Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-25-00051359-0000 Date: 2025-10-10 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Nympha Liwanag, Applicant And: Felipe Figari, Respondent

Before: M. Kraft, J.

Counsel: Judith Holzman, for the Applicant Respondent, In-person

Heard: October 9, 2025

Endorsement

Nature of the Motion

[1] The parties are the parents of a 9-year-old daughter, named A. On May 19, 2025, the mother was charged with assault and has not been permitted to return to the townhouse where the parties and child lived during the relationship. The mother moved into the father's parents' home with them, which is 10-15 minutes from the townhouse. Since the arrest, A. has remained in the townhouse in the father's care and the mother has had parenting time only as permitted by the father. The father has been withholding A. from having regular and consistent parenting time with the mother, which necessitated her initiating this proceeding.

[2] This is the mother's urgent motion as directed by the order of Diamond, J., dated September 15, 2025, at To Be Spoken To court. She seeks an order for temporary sole decision-making responsibility of A.; temporary primary residence of A., with the father's parenting time on Wednesdays and Sundays; A. to attend therapy at the Yellow Brick House counselling program, called "Let's Talk"; to request the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer ("OCL"); and for the father to complete a hair follicle drug test.

[3] The father consents to an order seeking the involvement of the OCL; for him to complete a hair follicle drug test; and for A. to attend therapy at the Yellow Brick House counselling program, called "Let's Talk". He seeks an order dismissing the mother's motion for temporary decision-making responsibility and for an order that A. have her primary residence with the mother. Instead, the father argues that it is in A.'s best interests to continue to reside primarily with him and see the mother on alternate weekends and on alternate mid-week overnight visits.

Issues to be Decided

[4] The issues for me to decide are:

(a) Whether it is in A.'s best interests to reside primarily with the mother and have parenting time with the father on Wednesdays, from after school to 8:00 p.m. and on Sundays, during the day?

(b) Whether it is in A.'s best interests for the mother to have temporary decision-making responsibility of A.?

Background

[5] The parties are the parents of A. They began cohabiting a month before A. was born in December 2015. They separated on May 19, 2025, after the mother was charged with assault.

[6] At the time of separation, the parties were residing in a townhouse located at 26-760 Lawrence Avenue West, which is owned solely by the mother. After the mother was charged, she was not permitted to return to the home. Since the separation, the mother has resided with the paternal grandparents, who live 5-10 minutes from her townhouse.

[7] The mother is a Registered Nurse. The father has not worked in 5 years. The mother pays all the household bills and family expenses, including utilities, groceries and all expenses for A. The mother is also solely responsible for all costs associated with the townhouse in her name.

[8] The father has not contributed to the family's expenses in 5 years. He had a secondary credit card of the mother's from RBC. He charged $42,000 on this card, at which point, the mother had to cancel the card and is paying it off slowly. The current RBC visa debt is now $39,403. In addition to paying all the bills for the townhouse, the father's cell phone, internet, realty taxes, mortgage, insurance and utilities, she pays the father $300 a week for groceries.

[9] Just prior to separation, the mother found drug paraphernalia in the home. The mother was very concerned about it, given the father's past drug use, which is admitted by him.

[10] The mother describes a relationship where she experienced family violence at the hands of the father, including physical and psychological abuse. The father denies this. He did make submissions, however, that there was a lot of conflict between the parents which took place in front of A. The mother confirms that the father talks to the child about adult issues, including money issues, in an inappropriate fashion. The father's affidavit filed in support of this motion confirms that he talks to A. about his negative feelings about the mother. Attached to the mother's affidavit as an Exhibit is a text from A. to the mother in which she accuses the mother of not paying enough bills and she tells the mother that she will not see her until she provides more money. This text is evidence that the child is being exposed to conflict and placed in the middle of the parents' dispute unnecessarily which is clearly not in her best interests, particularly since she is only 9 years of age.

[11] Since April 2025, the mother has been working as a full-time R.N. in the ICU at Mackenzie Health Hospital. She also worked there in 2019. She currently works 12-hour shifts, both during the day and night.

