ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Khalid Nasery Applicant
– and –
Lindsey Kawatra Respondent
Diana Aoun and Jessica Bazor, for the Applicant
Felicity Sattan and Jessica Dileo, for the Respondent
HEARD: November 24, 2025 to December 5, 2025 and January 15, 2026
Jensen J.
Summary
1This is Part One of a two-part decision following a two-week trial. Part One deals with the names of the children, travel and passports, parenting time and decision-making responsibility for the two children, who are referred to as Veer (short for Dharmaveer) and Mukti. Part Two deals with child and spousal support and section 7 expenses. It will be released at a later date.
2The parents contest the names of the children. The father, Khalid Nasery, contends that the parents agreed to name their son ‘Adil’ and their daughter ‘Soraya’. The mother, Lindsey Kawatra, testified that there was no such agreement and that the children go by Veer and Mukti. In Part One of my decision, I find that it is not in the children’s best interests to change their first names. Therefore, I refer to them as Veer and Mukti in both parts of the decision.
3Veer is an eight-year-old boy of Indian, Afghan and Caucasian descent. Mukti is a six-year-old girl of the same background. The father, Khalid Nasery, is of Afghan origin. The mother, Lindsey Kawatra, is of Indian and Caucasian descent.
4The children have not seen their father since January 2024, despite several court orders requiring Ms. Kawatra to provide Mr. Nasery with parenting time. Although the parents share decision-making responsibility, Ms. Kawatra makes most of the decisions regarding the children and only sometimes confers with the father regarding decisions.
5Photographs taken of the children in June 2022 show the children laughing and eating pizza with their arms draped around Mr. Nasery. Other photographs taken in December 2023 show Mukti curled up with a smile on her face in her father’s arms. School reports as recent as the Fall of 2024 demonstrate that while the children have had difficulty separating from Ms. Kawatra, once in school they have no difficulty joining in classroom activities and display no developmental issues.
6Although the school did not observe any behavioural or developmental issues, Ms. Kawatra maintains that the children are profoundly disabled. She testified that they are no longer able to feed themselves and have “meltdowns” many times throughout the day when asked to do things they do not want to do. They cannot attend school in person, according to Ms. Kawatra because it places too much demand on their systems. Ms. Kawatra reports that Mukti will refuse to urinate for up to 14 hours because the demand to respond to her own biological urges overwhelms her neurological system. Neither child will let Ms. Kawatra out of their sight for very long.
7Ms. Kawatra testified that shortly after unsupervised parenting time with Mr. Nasery was ordered by Phillips J. in 2022, the children started refusing to spend time with him. Ms. Kawatra testified that Mr. Nasery said and did things to the children that traumatized them. The court ordered reunification therapy in 2023. However, Ms. Kawatra terminated the therapy that would have provided the children with an opportunity to deal with their fears about their father and to rebuild their trust with Mr. Nasery.
8After a careful review of the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the children’s mental health is being jeopardized by being in Ms. Kawatra primary care. Whether consciously or not, the mother has convinced the children that they are not safe without her constant presence. In particular, she has convinced the children that they are not safe with their father.
9The evidence does not support that the children are unsafe with their father. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the children previously had a loving relationship with their father and had reunification therapy proceeded, they would likely have successfully transitioned to increased parenting time with Mr. Nasery including overnight visits, as ordered by Phillips J. in 2022.
10The children’s mental health appears to be deteriorating in their mother’s care. They need therapeutic intervention on an urgent basis. Ms. Kawatra has demonstrated that she will not cooperate in any therapeutic approach that includes the goal of reuniting the children with their father. Although she is very loving and attentive to the children, Ms. Kawatra is not able to meet the children’s needs for parenting time with Mr. Nasery, regular school attendance and a calm home environment.
11It is in the children’s best interests to have parenting time with their father. He will ensure that they receive the therapy that they need. The children will also benefit from the stable environment and extended family supports that the father can provide to them. Therefore, I am ordering that the children be transferred to the father’s primary care with no contact with the mother for at least one month.
12However, given the children’s belief that they are not safe with Mr. Nasery, it may not be possible to transfer them immediately to his care. Although I would hope that Ms. Kawatra will comply with my order, I have serious concerns that she will not facilitate the children’s transition to Mr. Nasery’s care and that both she and the children will actively resist it. I find that forcing the children to transfer to Mr. Nasery’s primary care if Ms. Kawatra and the children actively resist it will lead to emotional harm to the children. If the children do not transition willingly to Mr. Nasery’s primary care, it may become critical and in their best interests to be temporarily removed from both parents’ care to allow for intensive therapeutic intervention to occur.
13Therefore, I am requesting the assistance of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa in facilitating the children’s transfer to the father’s care. The Society will determine if intensive therapeutic intervention should occur and ensure that child protection services monitor the situation and the children’s safety in their father’s primary care.
14This decision (Part One) will be released to the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa and Mr. Nasery’s counsel four hours before it is released to Ms. Kawatra’s counsel. I am doing so to give Mr. Nasery and the CAS time to discuss the transition because I am concerned about Ms. Kawatra’s cooperation in transitioning the children, and the children’s reaction to the transition.
15After one month in Mr. Nasery’s exclusive care, evidence of the children’s progress will be provided for me to determine whether they are able to have parenting time with their mother without destabilizing them.
16Sole decision-making responsibility is granted, on a final basis, to the father.
17Mukti’s last name shall be changed to Kawatra-Nasery but no other name changes will be ordered.
18Neither party shall travel or take out passports for the children until further court order or written agreement by the parties.
Factual Background
19I make the following factual findings based on a thorough review of all the evidence and legal arguments presented in this case. Although I have not referred to everything that was presented at trial in this decision, I have carefully considered all of it. Where the factual allegations are contested, and credibility is in issue I provide my findings and conclusions below.
a.) The Family and their Backgrounds
20The parties were married on March 7, 2017, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. They separated on or about January 1, 2020.
21The parties have two children of the marriage, Veer (DOB: Jan 27, 2018), and Mukti (DOB: December 7, 2019).
22One of the issues in this case is the names of the two children. Mr. Nasery testified that he and Ms. Kawatra had an agreement that the children would have first names that reflected his Afghan origin, and their middle names would reflect the mother’s Indian background. The children’s last name would include their father’s last name. Mr. Nasery stated that he filled out the Statement of Live Birth using the names ‘Adil’ and ‘Soraya’ with Dharmaveer and Mukti as their second names.
23Ms. Kawatra testified that there was no agreement with respect to the names of the children. She stated that she could not recall Mr. Nasery completing the Statement of Live Birth. I found Ms. Kawatra’s answers on these points to be evasive and vague. She was shown the Statement of Live Birth, which she completed for each child, and was asked why she did not include the father as the biological father of the children and why their names did not include ‘Adil’ and ‘Soraya’. Ms. Kawatra testified that the reason was that she felt like a single mother.
24I find that the parents did agree on naming the children as the father stated, but that the mother decided to name the children Dharmaveer and Mukti instead and intentionally omitted the father’s name on the birth certificate because she was feeling abandoned by him.
25Mr. Nasery is originally from Afghanistan. He has three siblings, each of whom has two children. Two of his siblings live in Greely and one travels between Greely and Saskatchewan. Mr. Nasery’s parents also live in Greely.
26Mr. Nasery’s family is very close; they are in daily contact. He has at least ten cousins who are all married, with children who live close. They gather two to three times a month. There are sometimes close to 100 family members gathered together. The family celebrates cultural and religious holidays together and they help each other out.
27Ms. Kawatra’s family is much smaller than Mr. Nasery’s but is also very close. Her father, who was Indian, passed away several years ago. Ms. Kawatra’s mother, Lesle Wesa, is from Canada. Ms. Kawatra and Ms. Wesa are very close. They have always lived together. When Ms. Kawatra and Mr. Nasery were married, the couple moved in with Ms. Kawatra’s parents. Ms. Kawatra has no extended family in Ottawa, but she has many friends. She and the children are very involved in the Sikh Gurdwara in Ottawa. They attend the Gurdwara regularly and Veer participates in Gatka, which is a Sikh martial art, at the Gurdwara.
28Mr. Nasery is part owner of a Gabriel’s Pizza franchise in a small town outside of Ottawa. Ms. Kawatra does not work outside of the home. She had partially completed her PhD in Political Science before giving birth to the first of their two children.
29Mr. Nasery testified that at times he works 7 days a week in the restaurant. However, he stated that he is the boss and has 15 employees. As a result, he can take time off when needed to be with his children. He said that he took two to three days off per week when he and Ms. Kawatra were together and had the children. He testified that he was very involved in the children’s early life, helping to change their diapers, feed them and look after one while the mother was nursing the other.
30In contrast, Ms. Kawatra testified that Mr. Nasery was never around when the children were born. They split up before the first child was born but Ms. Kawatra allowed Mr. Nasery back into her life and home because she thought her son needed a father. She stated that even though they lived together until 2020, Mr. Nasery was never around to help with the children.
31Ms. Wesa testified that Mr. Nasery was not very involved with the children in the early days because he was never at home. When he was home, he was on the phone with his employees and too stressed to help with the children.
32I find that the father was present in the home before the separation to a limited extent. Although he had the flexibility to leave the restaurant, he was very involved in running it and even when he was home, he spent considerable time on the phone dealing with work-related issues. However, I find that he did take some time off work to be with the family and attended to the children’s needs. Ms. Kawatra was and continues to be the children's primary caregiver.
33Mr. Nasery currently lives about a kilometer away from where the children and Ms. Kawatra live. It is a three-bedroom house with 3 bathrooms. Mr. Nasery lives alone.
b.) The Father’s Parenting Time
34Mr. Nasery testified that initially after the parties separated, he would call Ms. Kawatra in the morning every day and ask her when he could see the children. Sometimes she would say that he could not see them that day, but other days when she had errands to do, she would permit him to look after the children while she was gone. Then, he would have to scramble to find someone to replace him for the day.
35Mr. Nasery testified that after a period of time, Ms. Kawatra found regular babysitters, which he would pay for, who would look after the children while she was out. When the children were sick, the babysitters would not come however, and then Ms. Kawatra would let Mr. Nasery look after the children. He testified that he began to hope the children would be sick so that he could see them.
36Mr. Nasery testified that his parenting time with the children was not consistent. Sometimes he would see the children three to four times in a week and then not see them for a long period of time. Mr. Nasery stated that he became frustrated with the lack of consistency in his parenting time and therefore, he filed an application in family court to establish a regular parenting schedule.
37Ms. Kawatra had poor recall of the parenting arrangement prior to the family law application. She stated that Mr. Nasery would call two to three times per week to have time with the children, but it was not always convenient. She stated that he insisted that the parenting time fit his work schedule, which was not always possible.
38I find that prior to the family law application, Mr. Nasery had fairly frequent contact with the children. He would look after them or take them out when the two parents’ schedules permitted it. At that time, the relationship between Mr. Nasery and the children was strong.
39Mr. Nasery testified that once he brought the family law application, Ms. Kawatra started to deny him parenting time. In 2021, Ms. Kawatra complained to the Ottawa Police that Mr. Nasery had assaulted her on May 20, 2017. Mr. Nasery was charged with two counts of assault causing bodily harm. As a result, a no-contact order was put into place preventing Mr. Nasery from having any contact with Ms. Kawatra.
40Although Mr. Nasery was unable to have any contact with Ms. Kawatra, he was permitted to see the children. However, in 2021, he was served with a letter from Ms. Kawatra’s lawyer stating that he would not have any further parenting time. It was not until Laliberté J. ordered supervised parenting time for Mr. Nasery on February 17, 2022, that he was able to see the children.
41The order of Laliberté J. stipulated that Mr. Nasery would have supervised parenting time every Sunday from 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. at a location agreed upon by the parties, supervised by the Braydon Supervision Services. Following 4 weeks of supervised parenting time with Braydon Supervision Services, there was to be a review of the parenting time by the parties.
42The parents agree that the supervised parenting time went well. The children were happy to see Mr. Nasery and they looked forward tospending time with him. In one supervision note, the supervisor reported that:
Both children ran to see Father when they got to the entrance with smiles and squeals. They both gave big hugs to Father and told him they were excited. As all were waiting for entry into the playplace, Mukti told the supervisor she was excited and Dharamveer responded"I'm excited too!"
43However, after the four-week period of supervised parenting time was over, Ms. Kawatra was not willing to permit Mr. Nasery to have unsupervised parenting time with the children. Therefore, Mr. Nasery brought a motion to have unsupervised parenting time with the children. Phillips J. granted Mr. Nasery’s motion on May 18, 2022.
44Phillips J. ordered gradually increasing unsupervised parenting time with the goal of having overnights with Mr. Nasery from Saturday to Sunday every other weekend with visits every Saturday and Wednesday on alternate weeks. In Justice Phillip’s endorsement of May 18, 2022, he noted that:
"[T]he necessity for this motion is disappointing. The court on February 17, 2022 set out a graduated schedule for access. The reasons advanced by the Respondent [Ms. Kawatra] for insisting that access remain supervised were, in the circumstances, unreasonable. Even considering the allegation of domestic violence, there is no sensible argument for these children to have only sporadic and supervised access to their Father. If the Respondent adequately kept her focus on the best interests of the children, she would have negotiated an outcome making today's litigation and its associated costs unnecessary".
