Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-04-FD300451-0001 Date: 2026-02-19 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Ngoc Thi Nhu Hoang, Applicant And: Nhat Le Quoc Huynh, Respondent

Before: C. Leach, J.

Counsel: Christopher Mamo and Hanna Kofman, for the Applicant Christina Doris, for the Respondent

Heard: February 10, 2026

Endorsement

[1] This is a motion brought by the Applicant mother for various orders requiring the Respondent father to adhere to next steps in a therapeutic reunification process and to comply with a consent order pursuant to which he agreed to provide the mother with photo and weekly updates about the children. The mother requests that the father be required to pay a specified penalty to the mother for every instance of non-compliance. For the reasons below, the mother's motion is granted subject to some modifications to the relief sought.

Background

[2] The parties have two children, D (age 16) and E (age 8). There is a complex history around their separation, but the result is that they separated after 13 years of marriage in August 2017 when the mother left Toronto for Vietnam. At the time of her departure, D was 7 years old and E was four months old. The mother remained in Vietnam until January 2019, when she returned to Toronto. The mother asserts that she was experiencing profound post partum depression when she left Toronto in 2017 and that she deeply regrets this decision.

[3] The mother's evidence is that while in Vietnam, she initially maintained regular contact with the children through video calls and travelled to Toronto three times to see the girls. The parties were divorced in 2018. Further to a final consent order made on November 20, 2018, the mother was awarded parenting time with the children as agreeable to the father with "safeguards" in place. She deposes that after this order was issued, the father stopped allowing her to video call the girls and only permitted her to see them briefly during her second and third visits to Toronto.

[4] In January 2019, the mother returned to Toronto permanently. In March 2019, she remarried. She and her husband have a six-year-old son. She is employed full time as a business systems analyst.

[5] The mother's evidence is that the father would not allow her any contact with the girls after she returned to Toronto. In July 2020, when the girls were three and ten years old, the mother brought this application.

[6] As will be detailed below, there have been multiple court attendances in this matter over the last 5-1/2 years. A section 30 assessment was completed in 2021 which made detailed recommendations for a gradual reunification process. Since then, there have been multiple attempts to implement a therapeutic process to explore reunification. Every attempt has stalled. All clinicians involved with the file since have found the mother to be thoughtful, sensitive and child centered in her approach. A very recent psychological assessment confirms that there is no clinical evidence that the mother poses any risk to the children. In contrast, all of these clinicians have expressed concerns about the father's obstruction of the children's relationship with their mother.

[7] At this point, D. is 16 years old and the mother acknowledges that it is no longer realistic to try to engage her in a relationship. E., however, has recently expressed some curiosity and interest in her mother.

Issue for this motion

[8] The most recent court order in this matter was made by Justice Newton-Smith at an urgent case conference on August 13, 2025. Notably, it was made on the consent of both parties. Among other items, this order appoints Sheena Dunham as the clinician who will provide reunification therapy, requires both parties to fully comply with the therapeutic process (including attending sessions and facilitating the children's attendance), and requires the father to provide the mother with photographs and weekly updates about the children.

[9] The mother states that the father has failed to comply with these orders. In order to effect his compliance, the mother has requested a specific schedule for the parties to communicate their availability to Ms. Dunham and for therapeutic sessions to take place as Ms. Dunham has recommended. The mother also requests orders with greater particularity as to the photographs and weekly updates that the father must provide. Finally, she seeks an order that the father be subject to penalties as follows:

a. $500 for every day that he fails to provide Ms. Dunham with his and E's availability for sessions;

b. $1000 for every nine days that passes without E having a session with Ms. Dunham;

c. $1000 for every nine days that passes without the father having a session with Ms. Dunham, with or without E;

d. $500 for every day that passes without the father providing the mother with specified photographs of the children; and

e. $500 for every week that the father does not provide a weekly update containing specific content about the children

Father's request for an adjournment

[10] The father requested a six-week adjournment at the outset of the motion as he had just retained new counsel who required time to prepare his response. The father also noted that any urgency to the motion had been attenuated by his recent steps to come into compliance with the most recent court order.

