G.P.R. v. A.K., 2025 ONSC 5398

# G.P.R. v. A.K., 2025 ONSC 5398

## Court Information

**Court File No.:** FC-22-295-01  
**Date:** September 22, 2025  
**Court:** Ontario Superior Court of Justice  
**Judge:** Justice Alex Finlayson

---

## Parties

**Applicant (Mother):** G.P.R.  
**Respondent (Father):** A.K.  
**Child:** L. (age 13)

**Counsel:**
- Applicant Mother: Fadwa Yehia
- Respondent Father: Maninder (Monty) Sheena
- Office of the Children's Lawyer: George van Hoogenhuise

---

## Hearing Dates

May 22, 23, 26, 27, 28; June 2, 3, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27; July 15, 16, 17, 18, 2025

---

# PART I: OVERVIEW

## Background

The parties cohabited for 7 years and 5 months, from November 1, 2012 until their agreed upon date of separation of April 3, 2020. There was a period between August 2017 and March 2018 when the parties maintained separate residences while still in a relationship. Despite their agreement as to an April 3, 2020 date of separation, they continued in some form of a relationship with one another, either until the end of 2020 as the father maintained, or until as late as July 2023 as the mother maintained.

The child at the center of this case is L., who turned 13 while this Judgment was under reserve.

L. has been stuck in the middle of interminable, extreme conflict between her parents. That conflict continued to manifest itself throughout this trial, right up until its end. The parents' relationship with one another was toxic. L.'s relationship with her father is now fractured.

## Issues Before the Court

The most significant issue for this trial was what parenting arrangements should be put in place for L. The parents litigated numerous incidents of conflict that had occurred between them over the years. They each sought to demonstrate the consequential impact of that conflict on themselves and their daughter, while also seeking findings about who is to blame.

There were two core financial issues: the division of their jointly owned residence in Thornhill (the "Thornhill Property") and child support. There were numerous other related financial issues about the validity of two domestic contracts, post-separation adjustments, occupation rent, retroactivity, and special and extraordinary expenses pursuant to section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

## Trial Length and Scope

This trial was initially set for four to five days, later extended to six days by the case management judge. The trial expanded in scope and length. While the amount of time allocated was insufficient, the parties consumed a great deal more court time for various other reasons; the trial ended up being heard over sixteen days.

---

# PART II: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

## A. Background Information About the Parties

### The Mother

The mother is from Colombia. She came to Canada in October 1999 and has lived here since. The mother's educational background is in journalism, but since coming to Canada she has worked for financial investment companies, and now a major insurance company.

### The Father

The father worked for years in the financial investment industry, both in risk management and compliance, and providing investment advice. In 2022, the father lost his license to work in that industry, in which he had previously worked for about two decades. He lost his license because he engaged in an underhanded transaction that was not disclosed to the regulatory body. This was an act of dishonesty, for which he was fined $40,000. He is now self-employed as the owner of a marijuana store. The marijuana business is incorporated. The father's sister claims to own the business.

### How They Met

The parties met at some point in 2007, when they both worked for a particular financial company. At that time, the father was in a supervisory role over the mother. They were not then in a relationship.

### The Mother's Prior Relationship

The mother was previously in a relationship with a man named G. They separated in early 2010. The mother has a child with G. named V., who is now 25 years old. Following the mother's separation from G., V. remained living with her father and her grandparents in Milton, for a time. V. now lives with her mother, and L. There has been conflict between V. and the father.

### The Father's Prior Relationship

The father was previously married and divorced. The Thornhill Property is the home in which he used to reside with his former spouse. In 2015, about three years into his cohabitation with the mother, the parties jointly purchased the Thornhill Property.

---

## B. The Mother's Pregnancy with L. and the Change in the Nature of the Parties' Relationship

The mother discovered that she was pregnant with L. during a trip home to Colombia in December 2011. After her return from that trip to Colombia in January 2012, the mother started to stay during the week at the father's condominium. The mother lost her job at some point, around the time of L.'s birth, and she had no place to live. The mother was contemplating returning to Colombia but she didn't, because the father asked her to move in. It was common ground that the two were living together fully, by November 2012.

Both agreed that the father became involved during the mother's pregnancy. The father described his attendance for L.'s birth as a special memory. He went on to recall other memories, such as when the child first walked, when he first put the child to bed, and even a celebration the family had together years later and post-separation, after L. got into her current, private school. But as explained below, the father also tried to claim, at times when discussing the property issues, that the relationship was not really spousal.

---

## C. Background Information About the Child, L.

### General Description

The parents each spoke in positive terms when describing L., generally. The mother described L. as "kind and loving" and "amazing". The father testified that he has a close relationship with L. He said that she was his "life" and is "everything to him".

### Relationship with Siblings

The mother testified that L. and her older sister V. have a good relationship. She described usual sibling conflict; nothing out of the ordinary. V. very much sees herself as L.'s big sister and is protective in that sense. L., however, has been exposed to V.'s and the father's conflict with one another.

### Interests and Achievements

By all accounts, L. loves basketball and she is a talented player. Beginning in the 2024-2025 school year, L. now attends a private school that has a focus on basketball. The private school is expensive. L. receives a significant bursary, but it does not cover 100% of the fees. Before she went to this school, L. was in a Montessori school, and a French Immersion program.

Despite the high degree of conflict to which L. has been exposed for years, by all accounts L. excels in school.

### Schedule and Activities

L. is very programmed, but L. has been in the driver's seat behind having such an involved schedule. The mother's evidence was that she takes L. to school by 7:45 AM. L. has school between 8 AM and 2:30 PM each day. Between 2:30 PM and 3:30 PM, L. participates in basketball practice for an hour, followed by an hour of weight training or conditioning. The mother said she picks L. up around 4:45 PM.

L. has additional basketball practices on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, between 7:30 PM to 9:00 PM on Mondays and Thursdays, and between 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM on Tuesdays. L. is doing one-on-one personal training with former basketball players, on Saturday mornings and on Sunday evenings. She does this on Sunday evenings because the family attends church on Sunday mornings.

### Therapy and Counselling

L. is in counselling with Adrienne Ambrosic. Before that, she saw Allison Gardiner. Counselling started on a bi-weekly basis around June of 2024, following Himel J.'s Order of March 4, 2024. L. switched therapists from Ms. Gardiner to Ms. Ambrosic when L. started the private school, as Ms. Gardiner could not accommodate evening appointments.

---

# PART III: THE INCIDENTS OF CONFLICT AND FAMILY VIOLENCE

## A. The Conflict Between the Father and V. on Family Day in 2018

One of the first specific incidents of conflict occurred on the Family Day weekend in 2018, during the time when the parents were living under separate roofs, but not separated.

The father said he was recovering from an Achilles injury, which severely limited his mobility. Although they were living separately the parties were still sharing a vehicle. The father said the mother agreed to bring him the car to use, but then she did not.

The father said he became frustrated. He said his frustration about this led to a "verbal disagreement with [the mother and V.]". The father said that there was an escalation. He said that V. attacked him and then called the police on him. Although he said that V. was the aggressor, the father ended up being charged with "criminal trespass" (the charges were later withdrawn).

The mother explained that it was the father's sister, not her, who was supposed to loan him her car. The night before the incident, she had gone to a wedding with V. and L. She testified that the father was extremely upset and he had been calling and texting her, but she had fallen asleep.

The mother testified that the father first showed up in the middle of the night of February 17, and started banging on the door, looking for the car keys. He then left. She testified that the next day, he showed up, very upset, and had an altercation with V. The mother said that V. felt threatened and called the police.

In cross-examination, the mother explained that the father was aggressive when he arrived. She said that when V. intervened, the father made disparaging comments to her, and called V. the mother's "fucking bodyguard". The situation escalated to the point that V. grabbed a broom and hit the father with it; the father's sister (who was there) tried to intervene, and the father responded by lifting a plate as if to throw it. The mother testified that the father also threatened V. with the crutches he was using.

**Notably and concerning to the Court, L. was present when this incident occurred. L. was 5 years old at the time.**

---

## B. The Father Was Screaming in the Shower and He Pulled the Mother's Hair, Causing Her Pain

The mother was unable to pinpoint when this next incident occurred, apart from saying it happened during the month of April. It is the Court's impression that this happened prior to the separation.

The mother testified that the father was getting ready to go out with friends for a birthday dinner. She said she heard him screaming and swearing in the shower. The mother found this behaviour in the shower upsetting. She was concerned, because L. was also present in the home. The mother testified that she started to video record this, so she could show the father later on what he was doing.

The mother testified that the father saw her doing this, thought that she was filming him "naked" and he got upset. She said he came out, angry, and pulled her hair very hard, causing a pinched nerve in her neck. The mother testified that she was in pain and could not move. The mother testified that the father apologized after the incident was over, and told her that maybe they shouldn't be together as he was always doing the wrong thing.

The father's counsel's cross-examination about this incident focused on the fact that the mother was trying to record the father while "naked" and about the fact that she didn't go to the doctor afterwards. The mother's answer to the former was that she had recorded his voice, not his body. The fact that she didn't go to the doctor doesn't mean the event didn't happen.

Despite that cross-examination, in both his examination-in-chief and in cross-examination, the father admitted that he has screamed in the shower. During his examination-in-chief, he testified that he did this "occasionally" when he was "home alone" to "vent", but came to realize that it is better not to do this when someone else is there. He said he has been "working on it" and does not scream in the shower when L. is there anymore. The father also denied that he caused the mother any pain.

**The Court finds the mother's account to be more probable than the father's. The Court finds the father assaulted the mother on this occasion.**

**Depending on which year these April screaming in the shower and pinched nerve incidents occurred, L. would have either been 6 years old (or younger) at the time, when she was exposed to this particular troubling behaviour, the result of which her mother was injured.**

---

## C. The Father Destroyed L.'s Bedroom in January of 2020

Another of the themes that the Court heard about during this trial was the father's inappropriate comments, often of a sexual nature, directed at the mother, and the father's anger rising to the level of him destroying property.

On January 2, 2020, the father picked the mother up from work. On the way home, the father confronted the mother about "the man that [she] slept with in the washroom in Dominica" (i.e. referring to a previous trip the parties had taken 5 years earlier, in 2015). The mother said the father then started driving like a "maniac". It seems that on this occasion, L. was staying with her paternal grandmother and aunt, so fortunately she was not in the car. The mother extricated herself from the situation, went to their home, and asked if L. could stay there for a while, given what had just unfolded.

When the mother returned home, the father wasn't there. She went to sleep in L.'s room. The mother testified that when the father later returned, he cornered her in the room and demanded to know the name of this person. The mother said that the father started breaking "everything" and screaming. The mother tendered three photographs of smashed items and debris all over the floor in L.'s bedroom, one of which depicts all of L.'s dresser drawers pulled out of the drawer slots, and her clothes spilled over the floor.

The situation de-escalated when the mother called the paternal grandmother or the aunt for help, who the mother said heard the commotion in the background during the call. The father's sister came over right away. The mother said when she rang the doorbell, the father went down to answer the door, and that is when his outburst stopped. The mother testified that the father's sister helped her pack a bag for the weekend, and she went to stay elsewhere.

The mother testified that she returned home when L. had to return to school at the end of the Christmas school holiday. She testified that the father apologized, and bought two vacuums, one for their household and another for the paternal grandmother, which the mother called a "consolation prize". The implication of this statement is that the mother was left to clean up the mess he made.

The comment about the second vacuum seems to have been made, to further explain what the mother later learned about the father's behaviour at the time. That same weekend, the father apparently went to his mother's and sister's residence and broke their glass coffee table, to the point that it also damaged the wood floor. The mother did not see this happen. The father's sister was aware of the broken coffee table, but also was not present when the damage occurred. She also minimized the breaking of this piece of furniture saying that the coffee table was already broken.

---

## D. The Date of Separation on April 3, 2020, When the Father Destroyed L.'s Bedroom for the Second Time, along with the Mother's Work Laptop Computer

In his trial affidavit, the father described the circumstances surrounding the parties' separation as "one of [their] most explosive conflicts". The father attempted to reframe what happened, through the lens of his claim that he has an "avoidant personality". He blamed the mother for trying to resolve an issue that he did not want to discuss.

