Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-24-0040-00 Date: 2025-10-03 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: R.L. Applicant – and – P.G. Respondent

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice C.M. Brochu

Counsel:

• Peter Doucet, for the Applicant
• Matthew Huston, for the Respondent

Heard: July 16, 2025, at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Decision on Motion

Overview

[1] The Respondent, Father, brings a motion for an order that the Applicant, Mother, comply with the consent temporary Order of Warkentin J. dated April 12, 2024 (the "parenting time order"), including facilitating the parenting time contemplated. The Father also seeks make up parenting time for parenting time that was withheld.

[2] The Mother counters the Father's motion with her own motion requesting that the parenting time order be varied, and that the father's parenting time be supervised.

[3] This is a high conflict matter. The parties have already had numerous appearances before this Court.

Background and History of the Court Proceedings

[4] The Mother and the Father separated in May 2023.

[5] They have one child. She is presently three and a half years of age.

[6] The issue of family violence and coercive control has been the Mother's focal point in arguments.

[7] The child has been in the primary care of the Mother since separation.

[8] The Father had regular parenting time including overnights since late 2023. Starting in early 2024 to March 12, 2025, the Father had enjoyed evening visits twice per week, an overnight each weekend, and a visit all day Sunday.

[9] From March 27, 2025, to present, the Father's parenting time has been supervised and limited, based on the availability of a supervisor.

[10] The present litigation was commenced in February 2024.

[11] The following is a history of the orders issued and court appearances to date on this matter. It should be noted that, unless specified, all orders were made on consent of the parties.

April 12, 2024 – Temporary Order of Warkentin J. (the "parenting time order")

Made at a case conference (this did not proceed):

• Primary residence of the child with the Mother;
• Parenting time for the Father based on "the schedule that was currently in place";
• Use of Our Family Wizard to communicate; and
• Child support.

[12] Although the parenting time order does not specify the parenting time, the parties have confirmed that the "schedule that was already in place", was as follows:

a. Every week on Mondays and Wednesdays from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; b. Every weekend on Friday from 5:30 p.m. until Saturday at 10:00 a.m.; and c. Every weekend on Sunday from 9:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.

August 13, 2024 – Temporary Order of Pierce J. (the "s. 30 assessment order")

Made at a case conference:

• Parenting assessment pursuant to s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 ("CLRA");
• Communication between the parties to be child focused and not exceed once per day unless there is an emergency;
• Financial disclosure; and
• Questioning.

[13] December 9, 2024 – temporary Order of Pierce J. (the "communication order"), setting out various terms to be respected by the parties as it related to communication and contact.

[14] December 9, 2024 – temporary Order of Pierce J. (the "amending application order"), permitting the Mother to file an amended Application.

[15] March 27, 2025 – temporary Order of Fitzpatrick J. (the "initial supervised parenting time order"), providing terms to be in effect during the adjournment period of the Father's motion for compliance. It included the supervision of the Father's parenting time and other terms.

[16] April 4, 2025 – temporary order of Brochu J. (the "extension of the supervised parenting time order"). The Father's motion for compliance had been adjourned to this day. By then, the Mother had also brought her motion for supervised parenting time, which was scheduled as a long motion before me on April 29, 2025. I concluded that the Father's compliance motion should be heard at the same time as the Mother's supervised parenting time motion. Furthermore, the Father had brought a motion to strike some or part of the reports appended to the Mother's motion for supervised parenting time. The following orders were made:

• The compliance motion is to be heard in conjunction with the supervised parenting time motion;
• Extension of the initial supervised parenting time order to April 29, 2025;
• Amendment to the initial supervised parenting time order to include other supervisors; and
• Scheduling the Father's motion to strike for April 15, 2025.

[17] April 15, 2025 – the Father's motion to strike and for questioning of the experts was scheduled on this day. The parties appeared and advised that they had resolved the issues. An order was made striking portions of the reports and adjourning sine die, the issue of questioning of Dr. Sinclair and Ms. Dubois, without prejudice to the position of either party.

