this litigation became protracted.

[106] While I do not condone a party's intentional breach of a court order, I find that there were many mitigating circumstances when the mother relocated with the children to Orleans at some point in the spring or summer of 2024 against Shelston J.'s Order. First, on January 3, 2024, the mother gave the father notice of her intention to change the children's residence "within the City of Ottawa boundaries", using the form prescribed by the applicable Regulations, although she did not disclose where exactly (i.e. in Orleans) she intended to move (the mother justified her withholding of this information by relying on Shelston J.'s December 5, 2023, decision in which he allowed her not to share her exact address due to the presence of family violence. In that same decision, however, Shelston J. had prevented the mother from changing the children's residence without a court order). The father did not respond to the mother's notice, nor did he reach out to find out more detail about this intended change of residence.

[107] At that time, the mother was pregnant and due to give birth in April. In addition, the trial was still on the January 2024 Trial List, and the mother's relocation was an issue for trial, which she had assumed would be dealt with in a January trial. When the father did not respond, the mother put her Kanata home for sale. For the many reasons already set out above, the trial had to be adjourned once more, and the mother's motion for permission to relocate was only heard in July 2024. By then, the mother's home had already been sold with a closing date in August 2024, and the mother had already purchased her partner's Orleans childhood home with him, where they were set to move in. Although she did not testified to this, I would not be surprised that the mother's relocation was also motivated by her strong need to put distance between her and her former, highly abusive partner.

[108] Considering this background, and although not condoned by the Court, the mother's breach of Shelston J.'s December 5, 2023, Order preventing her from changing the children's residence without a court order can at least be understood. It is also important to note that since her relocation to Orleans, the mother has borne the entire responsibility of transporting the children to and from Orleans to Kanata for each of the children's exchanges, as ordered by Shelston J., without fail.

[109] This unilateral move, however, significantly increased the commute between the parents' homes. As a result, it further fueled the conflict between the parties, and added an additional layer of complexity to this already complex case. As will be explained in more detail below, it also contributed to the deterioration of Cadence's relationship with her mother.

[110] When the parties were in their first motor vehicle accident in 2012, Cadence was only eight months old. The mother had taken a one-year maternity leave while the father was still working as a truck driver. Between November 2012 and February 2017, both parents were at home full-time with the children. When Elara was born in February 2016, the mother's long-term disability leave became a one-year maternity leave, at the end of which the mother returned to work, albeit in a different capacity than what she was doing before the 2012 car accident.

[111] On the evidence before me, I find that both parents cared for the children for most of their young lives and until the parties separated. I also find that it was the mother who was primarily responsible to arrange for routine medical appointments, find a daycare for Elara when she returned to work, locate schools for the children, and deal with the children's teachers and service providers. When the mother went back to work in February 2017, the father was responsible for Cadence before and after school, and he cared for Elara (then one year old) in the home three days a week, while she attended daycare the other two days per week. While the father took on more of the day-to-day childcaring responsibilities during that time, I am satisfied based on the evidence before me that it was mainly the mother who took on the responsibility of ensuring that the children's health and educational needs were being met.

[112] While the children were in their father's primary care from August 2019 to December 2019, I find that he unilaterally and unjustifiably withheld the children and refused to allow the mother to exercise parenting time in her own home, as part of his coercive, controlling, and abusive behavior. Nonetheless, during these four months the children's day-to-day needs were being met by their father.

[113] From December 2019 until March 2025, the children have been in their mother's primary care, and she has been responsible for all their day-to-day, health, educational and other needs.

[114] In her investigation report, Ms. Crowley observed both parents to be loving, caring, and nurturing parents who demonstrated excellent parenting abilities. Ms. Crowley was of the view that the mother made sure that the children's needs were always being met and provided them with a child-centered and structured household. She felt the mother had demonstrated an ability to be protective of the children, both physically and emotionally, and appeared to do well making decisions for them. She was found to have an ability to see the things she needed to work on; she was open and forthcoming; prioritized self-care; she had a very good support system and was able to reach out; and she was fully engaged in her therapeutic homework. These findings still hold true four years after Ms. Crowley completed her report based on the evidence presented to me in this trial.

[115] The father was observed by Ms. Crowley, the various access supervisors who supervised the father's parenting time with the children, and by various other individuals involved with this family, to be attentive to the children, engaging, fun and able to communicate with them at their level. The children were always happy to see him and comfortable in his presence, and he was able to provide them with proper structure and routine when they were in his care. Although the father could say things that he would later regret when he was not lucid or thinking clearly when impacted by his PTSD, Ms. Crowley found that he had a good sense of humor, did well with routine, that he planned things out where his daughters were concerned, and he was able to communicate effectively with them. Based on all the evidence presented to me during this trial, these conclusions about the father also still hold true.

[116] The mother's evidence at trial was that the father was an "excellent" father when he was in the "daddy daycare zone". She described him as loving, caring and educational but only for short periods of time. According to her, when the father is in a good and healthy state of mind, he is a good father but if there is any bit of conflict, the children's presence will not deter him from yelling, fighting and being abusive towards others.

[117] It is clear that Cadence, despite her father's abusive behavior towards the mother and others, has a very strong bond and is somewhat enmeshed with him. The multiple criminal charges laid against the father, coupled with his 2020 incarceration which led to his parenting time being suspended and significantly restricted for a long time, contributed to Cadence becoming highly protective of her father, whom she sees as a victim of her mother's – perceived – unreasonable behavior.

[118] The evidence establishes that the children, and more especially Cadence, have normalized their father's impulsive, abusive, and violent behavior towards their mother and others. Cadence began from a very young age to resent her mother for calling the police on her father, which led to her parenting time with him being significantly restricted. This was quite evident in her interviews with Ms. Crowley during which she first denied any conflict or abuse between her parents, only to acknowledge later that there was indeed a lot of fighting and yelling between her parents but that her mother "was barely ever hurt".

