Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-24-00042365-0000 Date: 2025-10-24 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Elisa Lerman Bien, Applicant, And: Michael Bien, Respondent

Before: M. Kraft, J.

Counsel:

• Jaret N. Moldaver and Martine Ordon, for the Applicant
• Harold Niman, Meysa Maleki and James Flint for the Respondent

Heard: October 16, 2025

Endorsement

Introduction

[1] This motion concerns parenting time for the parties' three young children — 3-year-old twins, B. and E., born Sept. 24, 2022, and 2-year-old, C., born Sept. 23, 2023.

[2] This high-conflict case began on April 29, 2024, when Elisa Lerman Bien ("Elisa") was charged with multiple offences, including uttering death threats against Michael Bien ("Michael"), their children, and extortion. Michael alleges that Elisa orchestrated a scheme impersonating fake Toronto police officers who sent repeated messages claiming the couple was part of a covert investigation. Under this ruse, he says that he was coerced into marrying Elisa, having children with her, and buying her items. He claims that he was promised $1.2 million or $100,000 annually per child until each turned 18. Michael maintains that he complied initially out of fear and a desire to help, but later stayed out of fear for his and his family's safety.

[3] Michael alleges that the evidence on record to date and before this Court proves that Elisa is behind this scheme. Elisa denies being part of any scheme in which she impersonated anyone or made threats of harm to anyone.

[4] At an urgent parenting motion on May 16, 2024, Hood, J. limited Elisa's parenting time to seven hours a week, to be supervised by Brayden Supervision Services Inc. because of the serious criminal charges and the alleged scheme ("Hood order"). The Hood order was clarified by Nakonechny, J. on June 13, 2024. For the past 17 months, the children have lived primarily with Michael. At the time of the motion, the twins, B. and E. were 19 months old, and C. was 7 months old.

[5] The criminal charges against Elisa were withdrawn by the Crown on April 11, 2025, after which Elisa brought this motion in May 2025, to vary the Hood order, lift the supervision of her parenting time and resume being the children's primary caregiver. Her motion was adjourned to October 16, 2025, to enable her to answer her undertakings, allow two non-parties to file affidavits and be questioned, and for Elisa to undergo a comprehensive psychiatric assessment by Dr. Hy Bloom.

[6] Specifically, Elisa seeks to reverse the parenting terms of the Hood order so she can be restored to the primary parent of the 3 children and for Michael to have supervised parenting time. Alternatively, Elisa seeks a shared parenting schedule on a 2-2-3 basis. She also seeks temporary sole decision-making responsibility for the children.

Issues to be Decided

[7] The specific issues for me to decide on this motion can be broken down as:

a. Should the Hood order be varied prior to a trial of this matter?

b. If the answer to a. is yes, whether the children face a risk of psychological harm if Elisa is allowed unsupervised parenting time and/or what parenting schedule is in the children's best interests?

c. Should an order be made to determine the decision-making responsibility of the children?

The Parties' Positions and Narratives

[8] Elisa claims that this case is really about Michael trying to have her criminally charged and marginalized as a parent to gain an advantage in court. She says that he wants to avoid paying child and spousal support. On April 29, 2024, Elisa was charged with 12 offences: four counts of threatening Michael, one count of threatening his father, four counts of threatening the children, one count of extortion, and two counts of sexually assaulting Michael. The charges were laid after Michael's report to police, where he provided 33,670 texts and emails allegedly sent by Elisa—many while he claims she was impersonating other people—threatening him, his children, and his father.

[9] Elisa strongly denies being involved in any scheme or sending threatening messages, claiming any such messages were fabricated by Michael. To gain primary care of the children, she voluntarily underwent two assessments: a psychological report by Dr. Doug Sanders (July 18, 2024) and a recent psychiatric report by Dr. Hy Bloom (October 6, 2025). Both concluded that she has no mental health issues that would make unsupervised parenting unsafe. Based on Dr. Bloom's report, Jewish Family and Child Services (JF&CS) no longer requires her parenting time to be supervised. All criminal charges against Elisa were withdrawn on April 11, 2025. She argues that Michael accused her to gain control after learning that she had consulted a lawyer, planned to leave him following an incident of physical abuse the night before her arrest, and had refused to sign a marriage contract or a second mortgage in favour of his father.

[10] Michael claims that this case involves severe family violence by Elisa toward him, and that the evidence shows a long-standing pattern of coercive and controlling behavior. He alleges that Elisa has repeatedly lied to him and others in the following ways:

a. She falsely claimed to Michael that she had a child named Tyson who died of SIDS at 11 months, and that she had been married to a man named Robert Langenfield ("Robert"), who died by suicide—when in fact, Tyson never existed, she was never married to Robert, and Robert is alive.

b. She lied to her ex-boyfriend, Robert, about having a son named Jake who died of meningitis, and about having been married to a man named Jeff Wenter—both untrue.

c. She told similar lies to her former supervisor at CAMH, Jamieson Malaya, again claiming she had a son named Tyson and sending pictures of a child, falsely presenting him as her own.

d. She also told Jamieson that Robert was her abusive estranged husband, that he had been airlifted from Sudbury to Parry Sound, was dying in intensive care, and later died of a drug overdose—when Robert was alive and well.

e. Most seriously, Michael claims that Elisa created the fabricated scheme described above over a three-year period in which she impersonated two Toronto police officers, a man named Joel Reinders, and others. These allegedly "fake" individuals sent Michael threatening texts over several years targeting him, their children, and his father. Based on the evidence he has collected, Michael argues that the court should find, on a balance of probabilities, that Elisa was behind the scheme.

[11] Michael argues that, given Elisa's pattern of lying and manipulation, she poses a serious emotional and psychological risk to their three children if allowed unsupervised parenting time before a trial and full findings of fact. He also claims that Dr. Bloom did not have key information from Robert and Jamieson—specifically, their responses to undertakings during questioning—which Michael believes could have led Dr. Bloom to reach a different conclusion about Elisa's mental health. As a result, Michael asks the court to give little weight, if any, to Dr. Bloom's report.