[12] Prior to the end of April 2025, the mother was working as a travel nurse in Saskatchewan for 3-4 weeks at a time. She would then return home to Toronto for 3-4 weeks. On school vacations, the mother would take A. with her to Saskatchewan. The decision for the mother to work as a travel nurse was made so she could earn more money.

[13] Since the arrest, A. has been in the primary care of the father. The mother alleges that A. is late to school regularly and absent; A. is not following a routine; the father does not ensure A. is eating properly; and A. is being influenced by the father's negative view of the mother and encouraging A. to confront the mother and be combative with her. Furthermore, the father has been regularly withholding A. from having parenting time with the mother.

[14] In the 2024/2025 academic year, A. missed 47.5 days of school and was late an additional 94 times, often not attending school until after noon. The mother claims that the father sleeps until the early afternoon, which causes A. to be late for school and unable to participate in summer camp or other activities. The father disagrees.

[15] The father began to withhold A. from having parenting time with the mother after August 9, 2025, when the father became angry with the mother because he did not know where she and A. were for 1.5 days. He admitted to sending the mother hundreds of texts and phone calls, despite there being a no-contact order, and threatening to call an Amber Alert. During his submissions to the court, the father stated that he "freaked out" because he had not seen A. for 1.5 days. After this incident, the father began acting as a gatekeeper and did not allow the mother to see A. for 19 days, which prompted the mother to initiate this proceeding. The mother did not initiate court proceedings until Labour Day Weekend, because after her arrest in mid-May 2025, her father passed away and she needed to return to the Philippines for four weeks in the summer to support her mother.

[16] The father does not have a driver's licence. Despite this, he often uses the mother's car. When the mother was in Saskatchewan, the father received tickets of $2,000 while driving the mother's car, which the paternal grandfather paid so the mother could drive her car to work and she could not afford to pay these tickets.

Issue One: Is it in A.'s best interests to reside primarily with the mother?

The Law

[17] Since the parents are not married, the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 ("CLRA") is the applicable statute.

[18] Any proceeding with respect to children is determined with respect to the best interests of the particular child before the court in accordance with the considerations set out in subsection s 24 (2) to (7) of the CLRA. The court has considered these factors that are relevant to this case.

[19] Subsection 24 (2) of the CLRA provides that the court must give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being in determining best interests.

[20] Section 24(3) sets out the factors the court is to consider in determining the best interests of a child and provides as follows:

Factors related to the circumstances of a child include:

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

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

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

(d) the history of care of the child;

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

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

(g) any plans for the child's care;

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

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

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

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

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

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

[21] The list of best interests considerations in the Act is not exhaustive. See: White v. Kozun, 2021 ONSC 41; Pereira v. Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1736. It is also not a checklist to be tabulated with the highest score winning. Rather, it calls for the court to take a holistic look at the child, his or her needs and the persons around the child. See: Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480.

[22] Subsection 33.1 (2) of the CLRA states that any party to a proceeding shall, to the best of their ability, protect any child from conflict arising from the proceeding.

[23] The court must ascertain a child's best interests from the perspective of the child rather than that of the parents. See: Gordon v. Goertz. Adult preferences or "rights" do not form part of the analysis except insofar as they are relevant to the determination of the best interests of the child. See: Young v. Young; E.M.B. v. M.F.B., 2021 ONSC 4264; Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510.

[24] 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. See: I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615. Also see: Armstrong v. Coupland, 2023 ONSC 5451; N.D. v. R.K., 2020 ONCJ 266.

[25] In considering a child's best interests it will often be important to determine if a parent will follow the terms of a court order. See: Wiafe v. Afoakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201; Seyad v. Pathan, 2022 ONCJ 501; Mulik v. McFarlane, 2023 ONCJ 148.

[26] A party's failure to protect a child from conflict may be an important consideration in granting primary residence or decision-making responsibility to the other parent. See: Dayboll v. Binag, supra; I.A. v. I.G., 2023 ONCJ 523.

