Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: FC-24-1587
Date: 2025/02/07

BETWEEN:
Jessica Agostini, Applicant
– and –
Mohamed Hamza Rochdi, Respondent

Applicant Counsel: Deanna Paolucci
Respondent: Self-Represented

Heard: January 29, 2024

Reasons for Decision on Urgent Motion
Somji J
Released: February 7, 2025

Overview

[1] The Applicant mother, Ms. Agostini, brings an urgent motion to amend the Temporary Parenting Order of Engelking J issued in October 2024 (“Temporary Order”) with respect to the parties’ three children along with other corollary relief. More specifically, the mother requests that the father’s parenting time with all three children be supervised at a facility such as the Rose Garden or the Muslim Family Services Centre. The mother argues that since February 2024 the father has been inciting the children, in particular the eldest child, to report to the police and Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“CAS”) that the mother and her new husband are abusive. The father continued this behaviour even after the Temporary Order required him to stop.

[2] The Respondent father, Mr. Rochdi, opposes the motion. He continues to allege that the mother is an unfit parent and that her allegations are fabrications. The father argues that he has over a dozen videos where the children report to him that the mother and her husband are abusive, but the police and CAS authorities refuse to view his videos in their investigation of the family. He argues that it is not in the children’s best interests that he be denied parenting time and if ordered, he will not attend for supervised visits at a community centre.

[3] The parties began living together in August 2015 and were married on February 29, 2016. They separated on July 1, 2021, while the mother was pregnant with their youngest child. The parents have three children from their marriage, ages two, four, and six. The children have lived primarily with their mother since separation. The parties entered into a Separation Agreement prepared with the benefit of joint counsel which was signed on March 10, 2022. This agreement was converted into a Final Order issued by Justice Goulet of the Superior Court of Quebec on June 7, 2023, and resolved all issues of the marriage (“Final Order”). The terms of the Final Order continue to apply except for those provisions displaced by the terms of Justice Engelking’s Temporary Order. The mother has now filed a Motion to Change the Final Order.

[4] The issues to be decided on this motion are:

a. Is the matter urgent warranting a review of the existing Temporary Order?
b. If so, what interim parenting order is in the best interests of the children?
c. Should there be an order for additional disclosure of CAS and police records?

[5] Upon review of the urgent motion materials and upon hearing the parties’ submissions, I find that the test for urgency has been met. In addition, I find it is in the best interests of the children that the father have supervised in-person parenting time and supervised virtual parenting time by the mother. The mother will have decision-making responsibility on all issues as per the terms proposed by the mother. In addition, the conditions ordered by Engelking J restraining the father’s conduct will continue to apply. The mother’s request for corollary relief is also granted. There will be a new Temporary Order incorporating these conditions that will remain in place until such time as this matter can proceed to a hearing on the mother’s Motion to Change the Final Parenting Order. Below I set out detailed reasons for my decision.

[6] In addition, given this is the second urgent motion brought before the court related to parenting, I find that it is necessary that the hearing for the mother’s Motion to Change the Final Order proceed as soon as possible. The limited time frame for these urgent motions does not allow a full vetting of all the evidence and issues. For example, the father would like the court to consider 14 videos which are contested by the other side and which will require both authenticity and admissibility rulings. Consequently, the mother’s Motion to Change the Final Parenting Order will proceed to a three-day hearing on the September 2025 trial list. In addition, the parties will attend for a settlement conference on June 23, 2025, at 2 pm and a further trial management conference on a date directed by the Trial Coordinator.

Evidence Presented at the Motion

[7] In support of the motion, the mother relies on her affidavits dated September 17, 2024, October 21, 2024, and January 23, 2025, and supporting exhibits. These exhibits include reports from CAS and police authorities that were available at the time of the motion.