[12] Elisa similarly claims that Michael has lied from the outset of these proceedings. He alleged that she sexually assaulted him, resulting in the birth of children, when the twins were conceived by IUI. Michael also alleged that Elisa threatened bodily harm or death to the children, when the dates of these threats, for the most part, pre-date when the children were born. The charge of extortion was based on Michael alleging Elisa forced him to purchase large homes. Elisa submits that they owned two homes since they were married and the second home was less money than their first house. Further, Elisa is on the mortgage and contributed to the purchase price. Finally, at the urgent parenting motion before Hood, J., Michael represented that the lead Detective reviewed the 33,670 texts/messages he had given them and determined that Elisa was the source of the messages, which is not true. When the police did analyze the messages, the charges were withdrawn.

[13] In response to the alleged lies, Michael accuses her of making, Elisa responds as follows:

a. She denies ever telling Michael that she had a child named Tyson who died of SIDS at 11 months.

b. She admits telling Jamieson, her former supervisor at CAMH, that she had a child, but says this was a lie made to stop his unwanted sexual advances. She claims that he was sending her inappropriate texts and sexually harassing her, and she made up the story, along with saying she was in a relationship, to get him to stop. Elisa is currently pursuing a human rights complaint against CAMH and Jamieson. She does not make any comment on having told Jamieson that Robert was dying.

c. She denies telling her ex-boyfriend Robert that she had a son named Jake who died or that she had been married to Jeff Wenter. She does admit saying she had given a child up for adoption but claims that she only said this to placate Robert during a period of mental health decline, when he was accusing her of poisoning him and insisting that she had a child who had died.

Background

[14] The parties met on a dating app in 2019 but only reconnected in May 2021. Michael says that they began discussing a fundraiser that he planned at the school where he worked as Director of Development. Elisa told him that she had fundraising contacts through her job at CAMH, including Joel Reinders, a former NFL and CFL player. She said that she could ask Joel to help bring high-profile athletes to the event and donate sports memorabilia for auction.

[15] The parties married on December 9, 2021, one month after Michael's divorce from his first wife, Orli Lubinsky, was finalized. Michael and Orli share custody of their 11-year-old son, I., who lives with both parents equally.

[16] Michael and Elisa have three children together: twin boys, B. and E., aged 3, and a son, C., aged 2.

[17] Michael claims that Elisa created an elaborate scheme, the details of which are as follows:

a. In June 2021, shortly after Elisa offered fundraising help, Michael began receiving threatening emails from Joel Reinders and his uncle, Wayne Van Dorp, accusing Elisa of stealing valuable sports memorabilia. Michael also received messages from "police officer" Justin Zeppieri, who said he was investigating these claims and asked Michael to help protect Elisa.

b. Joel and Wayne's threats grew more aggressive, and Elisa told Michael that Justin Zeppieri, a friend and police officer, was investigating because the memorabilia contained drugs and Joel and Wayne were part of a dangerous drug family targeting her.

c. On June 3, 2021, Michael and Elisa got a text from Justin Zeppieri directing them to follow a "script," including holding themselves out as couple, having Elisa stay over at his house, staying together, presenting a united front, and having two pregnancies. Michael was told they were part of a covert police operation called "Project Raindeer," monitored by Justin and others, including Raydan Imad El Sayegh and Jimmy Stavrakas. They were told they had to marry and have children to protect the family from criminals and surveillance. Michael believed his home and phone had been monitored since June 2021.

d. The messages told Michael he would be "extracted", which meant he would be made to disappear by the police if he did not agree to marry Elisa and have two separated pregnancies with her. During this time, the messages instructed Michael to do things like clean their house, buy Elisa an engagement ring costing $20,000, go on trips, get engaged, have children, and act in certain ways toward their families. Michael and Elisa were promised $500,000 upfront and $100,000 yearly per child until age 18. At one point, Michael was told to go to Walmart to collect payment, but no one appeared. Michael says he was coerced into marrying Elisa, having children, and buying her gifts by these "third parties," whom he believed were real until early 2024.

e. Michael says that he didn't want to marry Elisa or have children initially but followed the "script." The messages show neither wanted marriage or children at first, but over time, Michael grew to want marriage and expressed love and excitement about children.

f. In the fall of 2021, Michael's father spoke to him about entering into a marriage contract with Elisa before they were married. Michael claims to have then received messages and texts stating that if he complied with his father's request, his father would be killed.

g. In December 2023, Michael told his father about the situation. He was suspicious of Elisa, as was Michael's father, who suggested hiring a private investigator, who followed Elisa for weeks. The report convinced Michael that Elisa was behind the scheme, impersonating Joel, Justin, and others sending threatening messages.

h. Michael then went to police with over 33,000 texts, all allegedly sent by Elisa impersonating these individuals. On April 29, 2024, Elisa was charged with 12 offences, including death threats to Michael, his father, and children, extortion, and sexual assault.

i. Elisa was released on bail the next day with strict conditions, limiting her contact with the children to supervised visits with her parents or as arranged by a third party or court order.

[18] The parties' separated on April 29, 2024, the day of Elisa's arrest.

[19] Elisa strongly denies any involvement in the scheme. She argues that the messages Michael gave to the police did not contain the necessary elements of the crimes she was charged with. She says that the Toronto Police Service (TPS) couldn't review all 33,670 texts before her arrest, and when they finally did in February 2025, they found no threats of harm to Michael or the children. The TPS also found no evidence supporting Michael's claims that Elisa extorted him to buy an engagement ring, Peloton bike, spa gifts, or anything else. Elisa submits that Michael manipulated the messages and lied about their relationship to frame her and clear himself. She claims that Michael willingly took part in the scheme, expecting to be paid $1.2 million—a fact he did not disclose to police when he handed over the messages.