More particularly, the father said that on this occasion, the mother escalated the situation, trying to get his attention, by starting to "move out". The father said that he had remained composed until the mother went into L.'s room and began to pack L.'s clothes by "ripping the drawers out and throwing them". He said that she was the one who had "made a habit of throwing and destroying household items in an attempt to get [his] attention…"

The father said he got upset over the mother's destruction of L.'s room, so he "acted impulsively and destroyed her work laptop". He deposed in his trial affidavit that he is "apologetic and take[s] accountability for [his] actions", but the incident was not "one sided". He said that when he destroyed the computer, the mother escalated further in her destruction of the bedroom, as in the mother's "eyes L. would not be going back".

**In the Court's view, this was deflection. He was the one who destroyed the room, not the mother.**

During her examination-in-chief, the mother denied that she had ever destroyed any of either V.'s or L.'s belongings. Rather, she testified that after the first destruction of L.'s bedroom on January 2, 2020, the parties created a new (cleaned up) bedroom for L. She then tendered four more photographs of more debris on the floor of L.'s room, including a broken vase, a chipped piece of furniture and of her broken laptop, to show the new round of damage that the father had caused.

Although the first several photographs pertaining to the January 2, 2020 incident were not objected to, there was an objection to these further four photographs. Counsel for the father objected on the basis that the mother's testimony about when she took these photographs was imprecise, and so he wanted the "metadata".

The Court held a voir dire regarding these photographs. The mother testified that she had taken them soon after the incident had occurred, but was uncertain precisely when. She testified that she had not altered them in any way, and then sent them to her sister for safekeeping.

A witness is not required to remember with complete precision when the photographs were taken. The Court was satisfied on the voir dire that the mother had taken these photographs contemporaneously with the events in question, and that they accurately depicted the damage the father had caused. The father himself admitted right in his trial affidavit, to having damaged the laptop, yet he objected to the admissibility of photographs that showed the extent to which this computer (and the piece of furniture that he used to bang the computer on), had been damaged.

During the voir dire, the mother also added that the whole incident started when the child heard and then reported to her, that the father was screaming in the shower (yet again), and about whether the mother had an affair (a topic also previously fixated upon). The mother testified that she left, and the incident of violence occurred at the end of the day when she returned. Yet again on this occasion, the mother telephoned the paternal grandmother for help, and she came to intervene to de-escalate the situation. The mother testified that she thought the father was going to hit her, but for the fact that the grandmother arrived on the scene in short order and got in between the two.

In addition to having smashed a vase, destroyed the child's room, and broken her laptop computer, the mother testified that during this incident the father picked up a tube of anti-bacterial gel, and squeezed it all over her clothes and her face. In cross-examination, the father claimed he threw the anti-bacterial gel at the wall, and that is what caused the gel to go onto the mother. He said his intention was to throw the gel, not to put it on the mother.

**The Court finds on a balance of probabilities that the mother's account of this incident of violence is more likely than the father's, for the following reasons:**

- The father has an admitted anger management problem. Even if the mother was insisting on addressing an issue and he was trying to be "avoidant" as he claimed, he was unable to regulate his emotions;
- Regarding the mother's testimony that L. heard her father screaming in the shower, the Court does not need to rely on that statement for the truth of its contents. The Court heard other evidence, also admitted to by the father, about his propensity to scream in the shower;
- The father revealed throughout this trial that he is fixated on the mother's alleged sexual behaviour;
- The mother denied having ever destroyed either of V.'s or L's belongings. She was not impugned on cross-examination on this point; and
- Whereas the father himself admitted to breaking the mother's work laptop computer. The photographs that the mother tendered also reveal this, in particular the serious extent to which he caused this damage.

**Whether or not she witnessed the entire affair or only part of it, it is once again notable and quite concerning to the Court, that L. was present in the house during this violent incident, in which her room was destroyed and her mother was either kicked out of, or basically had to leave the house. L. was 7 years old at the time.**

---

## E. The Columbia Trip, between December 2020 and August 2021

The mother took L. on a trip to Columbia that ended up being about 7 ½ months long, from December 23, 2020 to August 7, 2021. The mother and L. were not supposed to be gone for so long; the fact that occurred, took on a great, and in the Court's view disproportionate significance in this case.

This trip is one of the incidents that the Court heard about repetitively and multiple times during this trial, first by reading about it in the father's trial affidavit, then by hearing about it from both parties during their respective examinations-in-chief, during their cross-examinations, and during the father's re-examination, and again during the mother's Reply evidence. The Court also heard the father's sister's perspective about this Columbia Trip, specifically how she said it impacted her brother, during both her examination-in-chief and her cross-examination.

The father took the position, that the mother lied to him that her brother was terminally ill, and manipulated him to secure his travel consent. Once gone, the mother refused to come back. In the months that then followed, he said he received no further explanations, despite multiple extensions of the trip, and he became fearful that he was losing L., causing him significant "emotional distress and immense stress". The father said this led him to isolate himself and he had diminished interest in daily activities.

In his trial affidavit, the father said that he attempted to settle matters with the mother amicably after this, but "repeated disagreements led to the current litigation". He claimed to have been traumatized by the Columbia Trip, referring to it as the "Loss of Trust Incident".

The father claimed that the mother's trip made him become "increasingly reckless, irritable and reactive, often engaging in impulsive behaviours". He said he felt an "immense sense of dread" when receiving correspondence regarding this case. During his examination-in-chief, he even claimed that the parental conflict before the Columbia trip wasn't so significant. Yet by this point, there had already been four incidents of significant family violence, described above.

In cross-examination, the father basically accused the mother of trying to abduct the child. Perhaps inconsistently, he also accused the mother of staying longer, so she could have plastic surgery, including a "tummy tuck and her breasts done". He demanded that the mother produce medical documents to prove otherwise to him. Yet the father was confronted with an email he sent agreeing to an extension. He claimed in re-examination that the mother stole or deleted his emails, that would have shed more light on the situation.

And the mother testified that her brother thought he was ill and dying with cancer, but it turned out not to be so. The mother's evidence was that she went on this trip with the father's consent. The father was the one who purchased the tickets. She testified that there had even been a discussion about the father coming on this trip too, but he could not due to work commitments. The father admitted in cross-examination this was true, specifically that there had been a further discussion about whether he would come visit in February or March.

Now the mother did agree that she was supposed to come back in January of 2021; in the end, she stayed for several more months, until August 7, 2021. The mother explained that once she was in Columbia, new Covid-19 restrictions got put in place. She testified that she herself caught Covid-19 in late January, 2021. She testified that at one point, Air Canada restricted flights. She testified that there was a period where quarantine was required. In any event, the mother's evidence was that the extensions of the trip were always done after communication with the father. She maintained she had his consent to the extensions, except for the last one.

The mother said that she extended the final time from July to August, because the father's messages became extremely "bad" and "rude". She claimed that the father's sister told her that the father was "out of control", and recommended that she extend her trip. Regardless of whether the sister said that or not, the father did send a rude and hostile message to the mother in July.

There was conflict between the parents about the father's telephone contact with L. while she was away. The mother pointed the Court to a text message that she received in July 2021, when she was in Columbia, perhaps as an example of the worsening communications as time went on. In that written communication, the mother told the father the child was ill and had gone to bed early the night before, in response to their inability to connect the night before. The mother said she would have L. call her father later. The father couldn't control himself. He responded as follows:

> Anyways! You lie so much just like your fat ugly butch (sic. ) cousin! Ou (sic. ) Colombiana whores! lying slut! 🖕 [i.e. middle finger, meaning "fuck you"] and your mama!

**The Court finds the following:**

- The parties agreed to the trip;
- The father paid for the tickets and even planned at one point to travel there himself, but that did not materialize;
- While various government documents outlining the changing travel restrictions in place during this period could have been put before the Court (to either corroborate or contradict either party's accounts) and were not, what is still notable to the Court is that the parties agreed to this travel, during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the situation was ever changing. Travel was not recommended by the Government of Canada during the pandemic. Travelling came with risks. It is not on its face incredible that the mother either got stuck abroad or that there were challenges with her returning more promptly; and
- Even if she did manipulate the father (which the Court does not find), the Court is left wondering what impact that actually has on the current conundrum that confronts the Court and the decision that the Court must make. This trip occurred between 4 and 4.5 years ago.

**What this evidence revealed is the extent to which the father is fixated on this history. He even said in his trial affidavit, that he has resentment towards the mother that he is still "actively working to process and accept to this date". The Court does not agree that this trip is the reason for the parents' dysfunction, or the father's reckless, irritable, reactive and impulsive behaviour. The reality is this relationship was already conflictual and dysfunctional, well before the Columbia trip occurred. The father's reckless, irritable, reactive and impulsive behaviour very likely stems from other causes. Regardless, the mother's Columbia Trip is not a credible explanation or a reasonable justification for the behaviour.**

---

## F. The Father Damaged the Wall in L.'s Bedroom on December 9, 2021

The next incident the Court heard about, was another incident of physical violence by the father. It happened on December 9, 2021, when the father punched a hole in the wall of L.'s bedroom.

At ¶ 52 of her trial affidavit, the mother said that the father had a violent outburst when L. was in his care. The mother was not there, but said that L. had told her that the father screamed and yelled about her not having clean clothes to wear in the morning when getting her ready for school. L. apparently told her mother that the father had punched a hole in the wall, leaving her frightened and scared.

This incident was described in one of several paragraphs in the mother's trial affidavit, that was flagged at the outset of the trial, as containing child hearsay. But having heard the evidence at this trial in its entirety, it is no longer necessary for the Court to embark upon any analysis of the reliability of the statement that the mother attributed to the child either, yet again. The father himself admitted to causing the damage, although he minimized what happened.

In his trial affidavit, the father first blamed the mother for repeatedly entering his home to retrieve items. He said he was frustrated that L. was left without suitable clothing while he was preparing her for school, and in his moment of frustration, he struck the "light switch" causing "minor damage to the wall". He asserted that L. understood that his frustration was directed toward the situation, and not at her, and he said he regrets his actions.

**The challenge with the father's narrative about this particular incident is the following:**

- During the mother's examination-in-chief, she tendered a photograph of the damaged wall. In cross-examination, the father claimed to have just slapped the wall, and he said that the light switch was not protected with a face plate, allowing the damage to be occasioned more easily from his less forceful impact (less forceful than a punch). Regardless of the force that was actually applied (which is beside the point), the photograph reveals that the "minor damage" that the father described, is in fact a large dent that surrounds the top half of a light switch;
- Regardless of what L. told the mother, or whether the mother took the child's clothes from the home, or what the father claims L. understood, the father was yet again unable to control his emotions, this time frustrated due to his inability to engage in a basic morning routine with the child. The father himself described his level of frustration when cross-examined about it, as him being "frustrated as hell" at the situation. It was a disproportionate reaction, that speaks to his lack of parenting skills; and
- The child was 9 years old when this incident occurred.

The mother reported the incident to the Society. Although he accused the mother (and Ms. Yehia personally) of engaging in a "strategy of alienation" during Ms. Yehia's cross-examination about this incident, the end result was that the child no longer wanted to have overnights with the father after this. This was perhaps the first time (that the Court heard about) that the child started to withdraw from wanting to be in her father's care.

No one brought the matter to Court after this incident; three months later, the father would instead choose to act with self-help. And that set the stage for the next incident that would occur in March of 2022, leading to the first round of the proceedings and the creation of the Separation Agreement.

---

# PART IV: THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION AND THE INCIDENTS OF CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE THAT OCCURRED AFTERWARDS

## A. The Father Took L. from Gymnastics in March 2022, Which Precipitated the First Round of Litigation and the Mother's Urgent Motion Before Bruhn J. on March 4, 2022

This matter first came before the Court after the father surreptitiously removed L. from gymnastics, in early March of 2022. Three days later on March 4, 2022, the mother brought an ex parte motion seeking an order for the child's return to her care, among a number of other parenting and procedural orders.