[119] The children, and particularly Cadence, have missed their father dearly over the three years following his arrest and incarceration as a result of the events of December 2019. Cadence, especially, has craved time with her father, and this has led to her feeling quite a bit of resentment towards her mother whom she blames for denying her more meaningful parenting time with her father.

[120] The mother's re-partnering with Mr. Abourizk, the arrival of a new baby in the mother's family, the move to Orleans, and the need for the children to change schools once more, have also contributed to the deterioration of Cadence's relationship with her mother, and reinforced her bond with her father. While Cadence reportedly got along well with Mr. Abourizk at the beginning of her mother's relationship with him, their relationship deteriorated at the same time that Cadence's relationship with her mother became strained.

[121] It is obvious that Cadence, and Elara to a lesser extent, feel a significant conflict of loyalty between their father, their mother, and their mother's new partner. Since moving to Orleans, Cadence has flat out rejected Mr. Abourizk, telling him to "F off", that he is "not her dad", and asking him to leave. According to Mr. Abourizk, Elara has also become quite guarded when showing him love, although he still considers their relationship to be a close one. According to Mr. Thompson's evidence however, Elara's expressed views of Mr. Abourizk were somewhat lukewarm. Clearly, this new blended family is still adjusting and settling in, and the arrival of a new baby, in the current circumstances, has been challenging for all members of the household.

[122] Additionally, both children have reported a lot of adult conflict and arguments between the mother and her new partner about the baby, to which they have been exposed. According to Cadence, these "yelling matches" between her mother and her partner started well before the move to Orleans or the arrival of the new baby. However, given Cadence's negative views of her mother and her partner presently, and her strong desire to live with her father and to protect him, I am not sure whether this information is accurate or not. According to Elara, her mother and Mr. Abourizk did not argue as much before the baby was born.

[123] Perfection is not expected from parents. What is important is a parent's ability to have insight into their own problematic responses to parenting challenges, to acknowledge when they have made mistakes, and to change course. Despite all the events which led to the deterioration of the mother's relationship with Cadence, I find that she has demonstrated some ability to gain insight, to seek help as needed, and to change course. However, despite all the services and supports he has accessed over many years, the father has not. I have no confidence based on the evidence before me that he ever will have any capacity to gain insight and to change his behavior. The events of this summer, which will be related in more detail below, leads to this undisputable conclusion.

[124] It is clear from the evidence before me that since the parties separated and he lost the ability to rely on the mother for mental health and emotional support, the father has relied on the children for his emotional stability. The father acknowledged that the children are his "protective factors" and that he is much more regulated emotionally when he is with them. Mr. Goddard, the father's rehabilitation assistant who testified in this trial, shared with Ms. Crowley and the Court that the father can be highly agitated and depressed but that when he is with his girls, he is a different person. When his visits and phone calls with the girls go smoothly, the father was reported to make better life choices and be able to eat and sleep better but when they do not go well, he "tanks and makes snap judgements and decisions that are not always positive". Unfortunately, it is not a child's responsibility to support their parents' mental health and emotional safety; it is the other way around.

[125] The father's decision to keep Cadence in his care from the end of March to the end of the school year, knowing that he would be unable to transport her to and from school, resulting in her missing the balance of the school year, is deplorable. The father made that decision without regard to the impact it would have on Cadence's academic progress, and her ability to move to grade eight in the fall. The father's suggestion in March-April that Cadence should be allowed to complete her grade seven in a new school in Almonte, less than three months before the end of the school year, shows his inability to focus on what is best for Cadence, as opposed to what is best for him. Cadence's failure to attend school for the best of three months also prevented her from attending her weekly appointments with her school's social worker, and the various extracurricular activities in which she was engaged at school.

[126] This was not the first time the father chose to keep Cadence out of school due to her refusal to go back to her mother's care. The father did the same over the two-week period leading to the 2024 Christmas Holidays during which Cadence did not attend school at all.

[127] The father's inability to prioritize Cadence's academic needs and his willingness to let Cadence decide for herself where she will live, even if it means her missing the balance of the school year, supports the mother's belief that the father views himself as the children's best friend, not as their parent. It should not have been left to 13-year-old Cadence to decide whether to finish her school year in Orleans or not. If he was unable to transport Cadence to and from school each day, then it was incumbent upon the father to explain to her that despite her strained relationship with her mother, she needed to go back there at least for the balance of the school year, to complete her grade seven. While children should – and do – have a voice in the decision-making process on issues pertaining to them, they do not have a choice. It is the parents' responsibility to make important decisions in the best interest of their children, even if those decisions are sometimes heartbreaking and go against a child's expressed wishes and preferences. This was most certainly one of them.

[128] There are many examples in the evidence before me where the father, despite his professed wish for Cadence to have a positive relationship with her mother, has undermined this relationship by his actions and lack of appropriate responses. When disciplinary measures were taken by the mother over the past year to deal with Cadence's bad behaviour at home (such as removing her cell phone or her ability to access the internet), instead of supporting the mother's disciplinary efforts the father accused her of child abuse and of attempting to prevent Cadence from communicating with him. By his words and actions, he reinforced that negative messaging with Cadence. When Cadence decided that she no longer wanted to live with her mother in March, she and her father planned for her to be surreptitiously removed from school by him, after which Cadence remained in her father's care. For the father, whatever Cadence says is the undisputable truth, and what she wants is the beginning and the end of any analysis, unless when the father, to meet his own needs, requires something else. For instance, the father was able to get Cadence to go to her mother's home on a few occasions, even if she did not want to, to attend an odd day of school early in March or April of this year.

[129] Although the father's behavior contributed to the deterioration of the relationship between the mother and Cadence, the mother also bears significant responsibility in that regard. The children had already been through a lot when she chose to move them at the other end of the City, uprooting them from the community they had lived in their whole lives, away from their father and their friends, and required them to settle into a new blended family, a new neighborhood, and a new school.