[20] On May 16, 2024, Justice Hood heard an urgent parenting motion and noted the charges against Elisa were serious and complex, involving death threats to Michael and the children. Justice Hood stated that he could not determine whether the charges were justified or if Elisa would be found guilty. However, given the seriousness of the charges and bail conditions restricting her, Justice Hood concluded Elisa's parenting time must be limited to supervised visits. Elisa was granted seven hours of supervised parenting time per week. This was later modified by Justice Nakonechny on June 24, 2025, to allow supervised visits at her parents' home. On consent, Elisa has also had supervised visits in the community.

[21] As a result of the Hood order, the three children have been in Michael's primary care for the past 17 months. Hood, J. also granted Michael exclusive possession of the parties' matrimonial home where he resides with the children.

[22] On April 11, 2025, the criminal charges against Elisa were withdrawn by the Crown. Michael then brought a motion to obtain Elisa's devices from the TPS so they could be forensically analyzed by Michael's expert, Mr. Ellwood and Elisa's expert, now Mr. Stanko. This relief was granted by Diamond, J. on May 30, 2025. Michael sought to have the evidence from Elisa's devices prior to the parenting motion before Hood, J., but this was not possible because of delay. Diamond, J. granted this relief and ordered Elisa to pay costs to Michael in the sum of $18,000. As of the date of this motion, the devices have still not been examined forensically because Elisa submits that she cannot remember the passwords for them. It will be up to the trial judge to determine whether a negative inference is to be drawn because these devices not having been forensically analyzed in spite of the order. It is problematic that the devices have not yet forensically analyzed because this is critical information this court ordered to determine if the messages involved in this scheme originated from Elisa's devices.

[23] Michael was charged with at least 7 criminal offences of sexual assault, assault and theft, as a result of Elisa's reporting to the police. These charges have now been withdrawn as well.

[24] Michael brought a motion compelling Text Now and Text Me for their records and was successful. The evidence from both computer applications demonstrates that Elisa set up burner phone numbers through these two apps. Both accounts were registered to Justin Zeppieri. During Elisa's questioning, she admitted that she told Michael that she knew Justin Zeppieri, despite earlier having denied that she had a relationship with him and stating that she did not recall the circumstances in which she met him. When pressed by Michael's counsel to review her contact list on her phone in the middle of the questioning, it was revealed that she did have Justin Zeppieri's phone number and they had exchanged texts.

[25] Michael brought motion compelling evidence from Robert and Jamieson to demonstrate that he was not the first or only person Elisa had told she had a child who either did not exist or had died prior to having her twins. The relief was granted. Both non parties filed affidavits which confirmed that Elisa told one of them that Justin was her former partner, despite having denied this at the questioning. Specifically,

a. Mr. Jamieson Malaya, Elisa's old supervisor from CAMH when she worked there, swore an affidavit on July 9, 2025, affirming that Elisa told him she had a child named was Tyson; and Tyson's father was Mr. Langenfeld. On July 10, 2025, Elisa delivered an affidavit admitting that she told Mr. Malaya she had a child and was in a relationship to get him to stop hitting on her. She denies telling Mr. Malaya that she had a dead child. In answer to an undertaking, Mr. Malaya has produced numerous text messages between him and Elisa in which she is involved in detailed discussions with him and she tells him he is "like her best friend". The texts show that Elisa tells him her child's name is Jake; her ex-husband is Robert Langenfeld; she is afraid for her safety and for Jake's safety because Robert Langenfeld is abusive, and Robert Langenfeld was in the intensive care unit on life support and ultimately died of a drug overdose. She also sent multiple pictures to Jamieson of her and a boy, representing that the boy in the pictures is her son, Jake.

b. Mr. Langenfeld swore an affidavit on July 11, 2025, in which he deposes that Elisa told him she had previously been married to a man named Jeff Wenter and she had a deceased son named Jake who died from meningitis.

[26] Both Mr. Langenfeld and Mr. Malaya were questioned in September 2025. Jamieson delivered the answers to his undertakings on October 14, 2025, two days before the long motion. Robert also delivered the answers to his undertakings the day before or the day of the long motion. The answers to both Jamieson and Robert's undertakings are very telling and contradict Elisa's initial evidence. They will be further discussed below.

[27] Michael submits that Elisa has serious mental health issues which impact her ability to parent the parties' three children or have parenting time with them unsupervised. According to Michael, Elisa kept a picture of herself and a boy, representing that this boy was Tyson. This is the exact same picture Elisa had sent Mr. Malaya by text, in which she represented that was her son, Jake. Michael submits that he now understands that these were all lies. Elisa denies telling Michael or Jamieson these things, despite Michael having produced texts between him and Elisa where she mentions Mr. Langenfeld, talks about Tyson and his death and about Mr. Langenfeld's death by suicide and despite Jamieson having produced texts between him and Elisa where she discusses Jake and Robert. Elisa deposes that the picture of her and a boy, which Michael claims she represented by Tyson, is her cousin's son, Mason Schwartz.

[28] Elisa continues to claim that Michael has been falsely accusing her of things that she did not do to exclude her from the children's lives. She relies on allegations made in Michael's litigation with his former spouse as demonstrating a pattern of false accusations on Michael's part, both to the police and JF&CS.

Issue One: Should the Hood Order Be Varied Prior to Trial?

The Law

[29] The parties are married and as a result, the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp.), is the applicable statute.

[30] Section 16(1) provides that in making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section. In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being – s.16(2).

[31] Since the Hood order is a temporary order, the first question to be answered is whether it should be varied prior to a trial?