45From June 1, 2022, to the Summer of 2023, Ms. Kawatra would bring the children to a public location like Cosmic Adventures. Veer would sit outside of the building with Mr. Nasery while Mr. Nasery’s friend or brother would take Mukti into the play centre. This was because Mr. Nasery’s mobility was reduced due to an Achilles Heel injury.
46Mr. Nasery stated that there were no behavioural issues with the children at that time and no difficulties with respect to toileting and eating. Ms. Kawatra’s view of the unsupervised visits was different. She stated that on June 1, 2022, it took over two hours to convince the children to go with Mr. Nasery and the third party who was there to facilitate the exchange (due to the criminal conditions). She stated that the children returned from the visit crying.
47The pictures provided by Mr. Nasery support his testimony. A picture that was taken on June 8, 2022, shows Mukti sitting in Mr. Nasery’s lap and Veer with his arms draped over his father’s shoulders with one of his hands making the peace symbol. Mr. Nasery testified that the visit was at least three to four hours. There were other pictures entered into evidence of the visits that took place in the Summer of 2022, showing the children relaxed and happy in Mr. Nasery’s care. Ms. Kawatra remained present in her car for the duration of those visits.
48Mr. Nasery testified that gradually his son’s attitude toward him changed from the Summer of 2022 onward. Veer looked more frequently towards Ms. Kawatra in her car. He was reluctant to go into the play centre to play with his sister and Mr. Nasery’s friends or brother. He seemed to need to keep his mother in sight.
49In December 2022, Veer refused to come with Mr. Nasery when he went to pick the children up for his parenting time. He intended to take the children to his parents to celebrate Mukti’s birthday. Mr. Nasery agreed not to take Veer to his parents’ place because he was resisting, but Mukti attended. The photographs taken during that visit show Mukti with a smiling face surrounded by cousins and family.
50In an endorsement from a case conference dated May 26, 2023, Justice Kaufman remarked that the order of Phillips J. was not being followed and that Mr. Nasery had not had the benefit of the ordered parenting time. Therefore, Justice Kaufman ordered reunification therapy with Muslim Family Services, counseling with the Holistic and Wellness Therapy Centre and occupational therapy with Expanding Horizons. He ordered that the parenting time schedule set out in the order of Phillips J. be resumed.
51Mr. Nasery provided evidence that after Justice Kaufman made his order in May 2023, he had only a few visits with the children, and mostly just with Mukti. However, he did have three positive visits with Veer on June 28, July 1, and July 5, 2023. Veer cried initially but then was fine and enjoyed his time with his father, according to Mr. Nasery.
52Ms. Kawatra testified that something happened during the visits in June and July 2023 to upset Veer. Ms. Kawatra testified that Mr. Nasery’s brother and friends made promises to the children about not taking them into Mr. Nasery’s house, but then reneged on those promises and took them by force into the house. She also alleged that Mr. Nasery told Veer not to wear his head covering and to cut his hair, which caused him to have panic attacks. Mr. Nasery denied this, and his brother and friends supported his testimony in that regard.
53Mr. Nasery’s brother, Bilal Nasery, and two friends, Ali Mamoud and Danny Naoufal, facilitated the exchanges between the children and Mr. Nasery when the criminal conditions prevented him from having contact with Ms. Kawatra. They provided affidavits in support of Mr. Nasery and testified that they did not witness Mr. Nasery saying or doing anything threatening or harmful to the children. The three men were cross-examined on their affidavits. They were not specifically asked whether they took either child into Mr. Nasery’s house after promising not to or whether they witnessed Mr. Nasery doing so. However, I think it is possible that one of these individuals picked one of the children up and brought them into the house with Mr. Nasery as a way of supporting Mr. Nasery’s parenting time with his children. While this may not be the best way to foster trust with the children, in most situations it would not be traumatic for the children if their experience during the visit was a positive one.
54I accept Mr. Nasery’s testimony that he did not tell Veer to cut his hair and to take off his head covering, nor did he trick the children into coming with him into his house in June and July 2023. I accept Mr. Nasery’s testimony that the visits were positive, after Veer overcame his initial anxiety. However, I think it is likely that Mr. Nasery commented at some point, on Veer’s head covering or hair. I accept that he did not tell Veer to take the head covering off or to cut his hair, but he likely made comments that the children interpreted and relayed to their mother as being negative.
55I find it more probable than not that Ms. Kawatra’s reaction to the children’s comments about their visits with Mr. Nasery conveyed her strong disapproval of their behaviour and likely amplified the children’s feelings. In my view, it is likely that Ms. Kawatra conveyed a message to the children that no one should ever make negative comments about a person’s expression of their faith or break their promises. While these messages are true and important for the children to understand, Ms. Kawatra’s reaction to the children’s comments about their father and his friends likely conveyed the message that their father and his friends and brother were not trustworthy or safe.
56My finding that Ms. Kawatra was influencing the children to believe that their father and “his people” were bad and dangerous is supported by an incident that was video recorded by Mr. Nasery on August 26, 2023. On that date, Mr. Nasery took a video recording of the children on the stairs at Ms. Kawatra’s home when he went to pick them up for parenting time. I permitted the video recording to be admitted into evidence for the reasons provided orally during the trial, which are further explained below.
57In the video, the children can be heard interacting with Mr. Nasery while he is standing on the doorstep of the house. They are on the stairs leading to the second floor of the house. At one point, the children can be heard saying to Mr. Nasery: “your people, the Afghans, destroyed the Golden Temple”. Mr. Nasery then asks them who told them that garbage. The children respond that they saw it in a book. Mr. Nasery tells the children that they are Afghans. The children respond with shouts “we are not Afghans; you are the ones who destroyed the Golden Temple, your people”. They tell Mr. Nasery that they are going to show him the book. The video ends with a loud crash. A woman’s voice can be heard in the background after Mr. Nasery says, “who told you that garbage”. It is unclear what the woman says. Ms. Kawatra admitted in cross-examination that she was standing behind the door and responded to the statement about the “garbage” by asking: “garbage?”.
58Ms. Kawatra provided a different story than the children’s as to how they learned about the Golden Temple. She stated that the children had heard a lecture at the Gurdwara about the historic relationship between Afghanistan and India. At the time, Veer was five years old and Mukti was four. According to Ms. Kawatra, during the lecture the children learned that in the 18th century, Afghan forces attacked the Golden Temple and desecrated it. However, the Sikhs rebuilt it.
59Ms. Kawatra’s statement that the children learned about the Afghani attack on the Golden Temple during a lecture at the Gurdwara stands in direct contradiction to her children’s audible statements in the video recording that they learned about it in a book. Furthermore, it is highly implausible that children of such a young age would retain information from a lecture without additional instruction or repetition from another adult about the salient parts. It is more likely than not that the children were told that a group of people from Afghanistan attacked the Golden Temple, and either Ms. Kawatra or her mother drew the connection for the children between the assailants and their father and “his people”. The children were clearly upset and surprised by the suggestion that they might share Afghani heritage with their father.
60The incident also demonstrates that Mr. Nasery has made inappropriate remarks to the children. His choice of the word “garbage” to describe the children’s statement about the attack on the Golden Temple was wrong.
61In September 2023, Mr. Nasery brought an urgent motion before Justice Audet for parenting time. Audet J. ordered that the parties retain the services of a parenting coach and follow their recommendations for parenting time. Neither party was permitted to terminate the services of the parenting coach without the approval of the court. Further, Justice Audet ordered that Ms. Kawatra was not to retain the services of any other mental health professionals or counsellors for either of the children (other than those who are currently working with them), without Mr. Nasery’s written consent or the Court's permission.
62With respect to parenting time, Audet J. ordered the parties to follow the Parenting Coach's recommendations in relation to the gradual implementation of a temporary parenting time schedule (including gradual increments), until the children were comfortable following the temporary parenting schedule imposed by Phillips J.
63Mr. Nasery testified that in the Fall of 2023, after the motion before Justice Audet, he was able to have a few visits with the children at Ms. Kawatra’s home. The children would come outside, and they would play baseball or other games. Sometimes Ms. Kawatra would call the children into the home in the middle of the parenting time, saying she had made something for them. Mr. Nasery would wait for twenty minutes and then would text to ask if the children were coming back out. Ms. Kawatra would reply that they were not coming back out.
64Mr. Nasery provided notes that he recorded in Our Family Wizard of the visits he made to Ms. Kawatra’s home from October 2023 to October 16, 2024, hoping to have his scheduled parenting time with the children. There were 80 entries during this period documenting Mr. Nasery’s attempts to have parenting time with his children. The entries reflect his observations that sometimes he could see the children in the window when he was pulling up to the house, but by the time he got to the door, they were no longer at the window, and no one answered the door. The door would be ajar, but no one responded to his knocks or to his calls to them. On other occasions he would attend, but it appeared that no one was home. On other occasions, the children told him that they were busy doing other things, even though it was his scheduled parenting time. For example, on December 27, 2023, Mr. Nasery wrote: “went to see my kids today ... i waited at the door but they didn't come to me .. my daughter told me from the kitchen that they were about to eat lunch ... I waited but no one came”. On March 30, 2024, Mr. Nasery wrote: “As usual I came to see my kids today but I didn't see anyone ... I don't think they are home ... their shoes are not here and the car is not here ... im sure they are away”.
65Ms. Kawatra was questioned about the visits between October 2023 and October 2024. She stated that other than when she and the children were out of town for summer holidays and Veer’s developmental assessment, they were in the home when Mr. Nasery came to the door. She gave evidence that she expected him to come in and take the children when the door was ajar. She did not feel comfortable coming out to meet him. I found this testimony to be revealing. Ms. Kawatra was either trying to see if Mr. Nasery would come into the house and take the children (possibly forcibly) from the home or she was trying to avoid him having his parenting time with the children by not answering his calls when he came to the door. More troubling is the fact that the children were apparently home and were also hiding from Mr. Nasery or providing excuses to avoid the scheduled parenting time, all without any apparent reaction from Ms. Kawatra.
66Ms. Kawatra complained that Mr. Nasery often failed to take the children when he had scheduled parenting time and that this demonstrated that he was unwilling to assume his parental responsibilities. I find that the conditions, as described above did in fact occur, and that they were not conducive to Mr. Nasery exercising his parenting time. To do so, he would have had to enter the home without being asked to do so, find the children and then take them, possibly against their wishes, while Ms. Kawatra remained in hiding. It is not reasonable to have expected Mr. Nasery to do this.
67With respect to virtual parenting time, Mr. Nasery stated that he attended almost all of the virtual parenting time sessions, but they were not productive, for the most part. The children were not engaged because they were busy doing other things, such as biking or watching television.
68Ms. Kawatra testified that Mr. Nasery failed to attend the virtual parenting sessions and was not engaged when he did. She stated that she tried to find a time when the children would be engaged but it was difficult because Mr. Nasery’s schedule was restrictive.
69I find that the virtual parenting time was not well planned or executed. It was not sufficient for Mr. Nasery to maintain his connection with the children.
70After September/October 2023, Mr. Nasery only had parenting time with Mukti. Mr. Nasery has had no parenting time with either of his children since January 2024.
c.) The Criminal Charges
71In November 2021, Ms. Kawatra complained to the Ottawa Police that Mr. Nasery had assaulted her on May 20, 2017. He was charged with two counts of assault causing bodily harm.
72The charges arose from a fight that the parties had on May 20, 2017, in the house that Mr. Nasery owned. Mr. Nasery wanted Ms. Kawatra and him to move out of her mother’s house and into his house. Ms. Kawatra wanted to remain at her parents’ home to help with her father, who was ill.
73At the criminal trial before Wadden J. on August 9, 2023, Ms. Kawatra testified that Mr. Nasery assaulted her in a protracted, violent, 45-minute attack that involved choking, pinning her to the ground and him striking her so hard that he bruised her leg. Mr. Nasery admitted that there was an extensive argument between the parties, but he denied assaulting Ms. Kawatra in any way.
74Waddens J. acquitted Mr. Nasery of the charges, finding that Ms. Kawatra’s evidence was problematic in several regards. Firstly, there were long pauses in her responses to questions in cross-examination that led the judge to believe that she was “overthinking the evidence” and was more concerned about presenting it in a certain way to the court rather than speaking in a candid manner. Justice Waddens also found that there were a number of contradictions between the evidence Ms. Kawatra provided to the police and the evidence she provided in court. Finally, Waddens J. stated that given Ms. Kawatra’s description of the violence perpetrated upon her, he would have expected evidence of serious injuries. However, the evidence of the police officer who attended at Ms. Kawatra’s home on May 20, 2017, was that there was no sign of redness, abrasion or any type of injuries. Justice Waddens found Mr. Nasery’s evidence to be candid; he was not shaken on cross-examination. The judge found Mr. Nasery to be a more credible witness.
75Interestingly, in her opening statement to the court in the present case, Ms. Kawatra’s counsel stated that Justice Waddens found her evidence to be a trauma-based response. There is nothing in the decision that supports that statement. When asked why she would have permitted her counsel to include a statement that was not true, Ms. Kawatra replied that there was “a wording problem”. That is a curious way of explaining a mistake.
d.) The Involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer
76On February 17, 2022, Justice Laliberté requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL). The OCL attempted to provide services pursuant to s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act. On May 9, 2022, the file was assigned to a clinical investigator, Catherine Reid. Ms. Reid noted that by the time she became involved the children were supposed to be having overnight visits with Mr. Nasery as well as Wednesday and Saturday visits.
