Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Court File No.: FS-23-019
611 Ninth Avenue East, Owen Sound ON N4K 6Z4

Re: Balogh v. Balogh

Before: Justice Deborah McGee

Applicant: Veronica Balogh (Self-represented, vericabalogh97@gmail.com)
Respondents:

• Blanka Balogh (Self-represented, brokenhornacres@gmail.com)
• David Dowell (Self-represented, dowelldave1@hotmail.com)
  • Herman Turkstra as agent for Respondents (Hturkstra@tmalaw.ca)
• Sean Swatuk (Self-represented, sean_swatuk@live.ca)
  OCL: Tina Jowrey (tina.jowrey@ontario.ca)

Endorsement on Urgent Motion Heard January 13, 2025

Introduction

[1] The trial of this Application is scheduled for the 2025 spring trial sittings in Owen Sound. It has a troubling and protracted history. On January 15, 2025, I granted the respondents’ motion to transfer primary care of their daughter to them and to suspend the applicant grandmother’s parenting time pending trial, with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.

Brief Background

[2] The background to this matter has been previously set out in 9 endorsements, three of them lengthy. Here I will only identify the facts necessary to this decision.

[3] The Applicant, Veronica, is the maternal grandmother of L, who was born in early 2021. At the time of her birth, her mother, the Respondent Blanka, was in very difficult circumstances. Blanka agreed to place her infant daughter into her mother’s care.

[4] Blanka recovered and her support network stabilized. She and her partner, now her husband, the co-respondent David, have a son, W, who is L’s half-brother. The siblings have a close bond and W is thriving in his parents’ care.

[5] Blanka and David sought the return of L to their care. Veronica refused. The more that Blanka pressed for her daughter’s return, the more Veronica denigrated her daughter with allegations of drug use, mental illness, and promiscuity.

[6] The conflict between grandmother and mother came to a head within a race to the Owen Sound Courthouse in February of 2023. Veronica won. She issued this Application to prevent her daughter from “abducting” L from her and her sister Beatrice’s care. She referred to Blanka as the biological mother and named as a Respondent Sean Swatuk, whom she believed to be L’s biological father. Sean has never participated in this proceeding.

[7] Significant litigation followed, running parallel to the voluntary involvement of Bruce Grey Child and Family Services. The Society has never verified any harm or risk of harm to L while in her mother and stepfather’s care. Nonetheless, Blanka and David were not initially successful in the face of Veronica’s assertion of a stable status quo with her and her sister, and relentless allegations of inadequate parenting by L’s “biological” parents.

[8] Veronica and David did not give up. Their parenting time was expanded over a series of motions heard in 2023 and 2024. As set out in my endorsement released December 4, 2024, 12 Central West Judges have now written 17 lengthy, concerned endorsements on this intractable parenting dispute.

[9] As parenting time expanded, so too did Veronica and Beatrice’s allegations of inadequate parenting. Parallel to the court-ordered expansions, the sisters’ claims transitioned from their views of Blanka and David’s moral failings to reports that L suffered from constipation while in her parents’ care, to L having an open sore (later determined over the summer of 2023 by the Sick Children’s Hospital to be a form of diaper rash), to L being sexually groomed and abused.

[10] In October 2023 the sisters told Police and Hospital officials that two-year-old L was telling them, usually in Hungarian, that her stepfather had been sexually abusing her “for years.” When no indication of abuse was found, they took L to a different hospital. Each allegation of harm failed to be verified by either the specially trained Officers of the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) or the specially trained Nurses, Hospital staff and Physicians to whom the sisters took L for validation and therapy.

[11] L’s current parenting schedule was set by Justice Agarwal on September 16, 2024: a 5-5-2-2 temporary schedule between L’s parents’ home in Hepworth and her grandmother’s home outside of Chatsworth.

[12] The matter is now moving towards a final determination at trial because a 5-5-2-2 schedule ought not to continue beyond L starting school in September 2025. Veronica’s and Blanka’s homes are over an hour’s drive apart.

[13] Moreover, there remains no evidence that L is at any risk of harm in her parents’ and brother’s home. The most recent letter from the Society dated January 8, 2024 states: “[a]s you know, we became involved with your family because of concerns of possible sexual abuse of L. The concern was not verified.” The letter goes on to state that the Society is impressed with the parents’ work ethic and commitment to providing a stable home for their children and that they are working well and voluntarily with the Society.

[14] The Society has never investigated whether L is at risk of harm in her grandmother and great-aunt’s care.