In the mother's trial affidavit, she said the father took L. from gymnastics without her consent, left her with his mother and sister, and the police became involved. This was the second incident that the Court heard about, wherein V. got involved. Apparently V., who was also present (the mother wasn't initially), tried to intervene to stop the incident as it was unfolding. It was V. who called the police.

In his trial affidavit, the father admitted to having taken L. He said he did not believe that he was acting badly, since "no formal custody order was in place" and he thought he was just exercising his parental rights. Later on in the affidavit when discussing the March 2022 incident more specifically, the father complained that because he had not had L. in his care on an "uninterrupted" basis after the December 9, 2021 incident, following a gymnastics class, he decided to "invite" L. into his car, to spend some quality time together, hoping to reconnect in a "calm and private setting". The father said that shortly after that V. arrived and began behaving aggressively, so he had no choice but to leave to prevent further escalation and to shield L. from conflict. He said he decided to take L. home. The father claimed that the police asked L. whether she wanted to stay with him, and L. said yes.

The father did not take L. home though, as he said in this trial affidavit, at least not initially. In cross-examination, he claimed that he took L. out for food first, and then he took her to his mother's and sister's house. The father later claimed that he took the child there for various reasons, including that he wanted L. to have "feminine support".

The father described the mother's actions in launching the proceeding and the urgent motion, as a vindictive and strategic move, to restrict his parenting time. The reality though, was that he had not had much parenting time (if any at all) after the incident of violence that he caused, on December 9, 2021. He could have brought the matter before the Court, but he instead acted in this fashion, after what was in reality a three-month delay. He said he did so after consulting with counsel.

The Court also heard about this incident from other perspectives. The mother's sister testified that she tried to reach out to the father's mother and sister to make sure L. was OK. While they confirmed L. was there, she said they wouldn't "let us" see her, or talk to her. When the father's sister was questioned in cross-examination about her role in the whole affair, she minimized the significance of it, and said that the father had brought the child there for desert after having taken her to "Kelsey's". She said the mother called her home, but was "so hysterical" and "hyper", and the "cops showed up later" after which they cancelled putting in place an "amber alert" (which was about to be put in place).

The Court heard various statements by both parents and the father's sister, about what the police said, about what L. said, and about what L. wanted during this entire incident. Insofar as the involvement of "the police" (an unnamed officer or officers), what was said to "the police", what L. said, and what "the police" decided to say and do, various of these statements were in the nature of hearsay.

On March 4, 2022, Bruhn J. ordered the child returned to the mother's care, she suspended the father's parenting time, and she ordered an early case conference to proceed on March 22, 2022, based "among other considerations, on the historical pattern of care of the child, the [father's] abusive and violent behaviour towards [the mother] and the child, the [father's] unilateral disruption in the pattern of care, and concerns for the child's emotional and physical safety". She also made an order about parental communications through Our Family Wizard, based on the "highly abusive and vulgar nature of the communications between the parties", she appointed the OCL, and she directed that her Endorsement should be forwarded to the Society.

**The Court finds the following about this incident:**

- L. was 9 years old when this incident, involving the police, occurred;
- L. should not have been questioned by the father in the car at the gymnastics event as to whether he could take her somewhere "quiet", thus setting into motion this entire incident;
- L. should not have been put in the position, by the father, of having to be questioned by the police about what she wanted in the first place (if that is in fact what happened);
- The father's sister should not have enabled the situation, by first sheltering L., and then by not returning her to the mother. This would not be the last time that the father's sister behaved inappropriately and inserted herself into the parental conflict, in L.'s presence, either; and
- Quite notably, the particular findings that Bruhn J. made, upon which the ex parte Order was made, although based on the mother's motion material only, continue to be supported by the evidentiary record at this trial.

---

## B. The Father Violently Assaulted, Choked and Smothered the Mother in July 2022

The father committed his next act of physical violence towards the mother in July of 2022. The Court repeats verbatim how the mother described this very upsetting incident at ¶ 32 of her trial affidavit:

> The last physical assault took place sometime in July 2022 and was in the presence of [L.]. I was at our home and during the course of conversation, the Respondent began to scream and yell at me and allege that I was unfaithful during our relationship. He began to make crass noises of a sexual nature in front of [L.]. As the Respondent would not stop, I threw a piece of decor onto to the ground to get his attention and instead, the Respondent lunged at me and began to chase me up the stairs. He then grabbed me and placed his arm around my neck in an attempt to choke me. When I screamed, he covered my mouth with his hand and plugged my nose with his fingers. [L.] started to cry and scream for the Respondent to stop when she saw me struggling to break free as I could no longer breathe. It was at this point that the Respondent reacted and finally let go.

The father's account in his trial affidavit, is that he was accused of "physically chasing and restraining her", but in reality the situation unfolded when the mother "unlawfully accessed [his] phone and confronted [him] about a romantic relationship [he] had begun within [his] home." He went on to say that the mother has been jealous and controlling, and that what the mother destroyed was in fact a large "statue that held sentimental value to [him]." He said he tried to de-escalate by repeatedly asking her to leave, she was the one acting aggressively and when he made remarks that provoked her, she was the one who lunged at him, in anger. He said he restrained the mother "momentarily" to protect himself and their surroundings, given her history of "escalating confrontations". He said his intent was to prevent further harm, and not to harm her.

But not only have the Court now found that the father was the aggressor of physical violence on prior occasions, what the Court then heard during the parties' in court testimony is the following.

The mother testified that she was in the home. The parties were having a normal conversation that then turned. The father started calling the mother a "cheater" and he called her a "whore", a "cunt", a "pussy" and a "puta" or a "Columbian whore". The Court notes that some of these are the words he used in his written communications to the mother at other times, such as during her Columbia Trip, and in court during this trial.

The mother testified that she had recently found in an old phone of the father's, that three days after she left, and the father started exchanging sexual text messages and inappropriate pictures with another women. The mother felt that the father had been tormenting her "since day one", yet she now knew he was a hypocrite. So when this July 2022 argument started, she was reminded of that, and she told the father that he was the "cheater" and a "liar", not her. That is when he started making sexual movements and noises, as if he was having sex with the woman in the text messages, to provoke her.

The mother said that when L. came into the room, she told the father to stop but he doubled down. That is when she threw the statute on the floor. The situation escalated into one of physical violence as she had described in her trial affidavit.

It was upsetting to hear the mother's testimony. For example, the mother said that L. then said: "Daddy, please let my Mommy go. Daddy, you're going to kill my mom". The mother was emotional and crying when she explained this. The father was unable to restrain himself during this testimony too; he interrupted. He insisted on taking a break right at that moment. The Court declined to take a break. The father got up and walked out. The father complained that the Court unfairly gave the mother too much trial time to testify.

The mother testified that the father only stopped choking her, when L. intervened. She said the father then went upstairs and threw up. She testified, "when he's angry, he doesn't know what he's doing."

During his examination-in-chief, the father largely repeated his version of events as described in the trial affidavit. His in-court testimony focused on the fact that the mother started it. He accused her of having come over to the Thornhill Property, with the intent to pick a fight. He also pointed the Court to the fact that the mother broke into his email and then sent him angry emails about his indiscretion. While the Court accepts his point, that there has been a lack of boundaries in this relationship and after it ended (although the parties were probably still in some form of intimate relationship at this time), the mother's view is that she had been gaslighted and called promiscuous by the father, yet he was the one having affairs.

**Most of the father's counsel's cross-examination of the mother on this incident sought to focus on minor inconsistencies, to argue that the fact the mother threw the statue was inconsistent with a "one sided pattern of intimidation" by the father, or to argue that this July 2022 incident was one of "mutual escalation". While there are competing narratives about who started it or who escalated it, the Court believes that the father assaulted the mother, and he hurt her physically on this occasion. This was not the first time he had done this.**

The Court also notes again that the father was also crass and disrespectful when answering specific questions at another time during his cross-examination about whether he had ever choked her. As mentioned elsewhere in this Judgment, he sexualized his answer and claimed, among other things, that the mother enjoyed "rough sex" in bed. This is the exact kind of behaviour that the mother said he had engaged in at the outset of the July 2022 incident, before the situation escalated.

**Lastly, the Court notes that L. was not quite 10 years old at the time of this incident. The Court finds she saw her father physically assault her mother for the second time on this occasion. The Court finds the mother's account to be more probable than the father's, that the child intervened to protect her mother. Then 10 year old L., uttered statements in the moment, that her mother was going to be killed.**

---

## C. The Father Sent the Child to Ask the Mother to Sign Documents to Renew the Mortgage on the Thornhill Property in November of 2023

The next incident that occurred was one in which the father used the child as a messenger to get the mother to sign renewal documents for the mortgage on the Thornhill Property. This occurred in November of 2023.

Although her interest in the Thornhill Property ought to have been bought out by this point, and although the father has now taken the position that the mother has no interest in it, the mother testified that in November of 2023, the father was emailing her to obtain her signature to renew the mortgage. Then one day L. came home with the form, and asked the mother to sign the document. The mother testified that when she told L. that this was an adult issue, L. called her "selfish", told her that she was "all about money" and told her that her father was "right", because the mother was going to "leave us on the street". The mother testified that L. continued to follow up and ask her whether she had signed the form after this, saying that she had to "bring it to my dad".

Regardless of whether or not the child said these things specifically, the father essentially admitted he had involved the child to secure the mother's signature to renew the mortgage. During his cross-examination, the father tried to justify his behaviour, saying it wasn't "uncommon" for him to send envelopes with L. to give to the mother, and that while L. wasn't aware necessarily what was in the envelope, maybe she looked at it. Later on in his cross-examination, the father admitted to having had a conversation with L. about the importance of him trying to keep the home.

This event has impacted the child so much so she would later bring it up more than once to the professionals who later became involved in this case once the second round of litigation got underway. She told both Ms. Gadsen and Ms. de Munnik about it. For instance, Ms. de Munnik testified that L. reported the mortgage renewal incident to her, as examples of the pressure she felt and of her being caught in the middle of her parents' conflict.

---

# PART V: THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION AND THE INCIDENTS OF CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN COURT APPEARANCES

## A. The Urgent Motion Before Himel J. on February 14, 2024

The mother launched her current Application on January 13, 2024. Soon thereafter, the mother brought her second urgent motion. It came before Himel J. on February 14, 2024.

In the her trial affidavit, the mother said she launched this proceeding due to a concern that the father would withhold L. She also said that she sought "protective measures" to ensure that when L. did spend time in the father's care, he would not expose her to conflict or abuse. She asked the Court to reduce his visits and impose supervision, to achieve this.

The Court found the mother's original motion material to be deficient. While Himel J. noted that the mother brought her urgent motion on an ex parte basis based on her fear of the father's reaction to the motion, the Court felt there were gaps in the evidence. Himel J. wanted to hear from the Society, which had been previously involved. Himel J. was not prepared to change the terms of the Separation Agreement, without hearing from the father, either. She scheduled an expedited case conference for March 4, 2024, and asked the Society to provide an update about its involvement, among other things.

In the mean time, Himel J. ordered neither parent to discuss the litigation with the child, or to insult the other parent, family members or friends, while the child was in his or her care. She requested that each parent engage in an online parenting program, and directed the parties to review certain material about co-parenting, including the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts - Ontario (the "AFCC") Parenting Guide. Himel J. also wrote, for the first time, that if the Society requested a temporary change to the parenting time, such as decreased time or supervision, the parties should cooperate.

---

## B. The Society's Involvement With this Family

The Society has been involved with this family on numerous occasions over the years. The mother testified that the Society became involved after the February 2018 incident, following the hole in the wall incident in December of 2021, and then beginning in 2024, once this round of the litigation got underway. The Society has continued to be involved ever since.

Ms. Gadsen first became involved with this family around the beginning of 2024, after Himel J. made the aforementioned referral to the Society. To be clear, there have been times throughout Ms. Gadsen's involvement, that L. reported improvements in her relationship and visits with the father and she has made statements that have revealed inappropriate behaviour on the part of the mother (upon which the father relies). But there have also been consistent problems with her relationship with the father throughout.

What L. reported to Ms. Gadsen throughout the Society's involvement, was consistent with the overwhelming amount of evidence that the Court heard during this trial. This included concerns about the father's impatience, anger and yelling, pressure being put on her, and her involvement in "adult issues".