77On November 17, 2022, Ms. Reid advised counsel in writing, that the OCL investigation would be discontinued based on the following:
Although Mr. Nasery had been cooperative in scheduling his observation visit, it was delayed at his request (90 days) due to an injury to his leg restricting his mobility;
An observation visit was scheduled on the following dates: September 14, 21, 2022; October 1, 5, 19, 2022 and November 5, 9 and 12, 2022. The visit did not proceed as either both children were not present or Mukti was present and Dharamveer was not, with Dharamveer often refusing to get out of his mother's vehicle at the transition point for the visit.
78The OCL discontinued the investigation stating that there was no opportunity to provide recommendations with respect to decision-making responsibilities and parenting time because Mr. Nasery had not had quality, consistent or increased time with both children while unsupervised.
79In the OCL clinician’s report on the discontinued services she noted:
Although Mr. Nasery's parenting time was ordered to be on a stepped-up basis to overnight parenting time for both children by January 2023, Ms. Kawatra maintained that she was not in agreement with this and continued to want Mr. Nasery's parenting time to be supervised. Ms. Kawatra maintained that while the children enjoy spending time with their father, his relationship with them is only playful in nature. She is concerned about his ability to parent them on an unsupervised basis as their interactions have been limited to playing together.
80The OCL clinician noted Ms. Kawatra’s allegations of domestic violence but stated nevertheless that it would be in the children’s best interests to set a new parenting plan in accordance with Justice Phillips’ order of May 18, 2022. She recommended that a third party conduct the pickup and drop offs to and from Ms. Kawatra’s home. She also stated that it would be beneficial for the children to re-engage in a meaningful way with the paternal side of the family.
e.) Reunification Therapy
81Reunification therapy with Muslim Family Services, as ordered by Justice Kaufman, was to start on July 19, 2023. Jeannine Bradley, a registered social worker with Muslim Family Services, was engaged to assist the parties to comply with the order of Kaufman J. by conducting the therapy.
82Ms. Bradley testified at trial that at the first meeting with the children and Ms. Kawatra, she spent some time trying to put the children and mother at ease. She then announced that the children were going to go with her upstairs to play with toys and visit with their father. Mukti appeared ready to go with Ms. Bradley. However, Ms. Kawatra frowned and stated, in the children’s presence, that she had concerns about the children going with her to see the father. She said she did not feel it was safe. Ms. Kawatra then passed Ms. Bradley a note indicating that Veer had extreme anxiety about being with his father because of negative things the father had said to him.
83Ms. Bradley tried to reassure the children and Ms. Kawatra that she would be present and that they could debrief the visit with her afterward. Ms. Bradley observed that Ms. Kawatra was not willing to tell the children that they must go with her and that it was safe to do so. Therefore, the visit ended. In her report about the failed visit, Ms. Bradley stated:
Therefore, in my opinion, two things need to happen immediately and simultaneously to stop the current pattern. First, the Mother needs to fully respect the court appointed rights of the Father to visit with his children. Second, rather than withhold access, the Mother can bring up any and all concerns through mediation and the Father can discuss any of his concerns with her as well as negotiate ground rules. Once the parents correct themselves, the children will follow suit and be free to have a good relationship with both parents. I or any other skilled social worker could assist with this mediation process.
84Ms. Kawatra’s interpretation of Ms. Bradley’s attempts to get Veer to come with her was that Ms. Bradley “tricked” him. She testified that Ms. Bradley was telling Veer things that made him very fearful and uncomfortable. She stated that Ms. Bradley was asking her to take the children upstairs and then leave, which was not safe for the children. When asked what approach could have helped, Ms. Kawatra stated that she did not know but that the children should receive therapy. She testified that she was not willing to break the children’s trust with her. That was too big a cost.
85Ms. Kawatra provided evidence that she was unwilling to engage in reunification therapy with Muslim Family Services for three reasons: 1. She wanted a non-denominational organization to provide the therapy; 2. She was not convinced the Muslim Family Services offered reunification therapy; 3. She did not think that the therapist, Jeanine Bradley, followed the proper reunification therapy approach such as a formal intake interview. Ms. Kawatra refused to complete the reunification therapy with Muslim Family Services.
86Another effort at reunification therapy was made with Renew Supervision Services following the 2023 order of Justice Audet. It was Ms. Kawatra who proposed Renew Supervision Services. In her affidavit of August 11, 2023, Ms. Kawatra stated that Renew Supervision Services “is a reputable reunification therapy provider” and she requested that Mr. Nasery engage the services of Renew Supervision Services for Reunification Therapy. Mr. Nasery agreed to do this and paid 75% of the cost of the services. It took quite some time to get the sessions started with Renew because Ms. Kawatra was either away on vacation or sick. In the meantime, the person who had started the intake process left Renew and the intake had to be restarted.
87Ms. Amelie Cardinal completed the Renew clinical intake consultation (CIC) dated May 14, 2024. Ms. Cardinal was called to testify on behalf of Mr. Nasery. Ms. Cardinal has a BSc in psychology and a master’s degree in social work with a specialization in family and childhood therapy. She is a child and family therapist.
88Ms. Cardinal testified that there were significant delays in conducting the CIC with the parties as a result of scheduling issues with Ms. Kawatra and questions raised by her with respect to the process.
89In the CIC report dated May 14, 2024, Ms. Cardinal noted that Ms. Kawatra reported being forced to participate in reunification counselling and that she would do so because she did not see a way past this otherwise.
90Ms. Cardinal provided evidence that when she interacted with the children, they would often look to their mother for her input or support. When Ms. Cardinal asked who belonged to the family, Mukti said “daddy” but Veer stayed quiet and repeatedly looked over at Ms. Kawatra who remained silent.
91When Ms. Cardinal suggested that the children get dressed to go to the park to see their father, who had some gifts for them, the two children looked at Ms. Kawatra to gauge her reaction. Ms. Kawatra did not speak. Veer then stated that he did not want to see Mr. Nasery after which Mukti said the same thing and both children ran up to their rooms.
92Ms. Cardinal testified that she attempted to provide the children with options (that is, meeting their father outside their mother's home or meeting their father at the park). The purpose of this suggestion was to show Ms. Kawatra an example of providing her children with choices instead of asking them whether they "want to" see their father, leaving room for them to say "no".
93Ms. Cardinal’s impression was that there is significant anxiety around the topic of the children’s father. She stated that in the context of an intensely conflictual marital breakup, the children feel like they are betraying the “favoured” parent, in this case Ms. Kawatra, if they spend time with the other parent, Mr. Nasery. She described it as a resist refuse dynamic where the more the children refuse, the more they find room to refuse from the one parent and then the cycle becomes normalized.
94After receiving the Renew CIC report, Ms. Kawatra, through counsel, sent a list of questions and concerns about the report. She stated that there were factual errors in the report, that Ms. Cardinal did not take proper account of her statements about domestic violence and the children’s reported fear of their father and that Ms. Kawatra had not been given equal interview time. As a result, Ms. Cardinal wrote an addendum to the Report in which she corrected some of the factual errors. However, she maintained the observations, based on the finding made by Justice Audet and her own clinical observations, that the children were not afraid of their father and that there was no evidence of abusive behaviour by Mr. Nasery towards the children.
95Ms. Cardinal recommended individual (co)parenting counselling with the parents, individual and group child therapy with the children and reunification therapy that included the maternal grandmother, Lesle Wesa.
96Linda Gervais was retained by Renew to provide reunification therapy to the children and parents. Mr. Nasery called Ms. Gervais to testify at trial. Ms. Gervais has a master’s degree in social work with various certificates in cognitive behavioural therapy, play therapy and others. She worked for 22 years as a social worker at the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa. She also worked with the Ottawa Police Service as a crisis counsellor. Ms. Gervais has had her own counselling practice for 5 years.
97Ms. Gervais testified that she was only able to meet with the children once for about 45 minutes. She stated that they appeared healthy, and they engaged well although only for a short time.
98Ms. Gervais explained that there was a delay of several months in getting started with reunification therapy because Ms. Kawatra was on vacation, had dental surgery and was busy with the back-to-school routine. Ms. Gervais testified that she had to insist that it was crucial to get started on the therapy before she got a prompt response from Ms. Kawatra. Ms. Kawatra also indicated she did not want to provide dates for continuing the therapy because she was retaining new legal counsel.
99Ms. Gervais testified that she had trouble getting Ms. Kawatra to engage in the therapy. She stated that Mr. Nasery was fully engaged, cooperative and open to suggestions.
100Ms. Gervais’ visit to Ms. Kawatra’s home on November 3, 2024, was not positive. When Ms. Gervais attended at the home she was met with hostility from the children’s grandmother, Ms. Wesa. Ms. Gervais described the children as nervous because Ms. Wesa was speaking in a raised voice to her and telling her where she must sit (on a chair in the front hall). Ms. Gervais testified that Ms. Wesa appeared nervous, agitated and very upset.
101Ms. Gervais acknowledged in cross-examination that she had previously told Ms. Kawatra that she would be taking the children out of the home for a trip to Toys R Us and when she arrived a few minutes early, the grandmother may have been confused about the plan. This may have caused the grandmother’s negative reaction. The children did engage with Ms. Gervais but were not willing to leave with her to meet their father.
102Ms. Gervais stated that the children appeared to be seeking guidance from someone at the top of the stairs, who could not be seen. The children did not appear comfortable. The children confirmed to Ms. Gervais that Ms. Kawatra was in the home. Ms. Gervais later learned that Ms. Kawatra had video-taped the visit without her permission.
103Ms. Gervais reported back to the parties that she observed signs that the children might have been coached. They looked up the stairs often as though seeking guidance before answering any questions and the grandmother’s interruptions prevented a natural flow of conversation, hindering Ms. Gervais’ efforts to build rapport with the children. During the visit, the grandmother handed out Halloween candy, which distracted the children from the game Ms. Gervais was playing with them. Mukti said to Ms. Gervais that she thought Ms. Gervais was going to be mean but said that she was not.
104Shortly afterward, Ms. Gervais received a video recording of the visit taken by Ms. Kawatra. Ms. Gervais was concerned because she had not consented to the recording and felt that it undermined the therapeutic environment.
105Ms. Gervais subsequently reported to the parties and their counsel that she believed her ability to work effectively with Ms. Kawatra was compromised and therefore, she suggested a number of options, including assigning a new therapist to work with Ms. Kawatra, while Ms. Gervais would continue to work with the children and Mr. Nasery. She also suggested that therapeutic support should occur outside the grandmother’s home and follow the direction of the assigned therapist. Ms. Gervais stated that she wanted to address Veer’s feelings about his father.
106In her email, Ms. Gervais stated that in over 30 years of experience, she had rarely encountered such alienation or manipulation of this nature. In the end, she refused to return to Ms. Kawatra’s residence to continue the therapy. Ms. Gervais noted that Mr. Nasery was cooperative and polite and thanked her for trying to reunify him with his children.
107Ms. Gervais acknowledged in cross-examination that her use of the term “alienation” in one of her emails may have been improper in the context of ongoing family litigation.
108Linda Loeffen was then retained by Renew to replace Ms. Gervais. Ms. Loeffen testified at the hearing. Ms. Loeffen is a registered social worker who has been practising for 30 years. She had been working with Renew Supervision Services since the Fall of 2023. Ms. Loeffen also works in private practice offering therapeutic services.
109The first meeting with Ms. Loeffen was to occur at Ms. Loeffen’s office in the West End. However, the children would not get out of the car to attend the visit. Therefore, the visits took place in Ms. Kawatra’s home. Ms. Loeffen was unable to interact for any length of time with the children. She suggested to Ms. Kawatra that the children could go with her for an ice cream or a bike ride. However, the children refused these suggestions. Ms. Loeffen stated that each visit followed the same pattern: the children retreated to their upstairs bedroom and did not follow Ms. Kawatra’s expectations. Ms. Loeffen was not able to speak with the children for more than about 15 minutes.
110Although Ms. Loeffen stated that she was not qualified to diagnose the children’s psychological problems, she did offer the observation that Mukti was copying her brother’s behaviour.
111As a result of the children’s unwillingness to engage with her, Ms. Loeffen shifted her focus to helping Ms. Kawatra with strategies to employ with the children to get them to comply with demands. Ms. Loeffen testified that the primary therapeutic focus was on supporting Ms. Kawatra in establishing and maintaining consistent expectations and boundaries for the children.
112Ms. Loeffen stated that a gradual and supportive approach to reunification should be taken. She also stated that the children must be able to engage and follow basic expectations before family therapy could begin.
113Ms. Loeffen stated that for reunification therapy to work with separated parents, both have to be committed to a consistent approach. She stated that Ms. Kawatra would have a lot of work to do to establish that consistency. She stated that the reintegration of another parent requires a lot of commitment on the part of both parents. Both parents must be willing to change their own behaviours and approach.