[18] April 29, 2025 – temporary Order of Brochu J. (the "motion adjournment order"). The Father's compliance motion and the Mother's supervised parenting time motion were scheduled for this day. The parties appeared and advised that they were negotiating and had agreed to adjourn the motion on the following terms:

• Adjourning the compliance motion and supervised parenting time motion to a mutually agreed upon date yet to be determined.
• Extension of the initial supervised parenting time order and the extension of that order.
• Entitling the parties to bring a motion to vary the existing orders for supervised parenting time.
• Parties were to schedule a disclosure meeting with the s. 30 assessor, as soon as possible, if/when the CAS investigation is completed.

[19] July 3, 2025 – Order of Fitzpatrick J. (the "CAS record order"), for the disclosure of CAS records.

Summary of Evidence

[20] The Father has filed a total of five affidavits.

[21] The Mother has filed a total of twelve affidavits: six of them sworn by the Mother, two of them sworn by former co-workers of the Father, one sworn by Dr. Sinclair—the expert retained by the Mother—one sworn by Jennifer Hastings of the Northwestern Ontario Women's Centre ("NOWC"), one sworn by Debbie Zweep—Executive Director of Faye Peterson House—and one sworn by a law clerk.

[22] To say the least, the parties have filed thousands of pages of documents for both motions. Having reviewed all the materials filed, I certainly do not intend on summarizing all the evidence in detail for the purpose of these Reasons. Although I have reviewed all of them and considered them in making this decision. In fact, I will try and keep it as concise as possible.

The High-Risk Meeting on March 12, 2025, and CAS Involvement

[23] The precipitating event in this matter consisted of a high-risk meeting that occurred on March 12, 2025. It is following this event that the Mother withheld the child and that supervised parenting time was implemented.

[24] It should be noted that the issue of supervised parenting time had been raised in late 2024 and had initially been scheduled for a long motion at the end of March 2025.

[25] Dr. Sinclair was hired by the Mother to provide a report on the level of Family Violence and Coercive Control exerted by the Father. Her report dated March 11, 2025, was filed with the Court, and a redacted version formed part of the record for the purpose of these motions.

[26] Dr. Sinclair indicated that while reviewing the materials in this matter and meeting and interviewing the Mother, she became highly concerned for the safety of the Mother and the child. She stated that she felt an obligation pursuant to s. 125 of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, S.O. 2017, c. 14 ("CYFSA") to report her concerns. She did so by contacting Thunder Bay Children's Aid Society ("CAS" or "the Society") on March 10, 2025.

[27] As a result, a High-Risk Committee meeting was held on March 12, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.: present at that meeting were two workers from CAS, Thunder Bay Police Services Constable Zappatelli, Jennifer Hastings of NOWC, and Dr. Sellick. The conclusion was that the Mother and the child were at high risk as a result of the significant potential of the Father reacting angrily to both Dr. Sinclair's report and the ongoing s. 30 assessment, as well as the potential of a pending motion for supervised parenting time.

[28] In her affidavit, Dr. Sinclair identifies one of the main reasons for this concern was a review of 1792 highly concerning text messages between the Father and the Mother.

[29] It is indicated by Dr. Sinclair that CAS fully endorsed and supported the conclusion.

[30] A second High-Risk Committee meeting was held on March 12, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.: present at this meeting were the two workers from CAS, Thunder Bay Police Services Constable Zappatelli, Jennifer Hastings of NOWC, the Mother, and her parents. At that meeting, the Mother was instructed to get herself and the child to a place of safety and not provide the Father with any in-person parenting time pending further advice from CAS. Her parents were also advised to seek a safe place.

[31] On March 14, 2025, CAS delivered a letter to the Mother advising that they had opened an investigation. CAS' position was that any parenting time between the Father and the child had to be supervised, and that she was not to be alone with the Father while in a primary caregiving role. It further indicated that parenting time arrangements could be made through a mutually agreed upon third party and with the approval of the Society.

[32] The Father received a letter from CAS on March 14, 2025, indicating that they had received a referral and were requiring his parenting time be supervised. He immediately engaged with CAS and agreed to temporarily suspend his parenting time with the child. The Father indicates that he did so to avoid further escalation related to the investigation or negative impacts on the child, and especially apprehension.

[33] The Father states that he cooperated with CAS, provided them with consents and additional documentation that they had not received, including the more recent Our Family Wizard ("OFW") messages between the Father and Mother, court orders, and information on his mental health treatment.