This Urgent Motion

[15] Blanka and David bring this urgent Motion dated December 23, 2024 for a change to the temporary Orders of June 28, 2023 and September 16, 2024 prior to trial. They do so in the wake of an unprecedented escalation of allegations of sexual abuse during the month of December 2024.

[16] Specifically, the issues that I must decide on this Motion are whether to grant:

a. An Order changing the temporary Order of June 28, 2023 that originally placed L into Veronica’s primary care and granted her the responsibility for sole decision making, to an Order that L is placed in Blanka and David’s primary care and that the parents, or Blanka alone, be granted sole responsibility for L until further court Order;

b. An Order that the most recent Order governing L’s parenting time be immediately suspended, and that Veronica not be permitted any further parenting time; and

c. An Order terminating the provision within the Order of June 28, 2023 that prohibits Blanka and David from taking L outside a 100 kilometers radius of Hepworth Ontario.

[17] Veronica urges me to make no Order, and to leave the status quo parenting schedule of 5-5-2-2 in place until trial, including the term for a travel restriction. In her draft Order she also asks:

a. Or in the alternative, that the parenting schedule be changed to 2-2-3 to better suit L’s young age,

b. Or in the alternative to change Blanka’s parenting time to 3 days a week from 9 am to 6 pm with a court approved supervisor,

c. For full decision-making to be returned to Veronica and for the five counsellors and therapists previously engaged by her to continue to provide services for L.

[18] Veronica pleads that any change that takes L away from her and her sister cannot be in L’s best interests. She denies that she has been attempting to gather evidence against her daughter and son-in-law. She is certain that L has never been harmed by her unverified claims of abuse, and in fact, that L enjoys her time with authorities.

[19] Auditing the January 13, 2025 Motion was the Family Service Worker (“FSW”) for the Society, and Mr. Mirza, counsel for the Society.

Four Preliminary Issues

Leave Granted for This Motion Before Trial

[20] On September 16, 2024, Justice Agarwal directed that no further Motions be brought until trial given the extraordinary amount of litigation conducted up to that date and the need to move towards finality.

[21] I am satisfied that leave for this Motion must be permitted due to dramatic changes in the record since September 16, 2024.

[22] First, the OCL clinician previously assigned could not complete the assessment anticipated by Justice Agarwal on September 16, 2024, and a subsequent Motion heard by me on November 28, 2024 was required to reset the path forward.

[23] Second, L’s hospital records became available on December 4, 2024.

[24] Third, Veronica made an additional claim of sexual abuse to the OPP and the Society on December 2, 2024. The claim was fully investigated by each of the OPP and the Society, with three-year-old L being interviewed twice over three days. The allegations were in no manner verified. Veronica then escalated her claims within an email sent to the Society and the OPP on December 20, 2024.

[25] The escalation has had two effects. The effect on L is to extend a status quo that in my view has become dangerous to her physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being.

[26] The second litigation effect of the escalation is the stoppage of the OCL investigation. In a letter dated December 30, 2024, the OCL advises that the clinical investigation is now on hold, placing the anticipated March trial date in jeopardy.

Materials before the Court

[27] Blanka and David have been assisted by pro bono counsel who has placed extensive materials before me on this Motion, some of which contain inadmissible hearsay, and opinion evidence that does not comply with Rule 20.1 and 20.2 of the Family Law Rules. In making my decision, I have disregarded any hearsay statements and any of the opinion evidence tendered within the affidavits.

[28] For example, I have not relied on any opinions contained in the affidavit of Bronte Dowell, David’s sister. Bronte Dowell is a practical nurse who has attached and interpreted L’s medical and hospital records which Blanka and David obtained on December 4, 2024. Veronica also relies on those same medical records. On consent, the medical records are admissible for the truth of their contents; but Ms. Dowell is not permitted to provide opinion evidence interpreting those records as she has not met the duty or the requirements of a litigation expert.

[29] For the same reason, I cannot admit into evidence any portions within the affidavit of Judi Nelson Childs dated December 23, 2024 that contain opinion evidence. Ms. Childs was the court appointed supervisor of the parents at an earlier stage of these proceedings. In her affidavit she provides her opinion that Veronica poses a risk of harm to L based on her training in standardized child protection risk assessment and eligibility tools learned while she was employed by the Children’s Aid Society of Thunder Bay. I cannot accept those opinions in this motion record because they exceed the scope of her duties as a court appointed supervisor.