[27] Subsections 18 (1) and (2) of the CLRA define family violence as follows:

"Family violence"

(1) "family violence" means any conduct by a family member towards another family member that is violent or threatening, 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; ("violence familiale")

(2) For the purposes of the definition of "family violence" in subsection (1), the conduct need not constitute a criminal offence, and includes,

(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or another person;

(b) sexual abuse;

(c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;

(d) harassment, including stalking;

(e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life;

(f) psychological abuse;

(g) financial abuse;

(h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and

(i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property.

[28] The Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22 made the following observations about family violence:

1. The recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis (par. 146).

2. The suggestion that domestic abuse or 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 who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives: Department of Justice, Risk Factors for Children in Situations of Family Violence in the Context of Separation and Divorce (February 2014), at p. 12. Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath, or hearing about it: S. Artz et al., "A Comprehensive Review of the Literature on the Impact of Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence for Children and Youth" (2014), 5 I.J.C.Y.F.S. 493, at p. 497. (par. 145).

3. Domestic violence allegations are notoriously difficult to prove. Family violence often takes place behind closed doors and may lack corroborating evidence. Thus, proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim or may overlap with and enhance the significance of other factors, such as the need for limited contact or support (par. 145).

[29] Failure to speak out earlier and inconsistent evidence is common for victims of domestic violence. See: A.E. v. A.B., 2021 ONSC 7302; N.M. v. S.M., 2022 ONCJ 482.

[30] The court is very aware that family violence is sometimes difficult for the victim to prove. It is often not reported. There may be many reasons for this. There will often be no medical, police or Children's Aid Society reports to corroborate allegations of family violence. Victims sometimes minimize and rationalize the abuse. The family violence can take place in private so that there are no witnesses. Control and coercion can be subtle and only evident to the victim. See: Wiafe v. Aboakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 201.

[31] Denigrating your spouse in front of a child fits within the definition of family violence. See: Ammar v. Smith, 2021 ONSC 3204; McIntosh v. Baker, 2022 ONSC 4235.

[32] Violence need not be physical. Emotional and psychological abuse can have a devastating impact on a child. See: Dayboll v. Binag, supra; El Khatib v. Noun, 2023 ONSC 1667.

[33] Recording the other spouse, insults, unwarranted criticism about parenting and demanding to know whereabouts can constitute psychological abuse. See: K.M. v. J.R., 2024 ONSC 1338.

Application of the Facts to the Law

[34] In applying the facts of this case to the best interests factors applicable to these facts, I make the following findings:

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

a. A. is currently 9 years old. She has clearly been exposed to significant conflict between the parents. This is admitted by both parents. Given her age, she requires a stable schedule that is predictable. Since A. has been in the father's primary care, she has been late to school far too often and missed too much school. Further she appears not to have engaged in extra-curricular activities. As of September 19, 2025, A. was late for school 3 times and missed one day of school.

b. The mother has expressed concerns about A. not being fed fresh food, despite the fact that she pays the father $300 a week for groceries. The father denies that he does not cook for A. It is agreed that the paternal grandmother has been bringing dinner to the father's residence on a daily basis, demonstrating that the father relies on assistance in this regard.

c. The mother also deposed that the father walks around the house without clothes on and sleeps in his bed with A. The father made submissions that he does shower with A. and does not sleep in bed with A. but lies with her nightly before she falls asleep. It concerns the court that the father is showering with A., given her age and stage of development.

d. The father does not seem to enforce a regular bedtime or morning routine for A. This is evidenced by the fact that she often stays up past midnight. Recently when she had parenting time with the mother, the father stayed on the phone with A. until 1:30 a.m. despite the mother and paternal grandfather telling her to get off the phone and go to bed. Again, a 9-year-old child requires stability and consistency.