[34] On March 17, 2025, CAS delivered another letter to the Mother advising that the Society was no longer taking a position regarding parenting time and that the parties should respect the court orders in place. The Mother provided Dr. Sinclair with a copy of the letter. This prompted Dr. Sinclair to send a tersely worded letter to the CAS demanding to know why they changed their mind. CAS responded on March 20, 2025, that they could not respond, citing privacy reasons.

[35] On March 17, 2025, CAS also delivered a letter to the Father advising that they were not taking a position regarding parenting time. Their investigation was ongoing. They confirmed that the Father had agreed to home visits during parenting time, and had signed consents for service providers, including for the Caring Dads program to facilitate a referral. A subsequent letter was provided by CAS on March 21, 2025, reiterating that they were not taking a position on parenting time.

[36] On March 20, 2025, a further High-Risk Committee meeting had been scheduled. CAS cancelled the meeting with no explanation.

S. 30 Assessment

[37] The parties have jointly retained Dr. Michael Saini to complete a formal s. 30 parenting assessment.

[38] At the time of the hearing of this motion, the assessment was still ongoing.

[39] It is my understanding that a disclosure meeting was postponed as a result of the High-Risk Committee meeting, and the release of Dr. Sinclair's report on the day of the scheduled disclosure meeting. It was then put on hold while CAS conducted its investigation. The parties were also, at the time of hearing this motion, awaiting the CAS records.

Family Violence and Coercive Control

[40] The Mother has filed several reports from professionals, including reports of Dr. Sellick, Ms. Dubois and Dr. Sinclair. Two of these reports specifically address issues of family violence and coercive control and were the subject of a motion, which was eventually resolved and resulted in filing of redacted reports.

[41] The first report is authored by Elizabeth Dubois, Psychotherapist, dated February 21, 2025. This report was requested by counsel for the Mother. The focus was to comment on treatment for men who are abusive, comment on whether coercive controlling men are dangerous, and how children and mothers are impacted by family violence/coercive control.

[42] The second report is authored by Dr. Sinclair and dated March 12, 2025. This report was again requested by counsel and entitled: "Expert Opinion for a Supervised Access Motion to be heard on March 28, 2025". In this report, Dr. Sinclair provides an overview of the literature on family violence and coercive control and its impact on mothers and children. She then addresses specific concerns put forward regarding this matter, with a focus on the impact of the Father's behavior on the Mother and the child.

[43] The Mother also provided thousands of pages of text exchange between the parties and evidence on the effect the family violence and coercive control has had on her. I will address this evidence in more detail within my analysis below.

[44] Furthermore, in or about April 2025, the Father was charged criminally with four historical offences of violence against the Mother alleged to have occurred between December 2021 and August 2022.

Steps Taken by the Father

[45] The Father has acknowledged the history of conflict between him and the Mother. He admitted that he made awful comments via text message to the Mother in the past and that his behaviour was entirely inappropriate. He states being committed to never engaging in that type of behaviour again.

[46] He outlines the following steps taken to improve himself as a father and separated spouse:

• Therapy with a psychologist, Sharon Howk Ventrudo, since early December 2024;
• Previous therapy with a family therapist, Hugh Walker;
• Completed an anger management course; and
• Completed the Triple P Parenting Program.

[47] The Father states that the goal of his treatment with Ms. Howk Ventrudo is to address the past incidents of conflict with the Mother and to understand the concepts of family violence, and its potential impacts on the child.

[48] The Father fully engaged with CAS and cooperated during their ongoing involvement.

The Mother filed an affidavit sworn by Ms. Zweep. In her affidavit, she provides details and information on the Pre-Caring Dads and Caring Dads Program. Ms. Zweep notes that the Caring Dad program is not a mandated program and fathers who are currently in family court are usually not eligible for the Program. However, she indicates that there are some exceptions to this rule, details are provided.

The Law

Family Violence and Coercive Control

[49] Finlayson J. in S.C.H. v. S.R., 2023 ONSC 4928, provide a succinct summary on how to address family violence at paras. 478-483:

Family Violence

[50] Family violence has always been relevant in the assessment of a child's best interests. It is now defined in section 2(1) of the Divorce Act. The definition is broad. It means any conduct, whether criminal or not, by a family member towards another family member that is violent or threatening, or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, or that causes the other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person, and, in the case of a child, includes direct or indirect exposure to such conduct.