[30] I do however, accept Ms. Dowell’s and Ms. Child’s direct observations of L and exchanges between Veronica and Blanka. For example, Ms. Childs reports that L expresses significant fear of going to a doctor, and that she has watched L go limp after Veronica commands her in Hungarian to show her rear end for examination.

[31] Ms. Child also observed the minor diaper rash on L at an exchange following which Veronica advocated to local authorities and then to the Hospital for Sick Children that the rash was a “weeping sore,” proof of Blanka and David’s inability to be caregivers.

[32] The balance of evidence upon which I have relied are the affidavits of Blanka Balogh sworn December 23, 2024 and January 6, 2025; but primarily, I have relied on the affidavit of Veronica Balogh sworn January 8, 2025; and the December 2 and 20, 2024 emails referenced in, but not attached to in Veronica’s affidavit, that were provided to me by the Society during the hearing of the motion.

Ruling on Additional Documents

[33] At the start of the motion, Veronica asked to submit additional documents that had neither been served nor filed. I required that the documents first be provided to Blanka and David, and I then permitted a short recess for their review.

[34] When Court resumed, I was advised that the documents were nude pictures of L’s body and private parts taken by her grandmother on the way to the hospital or at the hospital on or about July 5, 2023, and October 9, 2024. Veronica believed that the photos would assist me in better understanding her and Beatrice’s vigilance in bringing forward their concerns.

[35] For oral reasons given I did not permit the photographs to be placed into evidence. The pictures were inadmissible without Veronica’s sworn testimony, and they had not been referenced in her affidavit. There was no proof of the time and date that the photos were taken or who took them. Even were I to accept Veronica’s submission as a deposition, the photos are neither necessary nor relevant. They do not assist the record. L underwent a complete medical examination on both occasions and the medical reports are before me on consent.

Case Centre Access Given to the Society and the OCL

[36] This is a complex parenting dispute in which the information given by Veronica and Beatrice to the OPP, the Society and this Court has diverged. I have no information as to what information has been made available to the OCL clinical assessor.

[37] For example, and as more fully set out below, Veronica swore an affidavit in response to this motion on January 8, 2025. Within her affidavit she states that allegations communicated by her in an email to the OPP and the Society on December 20, 2024 were not new allegations of abuse but merely a continuation of those that she made to them within her earlier email of December 2, 2024. Veronica did not attach her emails to the OPP and the Society to her January 8, 2025 affidavit. Upon my request during the Motion, the Society produced a copy of those emails.

[38] Upon reviewing the December 20, 2024 email I was able to learn that it did in fact contain new allegations in direct contradiction to her sworn January 8, 2025 affidavit.

[39] It is not in L’s best interests that critical information informing her physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security and well-being be siloed amongst various parties and service providers. All are tasked with insuring L’s safety and well-being. Here, the Society and the OPP had information not shared with the Court or the OCL.

[40] I order that the OCL and the Society shall have full access to the Master file on Case Center for this Application.

The Legal Tests on a Motion to Change a Temporary Order Prior to Trial

[41] Temporary Orders establish or maintain a reasonable state of affairs pending trial, when a full record will be available to the Court.

[42] Courts are generally reluctant to change temporary Orders unless there are compelling circumstances for a change prior to trial. This is particularly so with respect to parenting Orders given a broad consensus in the research that stable, “good enough” routines for children better meet their developmental needs for predictability and security than a serial schedule subject to the vicissitudes of the next litigation event.

[43] At the same time, a Court is never powerless to act when a child is at risk, or when there are compelling reasons to do so in a child's best interests.

[44] When a compelling case for a change is established, the legal test(s) to be applied remains the same as was applied in the earlier motion. There is no requirement to show a material change in circumstances affecting the children, per Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27, because the Application in which the change to a temporary Order is sought remains one of first instance.

[45] I agree with Justice Mackinnon who stated at para. 23 of J.D. v. N.D., 2020 ONSC 7965, 50 R.F.L. (8th) 62, that in fact, there can be a good reason to lower the threshold for varying an interim parenting Order prior to trial:

[23] In my view the law has evolved to the point where the approach of deferring parenting changes to trial in highly conflicted cases characterized by family violence and/or child parent contact issues should be re-examined, along with the related approach of routinely deferring implementation of family assessments to trial. A reconsidered process of active judicial case management and timely single judge decision making may provide children more hope for better outcomes and at the same time provide procedural fairness to their parents.

[46] These are parents of very modest means who have been left to litigate, on their own, what is in essence a child protection proceeding within the Superior Court of Justice.