[130] The mother has – at times – unilaterally suspended contact between the children and their father. The most recent unilateral suspension came after the mother attended the father's guilty plea hearing in relation to his assault on Ms. Nance. Following that hearing, the mother told the children that their father was going to go to jail, to justify her withholding of their parenting time with him. While at the time she honestly believed that the father's sentence would include incarceration, as the judge had advised on the day of the hearing that he was not accepting the joint submission of counsel on a suspended sentence and that jail time would be necessary, the father's sentencing had not yet occurred, and he was not going to jail yet.

[131] When ultimately a new sentence – not including incarceration – was jointly proposed and accepted by the judge, the children resented their mother for "lying" to them and withholding their parenting time with their father. While it was reasonable for the mother to have great concerns for the children's safety following this hearing, as she anticipated that the father's state of mind would be such that he was at a greater risk of dysregulation and violence, the mother's unilateral withholding of parenting time for months following this hearing went well beyond what was necessary to ensure the children's safety. The children went without in-person parenting time with their father for several months, which contributed to Cadence's growing resentment towards her mother, and her need to be protective of her father.

[132] The evidence before me supports the conclusion that the mother has become very rigid, particularly in the past two years, in her approach to the children's contact with their father. She has contributed to the parental conflict by resorting to the police and the CAS too liberally since the summer of 2023 in the hope that the father would be breached, or that the CAS would support her view that the father presented a risk of harm to the children. The events of this summer, which will be related below, show that she has not gained insight into this behavior despite same having been one of the focuses of this lengthy trial.

[133] The children, and more especially Cadence, have witnessed and lived through their parents' ongoing conflict and dysfunction for as long as they can remember. They have been exposed to countless visits from the police, and they have been interviewed by police, child protection workers and the OCL many, many times, with serious consequences on their emotional well-being. As argued by the OCL in closing submissions, the police have become a permanent fixture in their father's home, which they now seem to have normalized. The mother's response to Cadence reaching out and her attempts to arrange contact with her mother and maternal family after she chose to remain in her father's care this past March has been less than ideal, in my view. It is incumbent upon the mother to take all steps necessary to repair her relationship with Cadence, and to gain insight into how her own actions might have contributed to her strained relationship with Cadence. This said, I find nothing wrong with the disciplinary measures she implemented to address Cadence's growing misbehavior towards her and others in her home this past year.

The Children

[134] Both children were described as very smart, independent, thoughtful, and creative. All witnesses, including the parents, agree that both children love their parents very much and have a strong attachment to each of them, despite the recent strain in Cadence's relationship with her mother.

[135] As stated earlier, Elara's wish and preference is to remain in her mother's primary care, and to have parenting time with her father every other weekend and every Wednesday, as per the current parenting arrangements. Both parties agree to this. As a result, not much evidence was presented or needed during this trial with respect to the parenting arrangements that were in Elara's best interests.

[136] Cadence has been clear and consistent in her strong wish to live primarily with her father since the OCL was re-appointed in this matter earlier this year. She described having a better connection with her dad than with her mother, and described having fun with him and that he makes time for her. Cadence feels that she has no privacy in her mother's home, where she is not allowed to close her bedroom door and is forced to use the computer on the main floor where everyone can hear her if she uses the internet, including to speak to her dad. She stated that she prefers to live in the country where her father resides and where she enjoys the outdoors.

[137] The reasons for the deterioration of Cadence's relationship with her mother have been stated earlier. While the arrival of a new baby in the home, which resulted in the mother being less available to the girls and understandably put a certain level of stress on everyone, was a contributing factor, Cadence reaching her pre-teens is also an important factor. As she began asserting her right to self-determination, Cadence's behavior at home became very challenging.

[138] The mother explained that over the past six to eight months, Cadence started to use vulgar language and gestures towards her and her partner, being disrespectful, unruly, and refusing to follow the rules. This led to the mother imposing disciplinary measures which of course 13-year-old Cadence rebelled against, with the father being her best supporter. In November 2024, Cadence's disapproval of her mother's method of discipline towards Elara resulted in Cadence physically aggressing her mother. The mother testified that since on or about October 2024, Cadence had "found her swearing voice", dropped "F-bombs" almost every day, and constantly put her mother down, including by calling her very disrespectful names. The mother expressed concerns about Cadence replicating the father's own abusive behaviors towards her during the years they were still together, and thereafter. I have no difficulty finding that Cadence feels permitted to behave this way, given that she has witnessed her father do the same for years.

[139] The maternal grandfather, who testified at trial, explained that he and his wife observed Cadence growing more and more disrespectful towards her mother over the past year. He attested to how rude and belligerent Cadence had become, to the point where he and his wife have tried to intervene by speaking to Cadence about her behavior. He explained that when Cadence acts up, she tries to bring Elara along with her and negatively influence her. He expressed concerns about the impact of Cadence's behavior on all the members of the mother's household if she returns to her mother's care and confirmed that he and his wife would continue to support the family as needed, including by taking Cadence in their temporarily care rather than see her being placed in foster care (if it came to that).

[140] The mother testified that Cadence has become very protective of her father, and that she will frequently spin anything her mother says about her father negatively. For instance, if the mother inquires as to whether she had a good time with her father, Cadence will immediately respond by saying "why wouldn't I have a good time with my father??". Cadence is now denying that the father was ever violent in the home, although the evidence overwhelmingly confirms the opposite, and she will create a narrative and thwart the facts as needed to protect her ability to go and live with her dad.

[141] Despite the deterioration of Cadence's relationship with her mother over the past year, Cadence was doing well behaviorally and academically in her new school in Orleans this past year. Additionally, she was engaged in many extracurricular activities at her new school. In her mid-term report card dated February 12, 2025, she showed very good grades, and this is what her teacher had to say about her:

Strengths/Next Steps for Improvement

As Term 1 draws to a close, Cadence has worked hard to apply the feedback from her progress report with some success. Her serious and patient personality has helped her find her place in our class community. She can always be trusted to follow school rules in class and the halls at all times and always treats the adults and other students in the school with respect. She uses success criteria and resources to create and follow a plan to complete work on time that meets the requirements. Her desk area is generally tidy and she rarely needs to go to her ocker for forgotten items. Cadence usually uses class time appropriately to complete tasks and follows instructions with minimal supervision. Cadence is usually confident in her finished work because she refers to learning goals, success criteria, class materials and anchor charts to ensure that it is completed properly. She enjoys working with others and completes her share of the work. She will advocate for what they need to be able to learn, whether it is asking for an accommodation in order to be successful or asking for help when they are struggling to understand. With reminders and support, Cadence is starting to set goals, monitor progress, and seek assistance when needed, which is helping to build confidence. It would be great to see Cadence share her thoughts with the class and participate more to show how involved she is during the lesson.