[11] For the reasons below, I refused the request for an adjournment:

[12] Primarily, I am concerned that the father has deliberately put himself in this position in order to further delay the therapeutic process. This motion was scheduled based on the availability of the father's previous counsel. The mother's evidence includes an email exchange between her counsel and the father's former counsel. On January 16, 2026, the father's previous counsel offered several available dates for the motion including February 10. On January 19, the mother's counsel confirmed that the motion would be proceeding on February 10. Eleven days later, on January 30, the father's new counsel served a Notice of Change of Representation.

[13] While there may be some prejudice to the father in not having a complete response to this motion, that is prejudice entirely of his own making. He had the option to wait until after the motion to change counsel so that he could be fully represented at the motion. He chose not to do so. In contrast, I find that there would be significant prejudice to the children, especially E., if this motion were delayed until the end of March. There is an outstanding court order from August, made on consent, that the father has not complied with. All indications are that the window is closing to fully explore options to rebuild E's relationship with her mother, as it has already closed for D. This matter must be addressed now.

[14] I am also not satisfied that the father has taken adequate steps to bring himself into compliance with the August consent order. This will be discussed later in these reasons

[15] The father's new counsel requested that the court provide them with an opportunity to work with their new client and hopefully bring him on board. Based on the history of this matter, I have little confidence that counsel will be able to effect any significant change to their new client's approach to this litigation. (I say this with no disrespect to counsel, who have clearly done their best to assist the father at this very late stage.) I also have no confidence that they will continue to be retained for any significant period of time. There is a real risk that this motion could be adjourned to the end of March, only for the court to learn that the father has decided again to change counsel or to represent himself. The father has been represented by at least five previous lawyers and this is not the first time that he has divested himself of his representation at a critical stage of the litigation.

[16] In order to address potential prejudice to the father, I agreed to accept and consider an affidavit he swore the day before the motion notwithstanding the fact that it was not served on the mother's counsel until 6:47 pm the night before the motion. I also accepted the mother's reply affidavit, sworn and served the morning of the motion.

[17] As noted above, the mother commenced her application in July 2020.

[18] On December 3, 2020, Justice McWatt ordered a section 30 assessment. On October 21, 2021, Dr. Michael Saini completed the assessment and recommended a detailed reunification plan with several phases of therapy.

[19] The father did not agree to implement Dr. Saini's recommendations. In June 2022, the mother brought a motion seeking an order in accordance with the recommendations. In his responding materials to the motion, the father disclosed for the first time that he had moved the children from Toronto to Ottawa in June 2021 (a year earlier). This move occurred while Dr. Saini's assessment was underway and was clearly not brought to his attention, as the report mentions nothing about a move and proposes several Toronto-based therapists.

[20] The mother's motion was heard by Justice Sharma on June 23, 2022. He declined to order the implementation of Dr. Saini's recommendations. Instead, Justice Sharma ordered that the children participate in a series of counselling sessions for a minimum of 4 one hour sessions over a two-month period and a maximum of 12 one-hour sessions over a six month period. The father was directed to propose three potential therapists and the mother was to select one of them. Justice Sharma's order included the following summary of the role of the selected therapist: "The mandate of the therapist shall be, first, to provide emotional support to the children that is in the best interests of their mental and emotional well-being; secondly, to assist them in resolving any unresolved trauma with respect to their relationship with their mother; and third, to discuss the development of some form of a relationship with their mother, including a plan for the gradual re-introduction of parenting time between the children and their mother." At the conclusion of the therapy sessions, the therapist was to provide a letter to the parties indicating whether or not Dr. Saini's proposed re-integration plan would be contrary to the children's best interests, which letter could be introduced into evidence.

[21] Justice Sharma's order also stipulated that both parties were entitled to communicate with and receive information from third parties providing care to the children and directed the father to provide written consent for this disclosure as required and to download Our Family Wizard.

[22] The parties agreed that Keren Wisniewski would carry out the therapeutic mandate. The mother's evidence is that the father delayed the process of retaining Ms. Wisniewski until May 2023. Thereafter, only one therapy session was held, with D in December 2023.