[32] The principles to be applied when determining whether an interim parenting order should be varied were described by Vella J., in Zavaleta v Zavaleta, at paragraph 21, as follows:

a. The purpose of a temporary parenting order is to provide stability to the child pending a trial. The decision must necessarily be made on the basis of a written evidentiary record which will likely become more fulsome at trial.

b. In assessing the best interests of the child, the Court must give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security and wellbeing; s. 16(2) of the Divorce Act.

c. In determining the child's best interests, the Court will consider all factors relating to the circumstances of the child as set out by s. 24(3) of the CLRA and s. 16(3) of the Divorce Act.

d. The Court must ascertain a child's best interests from the perspective of the child, rather than that of the parents: Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27.

e. No one factor listed in the statutory definition of a child's best interests is given paramountcy over another. However, certain factors may be more influential than others in the particular circumstances of the child whose best interests is at issue.

f. The status quo will generally be maintained unless there is cogent evidence that such a situation will not be in the best interests of the child. This is because the court is making a preliminary determination to create a stable and predictable situation for the child, pending a trial where a full evidentiary record will be available.

[33] In this case, I am satisfied that the Hood order was a temporary order made at the urgent outset of this proceeding and intended to ensure the safety of the children until a time when the court had more information about serious charges laid against Elisa.

[34] Now that Michael has obtained evidence from Robert and Jamieson and Elisa has undergone a psychiatric assessment report from Dr. Bloom, I find that it is open to this court to consider Elisa's motion to vary the existing temporary Hood order because there has been both a material change in circumstances and there are compelling circumstances to consider a change.

Issue Two: If the Hood Order Should Be Varied, Is It in the Children's Best Interests for Supervision of Elisa's Parenting Time to Be Lifted and What Parenting Schedule Is in the Children's Best Interests?

The Law

[35] The best interests' factors are set out in s.16(3) of the Divorce Act.

[36] Before I apply the best interests' factors to the facts of this case, I have to answer whether it is in the children's best interests to lift the requirement of supervision for Elisa's parenting with the three children?

[37] It is well known that 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: I.O. v. I.G., 2023 ONCJ 520; Najjardizaji v. Mehrjerdi 2004 ONCJ 374.

[38] In M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207, Chappell, J. drew on the cases of Jennings v. Garrett, Baldwin v. Baldwin, 2015 ONSC 1743, Young v. Hanson, 2019 ONSC 1245, B.R.M. v. M.A.E.M., 2021 ONSC 2791, P.P. v. A.V., 2021 ONSC 7359, and H. v. A., 2022 ONSC 1560, and summarized the law on supervision of parenting time at para. 189 as follows:

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. The party who seeks to reduce normal access will usually be required to provide a justification for taking such a position. The greater the restriction sought, the more important it becomes to justify that restriction. See: M.A. v. J.D..

d. The person seeking supervised access bears the burden of establishing that supervision is necessary. See: Klymenko v. Klymenko, 2020 ONSC 5451.

e. 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.

f. 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.

g. 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.

h. 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:

i. 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;

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

iii. 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?

iv. Are there flight risk concerns respecting the parent?

v. 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?

vi. 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?

vii. 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.

[39] Michael argues that continued supervision of Elisa's parenting time is necessary because of concerns regarding Elisa's mental health to ensure the children's safety. Further, he argues that Elisa's conduct amounts to family violence as defined in the Divorce Act which requires the Court to consider the additional factors set out in s.16(4) which includes considering:

(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall take the following into account:

(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;

(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;

(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;

(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;

(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;

(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;

(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

(h) any other relevant factor.

[40] Michael asserts that the evidence clearly shows that Elisa has engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that has caused him to fear for his safety and that of the children. He further submits that Elisa has taken no responsibility for her actions, instead denying the allegations outright and showing no effort to curb her ongoing dishonesty and manipulation. I agree that if either parent is behind the fabricated scheme—impersonating third parties and sending threatening messages to the other or concerning the children—such conduct constitutes family violence.

[41] Michael asks me to determine that Elisa is behind this fabricated scheme of impersonating various third parties which threatened him, the children, and his father. If I make that finding, Michael submits, he has met his onus that ongoing supervision is necessary.

[42] Elisa, on the other hand, argues that ongoing supervision of her parenting time materially impacts the kind of time she can have with the three children. Further, given the children's young ages, their needs and stages of development, it is critical that they have a consistent and predictable schedule with frequent periods of time with both parents. The Hood order, from Elisa's perspective, is a marked departure from the caregiving all three children were receiving prior to her arrest. She believes that continued supervision of her parenting time is not in the children's best interests because it prevents them from having their primary caregiver participate in regular caretaking routines and experience the kind of childcare functions she fulfilled prior to separation, such as feeding, bathing, playing, soothing, bedtime and waking.

Dr. Bloom's Psychiatric Report

[43] A key piece of evidence on which the Court hoped to rely for this motion is the psychiatric report of Elisa by Dr. Hy Bloom, dated October 6, 2025. Dr. Bloom's retainer was to provide his expert opinion regarding Elisa's mental health and whether she has any psychiatric conditions that would impact on her ability to parent the children. JF&CS also sent Dr. Bloom ten questions to answer, which he does in his report. The 10 questions are as follows:

"JF&CS believes it would be beneficial for an assessment to be conducted to evaluate the level of functioning of both parents, as well as identify any potential risk to the children. At this time, JF&CS remains unclear about the identity of the individual(s) who sent the threatening messages regarding harm to the children and the role, if any, of either parent in this narrative. JF&CS would like to gain a clearer understanding of each parent's mental health status. Specifically:

i. Does she/he have a formal mental health diagnosis?

ii. If there is a diagnosis, how does the diagnosis impact her/his day-today functioning?

iii. Is her/his current level of functioning indicative of a risk to her/himself or to others?

iv. What, if any, treatment is being recommended?

v. If there is a recommended treatment, how can we assess if the treatment is effective? How can we assess if the treatment is ineffective and/or not being followed?

vi. If he/she is identifying as a victim, what barriers may have prevented him/her from seeking help and disclosing the situation to anyone outside of the relationship at the time?

vii. Does the parent acknowledge responsibility for making poor decisions, such as failing to contact the police when receiving serious threats of harm?

viii. There are serious allegations by each parent about the others truthfulness throughout their family and criminal court proceedings. Does this influence his/her ability to care for a child?

ix. Are there any cognitive or developmental concerns affecting the parent's ability to parent effectively?

x. Has the parent demonstrated insight to their own mental health or behavioural issues?"