114Ms. Loeffen stated: “At this time, the behavioural patterns of the children present a significant barrier to progressing with reunification therapy. These behavioural patterns are concerning and must be addressed with consistency, sensitivity, patience and appropriate support before any meaningful therapeutic work can occur.” Ms. Loeffen was willing to continue with the therapeutic relationship, however Ms. Kawatra directed her counsel to “pause” the relationship in May of 2025.
115Ms. Kawatra testified that she “paused” the therapy because Ms. Loeffen had indicated that the parents should obtain behavioural services from another service provider. Ms. Loeffen recommended Sadler Behaviour Consulting. On August 27, 2025, Mr. Nasery provided his consent for Samantha Sadler to provide services to Veer.
116However, Ms. Kawatra preferred to wait for an assessment from Flourish Health Services, whose services she had retained in January 2025. She stated that she hoped it would get at the root causes of Veer’s behavioural issues. Ms. Kawatra stated that Ms. Sadler used a therapeutic approach that was not recommended by Flourish Health Services.
117Ms. Kawatra’s decision to “pause” the reunification therapy was effectively a decision to end reunification therapy, which was in contravention of the order of Audet J. In September 2023, Audet J. ordered that neither party could terminate the services of the “parenting coach”, which I interpret to include a reunification therapist, without court order.
118The important point here is Ms. Kawatra’s termination of the reunification therapy deprived the children of the chance to deal with their feelings of mistrust and fear of their father. As noted, Mr. Nasery likely made statements that were inappropriate, which may have made the children anxious. Consciously or unconsciously, Ms. Kawatra amplified the children’s feelings of anxiety and mistrust. Those issues should have been dealt with in reunification therapy. Mr. Nasery would then have received coaching to make the appropriate changes in his behaviour and the therapist could have assisted to rebuild the relationship between Mr. Nasery and the children. Ms. Loeffen indicated that she was prepared to continue the therapeutic relationship, however, Ms. Kawatra was not.
f.) The Flourish Report and The Ruling Excluding its Admission into Evidence
119Veer was referred by a doctor in Toronto for a developmental assessment by Flourish Health Services in Toronto. Of note, the doctor’s notes indicate that the children and Ms. Kawatra lived in Brampton. Ms. Kawatra testified that the doctor made a mistake. However, the same “mistake” was made by another doctor in her notes. It is unlikely that two different doctors would report that Ms. Kawatra was living in Toronto if she did not in fact tell them that.
120Mr. Nasery testified that he was disappointed to learn that the children’s doctor was in Toronto and that the assessment was being conducted in Toronto. He had been looking for a family doctor in Ottawa so that he could take the children to appointments. He testified that it was difficult to attend appointments in Toronto, given his work schedule.
121At the end of the assessment period, with Flourish, which was from February to June 2025, Veer was diagnosed with Autism and Pathological Demand Avoidance.
122At trial, Ms. Kawatra’s counsel sought to have the Flourish report admitted either as a business record or through a witness by the name of Dr. Alex Porthukaran. She requested that Dr. Porthukaran be accepted as a participant expert witness. Dr. Porthukaran was part of the Flourish Team that conducted the neurodevelopmental assessment of Veer. Dr. Porthukaran did not meet Veer, but he was involved in the formulation of the diagnosis and saw the test results.
123At trial, I ruled that Dr. Porthukaran was not a participant witness. In Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that a witness with special skill, knowledge, training or experience who has not been engaged by or on behalf of a party to the litigation may give opinion evidence, as a participant expert, for the truth of its contents without complying with rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure where: (1) the opinion to be given is based on the witness' observation of or participation in the events at issue; and (2) the witness formed the opinion to be given as part of the ordinary exercise of his or her skill, knowledge, training and experience while observing or participating in such events.
124The conditions for a participant expert set out in Westerhof v. Gee were not met in this case. Dr. Porthukaran and his team were engaged during the course of litigation. Dr. Porthukaran did not actually meet or observe Veer. While he participated in the assessment by providing input on the diagnosis, this did not make him a participant expert. He did not form his opinion in the ordinary exercise of his skill but rather as an expert witness who was involved in the preparation of a report that was, in part, undertaken for the purposes of litigation.
125Further, Dr. Porthukaran was not the author of the Report. The author was Dr. Hooper, who was not permitted to testify because she is under supervision. Mr. Nasery made it clear during the trial management conference that he had questions that were specific to Dr. Hooper with respect to the follow up she did with him on the Report and comments she has made online about her approach to developmental assessments. He also had questions about the extent to which Ms. Kawatra answered questions on behalf of Veer and provided information about Veer’s behaviour during the assessment. Dr. Porthukaran could not answer these questions because he was not present during the assessment.
126In addition, Rule 20.2(13) of the Family Law Rules stipulates that a party who wishes to call a participant expert as a witness must provide notice at least six days before the settlement conference that they intend to do so. This was not done.
127I also ruled that the Flourish Report could not be admitted into evidence as a medical record. It was made partially for the purposes of litigation and not made during the ordinary course of duties. It was an expert report that was not produced in accordance with Rule 20 of the Family Law Rules. The Report was not provided in advance of the settlement conference, and it was not mentioned in the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form. Mr. Nasery had no opportunity to call his own expert witness to critique the Report and the author of the Report was not called to testify. The Report provided a diagnosis of Pathological Demand Avoidance that is not found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and is considered by some to be quite controversial. Therefore, the Flourish Report was not admitted into evidence at the trial.
128Ms. Kawatra also requested leave to call Dr. Kornblum, an expert in the area of Autism and Pathological Demand Avoidance. In proposing Dr. Kornblum as an expert witness, Ms. Kawatra did not comply with Rule 20.2 of the Family Law Rules. Dr. Kornblum did not meet with the children and Mr. Nasery had no idea whatsoever as to what Dr. Kornblum’s testimony would be since Dr. Kornblum did not provide a report. Therefore, I ruled that her testimony was inadmissible.
129I indicated a willingness to consider the retention of an expert by the court. However, upon further reflection, I decided that this was ill-advised, given that the children had demonstrated that they would not leave Ms. Kawatra’s side for an assessment and given the length of time that it would take to get such an assessment.
g.) The Parents’ Efforts to Find a Therapist for Veer
130Ms. Kawatra maintained that she had been asking for a therapist for Veer’s anxiety since 2022, and that it was not until 2025 that a therapist was retained. However, on May 26, 2023, Justice Kaufman directed the parties to sign the intake forms to enrol the children in counselling with the Holistic Wellness Therapy Centre and occupational therapy with Expanding Horizons. Mr. Nasery did so and in the Fall of 2023, Veer began attending therapy sessions with Hannah O’Reilly.
131Mr. Nasery was indeed slow to comply with the request for Veer to obtain therapy in 2022 and 2023. He maintained that when Veer was with him, he did not appear to need therapy. However, it was apparent that Veer was having trouble separating from Ms. Kawatra from an early age. It should not have taken a court order for Mr. Nasery to consent to counselling for Veer.
132In 2025, Ms. Loeffen had agreed to provide therapy to the children and the parents. However, once the Flourish report was provided in the summer of 2025, Ms. Kawatra became focussed on finding a therapist who had experience with Autism and Pathological Demand Avoidance.
133Mr. Nasery provided his consent in August 2025 for Samantha Sadler, but Ms. Kawatra determined that Ms. Sadler was inappropriate because she utilized Applied Behavioural Analysis, which was not approved by Dr. Hooper from Flourish. This delayed the process of obtaining a therapist for Veer.
134On August 2, 2025, counsel for Mr. Nasery responded to a request to retain Dr. Anna Goss as a therapist. Mr. Nasery wanted a chance to speak with Dr. Goss before consenting to her involvement with Veer. Dr. Goss ultimately refused to engage with the family because the parents were not in agreement on the purpose or nature of the therapy.
135In cross examination, Mr. Nasery agreed that he did not consent to Dr. Goss proceeding with the family because he wanted a psychologist who would work towards reunification. Dr. Goss stated that she did not have expertise in this area. Mr. Nasery acknowledged that this resulted in a delay of approximately 3 months in obtaining therapy for Veer.
136Ms. Kawatra then proposed the services of Brigitte Guindon. On October 14, 2025, counsel for Mr. Nasery reached out to Ms. Guindon to set up a meeting to discuss the therapy to be provided. Mr. Nasery expressed his frustration that he was being excluded from the discussions with therapists and clinicians. He wanted to have a discussion with Ms. Guindon before the therapy started because he had questions that needed to be answered. Ms. Guindon was sick and did not get back to him until later in the Fall. It is not clear whether Mr. Nasery signed the consent for treatment in December 2025, but he has apparently provided his credit card for payments to be made to Ms. Guindon.
137In cross-examination, Mr. Nasery acknowledged that the meeting with Ms. Guindon did not take place until November 10, 2025. Mr. Nasery stated in cross-examination that he had called Ms. Guindon several times to set up the intake meeting but because she was sick and he was in trial for the present matter, he would only be able to meet in the evening. He denied that the delay was caused entirely by him.
138I find that the delay in obtaining the services of Ms. Guindon to provide therapeutic services to Veer is not excessive. It is true that Mr. Nasery’s request to Dr. Goss that she provide reunification therapy slowed the process down. However, given that the Flourish Report was provided in the early Summer and Ms. Guidon’s services were retained in November, the delay is not unreasonable. It was also not unreasonable to request that reunification with Mr. Nasery be included in the therapeutic goals.
139Furthermore, it is my understanding that Veer had been receiving support from his occupational therapist and counsellor from May 2023 onward. He was also seeing a speech therapist. Therefore, Veer has not been without supports. Nevertheless, as noted, Mr. Nasery should have acted more promptly and diligently in responding to Ms. Kawatra’s earlier request for occupational therapy and counselling services for Veer.
h.) The Children’s Schooling
140The children’s early school years were in-person. That changed in 2024, when Ms. Kawatra had an accident resulting in a fractured pelvis. She took the children out of in-person school at some point after the accident and registered them in virtual school because it was too difficult for her to manage getting them to school when she was injured. The children did not return to in-person schooling after Ms. Kawatra recovered from her primary injury. She still suffers from a hernia that may be related to her injury.
141Veer attended Forest Valley School for Kindergarten from September 2022 to June 2023. In the School Questionnaire, Ms. Kawatra indicated that she was Veer’s parent; she did not list Mr. Nasery as a parent.
142In the first report card, Veer’s teacher stated that he had made a positive transition into his first year of in-person Kindergarten. He was beginning to interact with his peers and develop friendships and was managing the flow of the day.
143In February 2023, the teacher reported that Veer had adjusted to being away from home for the duration of the school day. He was no longer sad when he arrived in the morning and instead was ready to learn and explore.
144In his second year of Kindergarten, Veer attended Chapel Hill Catholic School. The teacher reported that Veer had “joined our Kindergarten community for half-days with confidence and enthusiasm. He comes to school with a smile on his face and is eager to learn and play with his friends. Veer quickly fell into routines and followed classroom expectations with minimal prompting.” The report was positive with no concerns indicated.
145In February 2024, the teacher expressed concern that Veer was late for school 18 times and absent 51.5 days. However, she stated that Veer came to school ready to learn and play with his peers. He demonstrated independence and responsibility by taking care of his belongings and getting himself ready independently.
146In the Fall of 2024, Veer entered Grade one at Chapel Hill Catholic School. In his November Report Card, the teacher stated that Veer had had a difficult start to the school year. He often cried and did not want to come into the school. However, once inside “he is fine and can adapt to the class rules and routines”. The teacher stated that as a next step Veer should come to school regularly so that he was not missing important learning.
147With respect to Mukti, the November 2024 report card for in-person Kindergarten indicates that she did not attend school frequently enough to permit observations to be made. However, in February 2024, the teacher reported that Mukti’s confidence has started to grow, and she was demonstrating a stronger sense of belonging in the classroom community. The parents were encouraged to send Mukti to school for full days in the second year of Kindergarten so that she could develop stronger relationships with her classmates.
148Mukti’s teacher noted that at the beginning of the year, drop off was a challenge for Mukti. However, by February 2024, Mukti was able to manage her feelings and come to class ready to start her day. She was reported to have developed strategies for calming herself ((e.g. helping her educators count backpacks in the morning or holding an educator's hand until she is ready to go and play with her peers).
149In virtual school, Mukti was absent 41 days. However, the teacher reported that she was becoming more confident and spoke passionately about her faith. The teacher stated that Mukti rarely joined them for playgroups and was encouraged to interact and be social with her peers.
150There was no report card for Veer in virtual school.
151Diane Fournier, the principal at Chapel Hill School, testified at trial. She testified that on November 11, 2024, she sent a letter to Ms. Kawatra about her concerns regarding the children’s attendance at school. Ms. Fournier testified that she sent the letter to reassure Ms. Kawatra that although Veer was reluctant to let go of her in the school yard, he transitioned smoothly to the school day with no signs of the earlier struggle. Ms. Fournier stated that she offered the services of a social worker to assist with the transition.
152Similarly, Ms. Fournier stated that Mukti was reluctant to enter the school but with encouragement she would enter the school, put her bag away and come back outside to play. The rest of her day proceeded without incident.
153Ms. Fournier stated in her letter and testified that aside from some separation anxiety, school staff did not observe any heightened dysregulation, anxiety or other disruptive behaviour during the day.