[23] A case conference was scheduled before Justice Sharma on June 23, 2024. According to the endorsement, Ms. Wisniewski filed a report for the conference, which confirmed that the father had been delayed in responding to emails and offering dates for sessions with the children. She recommended that there be greater judicial intervention. The father expressed concerns that the therapy process might harm the girls, stating that he did "not want to force D to attend therapy sessions against her wishes or to place E on the same path when D's therapy plan is not going well.". Justice Sharma noted that it was not open to the father to refuse to follow court orders. He made an order requiring the parties to jointly meet with the therapist at the first date available and offered by the therapist to discuss a plan to implement the therapeutic orders that Justice Sharma had made in June 2022. In consultation with the therapist, the parties were to fix a firm schedule for the therapy. Justice Sharma further ordered that, in the event of a breach of this or any other order, "the Court shall consider the imposition of a fine pursuant to rule 1(8)(a.1) of the Family Law Rules".

[24] Justice Sharma's order had little impact. When the parties attended for a further case conference before Justice Sharma on November 21, 2024, Justice Sharma was advised that only two further therapy sessions had been held and that Ms. Wisniewski was no longer able to support the family through the first phase of the reunification process. Ms. Wisniewski prepared a report recommending in person therapy and expressing the view that the father's "lack of recognition of [the mother] as an important and beneficial person in the children's lives is the greatest impediment to the court-ordered intervention". At this conference, the father provided the court with a letter from Dr. Hamat, the children's pediatrician in Toronto which suggested that the children had been impacted negatively by the court-imposed therapy.

[25] It further transpired at the conference that the father had unilaterally engaged Dr. Utendale, a child psychologist, to provide individual therapy to the children at the same time that the court-ordered therapy with Ms. Wisniewski was to be taking place. Dr. Utendale provided a report for the conference in which he opined that the children were experiencing emotional distress by being forced to attend reunification. Dr. Utendale recommended that individual therapy take place to build a framework for possible reunification therapy, specifically 12 individual sessions over a six month period. Ironically, this recommendation aligned precisely with the order made by Justice Sharma on June 23, 2022, which provided for individualized therapy as the primary focus followed by gradual re-introduction of parenting time between the children and their mother.

[26] Justice Sharma accordingly ordered on November 21, 2024 that Dr. Utendale perform the mandate of the therapist that he ordered in his June 23, 2022 order. As recommended by Dr. Utendale, there were to be twelve sessions over six months, to commence January 2025. After Dr. Utendale had completed his initial mandate of providing individualized therapy for the children, he was to recommend a re-integration therapist in Ottawa if he believed that he was not "sufficiently skilled" to deal with re-integration therapy himself. The parties were directed to act on Dr. Utendale's recommendation.

[27] On July 5, 2025, Dr. Utendale wrote a letter to the Court setting out his clinical conceptualization and recommendations to the Court. (Justice Sharma's June 24 2022 order had directed that the children's therapist provide a letter to the parties indicating "whether or not Dr. Saini's proposed re-integration plan would or would not be contrary to the children's best interests, which letter may be introduced into evidence".) Dr. Utendale's view was that supportive individual therapy should be suspended in favour of re-unification therapy. He stated:

Given the children's escalating emotional symptoms, deteriorating trust in the therapeutic process, persistent resistance to supportive therapy, and the strong likelihood that their participation is being undermined by the custodial parent, it is clinically justifiable to temporarily suspend supportive therapy. This suspension should remain in place pending the implementation of structured, court-mandated reunification therapy.

This case presents a high risk of lasting psychological harm and developmental disruption for two vulnerable children. The custodial parent's ongoing psychological influence has produced clinical signs of emotional enmeshment, alienation, and obstructed identity formation. The non- custodial parent, in contrast, remains committed to the children's long-term emotional health and the re-establishment of a secure, loving relationship. Immediate, court-mandated intervention is strongly recommended to disrupt these patterns, protect the children's developmental integrity, and restore a balanced and child-centered family dynamic.