[51] The definition then includes a non-exhaustive list of nine kinds of behaviour that constitute family violence. But as Tellier J. noted, the Court is not precluded from finding that other conduct fits within its meaning, too: see para. 27 of McLellan v. Birbilis, 2021 ONSC 7084.

[52] Section 16(3)(j) of the Divorce Act provides that family violence and its impact on, among other things, the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons to cooperate on issues affecting the child, are factors related to the child's circumstances in the best interests' analysis.

[53] In Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, the Supreme Court has confirmed that family violence can be notoriously difficult to prove. It often takes place behind closed doors and may lack corroborating evidence. Proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim or may overlap and enhance the significance of other factors, such as the need for limited contact or support.

[54] Findings of family violence are a critical consideration in a best interests' analysis: see Barendregt v. Grebliunas para. 146. At para. 142-174, the Supreme Court wrote that the suggestion that family violence has no impact on the children and has nothing to do with the perpetrator's parenting ability is untenable. Research indicates that children exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems. Harm can result from exposure to direct or indirect exposure.

[55] If a finding of family violence is made, section 16(4) directs the Court, when considering the impact of family violence under section 16(3)(j), to consider a further list of factors. Those include the nature, seriousness and frequency of the violence and when it occurred, whether there was a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member, whether the violence was directed towards the child or whether the child was exposed, safety concerns, any preventative steps taken and "any other relevant factor".

[56] It has been held that the court must objectively assess the frequency, severity and recency of the incidents of family violence in weighing its impact upon a relationship. Human relationships are not easy, and the court must be very cautious, and must take a broad and comparative approach, in assessing the impact of family violence on post-separation co-parenting. Family violence, and its impact, is thus best assessed by the placement of each individual case on a spectrum that accounts for frequency, severity and recency rather than by using any kind of checklist-based metric: see Abaza v. Adam, 2023 ONSC 1776, at para. 41.

[57] A starting point to assess a child's best interests when making a parenting order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. It is also in a child's best interests when making a parenting order that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe: see I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615, at paras. 60-61.

Supervised Parenting Time

[58] The person seeking supervised parenting bears the burden of establishing that supervision is necessary: see Klymenko v. Klymenko, 2020 ONSC 5451, at para. 23; C.S. v. K.M., 2023 ONCJ 106.

[59] Supervised parenting time is not intended to be a long-term arrangement for a child. It is beneficial for children who require gradual reintroduction to a parent, or whose safety requires it until such time as the parent is sufficiently rehabilitated and a child is no longer in danger of physical or emotional harm: see Najjardizaji v. Mehrjerdi, 2004 ONCJ 374, at para. 23.

[60] It must be remembered that supervised access is a short step away from complete termination of any relationship between a parent and a child, and thus it should be seen as the exception and not the norm, as a last resort and not as a knee-jerk reaction to one parent's allegations against the other: see T.E. v. G.E., 2021 ONSC 7661, at para. 9.

[61] A useful summary of principles was provided by Chappel J. in M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207, at para. 189:

1. The imposition of supervision on a parent's time with a child materially impacts on the opportunity for meaningful parenting time and the quality of that time. Having regard for the principle set out in section 24(6) of the CLRA that a child should have as much parenting time with each parent as is consistent with their best interests, there must be compelling reasons and evidence in support of the need for supervision.

2. However, it is important to avoid a doctrinal approach to the issue of supervised parenting time, and to avoid establishing principles that may hover dangerously close to creating presumptions. This is because the best interests analysis is a highly fact-driven and contextualized undertaking that must always revolve around the particular characteristics and needs of the child in question.

3. In addition, consideration of the need for supervision of parenting time must take into account Society's developing awareness of social issues that impact on the safety and overall well-being of children, including the impact of all forms of family violence on children.

