Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FC-25-00000206-0000 Date: 2025-11-27 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Family Court
Re: Alain Mukama, Applicant And: Nancy Mukama, Respondent
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice J. R. Henderson
Counsel: C. Hopkins, counsel for the Applicant C. Hiebert, counsel for the Respondent
Heard: November 25, 2025
Endorsement on Motion
[1] Both the applicant father, Alain Mukama (the "applicant"), and the respondent mother, Nancy Mukama (the "respondent"), bring motions to change the current temporary order with respect to the applicant's parenting time with the parties' three children.
[2] The current order, dated June 30, 2025 (the "June order"), was made on consent by MacPherson J. at a case conference. It provides that the applicant will have unsupervised parenting time in Brampton, Ontario, every Sunday for eight hours with the specific times alternating weekly. All exchanges are to take place in Oakville, Ontario.
[3] The respondent alleges that the applicant has engaged in inappropriate behaviour during his parenting time. In particular, she alleges that the applicant has interrogated the children and discussed adult issues with them. The children's counsellor, Alyson Clark ("Clark"), reported her concerns about this issue to FACS Niagara in late October 2025. Then, by letter from the respondent's lawyer dated October 31, 2025, the respondent unilaterally suspended the applicant's parenting time. As a result, the applicant has not had in-person parenting time with the children since October 26, 2025.
[4] The respondent's position is that the applicant's parenting time should be supervised by Brayden Supervision Services Inc. ("Brayden"). The applicant's position is that supervised parenting time is not necessary, and that the parties should abide by the June order. He also asks for make-up parenting time.
The Facts
[5] The parties were married in 2016 and separated in March 2025 after a physical altercation that resulted in the applicant being charged with assault.
[6] They have three children, currently aged eight, six, and one. After the separation, the three children continued to reside with the respondent in the family home in Beamsville, Ontario. The applicant moved to Brampton to live with his parents.
[7] Because the applicant had little or no parenting time after the separation, he brought an urgent motion to the court that resulted in a consent order being made at an early case conference on May 26, 2025 (the "May order"). The May order provided that the applicant would have supervised parenting time through Brayden every weekend for approximately three hours. It also provided that the applicant would have video calls with the children every Tuesday and Thursday.
[8] By the time of the second case conference, on June 30, 2025, the applicant had exercised supervised parenting time through Brayden on five separate dates, and the video calls had taken place as ordered. At the June 30, 2025 case conference, the parties consented to the June order.
[9] Since the June order, the applicant has exercised weekly unsupervised parenting time in Brampton. The exchange of the children in Oakville has been facilitated by his mother. In his affidavit, the applicant deposes that the parenting time was going well. He says that the children were happy and engaged in their time with him.
[10] The respondent disagrees with the applicant's assessment of the parenting time after the June order. She deposes that between June and October the children made various negative statements to her about the way in which the applicant conducts himself during parenting time. In particular, the respondent states that the children told her that they get upset because the applicant interrogates them about their lives in the respondent's home. He also interrogates them about the respondent's activities in and outside of her home. They say that the applicant has told them to resist the rules in the respondent's home. He has told one of the children not to participate in Taekwondo anymore and he has told the children that they are not to cuddle with their mother if they are sick or anxious because that is not culturally acceptable. Further, some of the comments allegedly made by the applicant to the children include offensive racial, religious, and gender biased comments.
[11] Historically, the respondent alleges that the applicant has been aggressive and abusive throughout the relationship. FACS Niagara commenced an investigation after the criminal charges were laid in March 2025. By mid-June 2025, FACS closed the investigation after concluding that there were no protection concerns.
[12] Since the separation, the parties have had very little direct contact, in part, because the terms of the applicant's bail included a provision that he was not to communicate, directly or indirectly, with the respondent. On October 31, 2025, the criminal charge was resolved as the applicant entered into a peace bond for a period of 12 months. I note that the peace bond includes a term that prohibits the applicant from contacting or communicating, directly or indirectly, with the respondent.
[13] The respondent began to take the children to Clark for therapy at some point. After a therapy session in late October, Clark informed FACS Niagara about the children's comments as to what the applicant says to them. FACS Niagara then commenced a new investigation on October 27, 2025.
[14] At the request of the court, FACS Niagara provided an update letter dated November 21, 2025. In that letter, FACS Niagara stated that they had requested Peel CAS to assist, but they had not yet had a response from Peel CAS. FACS Niagara also stated that the applicant had not returned a phone call made to him. The applicant deposed that he in fact has had a telephone interview with Peel CAS and he has also had a home visit in Brampton from the Peel CAS. Therefore, I find that the update provided by FACS Niagara was made before FACS Niagara had been informed about the progress made by Peel CAS.
[15] By letter dated October 31, 2025, the respondent's lawyer informed the applicant that his parenting time would be "paused" during the FACS investigation. No in-person parenting time has been permitted by the respondent since that date. However, the biweekly parenting time video calls have continued.
Analysis
[16] The respondent submits that she was justified in suspending in-person parenting time based on her concerns for the emotional and physical well-being of the children.
[17] The applicant states that he has not made any derogatory comments to the children and that he has not engaged in any inappropriate discussions in the presence of the children. He submits that he was unaware that the respondent and/or Clark were making allegations that he had engaged in any inappropriate behaviour. He submits that, if the respondent had any concerns, the applicant should have been provided with an opportunity to respond to those concerns or correct any contentious behaviour. Finally, the applicant submits that, if there was any concern at all, the respondent has overreacted by unilaterally terminating his parenting time.
[18] Regarding the respondent's allegations that the applicant has engaged in inappropriate behaviour during his parenting time, I find that there is evidence of inappropriate comments or behaviour by the applicant from multiple sources. Those sources include the respondent, Clark, Brayden, and FACS Niagara.