[44] In reaching his conclusions, Dr. Bloom reviewed the pleadings, 15 affidavits from Michael, 13 affidavits from Elisa, 1 affidavit from Robert, 1 affidavit from Jamieson; a psychological assessment report prepared by Dr. Doug Saunders, dated July 18, 2024, records from Dr. Jordana Sacks, Elisa's family doctor, from August 20, 2021, to October 21, 2024, and additional records from Dr. Sacks from March 1, 2011, to August 11, 2025. The source documents were not served with Dr. Bloom's report on Michael. Michael's counsel did not receive the source documents until the day before the long motion was heard.

[45] Elisa did acknowledge to Dr. Bloom that she lied to Jamieson and Robert, about which he comments as follows:

a. With regard to the lies Elisa told Jamieson, Dr. Bloom's report states:

"Ms. Lerman Bien acknowledged having told James, at Robert's suggestion, that she had a living child, " but she went to explain that this was tactical, in order to get James "to stop hitting on me". When I asked her whether she had ever corrected the misinformation/lies, Ms. Lerman Bien told me that she did in a Pleading in the context of her HRTO matter against CAMH. She recalled saying that she never had children and then explaining why she claimed that she did during the one mediation they have had thus far. She told me that she did not correct it earlier on, on the advice of her lawyer. The HRTO matter is pending."

b. With regard to Robert, Elisa explained to Dr. Bloom that she told him she had given up a child for adoption. Elisa explained that she did that toward the end of her relationship with Robert, as way of placating him because he had been accusing her of poisoning him and there were many accusations in relation of a "child that died". Elisa explains that Robert was mentally unwell and experiencing psychosis toward the end of the relationship before he was in CAMH. Dr. Bloom's report states:

i. Elisa learned that Robert had longstanding drug and mental health issues, and she felt very betrayed by him;

ii. Elisa explained that Robert had declined to a psychotic state and needed to be forced into hospital by her threats to either call the police or attend a justice of the peace for a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act.

iii. Robert spent two months at CAMH as a voluntary patient, but he was reportedly declared to be involuntary when he wanted to leave.

iv. After the time Robert was hospitalized and before that, he started to accuse Elisa of various misdeeds, and became fixated on her miscarriage, which she had decided to disclose to him earlier on.

v. Robert at time, seemingly when he was in the grips of being mentally unwell per Elisa's account, he would refuse to believe the miscarriage story and insist that she had given birth to a dead child. He would accuse her of being "so stupid to not know [she] was pregnant".

vi. According to Elisa there were other delusional ideations because Robert would claim that she had a live child, which is something he gathered when he saw a picture of her and a cousin's son, Mason on a dresser in the closet of her bedroom. Robert reportedly claimed that Mason was a child that she was hiding. All of this was occurring three months before Robert's hospitalization at CAMH and he had started declining about six to seven months into their relationship;

vii. He accused her of having a child with Jeff Wenter, a friend of hers, possibly because she had told him about the "Jeff" she knew at Dalhousie and the miscarriage.

viii. She told Dr. Bloom that in his cross-examination, Robert named the dead child as "Jake" and Elisa did not understand what the context for that was as she could not recall the name Jake ever coming up in a conversation, about anything.

ix. She told Dr. Bloom that Robert claims to have asked her neighbour's son about being friends with Jake and she later learned that Robert never had that conversation with her neighbour's son. As well, Robert claimed to have called Elisa's father to tell him that she was suicidal about the death of her son, but Elisa's father said that conversation never happened.

[46] After considering Elisa's presentation and all the evidence he reviewed, Dr. Bloom's assessment report concludes that:

a. "Ms. Lerman Bien does not currently suffer from any major mental disorder or psychiatric condition that would have negative implications for her ability to parent her children, either in the context of unsupervised access, or as a custodial parent."

b. "There is also no evidence, from document review, collaterals, and clinical assessment that Ms. Lerman Bien meets criteria for a personality disorder. Needless to say, if she is the perpetrator of the scheme, as noted above, it certainly suggests that there is something amiss in her psychological makeup, for example, Cluster Personality pathology (psychopathic/antisocial/borderline/histrionic), but if I were to hypothesize Cluster B personality pathology, particularly antisociality or psychopathy, the antecedents for that condition are not present in her history. Specifically, there is no history of conduct disorder behaviour, consistent violations of the law, aggressivity towards other, a tendency towards manipulating people, lack of caring and empathy, etc. Consequently, there is no psychiatric diagnosis, let alone a diagnosis that would associate with a problem with responsibly caring for her children in a parenting role."

[47] Dr. Bloom's report recognized the multitude of allegations made by Michael, which he acknowledged that if determined to be true, suggest highly duplicitous behaviour and outright pathological lying on Ms. Lerman Bien's part.

[48] Recognizing that it is not his role to determine whether the allegations are true, Dr. Bloom states that that is the job of the Court. However, in his report, Dr. Bloom confirms that:

"he told both parties that if the perpetrator of the fake scheme was one or the other, it would be highly worrisome, have serious implications for their ability to be trusted around the truth, even though that scenario—either Michael or Ms. Lerman Bien being the author and key protagonist of the scheme—does not bespeak a specific major mental disorder. What I did not say to them and suggest here is that one would need to theorize that the creator of the scheme either has significant personality pathology or significant lacunae in their sense of propriety, morality, and decency. Desperation is another potential factor that drives individuals to do things that they would not have done otherwise and have never done before."