[8] The father relies on a 3-part affidavit dated January 29, 2025. While the father requested the court to consider 14 videos on his phone, counsel for the mother contested the admissibility of these videos, only some of which she has reviewed, on the basis of authenticity and reliability. The father did not properly serve or file these videos in accordance with evidentiary and procedural rules as part of his response materials, but rather offered for me to view the videos off his personal phone during his oral submissions. For these reasons, the videos are not admitted for the urgent motion. However, should the father wish to rely on the videos at the Motion to Change hearing, he may apply to do so and will be required to properly serve and file them.

Issue 1: Is the Matter Urgent Warranting a Review of the Existing Temporary Order?

[9] Following an urgent motion in October 2024, Engelking J issued a Temporary Order fixing the father’s parenting time and requiring him to refrain from certain conduct. Some of the terms of the Temporary Order are as follows:

• The father’s parenting time is fixed from Sunday 9 am to Monday at 9 am.
• The exchanges are to occur at the police station or the children’s school/daycare.
• The father is not to linger with the children at the police station or seek to have the children speak to the police.
• The father is to refrain from making reports to the CAS or to the police, and from sending the police to do wellness checks on the children.
• The father is not to speak to M.A. about speaking to the CAS or the police.
• Neither parent nor the mother’s husband are to speak negatively about one another to or in the presence of the children.
• If the father fails to comply with these conditions, the matter may be returned before Engelking J or another judge on an urgent basis at which time the Temporary Order could be revisited and supervised parenting time imposed on the father.

[10] In December 2024, the mother learned from the police that the father had attended the local police station during the children’s exchange and had indicated to an officer that his eldest child M.A. wanted to ask the officer a question about whether it was okay for an adult to hit their child. The police contacted CAS and the mother about this interaction.

[11] The mother alleges this incident is a continuation of the father’s ongoing attempt since February 2024 to coach the children, particularly M.A., to report to authorities that she and her husband are abusive. In addition to this incident, the mother witnessed the father engage in similar coaching of the children during his virtual parenting time. The mother is frustrated by the father’s ongoing conduct and concerned about its impact on M.A. who becomes emotionally upset during these incidents and has attended therapy to address his father’s inciting conduct. Consequently, the mother stopped the father’s parenting time just before the Christmas holiday, which is not celebrated by either parent, and requested the matter return before Engelking J. That hearing could not be scheduled and the matter returned as an urgent motion before me.

[12] In these circumstances I find that the matter meets the test for urgency set out in Rosen v. Rosen for two reasons: first, the father’s inciting conduct, if established, constitutes emotional harm to the children that can adversely impact the children’s health; and second, the father’s parenting time has been suspended for over a month, and therefore, it is necessary to determine what parenting time is in the best interests of the children.

Issue 2: What Interim Parenting Order Is in the Best Interests of the Children?

[1] In considering the children’s best interests, the court must give primary consideration to the children’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being while also considering all factors related to the circumstances of the children: ss. 16(2) and 16(3) Divorce Act, (“DA”), R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp), as am. See also S.S. v. R.S., 2021 ONSC 2137 para 30.

[2] Section 16(3) DA lists the best interests factors that must be considered as follows:

Factors to be considered

16(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
(d) the history of care of the child;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

[3] The court has considerable flexibility and discretion in crafting a parenting plan. The best interests factors constitute a non-exhaustive list of considerations each of which is to be considered but may be differently weighed. Each plan must be crafted in accordance with the specific needs of the children and circumstances of the family keeping in mind that the key is what is in the best interests of the children and not the parents: McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610 at para 93.

[4] I have considered all the best interest factors in arriving at my decision, but focus below on those which I find are highly relevant to this motion, sometimes collectively, and not necessarily in the order in which they are listed in the legislation.

[5] I begin below with the issue of family violence because I find that the father’s consistent and repeated pattern of inciting the children to report abuse against their mother and her husband constitutes psychological and emotional harm against the children which bears significantly on the determination of the father’s parenting time.

i. Family Violence

[13] The mother attests that prior to separation, the father would spend time with the children consistently, but after separation his parenting time became sporadic. The Separation Agreement stated that the father could have parenting time at his request. Consequently, he would demand to see the children with little notice to the mother and then would often cancel. The unspecified parenting time led to considerable conflict. The mother tolerated the situation largely because she knew how much it meant to the children to spend time with their father. While the father saw the children a few times a month, she reports it was usually for a period of a few hours, and they rarely spent the night with him.