[142] Although I find that Cadence is mature enough to express her wishes and preferences, and although I am satisfied that they are expressed independently and consistently, I am of the view that her stated preference to remain in her father's primary care and to go to school in Almonte is not consistent with her best interests.

Summer Events

[143] At the end of this trial, the parties advised that they had been unable to agree on a summer vacation schedule, and asked whether I would be prepared to decide based on written submissions to be provided by the parties. I agreed and both parents provided submissions.

[144] In their submissions, both parties agreed to share the summer on a week-about schedule for both children. However, they disagreed on where the pick-ups and drop-offs were to occur, whether the parties' weeks would begin on Fridays or Saturdays, and what would happen if a child refused to spend her designated weeks in the other parent's care.

[145] For reasons stated in my endorsement, I ordered the exchanges to occur on Saturdays and added:

2. All exchanges shall occur at the Ottawa IKEA, located at 2685 Iris Street, at the back door main entrance accessible from the covered parking garage.

3. Both parents shall ensure that both children follow the above schedule without fail. In the event of a substantial deviation from the above schedule, the non-defaulting parent shall be permitted to forward to me a brief affidavit setting out the circumstances of the alleged breach, and I shall decide what the next step should be. The following process shall be strictly adhered to by the parents in the event of an alleged breach of this order:

a. The non-defaulting parent may serve and file to my attention (by emailing SCJ.Assistants@Ontario.ca) a brief affidavit not exceeding three pages, double-spaced with relevant exhibits not exceeding a total of 10 pages;

b. The parent who is alleged to be in default may serve and file to my attention (same email as above) a brief responding affidavit not exceeding the number of pages set out above;

c. The non-defaulting parent may serve and file (same as above) a brief reply affidavit not exceeding one (1) page, double-spaced, with relevant exhibits not exceeding four (4) pages.

5. The parents are advised that a child's refusal to follow the equal parenting time summer schedule upon which both parents have agreed will be seriously considered by the Court when completing the decision which will lead to the Final Parenting Order being made.

[146] On July 27, 2025, I received an affidavit sworn by the mother, on that day, in which she explained that despite my very clear order above, the father had been parking on the west side of the store and sending the girls through the store alone, while she parked as ordered under the parking garage at the exit. On the return, he made the girls walk through the store to him, leaving them out of the mother's sight and not knowing if they safely made it to the vehicle or him.

[147] The mother also explained that at the conclusion of her parenting time with both girls at the end of June, she noticed that Cadence had taken the urn containing the family's deceased cat's ashes. In its stead, she left a fake box and a mocking note. The mother wrote to the father about this, and in an email attached to the mother's affidavit, the father confirmed that the urn would be returned. Despite this, they were not. The mother states that she encouraged Cadence several times to return the ashes to her, without success.

[148] The mother's response to this was to call the non-emergency police number in mid-July "for advice on the situation", and she agreed with the officer's suggestion to speak to the father about this. The father's response to the officer's call was to tell Cadence that her mother had called the police on her and that she wanted her to go to jail.

[149] At the last parenting exchange following those incidents, which took place on July 19, Cadence initially came to her mother's car, but then turned around and ran to her father's car on the other side of the store, jumped in her father's car (he was still waiting and had not departed), gave her mother the finger, and they left. She advised that she would not attend the balance of her summer parenting weeks with her mother.

[150] The father filed an affidavit sworn August 5 in which he provides his version of events. In relation to Cadence' removal of the cat's urn, he simply states that the mother has taken "an aggressive approach to addressing the issue", "sending threatening and aggressive emails". He does not attach those alleged threatening and aggressive emails to his affidavit. The ones attached to the mother's affidavit, while direct and firm, are neither threatening or aggressive. The father does not otherwise address what he has done to discipline Cadence for this unacceptable behavior, or to ensure the urn's return to the mother.

[151] While the father provides a very different version of what took place at the exchange on July 19, claiming that a fight broke out between Cadence at her mother following which Cadence ran to his car crying while being chased by the mother who was shouting at her and recording the whole scene with her phone, he conveniently ignores many important things. Firstly, he does not address at all his disobedience of my June 30 Order in which I clearly specified how the children were to be exchanged. Instead, he provides pictures trying to explain why letting the girls walk through the store is safe for them.

[152] Secondly, the father fails to explain why he was still in the parking lot waiting to receive Cadence after all that time. If his version of the facts is true, then time would have been needed for the girls to cross over to the other side of the store entrance, then for Cadence to get into a fight with her mother, then for Cadence to come back while being chased by her mother. Why was the father still waiting on the other side of the store by then? Why would Cadence run back to her father's car unless she knew he would be waiting for her there?

[153] Instead of addressing the issues at hand, the father points the finger at the mother, accusing her of having left her baby and Elara in the car while chasing Cadence to his car (while not knowing if the baby was actually in the car or not), blaming her for not having arranged counselling for her and Cadence, and accusing her of writing aggressive and threatening emails in relation to Cadence's refusal to go to her mother's for her parenting week (the email attached to his affidavit supporting this claim are neither aggressive or threatening either). His allegations that he wrote many times asking the mother to schedule counselling for her and Cadence are not supported by actual emails. He ends his affidavit by stating that, "against better judgment", he made Cadence attend her camping trip with her mother and sister, stating that Cadence is currently at Gull Lake with them.