[19] As I indicated previously, the respondent has provided several examples of statements made to her by the children that they are upset about the applicant questioning them about her life and her activities. She also says the children are upset about being told to resist the rules of her household if those rules did not comply with the applicant's beliefs. Further, she says that the children are emotionally distressed by some of the racial and gender biased remarks made by their father.
[20] I do not accept the respondent's evidence as to the children's hearsay statements as conclusive proof of the contents of the statements. I find that there is obvious animosity between the applicant and the respondent. Whatever was said by the children to respondent, there is at least a subconscious danger that the respondent would interpret their words as a criticism of the applicant. Further these statements were made by children who may not be able to clearly express themselves. That being said, I accept that some concerns about the applicant's behaviour were expressed by the children to the respondent.
[21] There is also evidence of the children's concerns in Clark's letter. Clark is quite specific that one of the children, Ethan, has reported that on every visit their father interrogates the children for at least an hour about their mother. There are questions that he raises about what his mother is doing, if anyone is at the home, and who the children are seeing. Clark also states that one of the other children, Noah, had initially spoken positively about his time with his father, but that he recently has limited his comments.
[22] Further, there is evidence about inappropriate conduct in the notes from the supervised visits with Brayden that took place between May 31 and June 29, 2025. The Brayden notes show that on one occasion the applicant commented to a supervisor, in the presence of one of the children, about how the respondent would use the supervisor's notes against him. It is also noted that on another occasion the applicant was heard telling the children that he had paid for a birthday party that they had attended. There was another occasion in which the applicant failed to fasten one of the children's seatbelts in the car. There was yet another occasion in which the applicant failed to put a diaper on the youngest child.
[23] Finally, I have the preliminary notes from the FACS investigation that suggest that the children have reported concerns to the FACS worker about their father continuing to question them about their mother.
[24] Overall, I find that the respondent's allegations that the applicant has engaged in inappropriate behaviour during his parenting time have some merit.
[25] Having found that there is some merit to the respondent's concerns, I must next consider how the respondent handled those concerns. In my view, it is not appropriate for the respondent in these circumstances to unilaterally suspend the applicant's parenting time. If there was a concern about the applicant's conduct, the respondent should have discussed the concern with the applicant. If that was not possible, she should have informed him through his parents, or her lawyer, that the behaviour should be corrected. If the correction did not occur in a timely fashion, there were other remedies available such as a return to court for more specific court orders.
[26] It is trite to say that it is in the children's best interests that parenting time be consistent, regular, and stable. Moreover, the parties are expected to obey any order of the court regarding parenting time unless and until it is varied by the courts. The only exception occurs when the immediate safety of the children is at stake.
[27] In my view, this is not a case in which the children were in any immediate danger. I accept that, if the respondent's allegations are true, the continued exposure of the children to the applicant's conduct may have long-term emotional effects. However, there was no need for such a drastic response from the respondent. The respondent could have returned to court in a timely way with a request for some limits on the parenting time, or for some form of supervised parenting time. In addition, I acknowledge that a sudden unilateral termination of parenting time may cause unnecessary anxiety for the children, given that the children may not understand the reason for the termination, and they may falsely believe that they are responsible for the termination.
[28] For all these reasons, I will make an order that immediately restarts the applicant's parenting time with the children. In doing so, I have considered other possible terms that could be imposed.
[29] I find that formal supervision of the applicant's parenting time is not necessary. Supervision of parenting time, particularly in an institutional setting, creates an artificial environment and likely causes more anxiety for the children than is necessary. Supervised parenting time should be the exception, not the rule.
[30] I accept that the applicant's behaviour has been inappropriate at times, but the FACS investigation is not yet complete. Also, it is likely that the Office of the Children's Lawyer will at some point become involved in this case. Therefore, the precise nature and extent of the applicant's behaviour will not be clear for some time.
[31] At this point in time, I find that there is no immediate danger to the children, as there is no evidence of any threat of physical abuse or mistreatment of the children. There is no need for a supervisor to monitor every aspect of parenting time.
[32] The record shows that the applicant's inappropriate comments in the presence of the children have been an issue since at least May 2025. At this point, the applicant should be well aware that if he makes inappropriate comments, those comments will in due course always be exposed. If he continues in this vein without modifying his behaviour, he now knows that he is at risk of a court ordering that his parenting time be supervised. As of today's date, I am going to trust that the applicant's knowledge of this risk will encourage him to modify his behaviour, if he has not already chosen to do so. Thus, I am not going to make an order for supervision of parenting time.
[33] All of the terms and conditions of the June order will remain in effect. I note that the June order contains provisions that neither party shall speak to the children about the court proceedings and neither party shall speak in a disparaging way about the other. The parties are expected to comply with that order. I also confirm that the parenting time video calls set out in the May order will remain in effect. I further order that the applicant forthwith enroll in, and participate in, the Caring Dads program.
[34] Given that the applicant's behaviour started the chain of events that led to this motion, I am not going to order any make-up parenting time. Also, I find that the children were accustomed to a certain parenting schedule as set out in the June order, and I do not wish the children to have to adjust to another temporary parenting time order to make up some lost time.
Conclusion
[35] For these reasons, I order that:
All of the terms and conditions of the June 30, 2025 order will remain in effect.
The parenting time video calls set out in the May 26, 2025 order will remain in effect.
The applicant shall forthwith enroll in, and participate in, the Caring Dads program.
[36] Regarding costs, I find that both the applicant and the respondent have acted improperly, and thus both are responsible for the circumstances that resulted in these motions. Therefore, there will be no costs to either party.
J. R. Henderson, J. Date Released: November 27, 2025