4. Supervision of parenting time or exchanges may be appropriate where it is necessary to protect children from risk of harm, including exposure to family conflict. In determining this issue, the court should consider all relevant factors, including:

   a. Whether there is a history of family violence as that term is broadly defined in the CLRA, towards either the child or a family member;

   b. Whether the parent has a history of anger management difficulties generally, or aggression towards other people;

   c. Does the parent have a history of substance abuse issues, and if so, have they addressed those issues to the court's satisfaction, and how may those concerns impact the child?

   d. Are there flight risk concerns respecting the parent?

   e. Are there any concerns regarding the parent's overall physical, cognitive mental or emotional health functioning that render supervision appropriate for the safety and well-being of the child?

   f. Has there been child protection intervention, or is there an ongoing child protection investigation, and if so, have the child protection professionals involved given any temporary or indefinite directions respecting supervision of the party's parenting time? If so, what are the grounds for such directions?

5. Supervised parenting time may also be in the child's best interests where the parent-child relationship has been severed or undermined for any reason, including alienation by the other party or a third party, illness, or geographical distance, and the evidence indicates that supervision by a third party would assist the child in re-establishing the relationship. In these circumstances, supervision may be a valuable tool in implementing a gradual step-up plan for parenting time.

6. In cases involving older children who are able to articulate their views and preferences, their expressed wish for supervision of parenting time should weigh very heavily in support of such relief.

7. Supervision of parenting time is often appropriate as a time-limited measure rather than a long-term solution. It represents a significant intrusion upon the parent-child relationship, and therefore its continued imposition must be justified.

8. However, supervision may be appropriate on an indefinite basis where the evidence suggests that the reasons for the order are unlikely to be addressed in the reasonably foreseeable future.

9. Where supervised parenting time is ordered, the court should also address whether there are any steps that the party could take to potentially move towards a more natural setting for their parenting time.

10. Finally, if the court concludes that supervision of parenting time is appropriate, it should also consider whether it can be carried out by family members or friends in a normal family setting rather than by a third party professional or agency. The decision respecting the appropriate form of supervision must be based on the child's overall best interests and not the other party's comfort level or personal preferences.

[62] I also heard submissions regarding the variation of a temporary consent order. Given my decision and analysis below, I did not see the need to address this issue in my reasons.

Analysis

[63] The parties have filed competing affidavits. This is often the case when dealing with interim relief by way of motions. It is never an easy task for the court to navigate through these affidavits and determine how much weight should be attributed to the allegations and evidence offered by way of affidavits and its attached exhibits.

[64] The Mother indicated in her materials and argument that her reason for withholding the child was as a result of the High-Risk Committee meeting and on the direction of CAS.

[65] Subsequently, the parties appeared before the court with pending motions for compliance and supervised parenting time. In contemplation of adjournments and some ongoing negotiations, the initial and subsequent supervised parenting time orders were extended.

[66] The Mother submits being baffled by CAS' position and does not understand why and how they could have flipped a switch and have done a complete 180 on the position they were initially taking.

[67] The Father argues that a reasonable explanation is that they investigated, they received additional documentation regarding recent communications between the parties and a copy of the court orders, he agreed to cooperate, and they determined that the supervision was not required.

[68] That is not uncommon in matters where an agency is initially only provided with one side of the story.

[69] Counsel for the Father advanced that the reason why the Mother is questioning CAS' position is because it no longer aligns with hers. It is advanced that the Mother was quite content in stating that the only reason she withheld the child and insisted on supervised parenting time was on the direction of CAS. However, when CAS changed their position, she was no longer prepared to follow their direction.

[70] There is some merit to this argument.

[71] On the other hand, I also agree with the arguments advance by counsel for the Mother that there are some discrepancies in the correspondence from CAS.

[72] These issues are difficult to ascertain given that the CAS records were not before the court at the hearing of these motions.

[73] Nonetheless, CAS verified the concerns regarding family violence, in relation to the past conduct. They investigated the referral and upon completion of their investigation, determined that there were no ongoing concerns. They did not require the parenting time to be supervised.

[74] Despite the foregoing, the Mother continued to insist upon supervision of the parenting time. This was agreed to by the Father in order to keep on spending time with the child.

[75] It is argued by counsel for the Father that the initial concern that triggered the High-Risk Committee meeting has come and gone. The concern was that the Father would have an adverse reaction to the report of Dr. Sinclair, which was being prepared for the anticipated supervised parenting time motion, and the upcoming disclosure meeting with Dr. Saini.

