REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
COURT FILE NO.: FS-25-061
DATE: 2025/12/22
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
J. M. Applicant – and – J. R. Respondent
R. Leckie , for the Applicant
M. Young , for the Defendant
D. Legere , for the Child, G.
HEARD: October 24, with child interview on December 4, 2025
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
Ellies J.
OVERVIEW
[ 1 ] J. M. (“the father”) moves for a temporary order for parenting time with his 14-year-old daughter, G., with whom he has not had any meaningful contact since the parties separated in December 2024.
[ 2 ] J. R. (“the mother”) submits that G. should be allowed to spend time with the father as she wishes. The mother is joined in that submission by counsel appointed to represent G. on behalf of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“the child's lawyer”).
[ 3 ] These cases are never easy. On the one hand, G. is at an age where it is difficult to force her to see her father. On the other, she is still too young to fully understand the enormity of the mistake she is making by refusing to do so.
[ 4 ] These reasons explain why I have decided to give G. some time to come around on her own, failing which I will consider more drastic measures to ensure that the mistake being made now does not have irreversible long-term consequences. They have been written with the hope that G. will read them.
BACKGROUND
[ 5 ] The parties married in October 2001. G. is their only child. In October 2022, they began to talk about separating. Efforts to reconcile failed, and they eventually separated in October 2024. However, they remained in the same home.
[ 6 ] The parties made commendable efforts to avoid involving G. in their difficulties and to minimize the harmful consequences to her that inevitably follow the breakdown of a marriage. The father rented a cottage for the month of December 2024. The original plan was that the father was going to stay there after the parties announced that they were separating before Christmas. Accordingly, the parties worked out a parenting time plan. However, they later agreed that they would wait until after Christmas to tell G. about the separation, instead. And so, they told G. that the father had rented the cottage so that the family could have some fun before Christmas.
[ 7 ] According to the father’s version of events, he had extended an invitation to G. to join him at the cottage for an hour or two after school on December 2 and suggested that the mother could pick her up from the cottage on her way home after work. When the mother found out, she told the father that he was inconveniencing her on purpose and was not following the parenting time plan they had made. The father then got a call from G., who was upset. During the call, G. asked her father why he had (really) rented the cottage. The father told her on the telephone that he and the mother had been having difficulties and that they were separating.
[ 8 ] While there is no evidence about how that phone call ended, I presume it did not end well. The mother texted the father immediately afterward, accusing him of being selfish and ruining their family. She told the father that G. was bawling her eyes out and saying she hated them both. The father tried unsuccessfully to call the mother and the daughter. He finally gave up and went to the matrimonial home. He tried to persuade G. that the separation was a good thing but refused to give her details as to why. During that discussion, according to the father, G. asked her mother if she wanted the separation, to which the mother responded “no”. According to the mother, the father left the house “in a fury”, slamming the door behind him.
[ 9 ] The father returned to the cottage after leaving the house and remained there for a period of time, the exact length of which I do not know. I am not aware of the father’s current living arrangements. I do know that the family dog is living with him. G. lives with her mother in the former matrimonial home.
[ 10 ] Since the events of December 2, 2024, the father has had very little contact with the daughter. Christmas 2024 was a disaster, as one might expect. A meeting at a restaurant in May 2025 also did not go well. Nor did a visit the father made to the former matrimonial home on Father's Day. G. insisted that the father not come to her graduation in the summer. She has also refused to answer the father’s text messages.
THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
[ 11 ] The father admits that he handled the events of December 2, 2024, badly. However, he submits that the mother is now alienating the daughter by sharing information with her about the separation, by blaming the father for the failure of their relationship, and by failing to do what she can to encourage the daughter to spend time with him. He asks for an order for graduated parenting time, beginning with dinner once a week for an hour at a local restaurant. [^1] He also asks for an order for weekly telephone calls with G. In addition to his parenting time requests, the father suggests that he and G. and he and the mother should attend for counselling.