Ms. Gadsen wrote informational letters for the Court to review during its case management of this case. The first one, dated February 28, 2024, written at the request of Himel J. in advance of the March 4, 2024 case conference, outlined the concerns the Society then had, about the father's anger management and L. being exposed to adult conflict. The Society would later conclude its investigation in August of 2024. The Society verified concerns about emotional harm to the child. Shortly thereafter, the Society had to re-open its file.

---

## C. The Case Conference Before Himel J. on March 4, 2024

Himel J. wrote a lengthy Endorsement following the first Case Conference she had scheduled as a result of the mother's urgent motion. The Endorsement sets out the following:

- Himel J.'s Endorsement begins by noting that the child needed stability, as there continued to be "significant conflict" between the parents. She noted that the Society was in the midst of its child welfare investigation, during which the father's anger was presenting as a significant concern. According to the Endorsement, the father said he was willing to engage in counselling and anger management. He would later access the services of Pat Colley, a therapist from whom he maintained at this trial that he had learned a great deal. He chose not to call her to testify;

- Himel J. endorsed that she had been told that the father had spoken to the child about this case. This she said, was a breach of her February Order, and was not in the child's best interests;

- The mother told the Court she had completed the parenting program (the online one that Himel J. had earlier ordered). The father had not done it, but said he would do so soon. Himel J. noted that the Society now wanted the parents to complete the "One Family 2 Homes" program offered by Jewish Child and Family Services. The parties had not done that course yet, but they agreed to;

- Himel J. wrote that the parenting schedule [in the Separation Agreement] had been created by the child, and this was a concern to the Court. Having heard the evidence at this trial, the Court agrees. She noted that the parents were arguing over whether the Tuesday visit in the Separation Agreement was intended to change to an overnight on a permanent basis as of the summer of 2022. Himel J. ordered the Tuesday overnight. This did not alter anything, but confirmed what had already been happening for about two years (i.e., the overnight had been in place by no later than June of 2022). At the same time, Himel J. cautioned the parties that once the Society's investigation was further along, and/or there was feedback about the child's views and preferences, including from the OCL, the schedule may change again;

- Himel J. ordered that there would be counselling for this child, with Allison Gardner, Adrienne Ambrosic or someone else from the Mackenzie Clinic, with both parents to cooperate as required by the counsellor. The counselling was to be closed;

- As conflict was also presenting at the child's basketball practices and games, Himel J. ordered the parents to refrain from engaging in conflict there, among other related terms. She ordered that if the basketball coach requested either parent to leave a game because of his or her behaviour, then that parent would be prohibited from attending further games without leave of the Court. As explained later, the evidence at this trial revealed that the father behaved badly at the child's basketball more than once, there was even police involvement and the father was required by the coach to sign a code of conduct;

- Himel J. wrote about the child support arrangements in the parties' Separation Agreement. She noted a disagreement about the ownership of Air BnB rental income earned from the basement apartment, and whether any child support payments coming from that pool of funds was properly credited to the father as payment of child support, an issue that was litigated during the course of this trial too. She declined to address the issue, as the father had not filed material;

- The Endorsement states, as the Court also heard about during this trial, that the father had not worked for about 2 years. It does make reference though, to the father's marijuana business in this Endorsement, in particular to the issue, also litigated at trial, about whether it is truly owned by the father, or by his sister, as the father and his sister have maintained;

- In the mean time, and also consistent with the terms in the parties' Separation Agreement, Himel J. made an order requiring the father to pay child support of $500 per month starting on April 1, 2024, plus 50% of the child's section 7 expenses, including counselling, without prejudice to either to claim a different amount or an earlier start date; and

- Finally Himel J. granted certain procedural Orders regarding the filing of pleadings, the provision of disclosure mostly regarding the financial issues, and she directed that a copy of her Endorsement be provided to the Society. She put the matter over to April 29, 2024, for a further case conference.

---

## D. The Case Conference Before Himel J. on April 29, 2024

Himel J.'s Endorsement of April 29, 2024, written following the next case conference, lists the litany of problems that continued to unfold. In particular:

- The Endorsement begins by noting that there had been some delay in implementing the terms of the March 4, 2024 Endorsement "(primarily by the father)", but there were now clear plans in place to address counselling, disclosure and other matters;

- The Endorsement states that the Society continued to be involved, with its [first] investigation still not yet complete. Himel J. wrote that the term she had earlier ordered, insulating the child from exposure to the litigation was not complied with, as the child was now being told to bring child support from the father to the mother;

- The Endorsement states that the OCL had not yet responded to indicate its agreement to act;

- The Endorsement describes the parties' written communications on App Close as "problematic";

- The Endorsement notes that the parties were attending at each other's homes;

- By this date, the father took the position that he was the beneficial owner of the entirety of the Thornhill Property. Although raised early on, claims related to this never were completely pleaded by the father;

- The Endorsement makes reference to the Cohabitation and Mortgage Agreement for the first time, about which Himel J. said further investigation was required; and

- The Endorsement references the need for further disclosure regarding the ownership of the marijuana business issue. There was also some dispute apparently raised about whether the mother was secretly earning income from running a cleaning business or rental income.

After noting the various problems, Himel J.'s Order following this conference contains 25 terms, in an attempt to manage and limit the chaos that had been unfolding. In addition to making various procedural orders, Himel J. ordered the parties to refrain from attending where the other parent was expected to be, except for her earlier order about the basketball games. She ordered the parents to communicate by App Close and she placed restrictions on their communications. She ordered them again, to read certain materials, such as from the AFCC-Ontario. She continued similar terms as those earlier ordered about not involving the child in the litigation and about the parents not disparaging the other or the other's family/friends. She asked the Society to provide an updating letter and made an order for disclosure of the notes and records in the possession of the Society. She made orders about Mother's Day and Father's Day, and about the division of the summer schedule. She granted the mother permission to travel to Florida in July or August for a week, and dispensed the father's travel consent. She also made a similar order as that which was previously ordered, about child support, and clarified that amounts owing for medical expenses or household expenses were separate and apart from child support. Finally, Himel J. put the matter over for a Settlement Conference on August 9, 2024. She directed that leave for motions had to be requested of her, by way of 14B Motion.

---

## E. The Involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer

Following this most recent case conference before Himel J. on April 29, 2024, the OCL accepted the Court's order appointing it, and counsel enlisted the assistance of clinician Ms. de Munnik to meet with the child with him, and to give evidence. Ms. de Munnik was assigned to assist counsel in this case on July 19, 2024.

Ms. de Munnik has a Master's degree in social work and is a member in good standing of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. She is a member of the clinical panel of the OCL, who assists counsel in meeting children the OCL represents, and she provides evidence of the views and preferences to the Court. Ms. de Munnik also conducts investigations and writes reports pursuant to section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, although that was not her mandate in this case.

Ms. de Munnik would go on to interview L. six times, on August 14, 2024, September 26, 2024, October 29, 2024, February 26, 2025, April 23, 2025 and on June 19, 2025.

Ms. de Munnik swore an affidavit on November 7, 2024 in anticipation of a November 2024 trial. She swore an updating affidavit on May 13, 2025 in advance of the start of this trial, after this case was not called to trial in November. She also met with L. and her counsel during this trial, and testified about that additional meeting (on June 19, 2025) orally.

What ought to have been the routine involvement of the OCL in this case did not occur without issues, either.

Ms. de Munnik's first meeting with counsel and the child was actually supposed to be on July 25, 2024, but it did not happen. Ms. de Munnik deposed that on July 26, 2024, the father wrote to the OCL, asked that counsel be removed, and that a new representative should be assigned for L. There was then supposed to be a rescheduled meeting on August 13, 2024. Once again, the father objected. This time he wrote an email to counsel saying that L. would not attend. The first meeting that occurred on August 14, 2024, was facilitated by the mother.

One of the hearsay statements in the mother's trial affidavit pertains to this first visit. The mother said that in August of 2024, L. told her that her father "yelled, screamed and threatened her after finding out that [L.] had confirmed to both the OCL and the York CAS the concerns [she] had raised regarding [the father's] conduct. She expressed that she was the only one suffering the consequences whenever she told the truth and so she would no longer say anything to anyone." Although this is one of the hearsay statements, notably the father "acknowledge[d] this incident and regret[s] [his] reaction profoundly".

Another, hearsay statement, arising out of the first, August 14, 2024 meeting, came through the OCL. To Ms. de Munnik, L. reported that her father had made a pejorative comment about counsel's appearance, and told her to "scream and yell and run out of your office". She also said that her father had told her, that Ms. de Munnik was a "doctor and a psychiatrist", and that if she felt uncomfortable, she should just not go to the appointment. The fact that these statements were made did not just emanate from the child through Ms. de Munnik. The father testified about this too, during his in-court testimony, in quite an astonishing fashion.

During his testimony on June 27, 2025, the father claimed that this evidence amounted to L.'s "misunderstanding". He said the child herself had referred to her counsel's appearance using a derogatory term that she learned from a rap song. The father claimed to have gotten "super mad" at her, because he had told her so many times, not to use "that word". He claimed to have told her that if she was going to continue, she had better scream a related term at the meeting. He said "she must have thought I was serious" as some kind of justification for what happened at the August 14, 2024 meeting. He then went on to say that he knew "George hates me" and "doesn't believe me", but that "I don't care", while maintaining that he doesn't just start calling people things like that out of context.

Yet that is exactly what he did later, when cross-examined by the OCL on the point. On July 16, 2025, while he was alleging in general that there had been bias and unfair treatment of him on the part of the OCL, the father repeated that the child calls her counsel this term, despite his alleged claim that he tried to correct the child about this earlier. Later on, he accused counsel for the OCL of being obsessed with the issue, suggesting, in a coy fashion, that the statement must be bothering him for some reason. And just as the Court was intervening to get this offensive and upsetting line of inquiry and testimony to stop, the father then said, under oath, "you do look like it, though".

---

## F. The Disney World Trip in the summer of 2023 and in July of 2024

The next incident that occurred pertained to the mother's trip to Florida, that Himel J. had permitted. This was the culmination of a dispute that began a year earlier, in the summer of 2023.

The mother said in her trial affidavit, that she had arranged in 2023 to take V. and L. to Disney World as a surprise. She said that after she first notified the father by way of email on June 28, 2023, she then told him the intended travel dates about two weeks later, and a few days after that, she booked the tickets. On August 23, 2023, the father told the mother he would not consent until she agreed to change the Separation Agreement as it concerned the property provisions.

For his part, the father claimed in his trial affidavit that he opposed the trip because of the Columbia Trip. He claimed that his approach to this trip was "entirely trauma informed".

While the Disney World trip did not happen in 2023, the mother was able to take the Disney Trip in July of 2024, after the conference before Himel J. and her Order. The father was then incapable of just letting the mother and the two girls have a fun time in Florida. Instead, an apparent dispute between the parties about the father's telephone contact with L. during this trip erupted. And as with some of their other conflicts, the situation escalated and the father used abusive language directed at the mother.

The Court gathers there had some dispute wherein the father felt that he was being denied reasonable telephone contact with L. during the trip. The App Close communications about the Disney Trip that were tendered as an exhibit, reveal that at 7:26 PM on July 30, 2024, the mother wrote a message to the father on App Close confirming that he had already spoken to L. a few times that day, and that her phone battery was about to die. She told the father that they were still at the park, which closed at 9 PM.

Six days later on August 4, 2024, the father sent a message to the mother demanding that she confirm she was coming home with the child. He wrote that he would not "stand by this time" if she didn't return and instead attempted to "kidnap or attempt another abduction". Two minutes later, he wrote the following:

> Also, please respond regarding your brother health. Is he dead? Like Valentina. Or the man you killed that raped you. Remember you shot him in the head with Ben. Remember, Ben, the guy you got killed for a story. Remember he died like your father did. The rabbit! Bitch!

And then two minutes after that, he wrote:

> The man that raped you. Remember you put a bullet in his head before running to Canada! Remember. The courts will hear all about your past. Lol. [V.] for [F.] Lol. (The latter reference the Court gathers is referable the fact that the father said the mother abandoned V. for another man).