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

e. The paternal grandparents are very involved in A.'s life. They look after her often, as they did prior to the separation. Both paternal grandparents swore affidavits and confirm that when the mother was working in Saskatchewan, A. spent about 80% of her time in their home. Any parenting plan that involves the paternal grandparents continuing to be involved with the child respects this bond and is in A.'s best interests. The mother's plan continues to involve the paternal grandparents, whereas the father is silent as to whether he will continue to allow the paternal grandparents to be involved in A.'s care. The affidavit from the paternal grandparents confirms the facts in the mother's affidavit that the father withholds time with A. from them when he is angry with them, including making them leave the townhouse 10-12 times in the last 4 years when they have a minor disagreement.

f. I am persuaded that A. has a strong relationship with both parents. It is important from the court's perspective that A. be given permission by the father to enjoy the time she spends with the mother and not feel like she is in a loyalty bind because she knows the father has little to no regard for the mother or her parenting role.

(c) Each parent's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other parent

g. I find that the father has demonstrated that he is not willing to support the development and maintenance of A.'s relationship with the mother, as follows:

(i) He withheld A. from having parenting time with the mother for 19 days until he was served with the mother's Application over the Labour Day weekend. A. was also withheld from the paternal grandparents. The father first started withholding A. from the mother after August 9, 2025, when the mother made arrangements to take A. to a swimming pool with the paternal grandfather. The father tried to contact the mother that day and the following day on August 10, 2025. The father was aware that there is a no-contact order preventing the mother from returning his calls directly. Notwithstanding that, the father threatened to call in an Amber Alert and sent hundreds of text messages and phone calls to the mother because he did not know where A. was. The mother had taken her to a pool in Richmond Hill. The father admits to this behaviour and advises the court that he made a mistake and misunderstood the law believing that the mother was obliged to tell him where she was taking A. when it was her parenting time.

(ii) The father withheld A. from the mother during the September 20th, 2025, weekend. When she sought to take A. to an activity on October 4, 2025, after not having seen her since September 29, 2025, the father told the mother she could only have parenting time with A. on October 4, 2025, if she gave up having parenting time on her birthday.

(iii) On May 21, 2025, he threatened the mother not to give her parenting time if she did not give him access to the visa. The father admits to messaging the mother in this regard and excuses it because he claims he was "angry".

h. The fact that the father justifies his reaction to the mother on August 9, 2025, on the basis that he did not know where the child was for 1.5 days, should have made him understand how difficult it has been for the mother to have not known where A. has been for weeks on end. Instead, after the August 9, 2025, incident, the father decided it would be in A.'s best interests to have no contact with the mother for 9 days.

(d) The history of care of the child

i. Prior to the mother's arrest in May of 2025, the history of care of A. is that the mother was the primary parent. The father does not dispute that the mother was primarily responsible for A.'s care, including bringing her to school, making sure she went to bed on time, cooking for the child and caring for her. He also does not dispute that his parents were involved in looking after A.

j. When the mother was working as a travel nurse, the paternal grandparents looked after A., on their estimate, about 80% of the time. The father would ask his parents to return A. to the townhouse at 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. or later, making her go to bed far later than was in her best interests.

k. The father cannot rely on the fact that A. has been in his primary care since May as being demonstrative that he was or is her primary parent. In Rifai v. Green, 2014 ONSC 1377, Pazaratz J. decried self-help parenting measures. He pointed out that one parent does not start out with higher status than the other:

The starting point, of course, is that at the outset both parents are presumed to have equal status, equal rights, and equal authority over decisions in a child's life. In the absence of a formal agreement or court order, neither parent has the right to unilaterally impose major changes in a child's life. Neither parent has the right to unilaterally interfere with or impede the other parent's contact or role in the child's life.

l. The parent who engages in self-help tactics that belie a child's best interests as raising questions about the new status quo and the moving parents' own parenting skills, writing:

A parent who engages in self-help tactics despite the best interests of the child will generally raise serious questions about their own parenting skills and judgment. In many cases, courts conclude manipulative, selfish or spiteful parents simply can't be entrusted with custodial authority they would likely abuse. Izyuk v. Bilousov (supra); Clement v. Clement, 2010 ONSC 1113 (SCJ).

m. I find that A.'s primary residence with the father since May of 2025 is the result of the mother's arrest. The father having engaged in self-help tactics and restricting the mother's parenting time with A. demonstrates that his own parenting skills and judgment are not aligned with A.'s best interests.