[154] Let me be clear. The mother's decision to involve the police once again in this very private family matter, given her already strained relationship with Cadence, the heavy criticism she faced during this lengthy trial about her constant involvement of the police and the CAS in the ongoing parental conflict, and after being told many times that the children resented her for this behaviour, is both discouraging and frustrating. It sheds significant doubts on the mother's ability to gain insight into how her own behavior is contributing to the ongoing conflict and dysfunction.

[155] This said, the father's blatant disregard of my June 30, 2025, Order is simply shocking. At a time when he knows that the Court is closely watching and monitoring his behavior, he deliberately disobeys the clear directions given to him as to how the children were to be exchanged, and he openly defies the court by parking at the other side of the store forcing the children to walk through the store to get to and from their mother's car.

[156] Cadence's removal of the family cat's ashes from her mother's home, after leaving her a taunting note, is extremely concerning. The father's response to Cadence's actions and her lack of respect towards her mother is disturbing. After having confirmed that the urn would be returned at the next exchange, and it was not, the father's response to the mother's emails in that regard was to warn her that he would seek a restraining order if she did not stop emailing him about "non-child related matters".

[157] I wholeheartedly agree with the mother that by condoning Cadence's behavior, the father is showing her that it is acceptable to disrespect boundaries, ignore consequences, and do whatever pleases her at the expense of her mother and others. I agree that the father, by condoning (and, in my view, actively encouraging) this behavior, is undermining all efforts made by the mother to teach Cadence empathy, respect, and accountability, and he is also undermining Cadence's relationship with her mother.

[158] The father has an extensive history of coercive control and violence towards partners and ex-partners. Since he no longer gets to control and abuse the mother directly, he now uses Cadence to do so. In my view, Cadence is at risk of significant emotional and psychological harm if left in her father's primary care.

Conclusion on Parenting

[159] The bond between the children and their father cannot be denied or ignored. Despite everything that has happened in this family, the children have normalized their father's abusive behavior, and they still love him dearly, particularly Cadence. The father can be a very loving, caring, fun, and nurturing parent who is able to meet the children's day-to-day needs adequately when they are in his care. However, he lacks the skills and insight necessary to understand the impact of his actions and behavior on the children's emotional and psychological well-being.

[160] Despite his assertions to the contrary, the father has little understanding of Cadence's long-term educational, emotional and developmental needs, and he will defer to Cadence's wishes and preferences when required to make a decision in relation to her well-being, regardless of the decision that would be in her long-term best interest. The father also has no regard for Cadence's relationship with her mother, and no understanding of the emotional damage he is inflicting upon her by his actions and the way he is handling the conflict between them. Consciously or unconsciously, he has and continues to use Cadence as a tool to harass and abuse the mother. I am of the view that the father simply does not have the capacity to understand the deeply damaging impact of his actions and behavior on the children, more particularly on Cadence.

[161] There continues to be significant concerns about the father's heavy criminal past, mental health issues, impulsivity, lack of emotional control and propensity for violence, and the father has provided no evidence that he has successfully – even partially – addressed any of the underlying issues, despite accessing significant services (at least prior to 2021).

[162] Although the evidence before me shows that the father does not pose an immediate risk of physical harm to the children while they are in his care, his pattern of conflict management, particularly with women, is chaos, violence, and heightened conflict. While Cadence and her dad may be best friends now, as she becomes an independent teenager, conflict is sure to arise. While I am confident that the father does not and would not intentionally harm Cadence, he lacks the skills to manage conflict in any other way than violence, be it verbal or physical. What will happen when Cadence becomes more independent and starts challenging him too?

[163] Currently, and while her day-to-day basic needs (housing, food, structure, nurturing) are being adequately met, the father is not parenting Cadence; he is taking on the role of her best friend and a fierce supporter in her all-out rebellion against her mother. The impact of this is that Cadence did not finishing her grade seven in June. She is more estranged from her mother now than she ever was, going as far as stealing from her an object that she knows is very dear to her, with complete impunity from her primary caregiver. In her father's primary care, Cadence is completely isolated from her extended family and community. I do not know whether she has or sees any of her friends while living in Almonte (before moving to Orleans with her mother, Cadence had been attending a school in Kanata for four years, so I am not sure if she still has any friends in Almonte). The undisputed evidence is that the father has little to no contact with the outside world; he does not work outside of the home, he has no relationship with his extended family members, his older children, and he does not have any close friends, nor has he ever had a successful long-term relationship, let alone one devoid of violence.

[164] Cadence needs stability and structure, and she needs to be parented by a strong caregiver who will support her long-term health (including her psychological and emotional health) and educational needs, even if at times the decisions that need to be made are not aligned with what she wants. This will not be achieved if Cadence is placed in her father's primary care.

[165] I also have significant concerns about the father's ability to work together with Cadence's school teachers, health professionals and other adults that may become involved in her life is she were to remain in his primary care. Not only has the mother been mostly responsible for these areas of the children's lives since they were born, but the evidence before me is also replete with examples of the father engaging in conflict with third parties involved in the children's lives, including the children's teachers (which conflict has involved threats by the father to sue them), Society workers, the children's lawyer, and many others as already mentioned above. Society records confirm that the father had a Special Caution from 2017 regarding threats towards workers, and it was recommended that the assigned worker attend meetings with the father with another worker, for safety reasons. Similar measures were taken by the police, for the same reasons.

[166] Despite his assertions that he supports therapeutic intervention between Cadence and the mother to repair their relationship, the evidence wholeheartedly supports the conclusion that he does not, that he has no intention to facilitate this process, and that he will not ensure Cadence's attendance at therapy sessions when needed, as soon as she resists going. Additionally, if Cadence remains in her father's care, she will have to change school once more, which would not be in her best interests for many reasons, including the fact that she missed almost three months of school at the end of this past year.

[167] The mother has always taken prompt steps to have the children enrolled in counselling to support them during all those years of chaos since the parties separated. While she also has a lot of introspection to do to repair her relationship with Cadence, I am confident that with proper therapeutic intervention, the damage done this past year can be repaired, which is clearly in Cadence's best interests. This will not happen if Cadence remains in her father's primary care.