After this, there continued to be an argument between the two about the flight home, and L's parenting arrangements after the trip. In the midst of those particular exchanges, the father wrote:

> Is your brother with poor little Valentina? That girl had to suffer so much didn't' she? Just like the guy you murdered remember. The guy ou (sic.) shot in the head! Go to church as much as you want!

---

## G. The Settlement Conference on August 9, 2024

There next event in court was a Settlement Conference before Himel J. on August 9, 2024. It appears that it began with Himel J. first removing the father's then counsel, (his first lawyer), from the record.

Like her previous Endorsement, Himel J. noted that there continued to be much conflict, and her latest Endorsement once again listed a litany of problems. In particular:

- The Court learned at this trial that there had been some initial counselling with Ms. Gardiner, but by the time of this Endorsement, that counselling had come to an end;

- The OCL was now involved, but counsel reported to the Court, that the father had interfered with his ability to do his job, including by trying to have him removed. This is already described above;

- The Society filed a letter for the Court's review, that included concerning statements made by the father to the child in violation of Himel J.'s earlier Order, and ongoing concerns about the father's anger and behaviour. The child herself was now stating that she wanted the father to engage in anger management;

- The mother asked to bring a motion to vary or suspend the father's parenting time;

- The mother also complained about piecemeal disclosure coming from the father. Himel J. warned the parties that the failure to comply with orders risked that pleadings might be struck; and

- Regarding the marijuana business in particular, paragraph 9 of the Endorsement states that the father intended to obtain the requested disclosure from his sister, to be produced 14 days, before the sister was to be questioned. This term was never fulfilled, as explained later.

No motion ended up being brought about the father's parenting time, after this conference. That is because the Endorsement specifically notes that both parties agreed to follow any recommendations made by the Society. In particular, Himel J. ordered on consent, that if the Society determined there needed to be a temporary change to the parenting schedule, which could include the reduction of time, the removal of overnights, or even the suspension of a parent's time, that parent would comply until the Society changed the recommendation, subject to a court order otherwise.

Regarding counselling, Himel J. ordered that the child would now start that with Ms. Ambrosic as soon as possible, either on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, as recommended by Ms. Ambrosic. This counselling continued to be closed, although Ms. Ambrosic was empowered to share information with the OCL in the ordinary course. Himel J. ordered that the child's counselling was not to be terminated pending a trial decision.

Himel J. also ordered that the father was now to increase his individual counselling with Ms. Colley, to take place on an alternating weekly basis. She asked him to supply a letter by the time of the Trial Scheduling Conference confirming the counselling sessions that he attended, the future plan for therapy and the general topics being addressed.

Finally, there is an additional term in this Endorsement about parental communications. Otherwise Himel J. put the matter over to September 20, 2024 for a Trial Scheduling Conference. At this point, the Court estimated that four to five days of trial time would be allotted. The Court made the trial peremptory to both parties.

---

## H. The Father's Urgent Motion on August 16, 2024

The August 9, 2024 conference occurred on a Friday. Over the weekend that followed, the father accused the mother of wrongfully retaining L. He brought an ex parte motion on Monday August 12, 2024, seeking her return even though L. was already in his care by the Sunday. In addition to seeking the child's return to his care, the father asked the Court to make an order for police enforcement.

On August 13, 2024, Shaw J. directed the parties to appear before her on August 16, 2024. When the matter returned before her on August 16, 2024, in addition to reviewing the earlier letter from the Society that Himel J. had for the August 9, 2024 Settlement Conference, Shaw J. noted that there was now another letter from the Society dated August 16, 2024. It stated that the mother had the child for an extra night, but the Society thought her decision to keep the child for that extra overnight was reasonable. Shaw J. was also told that the father had continued to obstruct the OCL's work. This fact was proven at this trial, discussed already elsewhere in this Judgment.

Ms. Gadsen's letter of August 16, 2024 was filed as an exhibit at this trial. It concludes with the Society's concern, that this Court shares, that the parties had just been in Court a few days earlier, and yet there were more issues.

Although Shaw J. admonished both parties about their conduct, and to follow the Orders in place, in the result, she dismissed the father's motion. She ordered the father to pay to the mother $3,000.00 in costs within 30 days.

---

## I. The Trial Scheduling Conference on September 20, 2024

At the Trial Scheduling Conference, the mother presented various charts setting out what Himel J. described as "the outstanding (and basic) disclosure that she has repeatedly requested in respect of the father's income for child support". The mother also complained that the father had not paid the costs order of Shaw J.

Himel J. authorized the mother to bring a motion to strike the father's pleading in respect of the financial issues at the start of the trial. While the mother did later serve a voluminous motion record for the November 2024 trial, the trial did not proceed in November of 2024, and she did not proceed with the motion to strike at the outset of this trial in May of 2025.

Despite Himel J.'s warning that the father's change in counsel should not delay the trial, the father still did not have counsel, although he said he intended to retain new counsel within a week. The father sought leave to amend his pleading at this conference, which Himel J. denied, finding that it would prejudice the mother's ability to prepare for trial. This request to amend was revived during this trial.

The parties had not completed the TSEF either by this date, as they ought to have. Himel J. made provision and set a process for that to occur. Himel J. asked the mother's counsel to make changes to the TSEF and to circulate it. The father was given until October 11, 2024 to voice his objections, which he did by sending them to the Court without first serving the mother.

---

## J. The Supplementary Endorsement of Himel J. dated October 17, 2024 and the Completion of the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form

Himel J. followed up with the parties about completing this form by email from the judicial assistant on October 9, 2024. While the father provided his comments about the form on October 11, 2024, he also sent a lengthy email in breach of Himel J.'s directions.

This Endorsement makes reference to the fact that once again, there was a request to amend a pleading, although now apparently with reference to the OCL and the Society, as opposed to for the purpose of pursing arguments about the beneficial ownership of the Thornhill Property. Once again, Himel J. denied leave to amend, citing the risk that the trial would be delayed.

In the end, Himel J. increased the trial time to 6 days, now to account for the OCL's request for time and a new appraisal issue.

---

## K. The Trial Readiness Conference Before Himel J. on November 15, 2024

The parties appeared before Himel J. in trial readiness Court on November 15, 2024. Himel J. endorsed that the trial was ready to proceed. Notably, the father had found counsel who was prepared to represent him at trial. Himel J. ordered that the trial would not be called until several days into the trial sittings, to give new counsel additional time to prepare.

Disclosure continued to be provided at this point. There was some uncertainly about whether the mother would be proceeding with her motion to strike. There are directions in this Trial Readiness Endorsement about that. Himel J. ordered the father to pay $1,100 in costs related to a request of the father's to adjourn the trial, that was denied.

Unfortunately, the matter was not called to trial during the November 2024 sittings.

---

## L. The Christmas Incident, 2024, and Its Aftermath

What happened during the Christmas holiday in 2024, after the November 2024 trial didn't proceed, was very much talked about during this trial. The Court heard about it from each of the parents, from Ms. Gadsen, from Ms. de Munnik, from Ms. Geraldo, and from the father's sister, during their examinations-in-chief and in cross-examinations. The Christmas incident was another example of an incident, like those which occurred in February 2018 and March 2022, that involved V. (and other family members), in the conflict and chaos.

The Court's impression after hearing a great deal of evidence about the Christmas incident, was that it was a significant, alarming, upsetting and disturbing incident, for which all those who were involved are responsible. The arguments raised in this case included ones about fairness to the father, and about the extent to which the fallout from the Christmas incident impacted the trajectory of this case. While the Court continues to hold that view about who was responsible, counsel for the mother characterized the incident differently, as "the straw that broke the camel's back", during closing submissions. That is a better descriptor. What happened is as follows.

### (1) The Exit-Pre Trial Before Bennett J. on December 2, 2024

The Christmas incident began with an exit pre-trial before Bennett J. on December 2, 2024 that was held in an attempt to settle this case after the November 2024 trial did not proceed. The only thing that got resolved, was the division of the Christmas holiday break, for 2024 only. The Court could neither locate an Endorsement for this event, nor did the parties file one, but it is not contested terrain that the parties entered into Interim Minutes of Settlement that day. Their agreement then unraveled before the ink was even dry on the consent document.

The Interim Minutes of Settlement provided that L. was to be with the mother on Christmas Eve from 6 PM until Christmas Day on 8 PM. As it happened, Christmas Eve fell on a Tuesday, which according to the regular schedule would have been one of the father's overnight parenting days. Christmas Day, a Wednesday, was one of the mother's overnight parenting days under the regular schedule. Because the Interim Minutes otherwise say the parties were to follow the current schedule for the balance of the break, the mother took the position at this trial, that the Interim Minutes of Settlement meant that the child would come into her care on Christmas Eve (i.e. Tuesday, during the father's parenting time), stay with her overnight until Wednesday at 8 PM, and because the next parenting exchange wasn't until Thursday, the child would remain with her overnight on Christmas Day, despite the reference to 8PM. That too, is how the Court reads the document as drafted.

The father took the position at trial that the child ought to have been with him overnight on Christmas Day into Boxing Day, even though that is not what the document said. To make this point, he claimed that Bennett J. said otherwise at the exit pre-trial, and accused Ms. Yehia of sharp practice and deliberately mis-drafting the document. To quote specifically what the father rudely, sarcastically and inappropriately said about Bennett J. during Ms. Yehia's cross-examination when accusing Ms. Yehia of inappropriate conduct:

> Like is Justice Bennett retarded that he would say drop her off at 8:00 o'clock and then start the regular schedule.

As explained in more detail later, the father brought a mid-trial motion to get access to the transcript of the exit pre-trial, not for the purposes of challenging the mother's credibility and proving exactly what the agreement was supposed to be, but because he asserted that there had been some discussion about the pleadings issue that was relevant to whether leave at trial should be granted to amend. As there was a live issue at trial about amending the pleadings, the Court ordered production of the transcript for that purpose only, while saying the parties were to provide the Court with a redacted transcript, so as to not disclose improper settlement discussions to the trial judge. Once he was armed with the transcript, the father's request to use the transcript expanded, to show what exactly the Christmas agreement was supposed to be. The Court did not allow that for oral reasons. Of note, there was a signed document that sets out what the agreement was, and both parties were represented when they settled the division of time over the Christmas break, the mother by Ms. Yehia, and the father by his second lawyer, Ms. Licata. Two lawyers were involved in this negotiation; even if Ms. Yehia drafted it, the father had counsel with whom to review the document.

### (2) The Events of Christmas Day, 2024

Despite the parties' differing statements about what the agreement was supposed to be, the parties did not follow either of their alleged understandings as to its terms. The mother testified that a mere seven days later on December 9, 2024, L. told her, that the father had said, that she would be sleeping over on December 25. The mother said she told the child that wasn't correct, but then proceeded to ask her what she wanted to do, regardless of the Interim Minutes of Settlement. According to the mother, the child said that she did not want to sleep over at her father's house, but didn't mind spending "a little bit more time with daddy".

Next, the mother initiated written communications with the father to propose a different schedule for the Christmas holiday. For example, the mother testified that she proposed the father could keep L. a bit later on Christmas Eve, and that the father could also see the child for about 1 hour between 7 PM and 8 PM on Christmas Day. While she testified that she followed up with him two or three times, there was never a response from him.

The father then involved the child directly, rather than dealing with the mother. The mother testified that the father called her phone on December 25 at around 1 PM, but asked to speak to L., not her. As a result of that call, L. then asked her mother, whether she would drop her off at the father's home, at 4:30 PM instead of 7 PM. The mother testified that she agreed to this, but she told L. that she would then pick her up at 8 PM. The mother proceeded to drop L. off, at 4:30 PM. The father said the mother dropped the child off at 5:30 PM, and he claimed to have been unaware as to why the mother was dropping the child off "early" (i.e. as opposed to at 8 PM – his position on what the Interim Minutes of Settlement meant).