[ 12 ] The mother denies the father's allegations of alienation. She insists that she is doing her utmost to encourage G. to see her father, but that G. is too old to be forced to do so. She asks for an order that G. reside with her and that G. be allowed to decide if, and when, she will see her father.
[ 13 ] Finally, the child’s lawyer asks that G. be allowed to live with her mother, that she have no parenting time with her father, that her father not text her more than once per week unless she initiates the conversation, that her father not call her, that he not communicate with her therapist, that he not attend any of her school functions nor receive her report cards, and that he relinquish the family dog every other weekend. G. does not want to participate in any therapy with the father.
THE JUDICIAL INTERVIEW
[ 14 ] Given the severity of G.'s reaction to the events of December 2, 2024, I decided to conduct an interview with her, if she was willing to do so. She was, and the interview took place on December 4, 2025. Apart from the court reporter and the Court Services Officer, the only people who were present were G., her lawyer, and me. A summary has been prepared and, if it has not been provided already to counsel, it soon will be.
[ 15 ] G. impressed me as an intelligent, articulate young lady. However, I agree with the mother and the child's lawyer that she is quite opinionated. Being opinionated can be a good thing, provided, of course, that you are still open to the opinion of others. Otherwise, being opinionated can cause you to lose perspective, which is precisely what I think is happening here.
DISCUSSION
[ 16 ] As I explained to G. during our meeting, the sole consideration in making my decision is her best interests: Divorce Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. 3, (2nd supp.), s. 16(1) ; Children's Law Reform Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 24(1).
[ 17 ] There is no denying that G.'s father loves her. Nor is anyone denying that he was a part of her life prior to the separation, although there is some disparity in everyone’s view of the extent of his involvement. I accept that the father has his flaws, but none of the complaints that I have heard from the mother or from G. would cause me to conclude that his parenting time with G. should be limited. While the father made a mess of things on December 2, 2024, he is not such a bad parent as to warrant an order that he not have ample parenting time.
[ 18 ] The father was not wrong to keep the details of the parties' difficulties from the daughter. Indeed, he was obliged to do so: Divorce Act , s. 7.2. The mother is also obliged to protect G. from the conflict. However, it would appear from the evidence that she is failing to fulfill that obligation. The mother should not have “challenged” the father's decision not to provide G. with the “dirty little details”, as the mother admits she did in front of G. Nor should the mother have shared any information about the parties’ difficulties after the father left. G. is blaming her father for the breakup, in part because of this behaviour on the part of the mother. But G. needs to know that marriages rarely break up solely because of one spouse, and that this marriage is no exception.
[ 19 ] G. needs to understand that, by shutting her father out, she is actually making her parents’ relationship worse than it was. She is creating unnecessary tension between them, as this motion amply demonstrates. Whereas the parents were able to come up with a parenting time plan prior to the separation in December 2024, now they must come to court to have one put in place.
[ 20 ] G. also needs to understand that there is a place in every child's life for a father like the one she has. She also has to understand that the longer one allows a relationship to wither away, the harder it is to revive. You can never recover lost time. And time is being lost here.
[ 21 ] Nonetheless, I accept that G. needs some more time and space to process all of this. Having had a chance to meet G., I have confidence that, if she is given that time and space, she will come to understand these things and make efforts on her own to reconnect with her father. In my view, that is the best way to ensure a lasting relationship between the two of them.
[ 22 ] And so, I am not going to make an order forcing G. to spend time with her father at this point. Instead, I will make an order that will create an environment in which G. can mature and reflect upon the best way forward. To create that environment, several things need to happen.
[ 23 ] First, the mother must immediately cease discussing the parties’ relationship, past or present, with G.
[ 24 ] Second, the mother must understand that, contrary to what she has stated in writing to the father, she is obliged to do everything she can, short of using physical force, to encourage G. to spend parenting time with her father: Godard v. Godard , 2015 ONCA 568 , at para. 29 . By failing to do so, the mother is implicitly perpetuating the idea that the father is somehow solely to blame for the failure of the marriage. As I have said, he is not.