[14] The situation worsened in February 2024 which coincides with the time that the mother introduced Ali, her then fiancé and now husband, to the father. On February 3, 2024, the mother brought Ali to the father’s house during an exchange and he told her not to do so again. Thereafter, the father refused the mother’s request for two days notice to see the children and commenced engaging in disruptive behaviours.

[15] The following are summaries from the mother’s affidavits of the father’s conduct:

a. February 7, 2024: The father showed up at M.A.’s school, pulled him out of class, recorded him, and asked him to say something along the lines of “tell me it’s true that your mom hits you.” M.A. repeated as directed. The incident was conveyed to her by her son and the school receptionist.

b. February 9, 2024: The father was insulting, verbally abusive, and screaming at the mother in front of the children because she did not have diapers for the two youngest children. At one point, he told her to “f** my mom” in front of the children. She did not know what to do and left.

c. February 10, 2024: When the father came to pick up the children, he started talking through the car window to the mother about personal information and insulted her and her husband and also their parenting.

d. February 24, 2024: The father requested the children’s exchanges to occur at the police station alleging that Ali was abusive. She agreed due to the father’s increasingly aggressive behaviours.

e. March 3, 2024: Upon his arrival at the Gatineau Police Station for an exchange, the father started accusing the mother in front of the children of beating, kicking, and hurting them. He kept encouraging M.A. to say it was true. The mother left. On the drive home, she learned from M.A. that the father had allowed him to play Grand Theft Auto which is a game rated 18 plus.

March 30, 2024: The mother received a call from the CAS asking her to come home urgently. The mother attests that M.A. had hurt himself the night before playing with a box for a toy rocket ship with his brother. She had iced his injury. However, when M.A. went to his father’s residence the following morning and the father observed the injury, the father took M.A. to the hospital. The hospital reported to the CAS that they understood the child had been slapped by the mother.

The CAS worker initially interviewed the child at the father’s house at which time M.A. said he got the bump because his stepfather Ali hit him for not doing something and that his mother dragged him across the room.

The CAS worker then spoke with the mother and Ali who denied any such thing had happened. He also showed the CAS worker a video taken right after the injury where M.A. explained what had happened. Ali took the video because he was worried he would be wrongly accused by the father.

The CAS then reinterviewed M.A. in private at which time he admitted he had lied. He explained he got the bump on his face when playing with his brother and they were spinning in a box. He denied that he is hit at home by either his mother or his stepfather. He asked the CAS worker not to tell his father because he would get mad. The CAS worker interviewed M.A. a second time at school and once again M.A. confirmed the bump came from when they were spinning in the box and that neither of his parents ever hit him.

The CAS also commented in its investigation report that the father’s allegations that the mother and stepfather abuse the children and that the children fear them is not supported by any of the CAS worker’s observations and interactions of the children within the home.

CAS closed the file on April 12, 2024, stating in their closing letter:

The CAS did not verify the concerns for the use of physical punishment in your home. However, the concern regarding Mr. Rochdi placing the children at risk of emotional harm due to post separation conflict was verified.

f. April 15, 2024: The mother asked M.A about his weekend, and he reported to her that he was worried his dad would scream at him after finding out he told CAS the truth.

g. May 1, 2024: M.A. came to her at bedtime and said that he was scared and that he was thinking about a really scary clown that was mean and had blood in one of its eyes. The mother and Ali reassured him that such things don’t exist, but he insisted claiming he “saw it at dad’s house”.

h. June 8, 2024: The father called her husband a “pig” and told him he was wasting time with lawyers because he had videos of M.A. telling him about their abuse.