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

n. A.'s views are not currently before the court. However, both parents have agreed to request the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer so this information will become available over time. At 9 years of age, A.'s views and preferences may be ascertained and whether they are independent remains to be seen when and if the OCL agree to become involved in this matter.

(g) Any plans for the child's care

o. The mother's parenting plan is that A. reside with her at the paternal grandparent's home until the father can move out of the townhouse she owns. When she has a 12-hour daytime shift, the paternal grandparents have indicated that they will help take A. to school and pick her up. The mother will then be home for dinner, homework time and A.'s bedtime routine. When the mother has a 12-hour night shift, the paternal grandparents have indicated they will assist with A.'s bedtime. The father's plan of care is that A. remain in his primary care and see the mother on alternate weekends and 1.5 days during alternate weeks. He does not specify any time for A. to see his parents.

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

p. In terms of the father's ability and willingness to care for and meet A.'s needs, the court has concerns for the following reasons:

(i) When A. has been in the care of the mother, the father will call her on her iPad at 10:00 p.m. and insist on staying on the phone with her until 11:30 p.m. or sometimes as late as 1:30 a.m. During a recent call with A. and the father on September 13, 2025, he asked A. to ask the mother for money. These tendencies demonstrate that the father is not willing to consider A.'s need to have a consistent bedtime routine and, more upsetting, that he continues to involve A. in adult conflict about money and uses the child as a messenger.

(ii) On August 29, 2025, A. sent messages to the mother on her phone accusing the mother of not paying bills and of spending her money on lawyers. Further, A. threatened to sell the mother's clothing online if she did not give A. $40 so the father could order them a pizza. These messages are indicative of the fact that the father is sharing details about the parental conflict with A. and involving her in their dispute. The fact that the father speaks to A. about these adult discussions confirms that he is unable to place A.'s best interests ahead of his own need to denigrate the mother and blame her in front of the child.

(iii) The father deposes that he has not done drugs "in a long time" and also admits that he used drugs as recently as 7 months ago in his To Be Spoken To brief. While he has indicated a willingness to return to Women's College for regular drug testing and agrees to do a hair follicle drug test, his substance use issues may impact his ability to meet A.'s needs.

(iv) The father's parents swore an affidavit, dated August 5, 2025, outlining their concern that the father is not fit to look after A. on his own. They specifically depose that they do not believe he places A.'s needs ahead of his own and that he is not reliable. The father's parents describe him as being emotionally volatile and unable to regulate his emotions. They depose that the father regularly insults the mother, A. and them in front of A.

(v) The father's parents confirm the mother's fears about the father and describe him as an explosive person who is always very angry and often behaves irrationally. The mother and paternal grandparents both depose that the father shouts insults at A. calling her a "birdbrain", "idiot" and "braindead". He also insults the mother and his parents in front of A. These statements are confirmed by a text message the father sent to A. on her iPad in 2024, a copy of which was attached to the mother's affidavit:

"You're a backstabber, you're dishonest and you're learning to be uncaring selfish and self-centered person like your mother. Take a good look at her. That is your future.

I'm so disappointed in myself for thinking my daughter was better than that. Now I've realized what an average little girl you are, nothing special. Faithless faith. Loveless love.

Just empty words.

One day you will realize the seriousness and ugliness of your sings. I feel so sorry for you. I hope you can forgive yourself when you're an adult and you realize you could have more to show love and not have to wait for funeral to show your fake emotions."

(vi) The father admits to sending A. this message. In his submissions to the Court, he stated that:

1. "[he] can't believe he wrote something so cringy",

2. "he was in a bad state",

3. "[he] doesn't know what caused him to write that but it was something precipitated by the [mother]",

4. "[he] was watching a movie with A. and the mother and they had watched the first two parts of the movie. He went to get pizza and the mother said, 'let's watch the 3rd part without daddy'",

5. "people not taking and ignoring me gets me very irritated"

q. The court has serious concerns about the father's lack of judgment in sending such a message to A., over an incident about a movie. The message not only denigrates the mother to A. but denigrates A. for being like her other parent and is mean-spirited, critical and judgmental. The sending of this message is demonstrative that the father is unable to manage his emotional trigger he experienced by being ignored as he describes, which renders him unable to care for and meet A.'s needs. This message to A. and A.'s exposure to the father's negative feelings toward the mother and conflict the father has with the mother about money amount to family violence and contribute to the father's lack of ability to care for and meet A.'s needs.