The mother testified that at 7:30 PM, L. called her, to confirm what time she would be picking her up. The mother said that she went to the father's house for 8 PM. The mother said that when she arrived in the father's driveway, she called L. She said that L. asked her, if she could spend a further five minutes with the father, because the father's sister had just dropped off some food. The mother agreed. The mother testified that while she was waiting this extra five minutes, the father called her, told her he had read the Interim Minutes of Settlement, and said that L. would be staying there overnight.

The mother then texted a Society worker about this emerging dispute, before the situation began to further escalate. She also called the father. At some point, the father stopped answering the phone. The mother admitted in cross-examination, that she called the father over twenty times. In response to the father's complaint that the mother was excessively honking the horn, she admitted that she was honking the horn at least "once", but "not consistently".

The mother testified that some of the calls she made did not get answered. One time though, L. took one of her calls. She testified that L. picked up the phone, told her mother that she too had read the Interim Minutes of Settlement, and said "maybe my daddy is correct". The father's evidence about this, was that he told the child, that he didn't like the "direction this was heading", and so the child herself could decide to stay or go home with the mother, saying he was "ok" with either scenario. He also admitted during his examination-in-chief, that he had showed L. the "order" and claimed that L. wanted to stay.

The father's sister testified that she was at the father's home that evening, after a family gathering, because she had brought some food over from that gathering. She testified that the mother showed up and was honking the horn, while they were trying to eat dinner, to the point that she got fed up and decided to leave. She claimed that this was "not new behaviour from the mother".

The mother testified that at around 8:30 PM, she was still in the driveway. At this point, V. called her to find out what was happening. The mother testified she told V. not to come over, but V. insisted on coming over to the father's house.

According to the father, by 9:30 or 9:45 PM, the mother was still in the driveway, still honking the horn. He told L. that she should go home. At some point after V. arrived, the mother went to knock on the door. She claimed during her examination-in-chief, that her intention was just to say goodbye to L. (if in fact L. was not going to come with her). But the mother said that as she approached the door, L. opened the door and said she was getting ready to leave. The father claimed that there was a shattered ashtray on the outside his front door; he opined that the mother had thrown it in anger or frustration.

Suddenly, the father's sister returned on the scene. The father's sister claim, was that she came back because she had forgotten to bring desert and some samosas over, earlier. She described her choice to return as a "godsend", because V. was now there too, and both the mother and V. were trying to "attack" her brother. By attack she did not mean "physically" but rather they were yelling.

The mother's perspective is that father's sister picked an argument with her. The father's sister herself testified that she told the mother and V. to "get the fuck away from my brother". V. then got into an argument with the father's sister. By this point, the father was also outside. He told his sister to leave. He put L. in the car. L. now placed in the car, had a front row seat to watch the continuing conflict unfold.

The matter did not end there. According to the mother, the father's sister called her horrible names (similar to those the father has called her), and then started recording the scene. The mother testified that she approached the father's sister, saying "what did you just say to me". It seems the father may have gotten in the middle of the two women, according to the mother. The father's sister's phone fell down onto the ground into the snow. In cross-examination, the mother admitted that she slapped the father's sister's phone down into the snow, although she claimed to have done so accidentally.

The mother testified that the father's sister then started chasing her after the phone got knocked out of her hand. The mother next realized that the father's sister's glasses were off her face and in the snow. The mother realized that L. jumped out of the car to protect her, and hit her aunt in the back. According to the mother, it was after L.'s physical intervention that the father's sister left, and the mother, V. and L. left.

The accounts of how the father's sister's phone and the glasses got knocked onto the ground differed. According to the father, his sister was already leaving in her car, but the mother threatened to get her fired from her job, and so his sister returned now for a third time. He said that his sister then got back out of the car and started yelling and screaming. The father testified that his sister approached the mother "pretty aggressively" and then V. punched his sister. That is what caused the glasses to fall on the snow. The father said that L. got out of the car and gave his sister a "second slap or chop".

The father's sister testified that the mother had threatened to "take away [her] company". Her account also was that this apparently caused the two women to re-engage. The father's sister said that the mother reached into the sister's car and grabbed her phone. The father's sister testified that during this exchange, she said to the mother "I'm so happy" and "I cannot wait to show the Court who you really are" since she was filming the exchange. She said to the father's counsel (and then to me) while looking at me during her in court testimony, "Monty, I have this all on tape too and I'd be more than happy to show the court the video. Your Honour, if you would like to see the video evidence of that day, I would be happy to short the court, [the mother's] behaviour and how – you know, and my brother's behaviour of that day. I'd be happy to do that". None of the lawyers had asked to introduce this video.

The father's sister testified that the mother pushed her during the altercation. She also testified that the mother tried to punch her. She otherwise testified that she got punched in the face twice. She said she thought it was the mother who had punched her, but she later came to learn that it was both V., and L., who did this. Apparently the mother told her that it was L. who punched her, but the father later told his sister, that he saw V. punch her.

As set out in her supplementary trial affidavit sworn May 13, 2025, Ms. de Munnik interviewed L. after the Christmas incident. L. explained that it was her aunt who had interfered in her parent's discussions during the evening of December 25. L. also told Ms. de Munnik, that the father had actually grabbed her mother from behind, and her aunt was being aggressive. That is why she got out to physically intervene to protect her mother.

During a subsequent conversation about the issue with Ms. de Munnik, L. reported, that V. had apparently told her, that the father's sister was claiming that V. was the one who had hit the sister. L. told Ms. de Munnik that was not true, since V. was far away during the altercation. L. was confused about why it was alleged, that V. had hit her aunt.

### (3) The Mother's and V.'s Criminal Charges Arising Out of the Christmas Incident

According to the mother, soon after the Christmas incident, things appeared to calm down for a time. The parents spent time together at L.'s basketball games, and they even had lunch together. Now with hindsight, the mother testified that she was naïve. She said that while the father pretended to be her "best friend", she and V. would later be criminally charged, and the father's sister would proceed to launch the civil law suit against V.

The father testified that his sister wanted to "press charges" after the Christmas incident, but she asked for his permission to do so first before she went to the police. He said he was not going to stand in her way. The father's sister gave similar evidence, although she added that she spoke to the police right away, on the next day, so if in fact any advance permission was actually obtained from the father, it was given immediately. The father otherwise said that he only reluctantly went to the police station, three of four weeks later to give a statement.

According to the redacted police occurrence reports that the father obtained on May 8, 2025 just before the start of this trial, both the mother and V. were charged with an assault. The mother is alleged to have punched the father's sister twice in the chest and arm on December 25, 2024, causing her glasses to have been knocked off and break. It is alleged that V. punched the father's sister in the face, also causing her glasses to be knocked off and broken. At this trial, the Court was told that the criminal charges against V. were later withdrawn, but those against the mother remain.

The mother's undertaking dated January 16, 2025 prevents her from being any place she knows the father's sister to live, work, frequent or otherwise be. Out of an abundance of caution after the issue was raised by the Court on the first day of the trial, the mother obtained a variation of that undertaking the same day, to permit her to be present during these proceedings when the father's sister later testified.

### (4) The Father's Inappropriate Conversations with L. After the Christmas Incident

The mother testified that before the charges came, the father told L., that her mother had better negotiate with him. When she didn't, the charges came.

The father's account of this, given during his examination-in-chief, was that he had spoken with L. a few times after the Christmas incident to make sure that L. was "ok". He claimed to have just said to her, that if her parents could have just worked better together and be more solution oriented, or if the mother and his sister could have just talked about what happened, none of this would have happened. He also claimed to have told L., that the situation was going to "get worse" (he knew by this point, because his sister had already told him, that V. was going to get arrested). He claimed that L. was already aware of the arrest when the "solution oriented" comment had been made.

L. confirmed to Ms. de Munnik, as both parents said, that things seemed to calm down after the Christmas incident. L. told Ms. de Munnik that a few days later, she saw a message on the father's phone from her aunt, about the police. L. said she felt that her father was lying to her because he had earlier denied knowing what was happening with the police. L. told Ms. de Munnik that her father had told her "You should talk to your mom and like negotiate". Ms. de Munnik said that L. didn't remember the father's exact words, but she reported that the next day, he had told her to forget what he had said. He still reiterated that she should talk to her mother.

L. recounted another similar conversation that she had had with her father, later in January, during which the father made a comment, that the mother could "lose her job; this is serious". Ms. de Munnik testified that L. also understood this to mean that the father wanted her to persuade the mother to settle this family law case. During this conversation with Ms. de Munnik, L. brought up, again, the mortgage renewal incident from November 2023, citing it as an example of the stress she has been put under. Ms. de Munnik was asked in in cross-examination, whether L. had mentioned anything about the father's supposed apology issued to L. after the Christmas incident. (The father claimed to have apologized to L. after the solution oriented conversation). Ms. de Munnik testified, that L. did not say, that her father apologized the next day.

When he was cross-examined about his post-Christmas incident conversations with the child by counsel for the OCL, the father claimed to have told L. that his perspective could be different than his, but that didn't mean that he was lying to her. But he also admitted to telling the child, that she should be interested in seeing the videos that he has regarding what happened, rather than "upholding a lie". After saying this, the father launched into another of his in-court rants, saying that a "lie" was being upheld in this court room, and that the OCL was not protecting his daughter. He trailed off onto another topic and accused Mr. Van Hoogenhuize of allowing L. to live in the smallest room of the mother's house and not looking into the fact that she is being abused. The father's insistence on proving to L., what he believes is the truth surrounding the Christmas incident, would result in the further fracturing of his relationship with L., and later in the demise of the reunification therapy that Himel J. put into place.

### (5) The Suspension of the Father's Parenting Time on January 28, 2025

During the post-Christmas incident debrief with the Society that occurred in January, L. told Ms. Gadsen, that she needed a "break" from her father. Acting on the authority of the Order of Himel J. dated August 9, 2024, the Society suspended the father's parenting time on January 28, 2025. Ms. Gadsen wrote a letter dated January 28, 2025 advising of its decision, due to concerns for L.'s emotional well-being and mental health and her exposure to the conflict that transpired during the Christmas incident.

Ms. Gadsen testified during her examination-in-chief, that after the suspension, L. became calmer, happier and less anxious. She denied in cross-examination that the child's relationship had been improving at the time of the suspension, or that L. had thought that the suspension the Society imposed, would only be a short break.

Rather, the Society's initial plan, was to re-assess the situation in 30 days. And the letter does say that the Society would re-assess the situation by February 28, 2025, but it expected the father to develop a better understanding of the impact on L. of involving her in adult matters, and to commit to shield her from adult discussions related to the Court proceedings.

The Society had hoped that things would quickly get put back on track with the involvement of L.'s therapist, but that did not materialize. L. wasn't ready to resume visits with the father at the end of the 30-day suspension on February 28, 2025. At that point, the Society recommended reunification therapy.

### (6) Whether the Society Conducted "Flawed", "One-Sided" and "Biased" Investigations or Treated the Father Unfairly

The father's view, expressed to Ms. Gadsen right at the outset of her first investigation, is that the mother has been alienating or improperly influencing L. In his cross-examination of the mother, not just about the Christmas incident, the father's counsel attempted to establish that the mother has used the Society as a tool to commit parental alienation against him.

In part through his counsel's cross-examination of Ms. Gadsen, the father also took the position that the Society has conducted "flawed" or "one-sided" and "biased" investigations. The father instructed his counsel to cross-examine Ms. Gadsen on this, including even asking her such questions as whether her membership in an intimate partner violence unit with the Society can "manifest in bias against men". The Society does not share the father's view, that the mother has influenced the child, or that this is a case of alienation.

Meanwhile, when testifying in chief about it, the father at first admitted that the conversations he had with L. after the Christmas incident "probably" played a role in the Society's decision to suspend, but he maintained that he had he apologized to L. Otherwise, in keeping with the themes that he advanced during this trial, that there has been alienation, that the Society's investigation was flawed, and the system is biased and has treated him unfairly, he then went on to point out that the mother talked to the Society first on January 27, before Ms. Gadsen talked to L., and the decision to suspend his parenting time was then made. The father claimed that his first opportunity to tell his side of the story to Ms. Gadsen did not come for a further four months, until April 22, 2025. He said that what had happened back in January, was that Ms. Gadsen just phoned him to tell him that his parenting time was being suspended, he was upset, and he wasn't given a chance to talk to her.