154Ms. Fournier testified that Ms. Kawatra was not happy with the letter and requested that another staff member write a letter or that the letter be modified to reflect the children’s anxiety. Ms. Fournier stated that the school staff did not notice any heightened anxiety after the children were in the school.
i.) Allegations of Domestic Violence
155Ms. Kawatra maintained that she was a victim of domestic violence and that Justice Audet, in her endorsement of September 15, 2023, found that Ms. Kawatra was likely a victim of domestic violence. She stated that she and the children suffer from anxiety all triggered by the many abusive behaviours of the father. At one point, Ms. Kawatra asked, through counsel, how reunification therapy could be an appropriate intervention when the father had been violent towards the mother and she had suffered ongoing domestic violence for two decades, half her life.
156Ms. Kawatra produced a translation of a note from the Eastern Ontario Resource Centre from May 29 2017. The note indicated that Ms. Kawatra was reporting physical and emotional abuse by Mr. Nasery. Ms. Kawatra also reported abuse to the Ottawa Police Service in 2018.
157Ms. Kawatra testified that on February 19, 2021, she had gum surgery and Mr. Nasery was there to help her mother look after the children. Mr. Nasery had come to Ms. Kawatra’s home to look after the children while Ms. Kawatra was in surgery. When she came home there was an argument and she alleged that Mr. Nasery pounded the kitchen counter violently and yelled to the point that everyone was crying.
158Mr. Nasery’s version of the incident was different. He testified that he tried to calm everyone down and slapped his hand on the counter to get their attention. He denied that he was yelling. Ms. Kawatra testified that the police were called because her young daughter hit the button for an emergency call.
159Ms. Kawatra testified that after the incident on February 19, 2021, she decided that Mr. Nasery could not be in her home, and she sought to have his visits conducted outside of the home in public places. She testified that around that time, criminal charges were laid, and Mr. Nasery was not permitted to be in contact with her, so the only option seemed to her to be virtual parenting.
160Ms. Wesa testified that she had never witnessed any physical violence between the parents, but Ms. Kawatra had told her that Mr. Nasery had assaulted her. She testified that she remembered Mr. Nasery lunging at Ms. Kawatra in a threatening way during the post-gum operation incident in February 2021.
161In her endorsement of September 2023, Justice Audet stated:
While there is no evidence whatsoever suggesting that the father was ever abusive towards the children (physically or otherwise), there is sufficient evidence in the OCL report supporting the conclusion, at least on a temporary basis, that there was family violence in the home, including of a physical nature. This is supported by the fact that the mother contacted or visited the police on 5 or 6 occasions before the parties' separation (from 2014 to 2021) to report verbal and physical abuse, following which the Children's Aid Society became involved briefly on three occasions. The mother also attended the hospital on one occasion back in 2015 with a left rib pain after having been allegedly struck by the father. On that occasion, the mother reported to hospital staff that this was not the first time she had been struck by the father, and that she was the victim of approximately two physical assaults every year over the previous eight years.
162The fact that Mr. Nasery was acquitted of the criminal charges does not necessarily mean that he was not violent towards Ms. Kawatra. Like Justice Audet, I find it likely that there was family violence in the home, including violence of a physical nature, perpetrated by Mr. Nasery. However, the extent of that violence is uncertain. There was also evidence that Ms. Wesa was violent towards Mr. Nasery in February 2021, and that the children witnessed the violence. In addition, there was some evidence that Mr. Nasery sustained minor injuries from Ms. Kawatra during an altercation.
163The significant issue, in my view, is whether the children are in any way endangered by the family violence and whether the capacity to parent has been impaired by the violence. The factors in s. 24(4) of the Children’s Law Reform Act must be considered in determining the impact of the violence upon the capacity to parent. Those factors will be addressed in the context of the best interests test for the parenting arrangement.
164Like Justice Audet, I find that that there is no evidence that Mr. Nasery was ever abusive toward the children, physically or otherwise. Ms. Wesa’s testimony supports that conclusion. She stated that Mr. Nasery would not intentionally hurt the children. Once or twice, he accidentally bumped their heads on the ceiling while lifting them up. Ms. Kawatra alleged that Mr. Nasery was abusive in his negative comments about Veer’s hair, head covering and bracelets. She stated that he tricked the children to come with him, which was abusive. As noted above, I do not accept Ms. Kawatra’s testimony that Mr. Nasery tricked the children into doing things or told Veer to take off his head covering or cut his hair. However, it is likely that he has made remarks or gestures that conveyed a negative message to the children about their religious dress.
j.) The Involvement of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
165The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa investigated several child protection concerns that were raised by third party service providers, the police, Ms. Kawatra and an anonymous source. In 2021, following a report by the Ottawa Police, the Society made a finding that the children had been put at risk of emotional harm as they were present during verbal conflict that occurred between Mr. Nasery, Ms. Kawatra and the maternal grandmother. With the exception of that incident in 2021, the Society closed its files without substantiating any of the concerns that prompted the investigations.
Hearsay Rulings During Trial
166Both parents sought to introduce hearsay evidence of statements made by the children. Ms. Kawatra attempted to introduce statements made by Veer after visits with his father that “he feels like he is dying” and “I wish my atma (soul) was not in my body” to prove that the child was having an extremely negative reaction to being with his father. Mr. Nasery sought to introduce evidence that the children told him that he uses drugs and that he would not bring them back to their mother if he took them for parenting time. Mr. Nasery also requested to introduce a video recording of his interaction with the children in which they spoke about the 18th century attack on the Sikh Golden Temple by a group of Afghani men.
167I permitted the video recording of the children speaking to Mr. Nasery about the attack on the Golden Temple to be admitted under the principled exception to hearsay. I found that it was both reliable and necessary. I held that the video recording was not surreptitiously recorded, was not edited and was taken in the presence of both parties. Both parents could be examined on the context and the conditions under which the recording was taken. The children’s statements were spontaneous, and their demeanor was readily observable.
168However, I denied the requests to introduce the parents’ evidence about the children’s statements to them. While some of the statements may well have fit the exception to the hearsay rule of inadmissibility on the basis of the “state of mind” exception, I was concerned about the reliability of the parents’ statements. I was not convinced that either parent’s portrayal of the children’s statements were reliable expressions of what the children said or thought. Unlike the video recording, I could not see and hear the children as they were making the statements. The statements were made in the context of highly contentious litigation where the motive to lie about what the children said was clearly present.
169Veer also made the statements about his soul and his feeling that he was dying to one of his therapists who then reported the statements to the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa. This information prompted an investigation by the Society. I ruled that the therapist’s notes of Veer’s statements were inadmissible hearsay. Although their reliability was greater than Ms. Kawatra’s statements about what Veer said, neither the therapist nor the CAS worker were called to testify. Therefore, there was no opportunity to question these witnesses about the context in which the statements were made, whether their notes were complete, the child’s demeanor when the statements were made and whether the statements were later corroborated in any way. I exercised my discretion to exclude the hearsay evidence of Veer’s statements to the therapist and CAS worker because their probative value was outweighed by my concerns about their reliability and the prejudicial nature of the statements.
Issues
170The issues in Part One are as follows:
(i) What parenting arrangement is in the best interests of the children?
(ii) What decision-making arrangement is in the best interests of the children?
(iii) Is it in the children’s best interest to change their names?
(iv) Should there be restrictions placed on the children’s travel and passports?
Analysis
Issue One: Parenting
171The Applicant, Mr. Nasery, did not make a request for a divorce in his family law application, nor did the Respondent, Ms. Kawatra in her Answer. Therefore, the Children’s Law Reform Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.12 (CLRA) applies to the present case: s. 27 of the CLRA.
172Any decision relating to a child must be made having regard, exclusively, to their best interests. When considering the children’s best interests, the court is required, by virtue of s. 24(1) of the CLRA, to have regard to the following factors:
(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 parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;
(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 co-operate, 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 co-operate 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.
173In considering the impact of any family violence under clause (3) (j), the court must take into account the following factors:
(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;
(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;
(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;
(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;
(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;
(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;
(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve the person’s ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
(h) any other relevant factor.
174I will address each factor, although not necessarily in the order they appear in the CLRA.
(i) The Needs of the Children
175The children have gone from relatively well-functioning children who were able to attend in-person school and interact appropriately with the teachers and children in the Fall of 2024, to dysregulated children who have extreme difficulty separating from their mother.
176Ms. Kawatra testified that when they are with her, they are completely unable to regulate their emotions. They regularly harm themselves and others. She testified that when Veer is away from her, he cannot sleep, he screams, turns on all the lights and lashes out at others because his nervous system is in a state of crisis. Ms. Kawatra testified that Mukti cannot feed herself and she refuses to sleep and urinate. She will not urinate for up to fourteen hours even though she needs to. Ms. Kawatra testified that she thinks Mukti finds her bodily demands to be unbearable. She kicks and punches her mother frequently in the mornings. Mukti would appear to have gone from a happy, well-adjusted child in 2023 to a very disabled child in the space of two and a half years. Whereas she previously enjoyed participating in activities with other children in school, she will now not engage in any activities without Ms. Kawatra’s close physical presence.
177Ms. Kawatra believes that her children are suffering from serious neurological conditions that require round the clock care by only one person and that person must be her because she is the only one who understands their needs. She stated that both children need a single attachment figure to be safe.
178The evidence at trial established that the children are not doing well in the current circumstances. Ms. Loeffen, the last social worker who worked with the children, stated that the children’s behavioural challenges must be addressed. However, Ms. Kawatra did not permit Ms. Loeffen to address the children’s behavioural challenges. Ms. Kawatra testified that she is prepared to address those behavioural challenges now with the help of Ms. Guindon. Although Ms. Loeffen stated that the children’s behavioural challenges must be addressed before reunification therapy can begin, the evidence establishes that Ms. Kawatra will not likely cooperate with any therapy that includes the goal of reuniting the children with their father, now or in the future. It is therefore unlikely that the children will be reunited with their father if they remain in Ms. Kawatra’s primary care.
179The children need their father. Ms. Kawatra acknowledged this. However, she appears to be incapable of allowing her children to have time with their father because she believes he is a bad man and that he harmed her and the children and that he will continue to do so. Although not all of Mr. Nasery’s interactions with the children have demonstrated perfect parenting behaviour, there is no evidence that his behaviour was abusive or traumatizing. Ms. Kawatra has seized upon issues that have arisen during Mr. Nasery’s parenting time and has amplified them, portraying Mr. Nasery as an unsafe man. They need an opportunity to deal with those perceptions and re-establish a relationship with their father.
180I find that consciously or unconsciously Ms. Kawatra is conveying her mistrust and antipathy towards Mr. Nasery and this is having a negative impact on the children’s mental health. The children’s mental health seems to be deteriorating over time. The children need a stable environment, but from the descriptions of Ms. Kawatra and Ms. Wesa, their home is anything but stable. While the home environment may have seemed fine when the CAS visited it recently, Ms. Kawatra’s description was nothing less than chaotic, with temper tantrums happening on a regular basis and both grandmother and mother struggling to meet the children’s basic needs.
181Finally, the children need to attend school regularly. Their attendance at virtual school has not been consistent and they both have a high number of absences. Ms. Kawatra reports that the children will close their computers and refuse to participate if they are not interested in what is being taught. Ms. Wesa stated that both she and Ms. Kawatra need to be present to coax the children to stay involved in their virtual schooling. Given the number of absences the children have from school, it is evident that they are often unsuccessful in coaxing the children to attend. For the two weeks that Ms. Kawatra was involved in the trial, the children did not attend school because Ms. Wesa was unable to get them to attend on her own.
182Ms. Kawatra contends that if Mr. Nasery had signed the consent form for Ms. Guindon more quickly, Ms. Guindon could have had input into the Individual Educational Plan for both children and this would have facilitated better school attendance. I am not convinced of that. Several social workers recommended a return to in-person schooling for these children. Ms. Kawatra stated that she would like to do that but fears that in-person schooling may be too much for their neurological systems. She needs guidance from professionals and therapy for the children before she could try in-person schooling again.
183In my view, the evidence supports a return to in-person schooling in the near future for these children. They may need educational support and accommodations to help them make the transition. However, in-person schooling will provide important socialization for the children. It is unlikely that the children will return to in-person schooling if they remain in Ms. Kawatra’s primary care.
184Ms. Kawatra argued that Mr. Nasery does not understand the children’s needs and/or he minimizes them She further argued that he has not shown any interest in their schooling by, for example, calling their current teacher to find out about their educational needs and progress. I do not agree that Mr. Nasery has minimized the children’s needs. He accepted the diagnosis of Autism and Pathological Demand Avoidance that was provided by Flourish and is prepared to work with Brigitte Guindon to meet the children’s psychological and educational needs. He was slow to accept the diagnosis and questioned whether his lack of presence in the children’s lives could have had an impact on their mental health. I think he was right to ask this question. However, as indicated above, Mr. Nasery could have acted with more speed in responding to Ms. Kawatra’s earlier requests for a therapist for Veer.