[49] Dr. Bloom reviewed the affidavits of Robert and Jamieson and knew Elisa had lied to both—claiming to Jamieson that she had a son and to Robert that her child had died. Despite this, he concluded she had no pathology, relying solely on her explanation for lying to both of them. However, the text messages, produced by Jamieson as answers to his undertakings, between Elisa and Jamieson tell a different story. They do not reflect someone who felt harassed or uncomfortable; rather, Elisa initiated much of the contact, spoke highly of him, sought his personal and professional advice, and shared fabricated details about her life. Her claim that the lie was meant to stop harassment is inconsistent with these messages. On the record before me, I find her explanation disingenuous. Further, while Elisa admitted to Dr. Bloom that she lied to Jamieson about having a child and an ex-husband, she did not admit that she fabricated a story about her ex-husband having been abusive, being airlifted to a hospital, being on life support because of a drug overdose or her being Robert's next of kin and having to decide to take him off life support. I am of the view that Dr. Bloom needs to be aware of these text messages in making any assessment regarding Elisa's mental health.

[50] In terms of the texts between Elisa and Robert, some of which took place over this past summer, again, Elisa initiated the contact, shared personal details about her case with Michael, the details of which are fabricated, and the texts do not demonstrate that she has concerns about his mental health. Moreover, Dr. Bloom did not have access to these texts when forming his opinion that Elisa did not fit the profile of someone orchestrating such a deception.

[51] I am not persuaded that Dr. Bloom would have reached the same conclusions had he reviewed the text messages produced by Jamieson and Robert. It is notable that, after receiving these undertakings, Elisa did not consider adjourning this motion and asking Dr. Bloom to review the messages or prepare a supplementary report, despite his recommendation to do so if new information emerged. It is open for this Court to draw an adverse inference against Elisa that had she followed through with Dr. Bloom's recommendation, she feared the results would not have been in her favour. In these circumstances, I cannot rely on Dr. Bloom's report, as it is unclear what his opinion would have been had he considered the undertakings and compared them with Elisa's explanations for lying during her assessment. Moreover, Dr. Bloom acknowledged that he did not review the transcripts of Robert's or Jamieson's examinations, which I find significant.

Analysis of the Scheme Allegations

[52] Despite Michael's insistence that the evidence supports a finding that Elisa was responsible for impersonating "fake" police and orchestrating the alleged scheme, I am unable to make that finding at the stage before trial for the following reasons:

a. The Toronto Police Service Report, Text Messages Examination Findings (February 6, 2025) ("TPS Report"), concludes that the texts and emails provided by Michael did not contain threats or evidence of extortion. Specifically:

i. For Charges 1 and 2 (uttering death threats and extortion), police found no evidence of threats or extortion.

ii. For Charge 3 (uttering death threats between September–October 2021), no threats were identified.

iii. For Charges 4 and 5 (uttering death threats), police found no evidence Michael was threatened to marry Elisa; the messages instead suggested Elisa would be in danger if he did not "protect" her by marrying and living with her.

iv. For Charge 6, only four messages "resembled" threats, though it was unclear if they met the threshold for criminal charges.

v. The sexual assault charge was withdrawn after Elisa's IVF pregnancy; police found no evidence of coercion, noting Michael himself expressed a desire to marry and have children with Elisa.

vi. Police noted Michael appeared to believe he would receive $100,000 per child, and confirmed there was no evidence he was threatened into marriage.

b. The TPS Report, therefore, undermines the credibility of Michael's allegations of threats, sexual assault, and extortion.

c. I also cannot disregard Elisa's claim that Michael was physically abusive the night before her arrest. A text from Michael on April 28, 2024, referencing the trouble he was in with his father because she would not agree to sign a post-up or second mortgage, supports the possibility that he reported Elisa out of retaliation or frustration. The record does not permit me to determine the truth.

d. A text sent on April 29, 2024, reading "I win this OMG thank you," may indicate Michael's satisfaction with Elisa's arrest, though I cannot confirm if he authored the message.

e. Michael told Hood J. that police had confirmed that Elisa authored 33,670 emails, leading to her criminal charges. However, the TPS Report shows those materials had not yet been reviewed at the time of her arrest. Whether Michael knowingly misled the court or relied on mistaken information remains unclear.

f. While it cannot be proven who sent all the messages, some appear to originate from numbers linked to Elisa's TextMe or TextNow accounts. Elisa argues that Michael, who had access to her passwords, could have sent them himself. This uncertainty underscores the importance of the forensic analysis of Elisa's devices which was ordered by Diamond J. on May 30, 2025.

g. That analysis has not occurred. Each party blames the other, and Elisa now claims that she has forgotten her passwords. The lack of follow up in terms of complying with Diamond J.'s order and the explanation of forgetting the passwords leaves something to be desired. Without that evidence, it is impossible to determine who was behind the messages.

h. Michael provided police with Elisa's passwords and unlocked her phone, and he also wiped his own device from the relevant period and gave it to his son, I.. This raises the possibility that Michael, not Elisa, orchestrated the scheme.

[53] In light of these findings, I am not prepared to conclude that Elisa was responsible for the impersonations or the messages underlying this alleged scheme.

Credibility and Pattern of Dishonesty

[54] Michael submits that Elisa's parenting time should remain supervised, alleging a long-standing pattern of deceit and manipulation for personal gain. Elisa's counsel argues that, even if she has lied to Michael or others, dishonesty does not necessarily impair her ability to parent or meet the child's needs. It was further submitted that Michael himself has also been untruthful in these proceedings.

[55] In my view, not all lies are equal. Fabricating a story about having a living or deceased child suggests a willingness to lie about anything when it serves one's purpose. Such conduct raises serious concerns about a person's morality, judgment, reckless behaviour and ability to parent and meet a child's needs.