[168] Cadence's wishes and preferences are an important consideration in this case, given her age. However, my responsibility is to make the order that is in her best interests, and her wishes and preferences are but one of the many factors I must consider. For all the reasons set out above, I am of the view that Cadence's wish to remain in her father's primary care is not consistent with her long-term best interests. Indeed, I find that doing so will lead to ongoing, long-lasting emotional and psychological harm to Cadence, and that it will negatively impact her social, academic, and overall development.

[169] While I conclude that it is in Cadence's best interest to be in her mother's primary care, while enjoying parenting time with her father, it is very likely that Cadence will not willingly move back with her mother, and that significant therapeutic intervention will be needed to repair her relationship with her mother before this can occur safely. If Cadence does not transition willingly to her mother's primary care, it may become critical and in her best interest to be temporarily removed from both her parents' care to allow for this intensive therapeutic intervention to occur and for child protection services to monitor the situation until Cadence is safely back in her mother's primary care. Although I would hope that the father will comply with my order, I have serious concerns that he will not facilitate Cadence's transition to her mother's primary care, and that he will actively resist it. I find that forcing Cadence to return to her mother's primary care in those circumstances will lead to emotional harm to Cadence and place her at significant risk of physical harm.

[170] I am of the view that the intervention of child protection services is needed in this case to protect Cadence from the significant risk of harm associated with her staying in her father's primary care or forcing her to return to her mother's primary care should she refuse to do so. While the therapeutic intervention takes place, and depending on how the father chooses to react to the order I make today, it may be necessary for his parenting time with Cadence (and perhaps Elara as well) to be temporarily supervised to ensure that he does not impede the therapeutic process by his actions and behavior and cause further emotional harm to the children.

[171] For all these reasons, a copy of this decision will be forwarded to the Ottawa Children's Aid Society and to the Family and Children's Services of Lanark, Leeds, and Grenville, for them to act as they see fit to protect this child during this time of transition.

[172] Given the significant family violence and dysfunction in this family, the ongoing and incessant parental conflict, the children's exposure to same, and the parties' complete inability to communicate and cooperate, I find that a joint decision-making responsibility regime cannot possibly succeed with these parents, nor would it be in the children's best interests. Indeed, forcing the parents to make decisions jointly about the children would inevitably allow the father to perpetrate ongoing abuse on the mother, and place the children in the middle of their parents' ongoing dispute.

[173] Stability and continuity in the children's health care and education is required at this stage of their lives, and I find that the mother is best suited to take on that responsibility. I find that it is best for the children that their mother be granted sole decision-making responsibility over all areas of their care, with a positive obligation to keep the father fully informed of all important decisions she makes for them.

[174] When Cadence is returned to her mother's primary care, I am of the view that it is in the best interest of both children to have meaningful, unsupervised parenting time with their father. On agreement of the parties, the summer months and all other school holidays will be shared equally between them. When the children are in school, they will have parenting time with their father every other weekend, from Friday after school to Sunday at 7 p.m., which can be extended to Monday morning if the father is prepared to drive both children to their respective schools in Orleans in the morning. Otherwise, they will have to be returned to their mother's care by 7 p.m. on Sunday, at the exchange location in Kanata.

[175] The Wednesday evening visits, which do not include an overnight, have become highly problematic – particularly during the school year – given the distance between the parents' respective homes and the father's stated inability to drive long distances in traffic. Although the father testified that he is unable to drive long distances in traffic due to his brain injuries, he has provided no medical evidence supporting his assertions in that regard. Further, his evidence is that he has his young child, Harley, in his care many days every week. Harley and her mother reside in the East end of the city. Yet, it appears that the father has no difficulty driving her to and from her mother's home several times per week.

[176] Since the mother is going back to work shortly, her ability to drive the children to and from the exchange location in Kanata on Wednesdays will be significantly reduced. As I have explained earlier, the mother's decision to move to Orleans was not entirely unreasonable in the circumstances. Further, it is important to consider the fact that the father has also unilaterally moved the children's residence from Kanata to Almonte in the Fall of 2019 (which is a 20 to 30-minute drive from Kanata), which also contributes to the current long commute between homes. For these reasons, I am of the view that the transportation of the children to and from each parent's home should be shared more fairly between them at this stage.

[177] Consequently, Wednesday's parenting time between the children and their father will occur only if he is prepared to pick up the children directly from their schools on Wednesdays, at the end of the school day, in which case the mother shall be required to pick them up at the end of the visit at the secure exchange location in Kanata. If the father commits to bringing the children at school on Mondays after his parenting weekend with the children, then the mother shall be responsible to take them to the secure exchange location in Kanata on Fridays. If, however, the father is not prepared to do so, he shall be responsible to pick up the children from their school in Orleans on Fridays for his parenting weekend, and the mother shall be responsible to pick them up at 7 p.m. on Sundays at the secure exchange location in Kanata.

[178] Requiring that the father share in the driving by picking up the children from school as stated above will also reduce the number of times the parties are required to be in contact with one another to exchange the children, which is in the children's best interests.

[179] When the parents share their time equally with the children (during the summer or school breaks), they will share the driving equally, as more specifically set out in my order below.

[180] To be clear, the goal of the above is to share as equally as possible the long commutes to and from each parents' home, by one party being required to drive a long distance to either retrieve the children or pick them up (in Orleans or Kanata), while the other bares the burden of doing the same on the way there or back. If, however, this regime results in ongoing disputes, then all exchanges will have to occur at the safe exchange location proposed by the mother at the Shell gas station on Iris Street at Pinecrest (near Ikea, located at 2770 Iris Street, in Ottawa), which is relatively half-way between the parties' homes. In that event, the exchange time on any workday will have to be adjusted to accommodate the mother's work schedule.

Restraining Order

[181] The mother seeks a restraining order preventing the father from being within 100 meters from her or her partner, and significantly limiting the communications between them. In her testimony, the mother explains that she is not seeking this restraining order because she feels threatened physically, but rather because her emotional and psychological safety is threatened by him, and she needs the father's ongoing harassment to stop.