185I share Mr. Nasery’s concern that Ms. Kawatra has stymied all efforts to engage the children in reunification therapy and seems intent upon finding a diagnosis that supports her view that the children need her as their single attachment figure. Given this concern, I understand Mr. Nasery’s reluctance to support the therapeutic approach proposed by Ms. Kawatra. Nevertheless, he has acknowledged that the children need therapy, and he will ensure they get it. This is positive
186With regard to Mr. Nasery’s failure to contact the children’s virtual schoolteacher, I do not see this as indicative of a lack of interest in the children’s education. On the contrary, Mr. Nasery has shown that he is very concerned about the children’s absences and removal from in-person schooling. He was not consulted about this change. Ms. Kawatra wrote him after the fact and informed him about the best option for virtual schooling.
187Ms. Kawatra maintains that she kept Mr. Nasery informed about all matters affecting the children and yet, there are a number of important matters like their removal from in-person schooling about which she failed to consult with him. Mr. Nasery cannot be faulted for feeling like he is being manipulated. Ms. Kawatra did not include him as the biological father on the children’s birth certificate and did not list him as the father on the school questionnaire. As a result, he was not informed by the school about the change. Yet, she expected him to respond immediately when his consent and payment was required for therapy and other services. When viewed in the context of Ms. Kawatra’s efforts to exclude Mr. Nasery from a meaningful parenting role, the invitation to speak with the teacher and other efforts to inform Mr. Nasery about the children appear to be ingenuine.
188I find that the children’s needs are not being met in Ms. Kawatra’s primary care. Their mental health is in jeopardy if they remain in her primary care. They need a relationship with their father, a stable home environment, therapeutic intervention and in-person schooling.
ii.) The Nature and Strength of the Children’s Relationships with Parents and Family Members
189Mr. Nasery testified that immediately after the breakup, his relationship with the children was very strong. He would take them to the park, to the shopping mall, to play places like Cosmic Adventures and to hiking trails. He stated that they played and had a lot of fun together.
190Ms. Kawatra argued that Mr. Nasery has no idea how to parent high needs children when all he has done is play with them. She stated that Mr. Nasery’s relationship with the children, especially Veer, has never been as strong as he thinks it is. She gave evidence that the children are afraid of Mr. Nasery.
191Ms. Kawatra made the same allegation that the children feared their father in a motion before Justice Audet on September 15, 2023. In her endorsement, Justice Audet rejected that allegation stating that it was not supported by the evidence. She stated that what Veer seemed to be struggling with was separation from his mother rather than reluctance to visit his father.
192Mr. Nasery has had very little opportunity to develop his relationship with the children since Justice Audet’s decision. It may well have deteriorated as a result of the dynamic that Audet J. identified in her September 15, 2023 endorsement as follows: “[c]onsciously or unconsciously, she [Ms. Kawatra] is also by her behavior reinforcing Dharamveer's belief that he will not be safe in his father's care.” Given the children’s young age, I find that it highly likely that they will, with the help of a therapist, return to the strong relationship they had with their father in the past.
193There was evidence that Mr. Nasery has demonstrated his ability to care for the children beyond simply playing with them. He has taken care of them when Ms. Kawatra was unable to care for them, although there were not many opportunities to do so.
194Ms. Kawatra faulted Mr. Nasery for not taking the children to his home and engaging in real parenting such as the preparation of meals and putting the children to bed. I find that there was very little opportunity for Mr. Nasery to do so. The children became more and more reluctant to have parenting time with him. Understandably, he was anxious to ensure that they had fun with him to encourage them to keep coming with him.
195There is no question that Ms. Kawatra has a strong relationship with the children, as does her mother, Ms. Wesa. Ms. Kawatra clearly loves both children very much. She is attentive, caring and has instilled in them a strong sense of spirituality and community. However, it is to be hoped that the children will learn to separate from Ms. Kawatra with more ease so that their relationship with her can be healthier.
196The children’s relationship with Mr. Nasery’s family is not strong at this point. They have not spent much time with them yet. They are young enough for that to change.
(iii.) Each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent
197Ms. Kawatra seemed to support the children’s relationship with Mr. Nasery until she was ordered by Phillips J. on May 27, 2022, to allow the children to have unsupervised time with Mr. Nasery. In her affidavit of May 11, 2022, she stated that the children were looking forward to seeing their father.
198However, as the facts set out above demonstrate, Ms. Kawatra’s willingness to support the relationship between the children and their father and his extended family diminished after Justice Phillips ordered unsupervised parenting time with Mr. Nasery. Although Ms. Kawatra testified that she does want the children to have a relationship with their father, her actions belie that statement.
199I find that the following are signs that consciously or unconsciously, Ms. Kawatra has instilled in the children a fear that Mr. Nasery is not a safe person to be with:
(i) Changes in the children’s behaviour and demeanor – The children went from squealing with delight when they saw Mr. Nasery to refusing to spend time with him. The video recording of the children’s statements about the attack on the Golden Temple demonstrates that one of the reasons the children may have begun to act differently towards Mr. Nasery is that they believed that “his people” were violent. Another reason may be that Mr. Nasery and his friends or brother said and did things that made the children uncomfortable.
Ms. Gervais testified that the children should have been given an opportunity to deal with their feelings about their father through reunification therapy. I agree. Ms. Kawatra’s termination of the reunification therapy with Muslim Family Services and Renew prevented the children from addressing their fears and experiences with their father. It also prevented Mr. Nasery from addressing mistakes he may have made in his interactions with the children and rebuilding their trust in him.
(ii) Avoidance of Mr. Nasery when he came to the home – Mr. Nasery testified that often when he came to the home the children would be in the window and then would disappear when he came to the door. No one would answer the door, although it would be ajar. Ms. Kawatra testified that she did not want to see Mr. Nasery and so would not answer the door, but she expected him to come in and get the children even though no one answered the door or his calls. The act of hiding from Mr. Nasery and refusing to answer his calls would undoubtedly leave the children with the impression that Mr. Nasery was to be feared.
When Mr. Nasery came to the door and could see the children, they would sometimes only speak with him from the stairs leading up to the second floor. They would look up the staircase as though seeking direction from someone upstairs. He presumed it was Ms. Kawatra.
(iii) Maintaining an environment of hyper-vigilance – The children, their mother and Ms. Wesa all demonstrated signs of anxiety and hyper-vigilance when certain strangers would enter the home. For example, when Ms. Gervais attended the home, she was met with hostility from the children’s grandmother. Ms. Gervais described the children as nervous because Ms. Wesa was speaking in a raised voice to her and telling her where she must sit (on a chair in the foyer). Ms. Gervais testified that Ms. Wesa appeared nervous, agitated and very upset. She stated that the children appeared to be seeking guidance from someone at the top of the stairs, who could not be seen, and did not appear comfortable. The children confirmed that Ms. Kawatra was in the home. The other social workers who attended at the home confirmed that the children were wary of speaking with them without Ms. Kawatra’s reassurance and that they looked to her frequently for validation.
(iv) Fostering a sense of dependence upon Ms. Kawatra as a lifeline in a very unpredictable world - Mr. Nasery testified about an incident that happened after the order of Phillips J. for unsupervised parenting time when he had picked the children up and had them in the car. Ms. Kawatra was speaking with them from her car on FaceTime and was asking them if they were ok and if they were all right. Mr. Nasery testified that the children appeared perfectly happy to him, but Ms. Kawatra came to the car and removed them saying that they were not happy and therefore, she could not leave them with him.
Ms. Kawatra testified that she does not register the children for activities where she cannot be present with them. She testified that they simply will not separate from her, and she is not willing to betray their trust in her by leaving them on their own.
(v) Attributing the children’s anxious feelings to something that Mr. Nasery has done – For example, Ms. Kawatra testified that at Veer’s karate class in 2022, Mr. Nasery showed Veer pictures of his bedroom at Mr. Nasery’s house. Ms. Kawatra stated that this made Veer frightened and unable to participate in Karate after that.
(vi) Encouraging a sense of cultural and religious “otherness” that differentiates the children from their father and associates their father with a culture that threatens their own – On the positive side, Ms. Kawatra has nurtured the children’s Sikh faith, which has helped them with some of their struggles. On the negative side, Ms. Kawatra has taught them that some of their father’s people – the Afghans - attacked a Sikh temple in India. The video evidence demonstrated that the children were disturbed by the statement that they shared their father’s Afghani heritage. Unfortunately, this served to increase the children’s sense of being different from their father.
In cross-examination, Ms. Kawatra admitted to advertising on Facebook on April 17, 2023 in the "Punjabi Community in Ottawa” for an "energetic and playful male university student or older high school student to play" with the children. She advertised for a male caregiver to play "very boyish games, playfight, sports, etc" with Veer and stated that Mukti would tag along. It is apparent that Ms. Kawatra recognized the need for Veer to have a father figure in his life as long as it was not the children’s actual father.
(vii) Seeking out a medical diagnosis to support a narrative that only the mother is able to create a safe and stable environment – Ms. Kawatra sought validation from the CAS and CHEO that her fears of letting the children have parenting time with Mr. Nasery were valid. Both refused to validate these concerns and encouraged her to take the matter up in family court.
Ms. Kawatra sought an addendum to the school letter about the children’s willingness to join their classroom activities and an addendum to the OCL report, which she thought did not properly reflect her concerns. The Flourish Report and Lisa Loeffen’s comments seemed to validate her belief that Veer has serious neurodevelopmental problems and that he needs therapy before he can have contact with his father.
Ms. Kawatra has pressed for an assessment from Flourish for Mukti, who she sees as having the same neurodevelopmental issues. While the diagnosis of Autism and Pathological Demand Avoidance for Veer may well be valid, it is of concern that Ms. Kawatra believes the treatment requires a single attachment figure, which would be herself. It also requires, in her view, a period of intensive therapy before the children may see their father. This serves to further push Mr. Nasery out of the parenting role.
200Mr. Nasery has demonstrated a willingness to support the children’s relationship with their mother. In May of 2022, the Braydon Supervisions Services supervisor noted that Mr. Nasery had said that the next planned visit was Mother’s Day. However, Mr. Nasery wanted the children to spend the day with their mother, so he stated he would reschedule the supervised visit.
201In 2022, Mr. Nasery proposed that Veer would do the overnights on his own until Mukti was older because he understood that Mukti might have more trouble separating from her mother when she was only two years of age.
202At trial, Mr. Nasery testified convincingly that he wanted to ensure that the children’s relationship with their mother remains strong, which is why he was not proposing a period of no contact with her for longer than a month.
203I find that it is more likely that Mr. Nasery will support the relationship between the children and their mother than Ms. Kawatra.
(iv) The history of care of the children
204Mr. Nasery testified that he took time off before and after each child was born to assist with childcare. He testified that Ms. Kawatra was overwhelmed when their son was born. They hired babysitters to assist because even with Ms. Kawatra’s mother living in the home, Ms. Kawatra found some aspects of early parenting to be challenging.
205Mr. Nasery testified that he would get home before 5 pm, put his son to bed and then would get up with him whenever he woke up while Ms. Kawatra looked after their newborn daughter. He testified that he took part in all aspects of the children’s early care – changing diapers, feeding them, bathing them, playing with them and soothing them when they were upset.
206In contrast, Ms. Kawatra testified that Mr. Nasery was not involved in the children’s care. She stated he was often high on drugs when the children were young. He was not very helpful at home, and she was afraid to leave the children with him.
207I find it likely that Ms. Kawatra exercised the primary care role for the children in the early days and that this role has continued until now. While Mr. Nasery may have “helped out” with the children, I find that the demands of his job running a pizza restaurant likely took the majority of his time.
208As such, the children are more accustomed to the care provided by Ms. Kawatra.
(v.) The children’s views and preferences, giving due weight to their ages and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained
209The children have expressed a strong preference to remaining in their mother’s primary care, according to their mother. This was substantiated in documents from the CAS and the OCL. However, given the children’s ages (8 and 6 years), only moderate weight should be given to their views. Furthermore, as previously indicated, I find that the children’s views have likely been strongly influenced by their mother.
(vi.) The children’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage
210The children in this case have the benefit of a rich cultural heritage on both their father and mother’s side. Ms. Kawatra has done an excellent job of nurturing the children’s identity as Sikhs. Although Mr. Nasery made much of the fact that Ms. Kawatra did not consult him about her decision to convert to Sikhism and to raise the children in that faith, I am less concerned about that than the fact that Ms. Kawatra has influenced the children to associate their father’s Afghani heritage with violence. Ms. Kawatra testified that she has made the children aware that they have Afghani heritage and that it is good to be curious about other faiths. However, her testimony was not convincing in that regard.
211The children have spent insufficient time in Mr. Nasery’s care to become familiar with his traditions. While I accept Ms. Kawatra’s evidence that Mr. Nasery could have done more to expose the children to his faith and national heritage, realistically he has had limited opportunity to do so.
212The children’s Sikh identity is very important to them. Every effort must be made to support that identity and not interfere in any way with the children’s practices and attendance at the Gurdwara.
(viii) The ability and willingness of each parent to care for and meet the needs of the children
213Ms. Kawatra maintains that she is the only parent who understands the children’s needs. She testified that unlike Mr. Nasery, she has demonstrated her willingness to learn more about their neurological conditions and receive training about how to help them. She asserts that she is the only parent who has a stable relationship with the children, which they need to face their current challenges. Ms. Kawatra testified that she has constantly had to beg Mr. Nasery to provide his consent for therapy and other treatment for the children. He does not follow through on actions needed to get the children help. For example, he did not fully complete the Flourish questionnaire about the children. He did not approve a therapist in time for the therapist to have input into Veer’s IEP. He has still not consented to Mukti’s assessment by Flourish Health Services. These are just a few examples of the way in which Mr. Nasery has demonstrated that he is either not able or not willing to meet the children’s needs, according to Ms. Kawatra.