[56] After reviewing the transcripts of Robert's and Jamieson's examinations and their undertakings, I find the following:

a. Elisa sent Jamieson Malaya photos of herself with a child, claiming the child was her son, "Jake." One of those photos is the same image she now attests depicts her with her cousin's son, Mason.

b. Elisa told Jamieson that she and Robert had separated and that Robert had a violent history toward her. She claimed to fear for her and Jake's safety. Elisa also alleged that Robert suffered a drug overdose in Sudbury, was airlifted to Parry Sound, placed on life support, and that she was his next of kin. She said she kept him alive until she could tell Jake his father was dying, and after Robert's death, Jake wanted to spend time with Justin Zeppieri—despite Elisa having no relationship with Mr. Zeppieri.

c. During her questioning, Elisa testified that she had no relationship or friendship with Justin Zeppieri. This was untrue, as it was later revealed—after Michael's counsel reviewed her phone contacts—that she had been texting with him after these proceedings began.

d. Elisa told Robert that she was previously married to Jeff Wenter, the father of her son Jake, who died of meningitis. However, Elisa was never married to Jeff Wenter and had no child before marrying Michael. Notably, Dr. Sack's notes mention Elisa's pregnancy with Jeff's child, indicating Robert was not the first person she claimed this relationship to. Elisa denies telling Robert that she was married to Jeff Wenter.

e. Elisa's story changed when she told Robert she became pregnant in 2009 by a man named Adam, yet her medical records show her first pregnancy was in 2004. She told Robert that gave birth in April 2010 at St. Mike's Hospital to a boy named Blake, whom she gave up for adoption. In 2017, she said the adoption agency informed her Blake was renamed Jake and had died of meningitis. She claims to have told Robert this detailed fabricated story to placate him amid his declining mental health. This extensively detailed story which Elisa has now admitted is embellished, is frankly shocking.

f. Elisa told Robert that she was pregnant with his child, and they went together to terminate the pregnancy. Dr. Sack's notes confirm a 2018 pregnancy but list the father as "Jeff." Elisa also told Dr. Bloom that she became pregnant in university, had a miscarriage, and that the father was "Jeff." The notes indicate she had reconciled with Jeff and was happy about the pregnancy. These inconsistencies raise concerns, and the similarities of the names used throughout all the stories are concerning as well. The conflicted record prevents me from determining the truth.

[57] If Elisa had acknowledged her lies about having a living or deceased child and a husband, from the outset, and demonstrated insight into why she lied or a broader pattern, I might view this differently. For example, engagement in therapy, recognition of a tendency to lie when threatened, and efforts to change would be protective factors supporting lifting supervision of her parenting time. However, Dr. Sack's notes show that Elisa was repeatedly offered therapy but declined. Dr. Bloom's assessment confirms that she does not believe she needs therapy and found brief social work support unhelpful. Elisa appears to justify her lies. Elisa's overall approach to the truth seems to consistently adapt her narrative to fit with the facts or line of questioning put to her, even when those facts are entirely inconsistent with her own sworn evidence.

[58] I find Michael's lies concerning as well, especially if intended to keep Elisa away from the children. At the time of the Hood order, the children were very young—C. was only seven months old and likely had formed psychological attachments to his primary caregivers, mainly his mother. Research cited in the AFCC parenting plan guide shows early relationships significantly influence a child's wellbeing into adolescence, as infants learn to trust and bond with reliable caregivers. Therefore, Elisa's parenting time must increase substantially to allow her to fulfill her caretaking role in feeding, bathing, playing, soothing, and daily routines.

Application of Best Interests Factors

[59] Applying the best interests' factors in s.16(3) to this case, I find:

a. The children, now ages 3 and 2, need a consistent, predictable schedule with more significant, frequent time with both parents. After 17 months primarily living with their father following a period in their mother's care, concerns arise about attachment and disruption. The parenting plan must ensure substantial overnight time with both parents.

b. Prior to the Hood order, the children had strong relationships with both parents. Since then, they have lost meaningful time with their mother and maternal grandparents. This should not continue, especially since maternal grandparents can assist with supervision.

c. Michael has shown unwillingness to support the children's relationship with Elisa except under supervised parenting time. He refuses supervised time on Mother's Day or accommodating maternal family time during Passover. His rigidity prioritizes his needs over the children's, despite Elisa's requests being for supervised visits. Any schedule must account for this inflexibility.

d. Prior to the Hood order, Elisa was the primary caregiver with no reported parenting concerns from either parent. Both should have significant, meaningful time with the children, ensuring no more than three days pass without contact with either parent.

e. The children's views are not ascertainable given their ages.

f. Both parents share the Jewish faith, and there are no cultural or religious issues.

g. Michael proposes maintaining the current schedule—seven hours of supervised time for Elisa. He has support from his nanny, parents, and sister. There is no reason that Elisa should not have increased parenting time, supervised if necessary, and for maternal grandparents to have opportunities similar to paternal grandparents. More time with Elisa is essential to maintain attachment and ensure both parents remain attuned to the children's temperaments and needs.

Parenting Communication and Transitions

[60] It is vital for the children to maintain strong attachments to both parents. Elisa and Michael must remain attentive and responsive to all three children's needs and temperaments, which requires meaningful relationships with both parents. Effective communication between the parents is crucial, especially given the children's young ages; if direct communication is not possible, a co-parenting app like Our Family Wizard or 2Homes should be used. Toddlers are sensitive to parental conflict and become distressed by arguments or tension, so parenting exchanges must be free of negative interactions.

[61] The AFCC Parenting Plan Guide notes that children aged 18 to 36 months often fear separation and may cling or cry during transitions, including parental exchanges. This resistance is normal and not a sign of rejecting a parent. Transitions are smoother when the parent caring for the child prepares and brings them to the other parent or when exchanges occur at neutral locations like daycare, which can reduce distress.