i. June 19, 2024: The mother contacted the CAS about M.A.’s disclosures to her which included that the father was intimidating and screaming at him and that he was hesitant to return to his father’s house because he would be blamed for telling the CAS the truth. M.A. disclosed that his father does not hit him, but often screams and bangs the wall and items in the home when upset with him. The mother also reports that M.A. has expressed fear of his father’s harshness on other occasions, telling her that the father has screamed at him, called him dumb and stupid, and asked him “what the f*** is wrong with him?”. He has also told him that if CAS interviews him again, he better not lie.

j. June 22, 2024: The mother reports that the father attended a ceremony at M.A.’s school and created a scene in the presence of the family as well as one of her husband’s friends who is a police officer. The father was also not releasing one of the children from his care. The friend intervened to try and calm the father down and also reminded him the children were in the mother’s care that day. Thereafter, the father did not see the children for two months.

k. July 10, 2024 and again on August 23, 2024: The police showed up at the mother’s home because the father called them requesting a “wellness check”. Three officers came inside the home and one remained outside on the initial visit. On the second visit, the police informed the mother they are aware of the situation, and the father has called many times for unfounded reasons. The police reports filed by the mother corroborate that the police found no apparent safety concerns during these visits.

l. August 12, 2024: The father sent the mother a message speaking ill of her husband, alleging that he is abusive, and asking the mother to give up custody of the children. She believes the father later deleted the message upon realizing it was the same day as their mediation to address a fixed schedule which he failed to attend.

m. August 15, 2024: The CAS became involved again. The mother had dropped the children off at the police station located at Elgin Street for an exchange. She later received a call from Cst. Hull who told her that the father had deliberately stayed at the station for an additional 30 minutes, come to the counter to speak to officers about his employment application with the RCMP, and suggested that he was refused employment because his son had not reported the truth to the CAS and the RCMP thought the father was a liar. All this was discussed in the presence of the children.

The mother’s understanding of the incident is based on information she received from Cst. Hull. The same information is also reported in the notes of the conversation between CAS worker Kelly Pemberton and Cst. Hull. The information is also corroborated in an Ottawa Police report dated August 16, 2024. In her police report, Cst. Hull reports that the father kept insisting that his son needed to tell that he lied and that his mom was abusing him and that this clarification was necessary so he could continue with his application for a job with the RCMP. Cst. Hull told the father that it was inappropriate to speak poorly of the mother in the presence of the children and to take them home. Cst. Hull notes in her police report that the father “appeared to have some mental health struggles as the things he was saying were not making a lot of sense and his decision making seemed off.”

n. August 16, 2024: The children returned the following day after a sleepover with their father. M.A reported to his mother that the father told him they would be speaking again with the CAS and if he did not tell them about the abuse he would never see his father again. The mother reports that M.A. began to cry while telling her this.

[16] These incidents have impacted M.A. since they began in February 2024. When M.A would leave the mother’s care he would be happy and excited for the coming week. However, this was in stark contrast to his behaviour when she picked him up. In April 2024, during pick ups the father would tell the children in their presence that she and Ali were abusive. She observed that M.A. would cling to his father at these times and not want to return home.

[17] As the father’s behaviour became more persistent, M.A. started to have emotional breakdowns both at home and school. He started to experience nightmares. He stopped going to the bathroom by himself and would ask a teacher or friend to go with him. Consequently, the mother arranged for M.A. to see a therapist in September 2024 at the Muslim Family Services Centre. The nightmares subsided, but M.A. would still be scared to go to the bathroom or the basement of the house by himself.

[18] The father’s behaviour and their adverse impacts on M.A.’s emotional and mental health prompted the mother to bring an urgent motion which proceeded before Engelking J. While I do not have a transcript of Her Honour’s oral judgment, it was clear that Her Honour found the behaviours sufficiently problematic because she specifically ordered the father one, not to tell M.A. to speak with CAS and the police, two, not to speak negatively about the mother or Ali in the presence of the children, and three, to stop lingering at the police station with the children. Despite these orders, the father’s harmful influencing of the children has not subsided.