214As the primary parent who has assumed control over the children’s day-to-day and long-term needs, often without consulting with Mr. Nasery, Ms. Kawatra has certainly demonstrated a willingness to care for her children. Mr. Nasery has not always responded with the alacrity one would hope for in a co-parenting relationship. However, I find he has demonstrated both the ability and willingness to care for and meet the needs of the children. He has diligently pursued his parenting time with the children, at great personal and financial cost. He searched for therapists in the Ottawa area to implement the Flourish recommendations. He has responded, through counsel, to the frequent requests for consent and as noted above, some of the delays in that regard were not unreasonable.
215Mr. Nasery did not delegate his responsibility to communicate to counsel, as alleged by Ms. Kawatra. Rather, he employed counsel as many parents do in high conflict separations, to avoid upsetting direct exchanges. While it is true that he forgot a number of details about the children’s lives and struggled to explain the order he was seeking during trial, I was not left thinking that Mr. Nasery was disinterested in his children or was interested only in “winning” his case. On the contrary, Mr. Nasery is deeply concerned about his children’s health and well-being, which is the reason he has persisted with the litigation.
216I do not agree with Ms. Kawatra that the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Nasery is incapable or unwilling to meet the children’s needs. This is not a case like T.R. v. S.G., 2025 ONCJ 224, cited by Ms. Kawatra’s counsel, in which the father showed little interest in the child’s needs and was not involved in any meaningful way in the child’s IEP process or any other services.
217The evidence supports that Ms. Kawatra is not presently capable of meeting the children’s needs for a stable, calm and well-regulated home environment. Her testimony was highly emotional and at times, frantic. When asked what she does to support her own mental health, Ms. Kawatra at first stated that she did not need mental health supports despite the significant challenges of meeting her children’s needs. The next day she clarified that she does consult with a social worker in Toronto from time to time as needed. Ms. Kawatra appeared to be exhausted and emotionally drained. I do not think her own needs are being sufficiently met to enable her to meet the challenging needs of her children on a full-time basis.
218Ms. Kawatra is not able and/or willing to meet the children’s need for contact with their father. She has consistently denied them access to their father on the basis that the children do not want to see their father. As noted, Ms. Kawatra has created the conditions which have resulted in the alignment of the children’s views with her’s, which is that Mr. Nasery is not a safe person.
(ix) Communication and cooperation between the parents
219Subsection 24(3)(i) of the CLRA requires the court to consider the ability and willingness of each parent to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the children. As in most high conflict parenting situations, both parents in this case could use help in communicating and cooperating with one and other. They have both shown some ability to communicate with each other although Mr. Nasery has relied on counsel to do much of the communicating for him. As understandable as this is, he must learn how to communicate with Ms. Kawatra directly. Ms. Kawatra has communicated about some matters with Mr. Nasery, which is positive. However, she has failed to communicate on some very important issues such as the absence of Mr. Nasery on the children’s birth certificates, their withdrawal from in-person school and her search for a man in the Punjabi community to play with Veer.
220I find it significant that Mr. Nasery’s parenting proposal includes a shared parenting schedule after the period of no contact and reduced contact between the children and Ms. Kawatra. This demonstrates a willingness to cooperate and to recognize the needs of the children to have a close relationship with their mother. The same is not reflected in Ms. Kawatra’s proposal. Her proposal would have primary parenting remaining with her.
221The facts in the present case are from Anonby v. Anonby, 2024 ONSC 5449, cited by counsel for Ms. Kawatra. In that case, Justice Somji found that the parties’ inability to communicate was rooted in the father’s history of violence, which also created a risk of emotional harm to the children. In the present case, the mother’s unwillingness to communicate and cooperate with Mr. Nasery is rooted in her apparent need to keep the children close to her and away from Mr. Nasery.
222Similarly, I disagree with counsel for Ms. Kawatra that the facts of the present case are strikingly similar to the facts in P.L.E. v. O.E., 2021 ONCJ 405. In that case, the father made active efforts to sabotage the special needs child’s treatment. He was found “hot boxing” in his car when the child was dropped off for parenting time and he came home drunk after a camping trip with the child. The court found that the father’s drinking and drug use played a major role in destroying his relationships and his ability to cooperate on issues affecting the child. That is not the case here.
(x) Any family violence and its impact on the children
223There is evidence that Mr. Nasery was violent towards Ms. Kawatra in the past although the extent of that violence cannot be determined. The question is whether the impact of the family violence is such that Mr. Nasery’s proposal to have primary care of the children is inappropriate, having regard to the factors in s. 24(4) of the CLRA.
224Ms. Kawatra argues that Mr. Nasery’s controlling and coercive behaviour, which is a factor under s. 24(4)(b) of the CLRA, manifests as attempting to control the children’s expression of the Sikh faith in their dress and behaviours. She testified that the children’s Sikh faith has become a core part of their identity and coping strategy. She believes that Mr. Nasery’s desire to control the children the way he controlled her would seriously harm them.
225I understand Ms. Kawatra’s concern. However, I am not convinced that Mr. Nasery will prevent Veer and Mukti from practicing their Sikh faith. He will certainly need to seek information and supports relating to cross-cultural and cross-faith parenting. However, the evidence does not convince me that he actively discouraged the children’s expressions of their Sikh faith or that he will do so in the future. He may have reacted negatively in the past to Ms. Kawatra’s unilateral decision to convert to Sikhism and to raise the children in that faith, but I find no evidence to support the view that he will act in a controlling or coercive manner in that regard, or in any other way.
226Finally, even assuming that Mr. Nasery was as violent towards Ms. Kawatra as she states, I do not think this renders his proposal for primary care of the children to be inappropriate. The children are not at risk of violence from Mr. Nasery, whether physical or psychological, and the risk of exposure to violent interactions between the parents is greatly reduced with the limited contact between them.
(xi) Any plans for the children’s care
227Ms. Kawatra’s plan of care for the children is that they would remain in her primary care. Once an assessment has been completed for Mukti, the children would begin intensive therapy with Ms. Guindon. Ms. Kawatra testified that she hopes she can eventually put the children back into in-person schooling. However, she stated that this would have to wait until they are able to cope with the demands of being away from her. She also stated that while she would like the children to have contact with their father, this too must wait until the children are more stable, emotionally and behaviourally.
228Mr. Nasery testified that he too wants to stabilize his children’s mental health. He testified that he has always listened to what therapists had to say and followed their recommendations, and he will continue to do so. He intends to continue therapy with the children and to promote their relationship with their mother. However, he does not believe that reunification therapy will be successful if the children’s primary residence is with their mother. Reunification therapy has failed over the past five years when the children have been in their mother’s care.
229Mr. Nasery proposes that the children be in his primary care and that they have a one-month period where they do not have contact with Ms. Kawatra (custody reversal). During the custody reversal period, Mr. Nasery would be off work and would take the children to weekly sessions with Renew Supervision Services, or another reunification therapist recommended by Renew. He would also take them to their individual therapy sessions with their occupational therapist at Expanding Horizons and the psychotherapist Brigitte Guindon.
230Following the custody reversal period, Ms. Kawatra would have 4 hours of parenting time every Friday for a 60-day period. Reunification therapy with Renew would continue during this time. Mr. Nasery will be off work for this period of time as well so that he can dedicate his full energy to assisting the children to adapt to the change in primary care.
231Barring any serious concerns raised by the children's therapists or Renew regarding the children resuming a shared parenting schedule, the parties would move to a week on, week off shared parenting schedule, according to Mr. Nasery’s plan.
232While I was initially convinced by Ms. Loeffen’s recommendation that reunification should happen gradually and only after the children’s behavioural issues have been addressed, upon further reflection I have concluded that Mr. Nasery’s plan is in the children’s best interests. My reasons are as follows:
(i) While in the mother’s primary care, the children’s mental health appears to have deteriorated, and they are not attending virtual school on a regular basis. Ms. Kawatra testified that while the children are doing online school, she and her mother are also trying to spoon feed them because they refuse to eat. She stated that if she tells Mukti to participate in school, Mukti will refuse to urinate. Mukti has gone from being an exuberantly happy child to clinging to Ms. Kuwatra’s side and having multiple temper tantrums throughout the day. According to Ms. Kuwatra, Veer and Mukti are suffering from severe anxiety, which is impacting every aspect of their daily lives, including their ability to attend school. It would appear that the children need urgent intensive therapeutic intervention immediately.
(ii) Ms. Kuwatra has demonstrated that she will not cooperate with any therapeutic intervention that involves reunification with Mr. Nasery. This is not acceptable. The children need their father. They also need a calm and stable home environment. The situation has reached the point where I have serious concerns that if the children remain in Ms. Kawatra’s home their mental health will continue to deteriorate. The children will not get the urgent therapy they need, which includes reunification with Mr. Nasery, unless they are out of Ms. Kawatra’s home.
233However, I recognize that the children may be traumatized by being removed from the only home they have ever known and placed in the home of a father whom they have come to believe is not safe. Therefore, I am sending this decision to the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa for them to act as they see fit to protect these children during this time of transition. If the children do not immediately transition safely to their father’s primary care, it may become critical and in their best interests to be temporarily removed from both parents’ care to allow for intensive therapeutic intervention to occur and for child protection services to monitor the situation until the children are safely back in their father’s primary care.
234This is not a case like Leelaratna v. Leelaratna, 2018 ONSC 5983, which was cited by counsel for Ms. Kawatra for the proposition that the court should order therapeutic intervention before parenting time can resume. In Leelaratna, Audet J. ordered that therapeutic intervention had to occur before parenting time with the father could be continued in part because the Children’s Aid Society, who continued to be involved with the family, was not supportive of continued contact between the child and his father, due to violence perpetrated against the child by the father. The child reported being hit by his father with a belt up until age 8 or 9, and that sometimes his father hung him by his feet and threatened to drop him headfirst on the kitchen tiles when he was 10 years old. Those facts are very different from the facts in the present case.
Conclusion Regarding Parenting
235I find that it is in the children’s best interests to be removed from Ms. Kawatra’s primary care. This decision will be released to the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa and Mr. Nasery four hours ahead of its release to Mr. Kawatra so that arrangements can be made for the children’s transfer out of Ms. Kawatra’s care. I hope that Ms. Kawatra will cooperate with the implementation of this decision, but I have concerns that she may not and that the children will resist the transfer. The Society will determine whether the children can be transferred immediately to Mr. Nasery’s care.
236After one month, the parents and the Society are to appear before me with a report from therapists and other service providers on how the children are doing. If they have stabilized in Mr. Nasery’s care, consideration will be given to providing Ms. Kawatra with parenting time for four hours per week, which may be supervised, depending upon how the children are doing. It will be important to have the input of the therapists who are involved with the children.
237The goal is to work towards a shared parenting arrangement. However, when, how and if that goal will be reached will depend upon how the children respond to therapeutic intervention and to parenting time with both parents. It will also depend upon the efforts of the parents to address the issues raised in this decision.
238Given that the children will not be in Ms. Kawatra’s primary care, Mr. Nasery’s obligation to pay child support to her will end effective the date of this decision. However, this is not a determination of whether there are child support and section 7 arrears to be paid for the periods prior to the date of this decision. That determination will be provided in Part Two of this decision.
Issue Two: Decision-Making Responsibility
239The parents have had difficulty sharing decision-making responsibility. Ms. Kawatra has been frustrated by the speed with which Mr. Nasery has responded to her requests for his consent to treatment and assessment. She wants Mukti to be assessed by Flourish Health Services, but Mr. Nasery responded that he has concerns that the information provided about Mukti’s behaviour will be based entirely on Ms. Kawatra’s observations. Mr. Nasery wants the opportunity to spend time with Mukti first to be able to provide his own observations.
240Mr. Nasery’s position with regard to Mukti’s assessment is reasonable. He has not seen the child since January 2024. His observations about Mukti’s behaviour would not be considered current and would be given less weight than those of Ms. Kawatra. Given the importance that parental observations have in assessments, I think it was reasonable for Mr. Nasery to be reluctant to give his consent. In addition, it was reasonable to wait for this decision to be released before agreeing to the assessment, given the impact it will likely have on the assessment.
241Although the parents have been able to make some decisions together, Ms. Kawatra has unilaterally made some important decisions. She failed to consult with Mr. Nasery in advance and also failed to communicate those decisions to him in a timely manner. Examples of the unilateral decisions made by Ms. Kawatra include: the decision not to list Mr. Nasery as the father on the Statement of Live Birth; the decision to give the children different names than the parents had agreed to and to omit Mr. Nasery’s surname entirely from Mukti’s last name; the decision to withdraw Veer from Karate and sign him up for Gatka instead; the decision that the children would adopt the Sikh faith and become vegetarians; the decision to withdraw the children from in-person schooling; the decision to retain a family doctor in Brampton; and the decision to advertise for a man in the Punjabi community to play “boyish games” with Veer. These examples illustrate that Ms. Kawatra has had difficulty sharing decision-making with Mr. Nasery.