[28] In arriving at the above opinions, Dr. Utendale conducted "multiple therapeutic sessions, clinical interviews and behavioural observations, as well as multiple information-gathering sessions with both parents individually". He made three recommendations to address the above concerns:

1. Mandated, specialized reunification therapy with clinicians experienced in high-conflict family systems, resistance dynamics, and attachment disruption.

2. Court-mandated parenting intervention for the custodial parent, focused on understanding the psychological harms of parental alienation; fulfilling legal and ethical co-parenting responsibilities; and promoting appropriate developmental autonomy while avoiding manipulative influence.

3. Judicial enforcement of compliance with in-person therapy attendance; full and reciprocal access to educational and medical records; transparent communication and cooperation between both parents; and comprehensive psychological assessments for both children to evaluate trauma symptoms, cognitive and emotional functioning, and barriers to successful reunification.

[29] The mother's evidence is that her counsel reached out to the father's then counsel to request confirmation that the father would consent to reunification therapy as recommended by Dr. Utendale. This was already a requirement, as Justice Sharma's November 2024 order provided that the parties were to act on Dr. Utendale's recommendations following the period of individual therapy. There was no substantive response from the father's counsel. Accordingly, the mother's counsel scheduled an appearance at TBST court on July 28, 2025.

[30] Neither the father nor his counsel attended TBST court, nor did they file any materials. The father did email the Family Trial Office on the morning of the appearance to advise that he was now self-represented, ill and unable to attend, and to ask for 30 days to respond. The appearance proceeded in his absence, with Justice Kraft noting that this was not the first time that the respondent had sought a 30-day extension. Justice Kraft scheduled an urgent case conference for August 12, 2026, peremptory on the respondent, to discuss the implementation of Dr. Utendale's recommendations. In her endorsement, she stated: "Given the children's ages, age 15 and 8, time is of the essence if there is to be a repair of the mother's relationship with them."

[31] The urgent case conference was held before Justice Newton-Smith on August 12, 2025. The father attended with new counsel acting as agent and consented to an order for reunification therapy with Sheena Dunham, who had been recommended by Dr. Utendale. He also consented to other terms, including those that required him to provide the mother with photographs and weekly updates about the children. This is the order that the mother seeks to enforce at this motion, by way of an order under Rule 1(8)(a.1) that compels the father to pay penalties if he continues not to comply with the terms.

Legal Framework for Monetary Penalties under the Family Law Rules

[32] Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, O.Reg. 114/99 provides as follows:

(8) FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER - If a person fails to obey an order in a case or a related case, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including,

(a) an order for costs;

(a.1) an order to pay an amount to a party or into court as a penalty or fine;

(b) an order dismissing a claim;

(c) an order striking out any application, answer, notice of motion, motion to change, response to motion to change, financial statement, affidavit, or any other document filed by a party;

(d) an order that all or part of a document that was required to be provided but was not, may not be used in the case;

(e) if the failure to obey was by a party, an order that the party is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise;

(f) an order postponing the trial or any other step in the case; and

(g) a contempt order, if sought under rule 31.

[33] Rule 1(8) provides the court with wide discretion in dealing with a party's failure to obey an order. The court is permitted to make any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter. Once the court is satisfied that a party is in non-compliance with a court order, the court can fashion a substantive remedy providing it is tied to the breached order such that the remedy will encourage compliance with the breached order. The scope of the court's discretion to fashion a responsive substantive remedy is particularly appropriate where at issue is the wellbeing of children: K.M. v. J.R., 2024 ONSC 1338; Bouchard v. Sgovio, 2021 ONCA 709

[34] A request for relief under Rule 1(8) entails a three step analysis: (a) The court must first determine if there has been a triggering event, namely non-compliance with a court order; (2) If there has been a triggering event, the court should then determine whether it is appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying party by not sanctioning that party under subrule 1(8); and (3) if the court determines that it should not exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying party, then it is left with the very broad discretion as to the appropriate remedy under rule 1(8). K.M. v. J.R., 2024 ONSC 1338

Analysis

Step One: Has there been a triggering event?