[76] Since then, there have been a multitude of issues and stressors that have arisen and overtaken this litigation. Reports were filed, CAS was involved, there has been ongoing acrimonious litigation, and the Father was criminally charged with historical offences.

[77] What has not occurred is the anticipated adverse reaction of the Father. He has cooperated with the CAS investigation. He has consented to supervision orders, and these have been extended over time. His parenting time has been limited given the difficulty in arranging supervision with Ms. Niemi, and the limited number of alternate supervisors the Mother has been prepared to agree to, despite my encouragement that they agree on a third party supervisor that lives in Thunder Bay. The Father is originally from Saskatchewan and has no family in Thunder Bay. The only alternate supervisor the Mother would agree to are members of his family, who live miles away.

[78] Throughout this tumultuous roller coaster of activity, directly impeding on the Father's parenting time, he has not reacted adversely.

[79] There is no doubt that counsel for the Mother would argue that such behaviour is expected, after all, he remains under the close scrutiny of the Court.

[80] This is not for lack of trying. The Mother pulled all the stops, she filed thousands of pages of texts messages, filed affidavits from former co-workers depicting the Father as a scary and violent man based on work related incidents that occurred in 2022 and 2023, pre-separation of the parties.

[81] Counsel for the Father requested that these affidavits not be considered and be struck. I do not need to rule on those issues, as not much weight was attributed to the evidence provided by former co-workers. The events outlined in those affidavits did little to assist the court in making the determination required on these motions.

[82] The Father has acknowledged on multiple occasions that his behavior towards the Mother has been unacceptable. He also acknowledged that the texts he sent to the Mother were deplorable.

[83] He has stated that he will refrain from any of this conduct in the future. He further indicated that he is working on improving himself. His efforts have been noted above.

[84] The Mother refuses to accept, even in the slightest, that the Father may be trying to get some help and improve for the benefit of co-parenting, the Mother, and the child.

[85] Any efforts made by the Father were countered in some way by the Mother. For example, the Father completed the Pre-Caring Dads program. He indicated that he could not get into the Caring Dads Program, as they would not accept fathers that were involved in ongoing litigation. The Mother alleges that he could get into the Caring Dads program if he really wanted to. She even filed an affidavit sworn by the Executive Director of the Faye Peterson House, outlining the Pre-Caring Dads and Caring Dads Programs. The goal of filing that affidavit was to outline that there were some exceptions. This is so, despite the fact that the Father has enquired and was told "no".

[86] The Father is receiving some counselling and filed a report outlining the counselling he has undertook. Counsel for the Mother, in his submissions, referred to the report as "trash".

[87] The Father completed the Triple P parenting program and an Anger Management Course online. The Mother is critical of these programs as well.

[88] Ms. Niemi provided a glowing report for the Father on her observations during the supervised parenting. Her credentials are undisputed. However, the Mother would not expect otherwise, and submits that "of course" it will go well, as the Father is under a microscope with these pending court proceedings.

[89] Regardless of what the Father has undertaken, it is not good enough. The Mother is quick to be dismissive and critical of the Father's attempts to engage in programming and counselling.

[90] The 1792 pages of texts exchange, with excerpts filed with the Court by the Mother, and provided to Dr. Sinclair and other professionals, are dated and stem from mid 2022 to early 2023. It is also noted that there were other exchanges in 2024. However, all of these exchanges pre-date the orders made in this matter. In fact, there has been no allegation that the Father has contravened the communication order. Prior to March 14, 2025, the Mother and the Father were in contact on a regular basis for the parenting time exchanges. They were using OFW to communicate, and there were no issues.

[91] The Mother asks me to consider the threats "to tell the child" in support of the relief sought. These were again made in 2022 and 2023 and pre-date the existing parenting time orders with no indication the conduct continues.

[92] These comments are not to be taken as a condonation of the behavior exhibited by the Father towards the Mother. He should be ashamed of how he behaved. He needs to understand the effects of his behavior on the Mother and on their child. Perhaps that is what he is trying to do with the programming he is taking.