Ms. Gadsen's evidence about her investigation into the Christmas incident, was that she talked to each of the parents, and the child before the decision to suspend the father's parenting time had been made. Ms. Gadsen testified that she felt that L. was quite open with her feelings and she wasn't coached. Just as Ms. de Munnik also testified during this trial, and just as Ms. Geraldo would later testify respecting her subsequent involvement to provide reunification therapy, Ms. Gadsen testified that L. was "quite upset" about the criminal charges.

On the evening after the penultimate day of this trial, the Court released an Endorsement affording the father a right of Reply to respond to Ms. Geraldo's evidence for certain specific reasons (see below for further particulars about this). When the matter returned before the Court on July 18, 2025 the father first refused to testify, unless the Court acknowledged that the Society's investigations (among other supposed investigations in this matter) were flawed and biased. He claimed the Court had given this acknowledgement earlier in the trial and he wanted the Court to confirm it. In the absence of getting that mid-trial acknowledgement from the Court, the father said that he would be recalling certain witnesses to question them again, to establish the flawed and biased nature of their investigations.

The Court neither acceded to the demand for confirmation, nor did it allow him to recall witnesses. While the father eventually said he would testify in Reply about Ms. Geraldo's evidence after arguing with the Court about it, he then instructed his counsel, to repeat this in his written closing submissions, his claim that the Court had acknowledged that Ms. Gadsen's investigation was one-sided and biased, that it only addressed allegations raised by the mother while "completely ignoring concerns raised by the father" and that there were "flaws in how [the] CAS conducted its investigation", among other complaints.

There is no general principle that prevents a judge on a best interests' analysis from considering the actions of a child protection agency: see B.J.T. v. J.D., 2022 SCC 24 ¶63. A court order conferring upon the Society the power to suspend parenting time is unusual, particularly when it is made outside the parameters of a child protection proceeding and its governing legislation. The Court did ask a number of pointed questions of Ms. Gadsen, including about what went into the Society's decision-making prior to suspending the father's parenting time, about court oversight, about what the Society envisioned when it suspended the parenting time both in terms of the length of the suspension and what next steps would be taken, about what the child understood the anticipated length of the suspension to be, and about why the Society chose not to bring a protection application at different points in time after the suspension. The Court also asked questions about the extent to which the Society probed into the father's mental health too, for that matter. The father did not highlight that, when he made the aforementioned submissions.

Regarding the father's complaints about the Society's investigations, the Court heard evidence about how the Society acted throughout its involvement, not just about the Christmas incident where the father placed his focus. Ms. Gadsen testified that at the beginning of her involvement, she reviewed the history of the Society's involvement, and then proceeded to interview the parents and L.

Ms. Gadsen testified about the process she embarks upon when interviewing children, to establish the reliability of the child's statements. Ms. Gadsen testified that she had been interviewing children, pretty much daily during her entire tenure with the Society. She testified that she explains her role to children and talks to children privately, away from parental influence.

It is true that Ms. Gadsen generally met with the child in the mother's home, albeit she clarified that the mother was not present when she interviewed L. But there was a reason for the fact that most of L.'s interviews took place at the mother's home. The father said to Ms. Gadsen, that he wanted to be present when L. spoke to her. Ms. Gadsen was also only allowed to meet with the child once at the father's home, and when that occurred, the conversation took place outside. While the Court notes that there is reference in her letter to the Court of February 28, 2025, that he did allow her access to view the inside of his home, Ms. Gadsen testified that the visit/interview where she was not allowed in the home, was an "unannounced" visit. If there was any unevenness in the manner in which Ms. Gadsen conducted her interviews, the father participated in creating those conditions.

Ms. Gadsen's view was that L. had been fairly open and honest with her across her interviews. She described that at times, L. was only been willing to give "tidbits" of information, whereas other times she was very open. But she interviewed L. many times. Ms. Gadsen testified that L. has also at times expressed some worry about sharing information, for fear that she may be questioned about it later by the father. For instance, when Ms. Gadsen met with L. on that occasion outside the father's home, she observed L. to be more quiet than normal. L. expressed a worry to her, that because the door was open, she wasn't sure if the father could hear what she was saying. The Court notes again the evidence about the father's angry reaction in August of 2024 (which he admitted) after the child had made disclosures to the Society and to the OCL.

Returning to the Society's specific decision to suspend the father's parenting time, while the Court agrees that it was informed by the child's views, and the father was not given much input into the Society's decision to suspend, it was more than that. Again, the father himself admitted that his post-Christmas incident behaviour "probably" played a role in the Society's decision to suspend. Moreover Ms. Gadsen had been working with this family now, for a year. She was familiar with them, the conflict that had been ongoing, and the impact of that conflict on the child. Her letters to the Court said as much. She knew this child, having interviewed her many times.

This trial is not an appeal about the correctness of Himel J.'s Order. Furthermore:

- Although the father claimed that the August 9, 2024 was made without his consent, that is not what the Endorsement states. The father did not seek leave to appeal Himel J.'s Order of August 9, 2024. Nor did the father move to set that order been set aside, either after it was made, or when the Society acted on it. Nor did the Society move to set it aside or appeal the Order at any point, based on a lack of notice to it when the Order was made, or thereafter based on the absence of its consent to supervise the situation and to act accordingly;

- The Order did not confer upon the Society unfettered discretion to suspend. It was made subject to court order otherwise;

- The father did not take steps to bring the matter back on before the Court, after his parenting time was suspended. He could have;

- There ended up being judicial oversight of the Society's decision to suspend, discussed next. It was the mother who initiated that oversight, not the father, even though he is the one complaining of unfair treatment, and that the suspension of his parenting time impacted the trajectory of this case;

- Quite apart from what the August 9, 2024 Order provided, on the totality of the evidence the Court heard, the suspension of the father's parenting time was not on this record unreasonable or contrary to this child's best interests. Rather, the decision to suspend was supported by the evidence that the Court heard at this trial; and

- The Society tried to implement two reasonable solutions thereafter, first by trying to engage in a therapeutic setting with the child's existing therapist, and then via a separate reunification therapist. So did Himel J., when she ordered the latter.

### (7) The Case Management Hearing Before Himel J. on March 27, 2025

As the Court just indicated, it was the mother, not the father, who requested the next hearing before the case management judge on March 27, 2025, on an urgent basis, due to "dated trial affidavits (caused by the delayed trial)", for guidance respecting the Society's recommendations (following the suspension), and to reiterate the need for this matter to proceed on the next sittings in May of 2025.

According to the Society's letter to the Court dated February 28, 2025 mentioned above, by this point there had been two calls between the child and Ms. Ambrosic in particular, and the child now felt rushed and pressured into seeing her father. The child was expressing to her therapist, that she was fearful of seeing her father, even with a third-party present. She was refusing to attend individual therapy, which was obviously counterproductive. Fortunately, the situation changed after the February 28, 2025 letter. The Endorsement states that by March 25, 2025, the child expressed being ready to engage in telephone calls with the father, if monitored by a third-party. She had returned to counselling with Ms. Ambrosic, also.

Based on the Society's recommendation that the child continue with individual therapy, but that a separate therapist be retained by the parties to assist with reunification, Himel J. made such an order. She wrote that the latter should start within days or a few weeks, a statement that the father would go on to selectively misquote during this trial. She imposed various terms in the Endorsement to get that counselling underway.

The Court gathers that the father must have asked for leave to bring a motion at this appearance. Himel J. declined to schedule that, given that the child was refusing to spend time with the father in person, in light of the Society's recommendations, in light of the identified protection concerns as they now presented, and given that the trial was coming up in May. There was also her order for reunification therapy.

### (8) The Father's Attendance at the Child's Basketball Game on March 29, 2025

The father then acted yet again, with self-help. Two days later on March 29, 2025, the father showed up at the child's basketball game. The mother testified that she and L. had to lock themselves in the washroom. The police were called. She said the father was fighting with the coach.

The father testified that it was the mother who called the police on him. He claimed that when the police looked at the Order, they took his side, but he decided he was not going to stay, because the coach, whom he said was a personal friend of his, was giving the family 50% off his programs, and he did not want to cause problems. In cross-examination, the father repeated this evidence about the involvement of the police, and added that the coach had no problem with him being there. Aspects of this explanation once again rested on hearsay of the coach and of unidentified police officer or officers.

Incidentally, these were not the only incidents regarding the father's bad behaviour at basketball games. In cross-examination, the father was asked whether he had ever gotten suspended from basketball games. He went on to tell a story about how he was upset at the coach for giving three boys more playing time, in priority to L., who was the only girl in the league. As the questioning about this continued, the father admitted that he was required to sign a "code of conduct" document, but minimized the significance of this, saying that the coach made a deal with him that if he signed the code of conduct, his concerns (about L.'s playing time) would be addressed appropriately. After this, he said, there were no more issues.

### (9) The Paternal Aunt's and Grandmother's Surreptitious Attendance at L.'s School

There were other like issues during this time frame, this time involving the surreptitious attendance of the father's family members, to see L. The Court finds the father orchestrated this.

Specifically, the father's sister testified that she and her mother went to see L. at her school recently (i.e. after the suspension). In cross-examination, the father's sister claimed to have been unaware that the father's parenting time had been suspended. During her examination-in-chief, she had claimed they went there because she and her mother were going on a long vacation overseas, and that there was some tradition of them doing this, before departing on long trips.

The father's sister testified that when they attended, L. gave her and the paternal grandmother a hug, but looked "scared" as if someone was watching her. She also testified that she asked if she could take L. out for lunch either on that day, or in the future.

In cross-examination, the father's sister admitted that she offered to facilitate a call between L. and her father, but L. said she was not allowed to. While the father's sister denied that was the true reason behind her trip to the school, in the Court's view, the father orchestrated this meeting in some kind of attempt to do an end run around the suspension, and to facilitate contact between himself and the child.

---

## M. Findings and Conclusions About the Christmas Incident and Its Aftermath

The father sees himself as the victim of this incident. From his perspective, the mother is the one who behaved badly on Christmas day; he was the one who eventually de-escalated the situation. The Society (and the OCL) launched "flawed" or "one-sided" and "biased" investigations, according to him. He believes he has been treated unfairly.

Even if the Court were to find that the mother, or the mother and V. were entirely responsible, the fact remains that from the child's perspective, the relationship with the father is fractured, and the Christmas incident is not the sole contributing cause of that. The father's perspective is disconnected to the years of conflict, explosive outbursts and even physical violence that he engaged in. For this reason, the Court tends to agree with Ms. Yehia's closing submission, that the Christmas incident is probably better described as the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back", as opposed to a stand-alone incident that altered the trajectory of this case.