(i) Any family violence and its impact on, among other things, (i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and (ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child

r. During his submissions to the court, the father stated that he did not disconnect the kids messenger making the mother unable to message A. Instead, he explained that "A. doesn't want to talk with mommy because mommy is toxic." In answer to a question from the court as to whether A. told him that or vice versa, the father told the court that A. resents the mother. These statements to the Court make it clear that the child is at risk of emotional and psychological harm in the father's primary care since she is directly and indirectly exposed to the family violence by the father.

s. In terms of the impact of the family violence on the child, A. has had to witness the family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother. She has started to mimic the father's name-calling and gesturing toward the mother. In text messages, A. messages the mother very rudely. She tried to choke the mother. She kicked the paternal grandmother in the leg. She sent a photograph to the mother of her holding up her middle finger while smiling. Based on these examples, I am persuaded that it would be inappropriate to make an order that would require the father to cooperate on issues affecting A. since he has made it clear to A. how much disdain he has toward the mother.

t. Another example of family violence witnessed by A. occurred in July 2024, when the father cut up A.'s passport when she and the mother returned from having visited the maternal aunt in the United States, because he was angry that the mother allowed A. to get too tanned. During the motion, the father advised that A.'s current passport is in his possession, and he had cut up an expired passport, clearly intended to distress and intimidate the mother. This demonstrates again that the father is unable to consider A.'s best interests and needs when he is triggered or angry with the mother.

u. It is clear that the father has negative feelings toward the mother and has little regard for her parenting role with A. I find this for the following reasons:

i. In describing examples to the court, the father imitated the mother by using a derogatory accent in an effort to demean or belittle her.

ii. He stated to the court, "[A.] is remarkably well adjusted because I raised her to be."

iii. He was not able to say anything positive about A.'s relationship with the mother.

iv. He blames not having enough money on the mother.

[35] The court should consider the level of hostility and the extent to which that stability may undermine the child's stability. Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479. I find that the father has exposed A. to such a high level of hostility which has resulted in A. feeling comfortable to behave toward the mother as she sees the father doing.

[36] Denigrating your spouse in front of the children fits within the definition of family violence. See: Ammar v. Smith, 2021 ONSC 3204; McIntosh v. Baker, 2022 ONSC 4235. Violence need not be physical. Emotional and psychological abuse can have a devastating impact on a child. See: Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510; El Khatib v. Noun, 2023 ONSC 1667. I find that the father's denigration and degradation of the mother and her parenting role amounts to family violence.

[37] Based on the above, I am persuaded that it is not in A.'s best interests to be in the primary care of the father. I find that it is in A.'s best interest to have her primary residence with the mother at the paternal grandparent's home and/or in the townhouse, once the parties address that issue.

[38] Going forward, given the high level of conflict, it is extremely important that both parents support A.'s relationship with the other parent. The father has demonstrated an inability and unwillingness to do this. As set out in the AFCC parenting guide, with children of A.'s age,

"Parents need to be particularly mindful of their own behaviour as it may unintentionally impact as it may unintentionally impact the quality of the relationship between the child and their other parent. It is not unusual for children of high conflict parents in this age range to align with one parent and start to resist or refuse contact with the other parent. It is important that the parent whom the child favours ensure the child continues to follow the agreed upon schedule unless there is an agreement or order for variation. In extreme cases, one parent may engage in implicit and/or explicit attitudes and behaviours that undermine the parent-child relationship. This can include denigrating the other parent, interfering with the child's relationship with the other parent and/or restricting the time the child spends with the other parent. In such cases intervention by competent mental health professionals and the courts may be needed."