[47] Had L been placed into Veronica’s care at birth pursuant to a Temporary Care Agreement, L’s return to her mother would have been supported by the Society, absent any verification of harm or risk of harm. The placement and plan of care for L’s return to her mother would have been subject to timelines and guided by the paramount purposes of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, which include the provision at section 1(2)1 that, “[w]hile parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent.”

Analysis

[48] In this February 2023 Application, Veronica seeks final Orders that will result in L being permanently placed into her sole care and control. She asks in her Application that she be granted the sole responsibility for decision making for her granddaughter, and that L only see her mother in limited, supervised settings at her discretion.

[49] Throughout, this dispute has been framed not as a grandparent contact dispute, but as a “custody fight” between a grandmother and a daughter without regard to the parental autonomy approach, as most recently set out in Justice Himel’s reasons in Kirshenblatt v. Kirshenblatt, 2024 ONSC 2896, 3 R.F.L. (9th) 369.

[50] Veronica and Beatrice have attempted to gather evidence to support their position by taking L to multiple medical, hospital and counselling services, including the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. No abuse has ever been verified, despite the numerous investigations triggered by Veronica and her sister Beatrice.

[51] In my December 5, 2024 reasons for refusing the appointment of a section 30 assessor, I wrote that should Veronica’s allegations of L having sexualized behaviour, developmental delays and unexplained injuries be found to be demonstrably false, L’s immediate return to her parent’s fulltime care would be amply supported by the record already before the Court, without the cost and delay of a section 30 assessment.

[52] Matters might have been left to trial but for the events of December 2024. I will summarize those events below.

December 2024 Allegations

Email to the OPP at 3:56 pm on Monday December 2, 2024

1. L was to transfer from her grandmother’s care to her mother’s care at 4:00 pm on Monday December 2, 2024. At 3:56 pm a two-page email was sent from Veronica’s email account to Detective Constable Page. The email relates that L had “disclosed some very alarming information of a sexual nature to me, partially overheard by Beatrice as well.”

2. Veronica asked in the email how she should proceed with this information because “with court ordered visits, which now include overnights as well, I am powerless to protect her from a potential abuse that L views as something pleasurable. Transfer of L to Blanka and David is at 4 pm today (Monday) until Wednesday at 4 pm. All investigations whether sexual or medical in nature are used against me in court.”

3. The email concludes with a journal entry dated December 2, 2024 shared with the Police which sets out as fact:

   • After waking in the morning, L asked to go to bed with Veronica and snuggle. L then crawled under the covers and was lying on Veronica’s thighs. L then “began to quietly lick Veronica’s upper thighs and before I could even ask what she was doing L said in Hungarian, Daddy licks my bum and my pee pee.”
   • L then began sniffing her grandmother’s crotch area and commented that it smelled good. L then said in Hungarian “I lick Daddy’s bum and his pee pee is black.”
   • Veronica asked where her Mommy was when Daddy licks her bum and pee pee and L answered that Mommy is not there when this happens and that it is a secret between her and Daddy.
   • Veronica asked if Daddy’s bum was stinky from poo and L answered that Daddy washes his bum before she licks it, so it smells good.
   • L then spoke about how it felt good when Daddy licked her bum and pee pee.

4. Just after Veronica transferred L to Blanka’s care on December 2, 2024, Veronica sent a text to Blanka that ended with “enjoy your time with her.” Veronica did not tell Blanka that she had sent the OPP the above email.

5. The police arrived at Blanka’s home about 8:00 pm that evening and advised that David was under investigation for sexual abuse and could not be near L.

6. L was interviewed by the police and the Society the next day, Tuesday December 3, 2024. She did not disclose any of the allegations that Veronica states had been told to her verbatim. A second interview of L was conducted by the FSW and the OPP investigator on Thursday, December 5, 2024. Again, L made no disclosures or even statements of concern. Thereafter, the FSW advised David and Blanka that they were free to take L home and resume their normal life.

7. On Friday December 6, 2024, the OCL clinician was assigned, and the expedited clinical investigation began pursuant to my December 5, 2024 decision.