[182] I agree that such restraining order is needed in this case. Despite orders in place restricting communications between the parents, except for the purpose of discussing issues related to the children or changes in the father's parenting time, the father has not always used his communication rights reasonably, or for these purposes. On several occasions, the father peppered the mother with multiple emails in a single day, many of them containing accusatory, demeaning, and patronizing language which, although not threatening from a criminal perspective, were still reasonably perceived and experienced by the mother as ongoing abuse and harassment, given the father's lengthy history of domestic violence towards her.

[183] I accept that the mother feels threatened emotionally and psychologically by the father's communications, objectively and subjectively, and that measures must be put into place to limit their interactions and communications significantly.

[184] For those reasons, the I make the restraining order set out below.

Order

[185] The parties have agreed to many provisions to be incorporated in their Final Parenting Order, which are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Decision-Making, Primary Residence, and Information Sharing

1. The Applicant mother shall have primary residence of the children, namely Cadence Deschamps, born March 15, 2012, and Elara Deschamps, born February 1, 2016.

2. The Applicant mother shall have sole decision-making authority on all matters concerning the children, including their education, health, and extracurricular activities.

3. The Applicant mother shall keep the Respondent father fully and promptly informed of all important decisions being made about the children, including the reasons which led to these decisions being made.

4. Both parties shall be listed as emergency contacts with the children's schools or other organizations involved with the children.*

5. The parties shall notify each other immediately if a child experiences a medical emergency while in their care.*

6. If there is an emergency, both parties shall attempt to reach the other party before making emergency medical decisions for a child. Both parties shall have the right to make emergency medical decisions respecting the child while in their care and shall advise the other parent as soon as possible of the situation, the decision to be made, the decision made and all relevant details.*

7. Both parties shall have the right to consult with and obtain information, records, and report cards directly from the children's teachers, doctors and any other professionals involved with the children about their health, education, and general welfare.*

8. Each parent is responsible for providing the school and classroom teacher with their up-to-date email and telephone number so that they can be added to classroom and school-wide email distribution list.*

9. Both parents shall be free to participate in major school events and special occasions as long as they both maintain a respectful distance and do not make inappropriate remarks or purposefully aggravate the other party.*

10. The parties shall keep each other informed about their telephone number and email address and shall notify the other party if the information changes.*

11. Both parties shall keep each other informed of their address and shall notify the other party if the information changes.

12. Both parents shall be free to volunteer at the school; however, they shall alternate their volunteering responsibilities unless otherwise agreed.*

Regular Parenting Time (School Year)

13. The Respondent father shall have parenting time with the children as follows:

a. Every second weekend from Friday after school (which currently ends at 3 p.m.) until Sunday at 7 p.m. If the father is prepared to commit to driving the children to their respective schools on Monday mornings (all the time, not just once in a while), then the children may remain in his care until Monday mornings on his parenting weekends;

b. Every Wednesday from after school until 7 p.m., so long as the father can pick up the children directly from their school in Orleans at the end of the school day. Written notice shall be given by the father to the mother of his intention to exercise his Wednesday parenting time by no later than 6 p.m. on the Tuesday immediately preceding the scheduled Wednesday visit, failing which the Wednesday parenting time will not occur.

14. If there is no school on Friday or Monday as a result of a holiday or a PD day, the father's weekend shall begin after school on Thursday or end on Monday at 7 p.m. (or on Tuesday morning if the father is prepared to drive the children directly at school in the morning).

15. If the father exercises his Wednesday parenting time during any given school week (meaning that he has confirmed by 6 p.m. the previous day that he will pick up the children directly from school at the end of the school day), the mother shall be responsible to pick up the children at 7 p.m. at the safe exchange location used by the parties up until now in Kanata.

16. If the Respondent father commits to driving the children to their school in Orleans on Monday mornings for all his parenting weekends, then the mother shall be responsible to drive the children to the safe exchange location in Kanata by 5 p.m. on Fridays (or later, as may be necessary due to her work schedule) at the beginning of the father's parenting weekend. If the father does not commit to driving the children to their school on Monday mornings, then he shall be responsible to pick them up from their school on Fridays at the end of the school day (currently 3 p.m.), and the Applicant mother shall pick them up on Sunday at 7 pm at the sage exchange location in Kanata.

17. If the above driving schedule leads to ongoing conflict, then all exchanges will take place at the Shell gas station on Iris St at Pinecrest (near Ikea, located at 2770 Iris St, Ottawa).

18. The Respondent father may have a videocall with the children on any Sunday and Wednesday that they are not with him, at 4 pm. The children may initiate phone or video calls with either parent while in the other parent's care, in accordance with their wishes, within reasonable hours. The children shall be given privacy for their calls with the other parent.

Holiday Schedule

19. The parties shall equally share the summer and other school holidays as detailed below, which holiday schedule supersedes the regular parenting schedule above.

20. March Break – The March Break shall be divided equally between parties. The children shall be with the parent whose regular weekend immediately precedes the start of the March Break from the end of school on Friday until Wednesday at 10 am, and with the other parent from Wednesday at 10 a.m. to Sunday at 7 p.m.

21. Mother's Day/Father's Day - The children shall spend the holiday with the respective parent if they are not otherwise with them, from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sunday.

22. Summer – The parties will share the summer equally, alternating the weeks from Friday at 5 p.m. to Friday at 5 p.m., with this week-about schedule starting on the first Friday following the end of the school year. In other words, the children will remain with the parent in whose care they are scheduled to be with on that weekend, for the full following week, and then alternate every week until the weekend immediately preceding the children's return to school.

23. Christmas Break – In odd-numbered years, the Applicant mother shall have the children from Friday after school, commencing the holiday two-week break, until December 26 at 10 am. The Respondent father shall have the children from December 26 at 10 am until January 2 at 10 am.

24. In even numbered years, the Respondent father shall have the children from Friday after school (current end time is at 3:00 pm, pick up from school) until December 26. The Applicant mother shall have the children from December 26 at 10 am until January 2 at 10 am.