[ 25 ] Third, the father must stop smothering G. with his persistent barrage of texts and other attempts at communication. While I understand how desperate he is to reconnect with her, and that it was the mother who advised him to communicate more frequently with G., the number of text messages and other attempts at communicating revealed by the evidence is “over the top”.
[ 26 ] Fourth, G. should continue to see a therapist or counsellor. I understand from G. that she is in the process of finding a new counsellor. The parties should ensure that this is done as quickly as possible and cooperate in a way that ensures priority is given to such counselling. Although G. would like her father not to reach out to her therapist or her teachers, I believe he should be entitled to information about G. from these sources. To that end, the mother shall keep the father informed about G.'s progress in therapy and in school.
[ 27 ] Fifth, I believe it would be helpful for the parties to begin using a parenting-time app for their communications about G. The evidentiary record in the motion includes dozens of text messages exchanged between the parties, the tone of which leaves a lot to be desired. Hopefully, the use of such an app will ensure that the communications between the parties stay civil and that the focus stays on their daughter, not on their relationship. I will leave the choice of the app to the parties.
[ 28 ] Finally, while I am confident that G. will come around, I am not leaving the issue of spending time with her father solely in her hands. To ensure that my confidence is well-placed, the motion will be adjourned to a date in August 2026 when I am sitting. Further, my order will be made on a without prejudice basis. If sufficient progress towards greater parenting time with the father is not being made, my order may be varied without the need to show a material change in circumstances.
CONCLUSION
[ 29 ] For the foregoing reasons, the father's request for a temporary order imposing parenting time on G. (“the daughter”, for the purpose of my order) is denied for the time being. Instead, a temporary, without prejudice order will issue as follows:
(1) the respondent shall immediately cease talking to the daughter about the parties’ relationship or their separation;
(2) the respondent shall encourage the daughter to spend parenting time with the applicant and shall, if necessary, employ age-appropriate parental sanctions to that end;
(3) the applicant shall restrict his written communications with the daughter to one text, letter, or email per week, unless the communication is initiated by the daughter;
(4) the father shall restrict his phone calls with the daughter to one per week, unless the call is initiated by the daughter;
(5) the applicant shall not request information concerning the daughter directly from the daughter’s therapist or teachers;
(6) the respondent shall provide the applicant with weekly reports concerning the daughter’s attendance at and progress in therapy, counselling, and school;
(7) the parties shall communicate only through a parenting-time app of their choosing. If the parties cannot agree on such an app, either party is free to move in writing for an order and the court will make the decision on the issue, including costs; and
(8) the motion is adjourned to the short family motions court to be held on August 28, 2026. In the meanwhile, the parties are at liberty to arrange a settlement conference through the court’s Calendly app.
[ 30 ] I am not making any order addressing any of the concerns expressed by G. during the interview about the father's behaviour that were not addressed in the evidence on the motion. The father had no opportunity to address any such allegations.
[ 31 ] Nor am I making an order about the family dog. Instead, my hope is that the dog may be a catalyst for civil communication and cooperation among the members of this family.
COSTS
[ 32 ] During the hearing of the motion, I sought the parties’ submissions with respect to the issue of costs, if that party was successful. Counsel for the respondent suggested that substantial indemnity costs should be in the range of $2,500 and that partial indemnity costs should be in the range of $1,500. Counsel for the applicant suggested that only partial indemnity costs in the range of $1,000 would be appropriate.
[ 33 ] Given the mixed success on the motion, I would not order any costs.
M.G. Ellies J.
Released: December 22, 2025
COURT FILE NO.: FS-25-061
DATE: 2025/12/22
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: J. M. Applicant – and – J. R. Respondent REASONS FOR decision ON MOTION M.G. Ellies
Released: December 22, 2025
[^1]: [1] This was the submission of counsel for the father during the hearing of the motion. However, in his notice of motion, the father requested that parenting time begin, instead, with three, two-hour visits and end with every second weekend.