[19] In her most recent affidavit dated January 23, 2025, the mother reports that on December 15, 2024, she dropped the children off at the police station for an exchange. The father was already outside waiting. The mother was on her way to her own exam. When she returned to pick up the children later, the youngest two had made two drawings suggesting they had been at the police station for a while. The mother later received a call on December 18, 2024, from a CAS worker who told her that the police had called to report that M.A. had disclosed to them that he had been hit five times by Ali. The police had looked at M.A. and did not see any marks on his face and did not take any action. The CAS did not investigate further and closed the file.

[20] In her letter to the mother, Judy Berard of CAS describes what transpired as reported to by the police differently. The description indicates that M.A. asked the police what to do if he was hit. What is particularly concerning is that the police reported to the CAS that during their interaction with the children the father questioned M.A. “as to where he was hit, by who, and how many times.” While the precise nature of the interaction will have to be verified once the police report is obtained, the evidence to date suggests that the father did not play a passive role in this interaction and made inquiries with M.A. about alleged abuse in the presence of the police.

[21] The father’s next parenting time was scheduled for December 22, 2024, and the mother was unable to get a court date to return the matter before Engelking J as Her Honour had suggested if the father’s behaviour persisted. Consequently, the mother called the father on December 21st and informed him that she had received a call from CAS about the 40 minutes he was at the police station. She informed him that she had ongoing concerns about his continued coaching of the children and that she would be restricting his access. She has now brought an urgent motion renewing her request for supervised parenting time.

[22] To protect the children, particularly M.A., from further emotional harm, the mother has since December only allowed the father to have virtual calls. She is present during these calls and reports that the father spends the majority of the time talking to M.A. about his need to report that Ali is abusive. The mother restricts the calls to 15 minutes. She reports that M.A. becomes upset during these calls and feels his father is questioning his reality. She has heard M.A. tell his father to stop saying these things and raising his voice.

[23] In his affidavit of January 29, 2025, the father provides his version of what transpired on December 15, 2024, at the police station. He suggests that they had been in the police station for less than two minutes when M.A. asked if he could speak with the receptionist at the station. The father acknowledges he encouraged him to do so. He states that the receptionist provided the children with colouring papers and pens. M.A. asked the receptionist if it was acceptable for someone to slap him on the face on occasions. The receptionist called an officer. According to the father, M.A. told the officer that his stepfather Ali had slapped him on the face. The officer advised M.A. on how to report such incidents to his teacher or by calling 911. According to the father, M.A. then told the officer he had spoken to his teacher about the abuse, but she said, “It’s okay” and took no further action. The father acknowledges that he confirmed with his son in the presence of the officer that this is what the teacher had said. The father attests that the interaction underscores M.A.’s courage in reporting abuse.

[24] Based on the evidence filed to date, I find that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the father did not comply with the Temporary Order and is continuing to pressure M.A. to allege abuse against his mother and stepfather.

[25] First, the father was already outside when the mother arrived at the station with the children and there was no need to spend any additional time at the police station, particularly given that Engelking J had ordered him not to linger at the police station. Second, the father’s version that M.A. was only inquiring with a police officer what to do if he is hit is inconsistent with what the CAS worker reported to the mother. It is curious that M.A. would bring such a topic up during the exchange, particularly given he has had ample opportunity to speak with adults from CAS, his school teacher, and his own therapist. Third, the father was well aware from the October hearing that these discussions about “abuse” are having an adverse impact on M.A. and yet he encouraged M.A. to engage with a uniformed officer on this issue. Finally, there is evidence from the CAS Report that the father not only encouraged M.A. to ask his question, but then made inquiries about where, when, and how this alleged abuse by Ali occurred, all of which he was ordered to refrain from doing.

[26] Section 2(1) DA defines family violence as any conduct by a family member toward another family member that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person – and in the case of a child, the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct. Family violence includes physical, psychological, and sexual abuse as well as threats or actual harm to persons or property. The conduct need not constitute criminal conduct.