25. The regular weekend schedule will continue during the long weekends of Thanksgiving, Easter, Labour Day, and any other long weekends, with the weekend starting on Thursday after school or ending at 7 p.m. on Monday, as may be the case, in accordance with para. 14 above. In other words, no special provisions are made to share these weekends in any other way than in accordance with the regular parenting schedule.

26. Except when the father's holiday parenting time commences at the end of school on a Friday, where he shall be required to pick up the children at their school at the beginning of his parenting time, all other exchanges of the children during holidays or school breaks shall take place as follows:

a. The father will be required to pick up the children at the beginning of his parenting time with them, in a safe exchange location to be agreed to by the parties and located in the East End of Ottawa (in the vicinity of the St-Laurent Shopping Center). If the parties are unable to agree on a specific location, I can be spoken to.

b. The mother will be required to pick up the children at the beginning of her parenting time with them at the safe exchange location in Kanata.

c. Alternatively, or if the above results in ongoing conflict, then all exchanges will take place at the Shell gas station on Iris St at Pinecrest (near Ikea, located at 2770 Iris St, Ottawa).

27. Any additional parenting time or deviation from the above schedule (regular or holiday) may be agreed upon by the parties in advance and in writing.*

28. There shall be no make-up time or right of first refusal unless a parent is traveling out of town or otherwise unable to care for the children for two nights or longer.*

29. If a parent is taking the children out of town, makeup time shall be arranged in advance at the time the travel plans are being made.*

30. If the parent is traveling without the children or is otherwise unable to care for them, they shall notify the other parent as soon as possible in advance and that parent shall have the first opportunity to care for the children.*

31. The parents shall be free to modify the schedules above if they mutually agree to do so in writing via OurFamilyWizard.

Relocation

32. The parents shall ensure any intended move does not impact the children's ability to remain in their school without the consent of both parties. The parties shall comply with the Notice periods and procedures required in paras 16.9 – 16.96 of the Divorce Act with respect to relocation.*

School and Health

33. The children shall continue to attend their current schools in Orleans. The children's schooling shall not be changed without prior consultation and without significant reasoning justifying the change (e.g., switch to French Core that is not available at their present school). The children's best interests shall be the only reason to change the school.

34. The Applicant shall schedule and accompany the children to their regularly scheduled appointments and annual exams with their physician (or other members of the health team), and any other involved medical specialists, including counselling and/therapy. The Applicant shall also schedule and accompany the children to their dental exams and to annual optometric exams.

35. Important medical prescriptions shall remain with the children at all times along with prescription instructions. The Applicant mother shall keep the children's original OHIP card and vaccine booklet but provide the Respondent with a digital copy of these documents so that they both have their children's documents in the event of the children being sick or injured.

36. Both parents shall have a copy of the children's birth certificates. The Applicant shall hold the original birth certificates and shall provide to the Respondent certified true copies of the birth certificates. The parties shall be able to make notarized copies of the documents that the other party has.

Counselling

37. The children shall be enrolled in counselling immediately. Any cost not otherwise covered by a parent's insurance will be considered a section 7 expense.

38. Cadence and her mother shall immediately enroll in reunification counselling, with a therapist chosen by the mother. The father shall support the therapeutic relationship and participate if requested by the counsellor, but his consent for Cadence to engage in therapy is not required. The father shall support Cadence's relationship with her mother and shall not cause or contribute to any disrespect or opposition shown by Cadence towards her mother. The cost of reunification therapy will be considered a s.7 expense.

39. The parents shall refrain from speaking negatively about the other parent/extended family/new partner or discussing parenting disputes/parenting schedule in front of the children. The parents shall also make this request of their extended family, friends, and partners. Both parents shall ensure that they do not expose the children to adult conflict. They shall not discuss any of the legal disputes with their children. They shall not speak negatively about each other or their partners in front of the children.

40. Both parents shall ensure they do not communicate about any conflict between the parents nor any adult issues – including but not limited to any litigation or legal dispute – within earshot of the children. They shall also make this request of friends, extended family, and partners.

41. The children shall be encouraged to maintain a positive relationship with both parents.

Restraining Order

42. Neither party shall not be within 100 metres of each other at any time, except to exchange the children for their respective parenting time. When exchanging the children, both parents shall remain in their respective vehicle at all times, except to prevent harm to one of the children, and they shall simply allow the children to transition from and to each other's vehicle on their own.

43. Neither party shall communicate with the other except for the purpose of discussing issues related to changes in the parenting time, exchange point, delays for pick ups and drop offs, or to notify the other of important issues affecting the children. Communications between the parties shall be in writing only, except for emergencies, limited to issues related to the welfare of the children, and be respectful at all times.

44. All communications between the parties, except in case of emergencies, shall be via OurFamilyWizard. Both parties must register with the app forthwith and renew, when necessary, in a timely manner. The parties shall pay their own costs related to OurFamilyWizard. The parties are only permitted to call each other on their phone in case of a real emergency.

Passports and Travel

45. The Applicant mother shall have the authority to apply for a passport for the children without the consent or signature of the Respondent father. She shall hold the passports in her possession and provided them to the Respondent father when needed for him to travel with the children (as long as consent has been previously provided in accordance with the provisions below).

46. If either parent wishes to travel with the children within Canada, consent from the other party shall not be required but 60 days' notice of any such travel shall be provided to the other party specifying the dates of travel, the destination, and the contact information where the children can be reached during the trip. For any international travel with the children, the parties shall obtain each other's written consent, which shall not be denied unreasonably. The traveling parent shall provide the other parent with the details of the trip, including the dates, addresses, mode of transportation and accompanying people.

47. Neither party shall change the children's names without the other's written consent.*

48. In the event of a dispute over the terms of this Order, both parents shall first attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation before seeking relief from the court.*

49. I shall remain seized of any enforcement hearings in this matter for a period of one year.

Justice J. Audet

Date: August 18, 2025

Released: August 18, 2025