Email to the OPP and the FSW on Friday, December 20, 2024 at 12:33 pm

8. On Friday December 20, 2024 L was to be transferred from Veronica’s care to Blanka’s care at 4:00 pm.

9. At 12:33 pm that day, several hours prior to the transfer, Veronica made another allegation of sexual abuse. This report took the form of an email to the OPP officer who had been involved in the December 2, 2024 allegations and the FSW. The email sets out Veronica’s belief that David and Blanka silenced L after the first questioning on December 2, 2024 and that:

   • L has “consistently continued to disclose that daddy is still licking her pee pee and bum,
   • L has told Veronica that her dog at Mommy’s, “Yablo,” also licks her pee pee and bum
   • after L’s parenting time with her parents, December 16-18, L again told Beatrice and her that daddy is still licking her pee pee and bum, and that Yablo is still licking her pee pee and bum
   • L has said after both parenting times that she is locked in her bedroom at night with Yablo
   • L has told Veronica that her parents have told her that they will go to jail if she tells anyone her secret.

[53] The OCL immediately stopped its investigation and advised the parties that it could not meet its 60-day commitment to complete the investigation prior to trial on the spring sittings.

[54] Blanka and David believe that Veronica was fully aware that further abuse allegations would stop the OCL investigation and defer the trial, possibly to the fall sittings in September 2025, after L is registered in a school close to Veronica and Beatrice’s residence. They believe that the December 20, 2024 allegations are strategic, designed as a tactic to stall the release of the OCL investigation, which cannot be released until such time as there are no active CAS investigations. They believe that Veronica does not have genuine concerns for L while in their care and is instead, pursuing this litigation so that she can control them and her granddaughter’s childhood.

[55] Their view is supported by the evidence of Ms. Childs, who states in her December 23, 2024 affidavit that she was present during L’s transfer from Veronica to Blanka on December 20, 2024 at 4:00 pm. Despite the horrific allegations of sexual child abuse made to the O.P.P. and the Society a few hours earlier, (unknown at the time) Veronica showed no reluctance whatsoever to transfer L to Blanka’s care.

[56] Blanka and David also point to the hospital records received December 4, 2024, which show a pattern of visits in 2023 and 2024 which run parallel to increases in Blanka and David’s parenting time.

[57] For example, Veronica and Beatrice took L to the Hospital on October 12, 2023. They told the attending physician, Dr. Cato, that she and Veronica were L’s primary caretakers and that the courts had mandated supervised visits with L’s biological mother and her partner.

[58] Dr. Cato carefully reported in his consultation notes that Veronica and Beatrice had “ongoing concerns for several months, possibly years that L may have been repeatedly sexually assaulted while in the care of Blanka and David.” L was 2 ½ years old at the time of Dr. Cato’s involvement.

[59] Dr. Cato did a full, invasive examination of L. The examination was negative with no “stigmata suggestive of either physical or sexual assault.” Veronica confirms in her submissions that it was negative but relies on the advice to her from the sexual assault nurse that “no evidence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.” From that time forward their allegations of sexual abuse have not involved penetration.

[60] Veronica and Beatrice took L to a different hospital on November 9, 2023, again stating that L had been sexually abused for years. The notes made by Dr. Whittle at Owen Sound Emergency Services directly contradict Veronica’s affidavit statements that she was merely relaying what L told her so that the proper officials could investigate and refer them for play therapy. The records, read in court, set out detailed allegations made by Veronica and Beatrice that David was sexually abusing L. This second attendance at a different Hospital within a few weeks is of particular concern. Veronica and Beatrice were looking for a different result on the same allegations, a hallmark of evidence gathering.

[61] Veronica and Beatrice continued to take L to numerous doctors, therapists, and consultants throughout 2024, often arguing with the service provider when no cause for concern was found. As indicated in my prior endorsement, Veronica has always been a frequent user of medical services, obtaining the assistance of La Leche League in 2021 while attempting to breastfeed L.

[62] On the pattern of evidence available to me within this paper record, I find that the December 20, 2024 email was not sent to protect L, but to seek litigation advantage by invoking a further protection protocol that would close the OCL investigation and defer the trial.

Sole Decision Making and Primary Residence Is Granted to Blanka, the Travel Restriction Is Lifted

[63] Section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12 ("CLRA"), directs the court, when considering or making a contact order, to consider only the best interests of the child. In doing so, the court is to consider all factors relating to the circumstances of the child, but give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being.

[64] Section 24(3) of the CLRA enumerates several other factors that courts should consider when assessing the best interests of a child. The significance and weight placed on any given factor varies from case to case, as each case turns on its own particular facts.

[65] Parents are traditionally, and continue legally, to hold the primary responsibility to be arbiters of their child's best interests. In the absence of a finding of harm, or the risk of harm to a child, the state has no right to interfere with parents' proper decision-making authority.