[39] Now that primary residence has been determined, I turn to what parenting schedule would be in A.'s best interests.

The Law

[40] The most appropriate allocation of time in any given situation will depend on many factors including the child's age; temperament; stage of development; the relevant schedules and commitments of the child and each parent; and any other considerations relevant to the determination of the child's best interests. The parenting schedule must accord with the child's best interests. See: McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610; Drodge v. Gadjadhar, 2025 ONSC 244.

[41] A child should have maximum contact with both parents if it is consistent with the child's best interests. See: Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27; Rigillo v. Rigillo, 2019 ONCA 548.

[42] A starting point to assess a child's best interests when making a custody or access order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. It is also in a child's best interests when making an access order that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe. See: I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615.

[43] Given how the mother and the paternal grandparents describe the father's explosive and dysregulated nature, I have concerns about the father having a parenting schedule that would allow him to continue to expose A. to conflict and/or erratic behaviors. Particularly, given that exposure to conflict has been called the "single most damaging factor for children in the face of divorce": per Backhouse J., in Graham v. Bruto, [2007] O.J. No. 656 (S.C.), at para. 65, aff'd 2008 ONCA 260; Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 641.

[44] The mother seeks a parenting schedule where A. is only with the father on Wednesdays from after school to 8:00 p.m. and on Sundays, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I have concerns that that schedule is too restrictive.

[45] Having said that, impulse control and self-regulation are important parenting qualities. Children learn by observing their parents. If a parent is unregulated, there is a strong possibility that is what the child will learn. This might explain some of the child's behavioural issues being described by the mother and paternal grandparents: See D.E.S.A. v. N.B., 2025 ONCJ 279, at para. 50. The father's dysregulation and failure to shield A. from conflict is reason to make a well-defined parenting schedule, while A. begins therapy and the OCL becomes involved and assesses what parenting schedule and decision-making regime is in A.'s best interests.

[46] I make a temporary order for the father to have parenting time with A. on Wednesdays, from after school to 8:00 p.m. and on alternating Fridays, after school to Sundays, at 6:00 p.m.

[47] Given that this is a temporary order, it is meant to provide a reasonably acceptable solution on an expeditious basis for a problem that will be fully canvassed at subsequent conferences or resolved at a trial.

[48] I am not persuaded that a decision-making responsibility order is necessary at this time. A. attends the school she has always gone to, and no medical decisions need to be made at this time. If a major decision arises that needs to be made for A. prior to a trial or further agreement of the parties and the parties cannot agree on the decision, then either of them is free to apply to the court for assistance.

Order

1. This court makes the following temporary order:

(a) The child shall reside primarily with the applicant mother.

(b) The child shall have parenting time with the respondent father as follows:

(i) Wednesdays, after school to 8:00 p.m.

(ii) Alternate weekends from Friday, after school to Sundays, at 6:00 p.m.

(c) The parenting exchanges shall take place at school where possible. On Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. and on Sundays at 6:00 p.m., the parenting exchanges shall take place at the paternal grandparent's house with the father dropping off the child.

(d) The father shall not drive in a car with the child for as long as he does not have a valid driver's licence.

(e) The father shall abstain from using substances when he has parenting time with the child.

(f) The court shall request the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer. A separate endorsement to that effect will follow.

(g) The parties consent to the child being immediately enrolled in therapy at the Yellow Brick House in Richmond Hill in the program, "Let's Talk".

(h) Neither parent shall denigrate the other in front of the child or discuss the litigation or case with the child.

(i) The respondent shall obtain a hair follicle drug test through Life Labs within 7 days from the release of this Endorsement.

(j) The parties shall endeavour to agree on costs. If they are unable to do so, the applicant shall serve written costs submission of no more than 3 pages, not including a Bill of Costs or offers to settle within 14 days of the release of this Endorsement. The respondent shall serve written costs submissions of no more than 3 pages, not including a Bill of Costs or offers to settle within 7 days of being served with the applicant's costs submissions.

The Honourable Justice M. Kraft

Date: October 10, 2025