SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, FAMILY COURT- ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-00000713-0002

DATE: 2025-12-16

RE: Robert DeRocco, Applicant

AND:

Kelsey Chiocchio, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert B. Reid

COUNSEL: Y. Kim, Counsel, for the Applicant

M. Belansky, Counsel (on limited retainer), for the Respondent

HEARD: October 24, 2025

decision on motion

Introduction:

[ 1 ] By notice of motion dated September 29, 2025, the applicant seeks an order setting aside the temporary order of Ramsay J. dated July 12, 2024, and reinstating equal parenting time and joint decision-making between the parties for their two children. Alternatively, he seeks an order for unsupervised parenting time three weekends per month and one day in the week when no weekend access occurs.

[ 2 ] Although not specifically requested, the relief claimed presumes setting aside the temporary order of McKenzie J. made on consent dated November 15, 2024, as to the terms of supervised parenting time and virtual parenting time which order was made as a consequence of the July 12, 2024 order.

[ 3 ] The respondent opposes the request for any change to the existing orders.

Background:

[ 4 ] The parties are parents of two children, LD and DD, who are six and five years old respectively. The parents separated in December 2020 and signed Minutes of Settlement in September 2022 pursuant to which they agreed on joint decision-making responsibility for the children, and an equal time-sharing rotation of 2-2-3 days. Those arrangements were formalized in a court order by Gregson J. dated September 13, 2022.

[ 5 ] The respondent entered a common-law relationship in March 2023. Her partner also has two children, ages six and five years.

[ 6 ] The applicant began a new relationship in December 2023 and was married in July 2024. His spouse also has two children, ages 11 and four. Both children of the parties and the two children of the applicant’s spouse attend the same elementary school.

[ 7 ] The time-sharing arrangement between the parties as regards their children continued without incident until May 8, 2024. At that time, the applicant’s youngest stepchild, who was three years of age at the time, suffered serious head injuries while in the applicant’s care. He was said to have fallen out of a bed, but it was not possible to confirm the mechanism of the injuries. The matter was reported to the Niagara Regional Police Service (the “NRPS”) and Family and Children’s Services Niagara (“FACS”), both of whom investigated.

[ 8 ] The respondent began a motion to change and on July 12, 2024, the temporary order of Ramsay J. was made in which he granted the respondent sole decision-making authority for and primary residence of the children. Parenting time was to be at the discretion of the respondent. Although present in court when the order was requested, the applicant deposed that he did not file full responding material on the motion. Both parties appear to have been self-represented.

[ 9 ] The respondent did not permit in-person parenting time by the applicant. A motion was made by the respondent seeking an order for supervised parenting time by the applicant with the children at the Pathstone Supervised Parenting Time program and came before McKenzie J. on November 15, 2024. She endorsed that it was premature to deal with the substantive relief claimed since third party records had not been produced. However, on consent, she made a temporary order that the applicant have supervised parenting time at Pathstone once a week for two hours as well as FaceTime parenting time each Tuesday and Thursday at 6:00 p.m.

[ 10 ] For the following year, the respondent has permitted parenting time by the applicant only on a supervised basis.

Position of the parties:

[ 11 ] The applicant submits that the order of Ramsay J. was clearly intended to be temporary. Th endorsement was stated to be a safety plan “for the short term”.

[ 12 ] The applicant submits that since the date on which the order was made, both investigations have concluded. No charges were laid against him, and he is allowed unsupervised time with his stepchildren. He wishes to resume normal time-sharing relations with the children in their best interest.

[ 13 ] The respondent asks that the motion be dismissed. She relies on the continuing need for safety and the lack of conclusive evidence that the investigations are complete. She also questions the applicant’s proposed living arrangements for the children based on the lack of available bedroom space at his home and expresses her concerns about the behaviour by the applicant during his supervised visits at Pathstone.

Discussion:

[ 14 ] The time-sharing arrangement pursuant to the Minutes of Settlement and subsequent court order of Gregson J. dated September 13, 2022 was the status quo in place until the order of Ramsay J. dated July 12, 2024. Although that latter order was said to be for the short term due to the immediate safety concerns arising from the injuries to the applicant’s stepchild, it has continued for about 16 months to date pending the result of investigations undertaken by FACS and the NRPS. Typically, the court is reluctant to temporarily amend a status quo for the obvious reason that it is destabilizing for children to have their living situation changed pending a trial when that full evidentiary hearing might require another change. In this case, Ramsay J. made the order given the urgent safety concerns that were articulated at the time arising from the unknown responsibility of the applicant for the injuries to his stepchild and pending the outcome of the investigations.