Parenting Schedule Guidelines

[62] In terms of a parenting schedule for children of this age, the AFCC Guidelines state:

"If parents have fully shared in the caretaking arrangements before the child has reached this age and the child has an easy temperament, parenting time can be shared equally as long as the separations from each parent are not too long (no more than two to three days or two nights for example). If there are older siblings, they are often part of the security system for toddlers and they should normally be on the same parenting schedule."

[63] I am satisfied that both parents have fully shared in the children's caretaking arrangements. Even if Elisa was the primary parent prior to separation, Michael has clearly stepped into that role, since the Hood order was made.

Supervision Decision

[64] Given my concerns about Elisa as described above, I am not persuaded that it is in the children's best interests to have unsupervised parenting time with her. While I cannot conclude that Elisa orchestrated the scheme at this stage, and this is to be left to the trial judge to determine, I remain concerned about how this matter has progressed, what she kept from the court, and what has come out in terms of inconsistencies, from the answers given to the undertakings from both Jamieson and Robert, at this interim stage.

[65] I am persuaded, however, that Elisa should have increased parenting time, including overnights, provided this time is supervised by her parents or an agreeable nanny. I do not find that outside supervision from Brayden remains necessary. Extended family acting as supervisors normalizes the need for supervision. There appears to be nothing in the Brayden notes to suggest that the maternal grandmother is not capable of supervising Elisa's parenting time. The maternal grandparents were very involved with the children when the marriage was intact and the children will benefit from their continued involvement during Elisa's parenting time.

Order

[66] This court makes the following temporary order:

a. Elisa's parenting time shall be supervised by the maternal grandparents and/or an agreeable nanny at all times.

b. For the next four weeks, starting on October 24, 2025, the children shall reside with the parties pursuant to the following two-week rotation parenting schedule:

i. During week one,

1. With the mother on Tuesdays, from 4:00 p.m. to Wednesday morning, when the children will be dropped off at their programs/school, if there are programs/school or exchanged at 12:00 p.m.

2. With the mother on Saturday, at 10:00 a.m. to Sunday, at 5:00 p.m.

ii. During week two:

1. With the mother on Tuesdays, from 4:00 p.m. to Wednesday morning, when the children will be dropped off at their programs/school, if there are programs/school or exchanged at 12:00 p.m.

2. With the mother on Friday, from 4:00 p.m. to Sunday at 12:00 p.m.

c. Starting on November 17, 2025, the children shall reside with the parties pursuant to the following two-week rotation parenting schedule:

i. During week one:

1. With the mother on Mondays, from after their programs/school, if there are programs/school, or at 12:00 p.m. to Wednesday morning, when the children will be dropped off at their programs/school, if there are programs/school, or exchanged at 12:00 p.m.

2. With the father on Wednesdays, from after their programs, if there are programs/school, or at 12:00 p.m. to Friday mornings, when the children will be dropped off at their programs/school, if there are programs/school, or exchanged at 12:00 p.m.

3. With the mother on Fridays, after their programs/school, if there are programs/school, or at 12:00 p.m. to Monday morning where they shall be dropped off at their programs/school if there are, or at 12:00 p.m.

ii. During Week two:

1. With the father on Mondays, from after their programs, if there are programs/school, or at 12:00 p.m. to Wednesday morning, when the children will be dropped off at their programs/school, if there are, or exchanged at 12:00 p.m.

2. With the mother, on Wednesdays, from after their programs/school if there are programs, or at 12:00 p.m. to Friday mornings, when the children will be dropped off at their programs/school, if there are, or exchanged at 12:00 p.m.

3. With the father on Fridays, after their programs/school, if there are programs/school or at 12:00 p.m. to Monday morning where they shall be dropped off at their programs/school if there are, or at 12:00 p.m.

Parenting Schedule Chart (Starting November 17, 2025):

	Monday	Tuesday	Wed	Thurs	Fri	Sat	Sun
Week 1	Dad drops off at school or noon Mom picks up from school or noon	Mom	Mom drops off at school or noon Dad picks up from school or noon	Dad	Dad drops off at school of noon Mom picks up from school or noon	Mom	Mom
Week 2	Mom drops off at school or noon Dad picks up from school or noon	Dad	Dad drops off at school or noon Mom picks up from school or noon	Mom	Mom	Dad	Dad

d. The parties shall immediately subscribe to a co-parenting application, such as Our Family Wizard or 2Homes, and communicate through this platform. Michael shall within 24 hours of the release of this Endorsement, share information about the three children's current routines, activities, soothing tendencies and adjustment issues, so the childrens' schedules and routines can be followed in both households.

e. Any soothing objects or toys shall travel with the children for parenting time.

f. Well medical appointments or specialist appointments for the children shall be attended by the resident parent on the day in question. The non-resident parent shall join the appointment on zoom, facetime or WhatsApp.

g. The schools and all third-party professionals involved with the children shall be directed to communicate with both parents and each parent shall be responsible to obtain information about the children directly from the school.

h. There shall be no decision-making order made at this time. If a major decision has to be made about the children's health, the parties shall follow the advice of the treating professional. If a major decision must be made about the children's education, they shall consult with one another through counsel and attempt to resolve it by using a family dispute resolution process before coming to court for assistance.

i. The parties shall arrange a TMC before me to begin at 4:00 p.m. on a weekday in the next four weeks, so a trial of this matter can be scheduled and expedited. For this TMC, the parties shall complete one jointly prepared TSEF and upload it onto case centre.

j. If the time of the parenting exchanges as set out in the schedule above do not accord with the children's programs or pre-school schedules, the intention is for the parenting exchanges to take place at neutral locations where possible. If the parties are not able to agree on when these exchanges are to take place as a result of children's programming, they may schedule a 9:00 a.m. conference before me on an agreeable weekday.

M. Kraft, J.

Date: October 24, 2025