[66] In my endorsement of December 4, 2025, I found that time was of the essence for this young girl. Now, with the events of December 2024 fully before me, I find that the facts of this case demonstrate circumstances that are so compelling that I am satisfied that L’s best interests require an immediate change from her shared residence to sole residence with her parents and brother prior to a trial that may no longer be able to proceed in the spring sittings.

[67] I transfer primary care and the responsibility for decision making to Blanka prior to trial for two summary reasons. First, Blanka has demonstrated that she is the best equipped to protect L from this conflict and to ensure her daughter’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. Her and David’s home is safe, loving and child-centred. The siblings have a close bond.

[68] Second, I find that the December 20, 2024 email containing escalated and implausible allegations of sexual abuse by the family dog brings into sharp focus a longstanding pattern of tactical evidence gathering behaviour designed to win this dispute, rather than to protect a vulnerable child. It is not in L’s interests for her grandmother to have decision making responsibility. While she is in her grandmother’s care, L is at risk of further being used for evidence gathering against her parents.

[69] I also grant the Order sought by Blanka and David to lift any travel restrictions for L while in her parents’ care.
[1] When asked her position on the lifting of the travel limitation so that L could travel out of the Grey Bruce Region to visit her paternal aunt in Mississauga, Veronica argued that it should not be lifted because she is better able to decide L’s travel on a case-by-case basis. Veronica states no other reason why her daughter should not determine travel. There is no flight risk.

[70] I find that the travel restriction earlier granted on a different record is now an unnecessary limit on Blanka’s parental autonomy. It is lifted.

No Contact Pending Trial or Consent

[71] Section 28(1)(b) and (c) of the CLRA states that the court may order contact between a non-parent and a child. The court may also determine any aspects of the incidents of the right of contact and may make additional orders as may be necessary and proper.

[72] I am gravely concerned that should contact be permitted prior to trial that Veronica and Beatrice’s allegations of abuse, and the sisters’ joint efforts to obtain evidence will continue. Veronica and Beatrice take no responsibility for any harm caused to L for having engaged in evidence seeking. They insist that they are merely relaying what L has said to them, and they leave any subsequent actions to the Society and the Police.

[73] Veronica assures the Court in her affidavit of January 8, 2025, that L has never been harmed by any of their efforts to gather evidence against Blanka and David. Veronica insists that L enjoys going to the hospital and meeting the police.

[74] She writes at paragraph 66 of her January 8, 2025 affidavit that “L knows that police, doctors and BGCFS (Society) help people and [L] has always enjoyed the times she has spent with them.” She goes on to write that at the police station, “L rode her toy riding duck throughout the station, explored various toys during the [police] interview, coloured on the police note pad with the tiny set of crayons that the office staff gave her, and play skated on the patches of ice outside. There was absolutely nothing traumatic about L’s attendance at the police station, but in fact, she very much enjoyed her time there.”

[75] Veronica concludes her paragraph by writing how L regularly colours in her OPP Fun Book and:

My sister and I have used L’s attendances as teaching opportunities while waiting to be seen. L knows and is excited when she sees “Orange” the hospital helicopter and the red-haired lady pilot, who is helping people who are hurt. L knows that doctors can help her when she is feeling unwell or is hurt. She can identify various instruments they use in examining her. Medical attendances for L with my sister and I have never been traumatic.

[76] L must be removed from the centre of this conflict and her physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being must be protected.

[77] At the same time, grandparents are free to assert a legal right of contact with their grandchildren if they can demonstrate that the proposed contact is in the children's best interests. The starting presumption is that deference should be given to a parent's decision whether to award a grandparent access to a child: Chapman v. Chapman, 201 D.L.R. (4th) 443, 141 O.A.C. 389 (C.A.) and F.S. v. N.J., 2024 ONCJ 199.

[78] I permit Veronica to amend her Application for up to 30 days after release of these reasons to include a claim for a contact Order. An amended Answer may be filed 30 days thereafter with reply to follow.

Costs

[79] Costs of this motion and the motion heard November 28, 2024 (which I previously reserved to trial) may be sought by Blanka and David in writing. Submissions are due February 10, 2025, Veronica’s response is due February 20, 2025 and reply, if any is required by February 27, 2025. Submissions are not to exceed five pages exclusive of a Bill of Costs and Offer to Settle. Submissions are to be served and filed, with a copy emailed to my Brampton assistant at Samantha.Alves@ontario.ca

Released: January 30, 2025

[1] This order was inadvertently omitted from the Orders made on January 15, 2025. In addition to the Orders made on that day, I order that the travel restrictions in the temporary Order of June 28, 2023 are hereby lifted.