[27] Upon review of the evidence filed to date, I find there is sufficient evidence to establish that the father has engaged in a persistent pattern of influencing M.A. to falsely report that his mother and stepfather Ali are abusive and in doing so, is causing emotional and psychological harm to the child. In particular, I rely on the incident of March 30, 2024, where following a thorough CAS investigation, it is clear that the father incited M.A. to falsely report to the hospital staff that his mother slapped him and then to report to the CAS authorities that he was hit by Ali and dragged by his mother across the floor. Both of these reports from M.A. are inconsistent in and of themselves, but also were entirely inconsistent with what M.A. told his mother immediately after he hurt himself (which was recorded) and what he reiterated to the CAS worker on two occasions – which is that he banged his head with his brother when he was spinning in a box. Not only was M.A. made to lie by his father, but the entire experience left him fearful of his father for the repercussions of later telling the truth.

[28] The father would have been well aware from the October 2024 motion hearing of M.A.’s emotionally fragile condition, his nightmares and fears, and that M.A. has been attending for therapy. The father was ordered to refrain from pressuring M.A. and from instructing M.A. to speak with the CAS or the police about these issues. Despite this, the father persisted in encouraging his son to report to the police that his stepfather had hit him and made direct inquiries about this in the presence of the police officer at the station on December 15, 2024.

[29] I find the father’s continued infliction of psychological harm on M.A. favours the order requested by the mother.

ii. The Child’s Needs, Given the Child’s Age and Stage of Development, Such as the Child’s Need for Stability

[30] All three children are young. While both parents appear to be able to meet the children’s physical needs, I do not find the father is able to provide the children with the emotional support they require for their age and development.

[31] M.A. is the eldest child, but only six years of age. He is entitled to feel safe and secure as part of his ongoing emotional development. Instead, he is experiencing confusion, nightmares and fears. The mother’s evidence, corroborated in part by the CAS and police reports, establishes that the father’s influencing and exposure to inappropriate movies is contributing to M.A.’s fears. There is also evidence that the father attends M.A.’s school and engages in disruptive behaviour by pulling him out of class and questioning him. I am also concerned that the father’s repeated and unfounded requests for wellness checks by the police undermine the children’s emotional safety. Not only are these visits disruptive to the mother when the children are in her care, they undermine the children’s sense of safety by leaving the children with the impression that they are a family that needs to be policed.

[32] The mother reports that the youngest children have also returned from visits with the father with soiled diapers. While this raises some concerns, I am not in a position to make findings on the father’s ability to physically care for the children on this evidence alone.

iii. Each Spouse’s Willingness to Support the Development and Maintenance of the Children’s Relationship with the Other Spouse

iv. The Ability and Willingness of Each Person in Respect of Whom the Order Would Apply to Communicate and Cooperate, in Particular with One Another, on Matters Affecting the Child

[33] The mother has demonstrated her support of the father’s relationship with the child. She has not refused parenting time. She acknowledges that the children like to spend time with their father and managed for several years following their separation to accommodate the father’s requests for parenting time even if she would have preferred adequate notice and a schedule.

[34] I am not satisfied that the father is willing to support the development and maintenance of the children’s relationship with their mother. Not only has he been inciting M.A. to allege his mother and stepfather are abusive, but it is also noted in the police and CAS reports that he speaks poorly about the mother and the stepfather in the children’s presence. There is no evidentiary basis for these allegations of abuse. In fact, the father had not raised allegations of the abuse against the mother after they separated. These allegations have only arisen in February 2024 after the mother had partnered with Ali. Furthermore, CAS has investigated this family and their interactions with parents and have not observed any evidence of abuse or fear on the part of the children when they are in the mother or Ali’s home. On the contrary, the CAS highlights the father’s conduct as placing the children at risk of emotional harm.