**As far as the Court is concerned, both parents, V. and the father's sister, each bear responsibility here. All four contributed to the conflict, in different ways. The three adults who testified at this trial, demonstrated a lack of insight into the ways that their actions contributed to the problems, as they talked about the Christmas incident and its aftermath, repeatedly in Court. Each one of them lost sight of the fact that L., who was 12 years old at the time, sat there and watched the whole thing unfold, to the point that L. jumped out in the physical defense of her mother. The problematic behaviour continued after the Christmas incident was over.**

**In summary, the Court's findings about the Christmas incident and its aftermath are:**

- There was an agreement signed earlier in December, which was not followed;
- The father should not have involved the child in trying to change the terms of the Interim Minutes of Settlement;
- The mother should not have then engaged in a scheduling discussion;
- The Court does not believe that the father was unaware as to the reason that the mother dropped the child off on Christmas day;
- After the mother sat on the driveway for a while and L. did not come out, the mother could have just left, to avoid the escalation. She, at least, acknowledged this during cross-examination;
- V. should not have attended on the scene. Her past encounters with the father have not gone well;
- To the father's credit, he was somewhat calm when he came out, eventually (although not entirely – the Court heard evidence that he yelled at his sister to leave). And while he eventually put L. in the car to leave, he was also the one who had first created the potential for this dispute and he put the child in the middle in the process, starting back on December 9;
- On his own admission, the father even re-involved the child in scheduling discussions again, on December 25 itself. And so yes, while in the moment on the evening of December 25 he eventually came outside "calm" (somewhat), he did so in a situation that he played a great role in creating. And he only came out after he first tried to tell the mother that L. would be staying overnight, and then he stopped taking her calls;
- After all was said and done, in January, the father tried to leverage and exploit the situation for his advantage in these proceedings, to the detriment of his relationship with the child;
- The father lacked some insight when he testified about the Christmas incident and its aftermath. In cross-examination, the father was asked whether he thought his conduct had any part in L. asking for the suspension. The father said no;
- The father deliberately breached the Order of Himel J. of March 27, 2025 by attending the basketball game. Like so many other incidents, the situation escalated. The police were called;
- The father's sister was an incredible witness, not just about the Christmas incident, but also about her subsequent interaction with L. and regarding the marijuana business, discussed later. She tried to give the Court an incredible explanation for why she returned to the scene after leaving the first time. She should have stayed away. The Court finds she is to blame for the escalation, just as much as the mother and V. may be;
- The Court heard no evidence during this trial, that the mother hit the father's sister during the incident. The conflicting accounts were that L. was the one who hit her aunt, or that L. and V. did;
- While when the father's sister was asked in cross-examination whether she thought the Christmas incident could have been upsetting for L., she agreed "100%", but she also made it about herself and said it was upsetting for her;
- In re-examination, the father's sister stridently defended her choice to launch a civil lawsuit against V., saying "I should have sued her a long time ago", "she disturbed my life" and that she wants to hold V. accountable for her actions and behaviour over the last several years;
- Neither the father nor his sister seemed to have turned their minds to the fact that these lawsuits (i.e. either the pending criminal case against the mother, or the father's sister's civil lawsuit) may result in L. having to give evidence; and
- Regarding the paternal aunt's and grandmother's attendance at L.'s school, the Court does not believe that this was done without knowledge of the suspension. The Court believes the father was involved in orchestrating it, in an attempt to facilitate contact between him and L., despite the suspension.

---

## N. Reunification Therapy with Lourdes Geraldo

### (1) Ms. Geraldo's Qualifications and the Process She Employed

Ms. Geraldo was qualified to undertake this work. She holds a Master's Degree in Social work from McMaster University. Her clinical work includes consulting, undertaking section 30 assessments, voice of the child reports, mediation and parenting coordination, and she provides family and individual assessment and therapy, and therapeutic re-integration services for families. She is a member of the Ontario College for Social Workers and Social Service Workers, among holding other memberships. She has been in private practice for 25 years providing the aforementioned services, and she has either attended or presented at many workshops, seminars and conferences, including the AFCC.

According to her summary report dated May 17, 2025, written prior to the start of this trial, Ms. Geraldo held individual meetings (virtual, telephone or in person) with the father on April 18 and April 26, 2025 (there were two telephone calls on April 26) and on May 2 and May 16, 2025. She had individual meetings with the mother (all virtual) on April 18 and 26, 2025 and on May 13, 2025. She had a joint session with the mother and the child on April 26, 2025, and joint sessions with the father and the child on May 2 and 7, 2025. Ms. Geraldo had individual sessions with the child on April 26, 2025, and on May 2 and 7, 2025, in addition to the joint sessions with one or the other parent held on those days.

Ms. Geraldo testified that once the trial was underway, she had a further telephone meeting with the mother on June 10, 2025, she had an in person session with L. on June 12, 2025, she had telephone contact with the father on June 19 and July 4, 2025, and she had an individual session with L. on July 4, followed by a joint session with the father and L. on that date. There was then another joint session with the father and the child on July 9, 2025. That was nothing short of an explosive session, at the end of which Ms. Geraldo felt that reunification therapy was not appropriate. Ms. Geraldo held a debriefing session with L. and her mother afterwards on July 9, 2025, given what had just transpired. After this July 9, 2025 joint session with the father and the child, Ms. Geraldo was no longer prepared to do reunification work with the family, or to work with the father in any capacity.

Ms. Geraldo also gathered up some collateral information from the Society and from the father's therapist, but it is important to recognize, in light of the father's complaints about inadequate investigations, that Ms. Geraldo was not engaged to undertake a custody and access assessment. Somewhat ironically in light of the father's complaints about bias and inadequate investigations as they concern Ms. Geraldo, Ms. Geraldo also wanted the father's consent to speak to his mother and sister. The father would not provide those consents. Thus, she did not have all the information she thought she needed.

### (2) Whether Either Parent Delayed the Commencement of Reunification Therapy, or Its Continuation Once It Was Underway

Before turning to the substance of the evidence about the attempted reunification therapy, the Court will first deal with the distracting allegations and evidence about whether one side or the other delayed and interfered with the selection of a reunification therapist and then in getting her process going, once she was agreed to. The delay prior to the appearance before Himel J. on March 27, 2025 might theoretically have some relevance to the father's alienation arguments, but for the mother's candid admission that she was reticent about it for good reason. The complaints about delay after the March 27, 2025 appearance, were a nuisance that wasted court time. There was no delay after March 27, 2025.

The Court does not intend to repeat here, in what is already a lengthy Judgment, the minute details about who did what when, on a day-by-day basis, despite the fact that the parties saw fit to call that kind of minute evidence, continuing even during the mother's Reply. The bottom line is this:

- Although reunification therapy was first recommended in the Society's letter of February 28, 2025, and it was then ordered by Himel J. on March 27, 2025, it didn't start until April;
- At first, the mother was not on board with the idea of reunification therapy, after the Society recommended it (at least before the March 27, 2025 court date). The mother's explanation during her examination-in-chief was that she was apprehensive. She said she wasn't clear on how the family could just sit down together in this process following the events of Christmas Day, but she later decided to trust the process as she wanted to help L. set up "healthy boundaries", and she wanted the father to be able to genuinely make changes;
- Following the Court appearance before Himel J. on March 27, 2025 (which the mother initiated), there was no further delay. According to Ms. Geraldo's summary report of May 17, 2025, in relatively short order (March 28 and April 3, 2025 respectively), the parties agreed to use Ms. Geraldo. By mid-April, all of the intake documents had been submitted and the retainers provided. On April 18, 2025, almost immediately after the father signed Ms. Geraldo's retainer agreement, Ms. Geraldo held introductory meetings with both parents. She then met with L. the following week, on April 26, 2025;
- The Court was pointed by the father to Himel J.'s Endorsement that she expected the therapy to begin within days, as part of the reason he claimed delay, after which the parties tried to embark upon who sent what document to Ms. Geraldo first, and so forth. Earlier though, the Court said that was a selective misquote; Himel J. also used the word weeks in her Endorsement. While the Court takes the point that Himel J. expected this process to get underway expeditiously, the evidence was that there were immediate discussions happening after March 27, 2025, and then Ms. Geraldo then got to work in short order within weeks. The father had unrealistic expectations as to timing quite frankly, including about how quickly his relationship might be repaired once the therapy started;
- Reunification therapy stopped once this trial started. Scheduling was more challenging given the parties' focus elsewhere. As explained below when discussing the conduct of this trial, the father brought several mid-trial motions, including two oral motions for parenting time during the week of June 23, 2025. The Court was not prepared to make either order for parenting time as asked, but it did direct the parties mid-trial, to follow Himel J.'s Order of March 27, 2025 and return to reunification therapy;
- While there were then communications going back and forth about scheduling this, once again, reunification therapy resumed in short order. Ms. Geraldo was quickly able to arrange for more sessions, for the following week (the first week of July);
- Notably, in these written communications that followed the June 27, 2025 trial date, the father also said he wanted to establish supervised visits outside of therapy, including his ability to attend basketball. This went beyond what the Court had directed was to happen; and
- The father was the parent who then caused the demise of the reunification therapy, on July 9, 2025 (below).

### (3) The Unsubstantiated In-Court Attacks on Ms. Geraldo's Competency, Impartiality and Integrity

Also before turning to the substance of this evidence about the attempted reunification therapy, the Court intends to address the father's unsubstantiated attacks on Ms. Geraldo's competency, impartiality and integrity.

Ms. Geraldo testified for an entire day at the very end of the trial on July 17, 2025. She was cross-examined extensively by both lawyers, and by counsel for the OCL. The Court also asked some questions of her.

Ms. Geraldo's fundamental role was to provide therapy in an attempt to help repair the fracture in the father-daughter relationship. It bears repeating that she was not engaged to undertake a custody and access assessment, or to embark upon an investigation.

While the father's counsel did sometimes highlight the father's positive interactions with the child during the therapy sessions that Ms. Geraldo conducted, for the most part the father instructed his lawyer to cross-examine Ms. Geraldo in a manner that called her competency, impartiality and integrity into question. While it is fine to challenge her evidence in cross-examination, what the father did, is attack the integrity of a professional witness in court, when the underlying factual foundation did not support it.

For example:

- The father's counsel some time attempting to suggest that Ms. Geraldo had not kept her commitments to the family in terms of scheduling. This was not established;
- The father's counsel spent time questioning Ms. Geraldo about her competency to address trauma, notwithstanding her 25 years in practice, in some kind of attempt to explain away the serious outburst the father had on July 9, 2025 (below);
- The father's counsel criticized the reliability of Ms. Geraldo's notes, particularly those documenting the July 9, 2025 incident. On her own admission, Ms. Geraldo took less detailed notes during the July 9 therapy session, during the period of time that the father was melting down and having his angry outburst. She then documented what had happened in some detail afterwards. The reasons for any imbalance in her notes, were explained. Regardless, she also testified 8 days later. She had a vivid independent recollection of the events in question;
- The father's counsel spent some time questioning Ms. Geraldo about her alleged bias, she being another of the professionals in the system who are all supposedly biased against the father. This included some kind of attempt to use what others had written about her on google reviews, in addition to the Court hearing evidence about the extent to which the child had been involved in reading the google reviews. Questions were put to Ms. Geraldo about whether she is currently facing a regulatory complaint. The substance of those google reviews, which the Court did not allow testimony about, would have been hearsay;
- The father's counsel even questioned Ms. Geraldo about whether she was paid referral fees, in response to the Court's question about her revised recommendation (below) that the father requires a psychological assessment. During his own testimony, the father had already earlier accused Himel J. of accepting "kick backs"; and
- The father's counsel spent some time putting various other therapy theories to the Ms. Geraldo, asking questions about "rejection sensitivity", "anticipatory anxiety" and "emotional contagion" in some kind of attempt also to justify the father's problematic behaviour, and to undermine the child's expressed views to Ms. Geraldo. He suggested that Ms. Geraldo did not adequately explore whether the mother was influencing and alienating the child. Incidentally, what Ms. Geraldo testified to about the child's views and preferences, was consistent with all of the other evidence the Court heard about those views, other than the father's perspective.

What much of this questioning by the father's counsel served to highlight, is what the father himself, revealed about himself; that he doesn't take responsibility for his actions and everyone else is to blame. When the father later testified in Reply about Ms. Geraldo's evidence, he repeated the complaint about Ms. Geraldo's notes. He made an allegation about Ms. Geraldo's invoicing, and commented about how much she charges as a value for money proposition. But he also accused Ms. Geraldo of being ill equipped to deal with trauma and he said she triggered him. If the father is to be believed, Ms. Geraldo was to blame, not him, for his conduct on July 9.

### (4) The Substance of Ms. Geraldo's Work With this Family Prior to Trial

In her summary report dated May 17, 2025, Ms. Geraldo wrote that L. presented as "articulate, reflective and forthright in her responses". She wrote that L. spoke in quiet tones and maintained excellent eye contact. She was relaxed in individual sessions and easily engaged. She understood this was an open process and expressed some hesitation at having her parents receive the notes from the sessions, but ultimately stated it was fine.

Consistent with all the other professional evidence the Court heard during this trial, L. told Ms. Geraldo that she missed her father and wanted to see him, but she felt stressed and anxious about having to do so without a third-party present. She worried about having uncomfortable conversations with him, especially about the Christmas incident.

Ms. Geraldo wrote that prior to the first joint session on May 2, 2025, L. said she missed her father and wanted to see him in her office, but she also worried about how the father would react and what he would say or discuss, given the passage of time. Ms. Geraldo wrote that the father