[93] The Mother relies on the decision in Sheldon v. Seraphim, 2024 ONSC 2678, in support for the imposition of supervised access. The main distinguishing factor is that the father's "disrespectful, mocking, angry, manipulative and abusive" behaviour was recent and continuous at the time the motion was heard. The father, in Sheldon, continued with his profane and litany of insults even in his exchange with the mother on OFW. There were also no measures, such as a court order, in place to temper the communication between the parties.

[94] In considering family violence and coercive control, it has been held that the Court must objectively assess the frequency, severity and recency of the incidents of family violence in weighing its impact upon a relationship.

[95] In this case, there is no question that the Father engaged in reprehensible conduct. Based on my review of the evidence, this conduct was frequent and severe. I do not doubt that it has had serious and lasting impact on the family, and especially the Mother.

[96] However, the recent conduct shows a shift in behaviour. The vile and reprehensible communication that the Father inflicted upon the Mother has stopped. Court orders were made and are being respected. The parties have been communicating thru OFW. All of these measures have been of assistance in tempering and have eliminated the issues all together.

[97] It is noted that the Mother has alleged some inappropriate verbal exchange during the parenting time exchange. The Father denies these allegations. The issue of who is telling the truth is impossible to settle on this interim motion and competing affidavits.

[98] This is a matter in which the Mother indirectly obtained her requested relief, with the consent of the Father. His parenting time has been supervised for a period of approximately six months.

[99] The case law is clear that supervised parenting time is not a long-term solution. In my view, the Court is in a better position to determine the issue of supervision today than it would have been in late March in the midst of all the turmoil.

[100] The Father has stood the test of time, he has cooperated, he has taken advantage of each moment he could for parenting time. He has engaged and taken steps to better himself. He does acknowledge his wrongful and atrocious past behavior. There has been no repeated behavior. He has managed to keep his behavior in check despite being involved in an extremely high conflict separation.

[101] He is not off the hook yet and will remain under the scrutiny of the Court. There is no doubt that if he runs afoul the court orders, the Mother's recourse will be to bring another motion.

[102] This is not a matter where the child needs to reconnect with the Father. There has been no gap in the parenting time, perhaps a limit on it, but no lengthy periods with no contact.

[103] Furthermore, Ms. Niemi provided a glowing report on her observations of the parenting time.

[104] There is no reason in this case for supervised parenting to continue. As stated above, supervised parenting time is not a long-term solution. It also is not the norm and should not be ordered as a matter of course.

[105] It was implemented in this case, somewhat on consent, at a time where concerns were raised given ongoing events. That has passed. There remains in place safeguards for the Mother and the child, by way of the communication order, and now a release order subsequent to the laying of the criminal charges.

[106] The Father has gained better insight in his behavior and the harm it can pose to both the Mother and the child.

Conclusion

[107] Having reviewed all of the evidence, the case law, and considered the relevant legislation, I conclude that ongoing supervised parenting time is no longer warranted in this matter.

[108] The Mother's motion for supervised parenting time is therefore dismissed.

[109] I make an order that the Mother is to comply with the existing order of Warkentin J. dated April 12, 2024.

[110] As it relates to the Father's request for make up time, that request is denied. In the circumstances of this case, I am not prepared to grant this relief. This is a matter that if argued at the end of March and/or in April, could have resulted in the Court implementing temporary supervised parenting time in order to ensure that the child was safe with the Father. In fact, that is what I did when granting the adjournment and extending the supervised parenting time order on April 4, 2025.

Costs

[111] If the parties cannot agree on costs, the Father shall serve and file written submission within 30 days of the release of these reasons. The Mother's responding submissions shall be served and filed within 30 days of the receipt of the materials served by the Father. Any reply submissions shall be served and filed within 14 days of the receipt of the responding submissions. All costs submissions shall be limited to five pages, plus a bill of costs and other relevant enclosures, such as offers to settle.

NOTE: I have been made aware of the unfortunate passing of Counsel Doucet. In these circumstances, should the Mother require a different timeline for her submissions on Costs, this request can be sent via email to the court.

The Honourable Madam Justice C.M. Brochu

Released: October 3, 2025

[1] In order to anonymize the parties, the terms "Father", "Mother", and "child" will be used throughout.