242As noted, Mr. Nasery has been uncooperative at times in providing his consent to treatment such as speech therapy and psychotherapy for Veer. Therefore, Ms. Kawatra is not entirely to blame for the problems with shared decision-making. However, it is clear to me that joint decision-making is not an option at this time for this family. The parents are not able to make timely decisions together in their children’s best interests.
243I find that Mr. Nasery is more likely to consult and communicate with Ms. Kawatra before he makes decisions. He has shown more willingness to ensure that the children have a strong bond with their mother and to make decisions that are in the children’s best interests. He understands that the children need therapy and is willing to engage therapists who will help repair his relationship with the children. I do not accept Ms. Kawatra’s statement that Mr. Nasery minimizes the children’s needs and that he is ignorant about fundamental parts of their lives. He has been excluded from much of the children’s lives for at least three years, which has made it difficult for him to fully understand their needs, but I am satisfied that he will make all efforts to inform himself and to engage the support he needs to make decisions that are in the children’s best interests.
244Mr. Nasery must consult with Ms. Kawatra after the custody reversal period is over before he makes any major decisions involving the children (eg. changing schools, signing the children up for summer camp, having orthodontic work done, having the children immunized, etc.). Ms. Kawatra will have 48 hours within which to provide her input on the decision via Our Family Wizard. Mr. Nasery must consider Ms. Kawatra’s input before he makes a decision, but he is not required to follow her recommendations. He must, however, be able to explain why he made the decision and must do so on a timely basis via Our Family Wizard.
Issue 3: The Children’s Names
245Mr. Nasery asks for an order permitting him to change the children’s names to the names he and Ms. Kawatra agreed to before the children were born. He asks that Veer’s name be Adil Dharamveer Kawatra-Nasery and that Mukti’s name be Soraya Mukti Kawatra-Nasery.
246In Gallant v. Lewis (2008), 295 D.L.R (4th) 686 (S.C.), Quinn J. stated that there are obvious instances where it is appropriate for a father to be unacknowledged and for the child to be given only the surname of the mother. In Ryan v. Scott, 2011 ONSC 3277 at para. 11., Maranger J. provided examples of situations where it would be appropriate to give the child only the mother’s surname: where the father has expressed no interest in raising or supporting the child or has steadfastly denied paternity.
247In the present case, Ms. Kawatra has not provided any reason as to why both children should not have the same last name that includes Mr. Nasery’s name. Therefore, I am prepared to do as Maranger J. did in Ryan v. Scott and exercise my parens patriae jurisdiction to order that the Registrar General amend the registration of the Mukti’s birth certificate to include the hyphenated surnames of the parents, namely Kawatra-Nasery in lieu of Kawatra.
248However, I find that it is not in the children’s best interests to change their first names. The children strongly identify with the meaning of their current first names, and they are called those names by their mother, grandmother and the Sikh community. They are both old enough to understand the implications of changing their names. The change in the children’s primary residence for the next few months and then the transition to shared parenting will be difficult enough for them. It would be too hard on the children right now to deprive them of the important sense of their identity that their names ‘Dharmaveer’ and ‘Mukti’ give them.
249I understand that the names ‘Adil’ and ‘Soraya’ are meaningful to Mr. Nasery and he has used these names with the children during his parenting time in the past. It may be that the children will respond well if he continues to use these names with them, but I would encourage Mr. Nasery to discuss this with the children’s therapists and with the children themselves. I am not prepared to order that the children’s first names be changed on their birth certificates and will not permit Mr. Nasery to exercise his decision-making responsibility to make this change unilaterally.
Issue Four: The Children’s Travel and Passports
250In the past, Ms. Kawatra has sought to obtain passports for the children without the requirement of Mr. Nasery’s signature. Mr. Nasery is concerned that if Ms. Kawatra obtains the children’s passports, she would take them to India and not return. India is a non-signatory to the Hague Convention and therefore, it would be more difficult to enforce the return of the children.
251Given the high conflict nature of this case, I am prepared to make an order that neither parent shall be authorized to obtain passports for the children without a court order or written mutual agreement.
Conclusion
252I conclude that it is in the children’s best interests to be removed from Ms. Kawatra’s care and placed in the exclusive care of Mr. Nasery for at least a month. The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa will assist in the transition from Ms. Kawatra’s care to Mr. Nasery’s care and they will continue to monitor the children’s situation to ensure that their needs are being met and they are safe. The parties will return before me after the children have been in Mr. Nasery’s care for a month to determine if the children’s mental health is sufficiently stable to allow for parenting time with Ms. Kawatra.
253Mr. Nasery is granted sole decision-making responsibility for the children.
254I understand how difficult this decision will be for Ms. Kawatra. She has dedicated eight years of her life to caring for Veer and Mukti. She has put her heart and soul into parenting the children. To see them removed from her care, even if only temporarily, will be traumatic, to say the least.
255I also understand that Ms. Kawatra believes that she has only ever acted in the children’s best interests. However, her belief that reunification therapy could not work with Mr. Nasery has deprived both her and the children of the opportunity to heal and rebuild a relationship with him. It is not in the children’s best interests to remain in that unhealthy state of fear and mistrust. It is hoped that Ms. Kawatra will recognize this and seek the help she needs to heal so that she will be ready and able to share parenting with Mr. Nasery in the near future.
ORDER
Primary Residence and Parenting Time
(1) The primary residence of the children, Dharmaveer Bharat Kawatra-Nasery (DOB: January 27, 2018) and Mukti Mclean Vijaya Kawatra (DOB: December 7, 2019) shall be transferred from the respondent mother, Lindsey Kawatra, to the applicant father, Khalid Nasery.
(2) The assistance of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa is requested to facilitate the transfer of the children from Ms. Kawatra’s residence to Mr. Nasery’s residence and to monitor the safety of the children.
(3) Once the children are in Mr. Nasery’s primary care, there shall be a minimum period of 30 days during which Ms. Kawatra and her mother, Lesle Wesa, will have no contact with the children.
(4) Mr. Nasery will provide updates to Ms. Kawatra through Our Family Wizard once daily to explain how the children are doing, but Ms. Kawatra shall not contact the children to allow them to focus on healing their bond with their father.
(5) During the month that the children are exclusively with Mr. Nasery, he shall be responsible for bringing the children to weekly reunification sessions with Renew Supervision Services ("Renew") or another service as recommended by Renew, as well as to their individual therapy sessions with their occupational therapist (Expanding Horizons) and psychotherapist (Brigtte Guindon). Ms. Kawatra shall have the right to request any notes from these third parties that the third parties are agreeable to sharing and would not consider a breach of the children's trust and privacy.
(6) Following the 30-day period during which the children are in Mr. Nasery’s exclusive and primary care, the parties will reappear before Justice Jensen with information about the children’s progress. At that time, it will be determined whether additional time is needed for the children to stabilize in Mr. Nasery’s care without contact with Ms. Kawatra or Ms. Wesa, or if they are able to begin having parenting time with Ms. Kawatra. A schedule for Ms. Kawatra’s parenting time will be established at that appearance.
(7) Barring any serious concerns on the part of the children’s therapists or Renew (or other recommended therapists) regarding moving to a shared parenting schedule, the parties will move to the following Regular Parenting Schedule after Ms. Kawatra has had two months of parenting time with the children
Regular Parenting Schedule
(8) The parties shall have parenting time with the children as follows:
(a) Parenting shall be on a week-on-week-off basis, with exchanges occurring after school on Fridays.
(b) Exchanges shall occur at the school wherever possible. On non-school days, exchanges shall occur at 4:00pm with the parent initiating parenting time picking up the children from the home of the other parent.
(c) If a child is ill, the parenting time shall proceed unless a qualified medical professional confirms in writing that the child is unable to leave the home; in such circumstances the missed time shall be made up at the next earliest opportunity agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the Court.
(d) The children shall be ready for pick-up at the designated time, and neither parent shall say or do anything to discourage the children from attending parenting time.
(e) If either parent is unable to care for the children for 2 hours or more during his/her regular parenting time, the other parent shall be given the right of first refusal for parenting time with the children. If the other parent does not agree to take care of the children, it shall be the responsibility of the parent with regular parenting time to cover the costs of childcare which, if for the purpose of employment, shall be a section 7 expense.
(f) The children and Mr. Nasery shall attend regular reunification counseling sessions at Renew Supervision Services or other reunification counseling as recommended by Renew. Ms. Kawatra shall follow the recommendations of counseling and parenting coaching as recommended by Renew or other reunification counsellors.
(g) Neither party shall speak negatively about the other in the presence of the children.
(h) Ms. Kawatra shall actively encourage the children to have and maintain a positive relationship with Mr. Nasery and shall encourage and support the children's attendance in therapy and counseling with him.
(i) In the event that Ms. Kawatra fails or refuses to comply with the parenting-time provisions, a police officer or peace officer shall have the authority to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to locate and deliver the children, Dharamveer Kawatra-Nasery (born January 27, 2018) and Mukti Kawatra-Nasery (born December 7, 2019), to Mr. Khalid Nasery, at the commencement of his scheduled parenting time.
Holiday and Special Occasion Schedule:
(9) Winter (Christmas) Break
(a) In odd-numbered years, the first half of the break (from the end of school to 12:00 p.m. on December 28) shall be with Ms. Kawatra, and the second half (from 12:00 p.m. on December 28 to return to school) shall be with Mr. Nasery.
(b) In even-numbered years, the schedule shall reverse.
(10) March Break
(a) In odd-numbered years, the children shall be with Ms. Kawatra for the entire March Break.
(11) Summer Break
(a) The parents shall have the children on a week on/week off basis, commencing from the end of the school year to the beginning of the school year.
(12) Thanksgiving Weekend
(a) In odd-numbered years, the children shall be with Mr. Nasery.
(b) In even-numbered years, the children shall be with Ms. Kawatra.
(13) Family Day Weekend
(a) In odd-numbered years, the children shall be with Ms. Kawatra.
(b) In even-numbered years, the children shall be with Mr. Nasery.
(14) Halloween
(a) The parent who does not ordinarily have parenting time on October 31 shall have the children from after school until 8:00 p.m. for the purpose of trick-or-treating, after which the children shall return to the other parent.
(15) Children's Birthdays
(a) The parent who does not have the children on their birthday shall be entitled to spend at least three hours with the children on the day of their birthday (or on the closest available date if it falls on a school day), at a time agreed upon in advance.
(16) Mother's Day and Father's Day
a) The children shall be with Ms. Kawatra on Mother's Day weekend each year, and with Mr. Nasery on Father's Day weekend each year.
(17) Eid al-Fitr
(a) The children will stay with Mr. Nasery on Eid al-Fitr, from after school (or 4:00 p.m. if it is not a school day) the day before until the start of school (or noon if it is not a school day) the day after.
(18) Eid al-Adha
(a) The children will stay with Mr. Nasery on Eid al-Adha, from after school (or 4:00 p.m. if it is not a school day) the day before until the start of school (or noon if it is not a school day) the day after.
(19) Holika Dahan
(a) The children will stay with Ms. Kawatra on Holika Dahan, from after school (or 4:00 p.m. if it is not a school day) until the start of school (or noon if it is not a school day) the next day.
(b) The children will stay with Ms. Kawatra on Holi, from after school (or noon if it is not a school day) until the start of school (or noon if it is not a school day) the next day.
(20) Diwali or Bandi Chhor Divas
(a) The children will stay with Ms. Kawatra for Diwali or Bandi Chhor Divas, from after school (or 4:00 p.m. if it is not a school day) until the start of school (or noon if it is not a school day) the next day.
Decision-Making Responsibility
(21) Mr. Nasery shall have sole decision-making authority on all matters concerning the children, including their education, health and extra-curricular activities.
(22) After the custody reversal period, Mr. Nasery shall provide Ms. Kawatra with 48 hours within which to provide her input via Our Family Wizard on all major decisions involving the children. Mr. Nasery shall consider Ms. Kawatra’s input but is not required to follow her suggestions or recommendations. However, he must be able to show that he has considered her views.
(23) Mr. Nasery will inform Ms. Kawatra of any decisions about the children on a timely basis.
Travel and Passports
(24) Neither party shall travel or take out passports for the children, until further court order or written agreement by the parties.
(25) Either party may review the order in paragraph above with a material change in circumstances, and after at least one year of abiding by the above-noted parenting schedule.
Children’s Names
(26) The Registrar General is ordered to change the last name (surname) of the child legally known as Mukti McLean Vijaya Kawatra (DOB: December 17, 2019) from Kuwatra to Kawatra-Nasery. If required, the parties shall sign all necessary documents for the name change.
Return to Court
(27) The parties and the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa will appear before Justice K.A. Jensen one month after the children have been in Mr. Nasery’s exclusive care (the custody reversal period). They will provide reports on how the children are doing and the parents will be given an opportunity to make submissions on the parenting schedule going forward.
Child Support
Effective the date of this decision, Mr. Nasery’s obligation to pay child support to Ms. Kawatra is terminated.
Justice K.A. Jensen
Released: Wednesday, February 18, 2026
CITATION: Nasery v. Kawatra, 2026 ONSC 1005
COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-1897
DATE: 2026/02/18
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KHALID NASERY APPLICANT
-and-
LINDSEY KAWATRA RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Justice K.A. Jensen
Released: February 18, 2026