[ 15 ] There has never been an allegation that the children were mistreated by the applicant when in his care either before May 8, 2024, or since then (during supervised parenting times). The need for a safety plan arose from the uncertainty of how the injuries to the stepchild arose, and whether the applicant was implicated.

[ 16 ] The applicant’s actions during supervised parenting time or in his contacts at the children’s school, which were the subject of concerns expressed by the respondent, were not in my view inappropriate and therefore of no consequence to my decision.

[ 17 ] On this motion, it is not necessary to address whether the number of available bedrooms for the children when in the applicant’s care is inadequate as alleged by the respondent. There was no issue in that regard before the events of May 8, 2024, and such matters should be left to trial.

[ 18 ] As to the current situation, the applicant provided a letter from FACS dated October 6, 2025, which confirmed that he is permitted to act in a primary caregiving role to both his stepchildren without supervision. This of course includes the child who was injured in May 2024. He is permitted to pick them up from school and/or daycare without accompaniment by others. The terms of permission include a provision that the family will use digitized cameras at home to ensure safety, and that there will be always access to a phone for the stepchildren in case of emergency.

[ 19 ] By letter from FACS Niagara dated September 9, 2025, the Society confirmed that it is not involved with any investigation relating to the parties’ children.

[ 20 ] The applicant advised that he has requested but not yet received confirmation from the NRPS that there is no ongoing investigation into his involvement in the incident of May 8, 2024. No charges have been laid against him over the past 19 months.

[ 21 ] In the circumstances, and particularly given the position of FACS, I am satisfied that the protection concerns as regards the children which arose in May 2024, and which led to the order of Ramsay J. should no longer be an impediment to the applicant’s involvement with them.

[ 22 ] Given my finding that the concerns that justified the temporary order of Ramsay J. have been satisfied, I consider it appropriate that his order, and the subsequent order of McKenzie J. should be vacated. In effect, since the reasons for the temporary change no longer exist, there should be a reversion to the situation that existed prior to that time. I do not consider that the temporary orders created a new status quo to which deference should be accorded, given the specific circumstances upon which they were premised.

[ 23 ] Since the equal time-sharing regime has been interrupted for a significant period, it is appropriate to provide for an interim transition period so that the parties, and particularly the children can prepare for the change. The children are about to enter the holiday break when they will not attend school and during which they should be able to spend time with both parents (and their extended families). Therefore, there will be an order that the applicant have parenting time with the children on weekends commencing December 20, 2025, prior to their return to school on January 5, 2026 when the equal time-sharing routine will resume.

Conclusion:

[ 24 ] For the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s motion is granted, and the temporary orders of Ramsay J. and McKenzie J., dated July 12, 2024, and November 15, 2024, respectively are set aside.

[ 25 ] The terms of the order of Gregson J. dated September 13, 2022, are reinstated as of January 5, 2026.

[ 26 ] In the meantime, the applicant is to have unsupervised parenting time with the children as follows:

a. from Saturday, December 20, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. to Sunday, December 21, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.;

b. from Friday, December 26, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday, December 28, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.; and

c. from Friday, January 2, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. to Sunday, January 4, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

Costs:

[ 27 ] The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs of the motion between themselves. If they are unable to do so, they may each submit a Bill of Costs and make written submissions, consisting of not more than three pages in length according to the following timetable:

• The applicant is to serve his Bill of Costs and submissions by January 8, 2026;

• The respondent is to serve her Bill of Costs and submissions by January 15, 2026;

• The applicant is to serve his reply submissions, if any, by January 21, 2026;

• All submissions are to be filed with the court with a copy to St.Catharines.SCJJA@ontario.ca and uploaded to Case Center by January 23, 2026.

[ 28 ] If no submissions are received by the court by January 23, 2026, or any agreed extension, the matter of costs will be deemed to have been settled.

Reid J.

Date: December 16, 2025