[35] The Temporary Order specified terms and conditions for the father’s parenting time as well as expectations with respect to his conduct around the children. The father was warned at the time of the Temporary Order that should he not comply, the court would consider imposing supervised parenting time. The father was unable to abide by the conditions of the Temporary Order. He has continued to influence M.A. during virtual parenting time and based on the evidence filed to date, again on December 15, 2024 at the police station.

v. History of Care and Plans of Care

[36] The mother has been the children’s primary caregiver since separation. The father’s parenting time has been increasingly sporadic and there have been periods as long as two months when he has not seen the children such as in July and August of 2024. The mother appears to be solely responsible for all medical visits and the children’s school routine.

[37] There are suggestions in the evidence filed that the father has suggested to the children that they could come live with him full time, but there is no evidence that the children have ever stayed with the father for an extended period.

Conclusion

[6] Upon consideration of the whole of the evidence and all the best interest factors, I find that it is in the best interests of the children to reside primarily with the mother and for the father to have supervised parenting time. While I appreciate that the mother’s primary concern has been the father’s conduct with M.A., I find that supervision is required for all three children. I am not satisfied based on the evidence filed to date that the father will not engage in the same conduct of persuasion with the younger children.

[7] The father’s supervised in-person parenting time shall take place at a supervision centre such as Rose Garden or the Muslim Family Services Centre in Ottawa twice a week for a minimum of one hour. The father shall cancel his visit with the children no later than 48 hours in advance by notifying the supervision centre and the mother. Missed visits shall not be rescheduled except with the consent of both parties. The father shall pay for all fees related to the supervised parenting time.

[8] In addition, the father will have virtual parenting time with the children two times per week for 15 minutes each. The mother shall be present during the virtual parenting time and will have the discretion to end the call should the father speak or behave inappropriately.

[9] I also find that it is in the children’s best interest that the mother have decision-making responsibility for the children as per the terms set out in the draft Order filed by mother’s counsel. The mother has been the children’s primary caregiver. She is principally responsible for the children’s schooling and medical appointments. The father’s persistent slandering of the mother and Ali makes it difficult for the mother to communicate with the father, particularly with respect to the children’s day-to-day needs. All communications shall be on Our Family Wizard except in the event of an emergency.

[10] Given the father’s past conduct in attending the school and pulling M.A. out, there will be an order that the father shall not attend the children’s school unless invited by the mother to do so for a school activity. Similarly, given the father’s verbally abusive behaviour against the mother and Ali and to minimize the risk of verbal conflict and the children’s exposure to such conflict, the father will not attend within 100 metres of the mother’s home unless invited to do so by the mother.

[11] The remaining conditions on the Temporary Order of Engelking J will continue to apply. These conditions include:

a. The father shall not influence M.A. to believe he is being abused while in his mother’s care
b. The father shall not speak to M.A. about speaking to the CAS or police.
c. The father shall not seek to have the children speak to the police or CAS.
d. The father shall refrain from unreasonably making reports to the CAS or to the police.
e. The father shall refrain from sending the police to do well checks on the children.
f. Neither parent shall question the children about the other’s parenting.
g. Neither parent shall speak poorly about the other parent in the presence of the children.

Issue 3: Should There Be an Order for Additional Disclosure of CAS and Police Records?

[12] Given this matter is to proceed to hearing on the mother’s Motion to Change the Final Order in September 2025, and there are further incidents that require verification, there will be an order for the disclosure of Ottawa Police Services Reports and the CAS Records requested by the mother and as per the terms and conditions set out in the draft Order.

Order

[38] Counsel for the mother shall draft an Order consistent with this decision and forward it to me for review and issuance by end of day Tuesday Feb 11, 2025.

Costs

[39] The mother is the successful party on the motion, and is presumptively entitled to costs. The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs. If the parties cannot resolve the issue of costs for this proceeding, they may file brief written submissions not exceeding two pages exclusive of Bills of Costs. The mother shall file their submissions by February 28th and Mr. Rochdi shall file his submissions by March 14th. Costs submissions are to be sent to scj.assistants@ontario.ca and to my attention.

Somji J
Released: February 7, 2025