[35] There is no question that there has been a triggering event. The father has failed to comply with paragraphs 4 and 9(b) of the August 12, 2025 order of Justice Newton-Smith

[36] Paragraph 4 of Justice Newton-Smith's order provides as follows:

The parties shall fully comply and cooperate with the therapeutic process, including for the Clinical Intake Consultation, and the Family Therapy Intervention (as outlined in the therapist's Family Therapy Intervention Agreement) including:

a. Completing any intake forms and paying any retainer required;

b. Signing any/all consent forms required by the therapist;

c. Replying to all communications from the therapist within 24 hours;

d. Attending sessions with the therapist, as recommended by the therapist;

e. Encouraging and facilitating the children's attendance, in-person, at therapy appointments with the therapist, in accordance with the frequency and duration recommended by the therapist; and

f. Facilitating contact between the Applicant and the children, as directed by the therapist.

[37] The mother's evidence is that the father has not attended sessions as recommended by the therapist, Sheena Dunham, and has not encouraged and facilitated the children's attendance at therapy in accordance with the frequency and duration recommended by the therapist. Included in the mother's materials is a Progress Report prepared by Ms. Dunham on January 5, 2026, which confirms the following:

a. Over the five months since the consent order was made, the father attended only two sessions with the therapist, facilitated two sessions with D and facilitated one session with E.

b. The father cancelled eight sessions with the therapist. The last session that he cancelled was scheduled for December 17, at which time he advised that he wanted a review meeting to take place with counsel before further sessions were booked

c. Ms. Dunham has found it difficult to establish a consistent therapeutic schedule with the father. He has advised that neither he nor the children are able to attend sessions when he is "on call" for work, which occurs for a two week period each month. Ms. Dunham's attempts to accommodate this barrier (offering appointments on evenings/weekends/school break; proposing to meet the children closer to home; offering a private workspace that the father could use to attend to work matters while the children are in session) have been unsuccessful.

[38] The upshot of Ms. Dunham's two sessions with D is that D adamantly does not wish to see or re-establish contact with her mother or her younger half-sibling. In contrast, in her single session, E displayed curiosity about her mother and a positive view of the therapeutic process:

E met with this therapist on one occasion and engaged in the therapeutic process with this writer without hesitation. Much of this session focused on getting to know each other and E worked cooperatively with this therapist during a game and painting exercise often smiling and giggling.

When asked why she does not see her mother, E responded, "she left us," a narrative that appears to have been shared with her, as she was too young to retain personal memories of her mother. Later in the session, this therapist asked E to explain why she felt reluctant to see her mother. E responded, "she is a stranger; I don't know her." This question led to a meaningful therapeutic moment in which E was asked what one question she would ask her mother if given the opportunity. E replied that she would want to know, "why did you leave me."

Further conversation flowed in a beautiful manner in which E expressed a wish for this therapist to share with her mother her favourite colour, favourite food, and a wish for a pet bunny. E also posed several questions she would like her mother to answer, including wanting to know her mother's favourite food and colour. E rated the session positively and expressed only that she hoped this therapist would have cookies available at the next session.

[39] Unfortunately, the therapist was unable to meet with E a second time. Based on the therapist's description of her attempts to engage E's participation, the father did not fulfill his obligation under the consent order to "encourage and facilitate" E's attendance at therapy appointments:

During a session for E in early December, Mr. Huynh arrived more than thirty minutes late with the children and carried E into the appointment, stating that she was asleep. This therapist began the session working with D, while Mr. Huynh remained in the waiting room with E. At the conclusion of D's session, Mr. Huynh insisted that E was still asleep. This therapist requested that he attempt to wake her; however, he did not do so and instead carried her into the art room. This therapist expressed concern, noting it was unusual for a child of E's age to remain asleep after being removed from a vehicle, carried into an office in 0-degree temperatures, and seated indoors. This therapist inquired about possible illness; E shook her head in response, though Mr. Huynh partially obstructed her from view. Mr. Huynh shared that E's bedtime is past 10 pm on most nights. Mr. Huynh then asked E, "Do you not want to be here?" This therapist immediately cautioned Mr. Huynh, as such language can reinforce the notion that participation in reunification therapy is a choice for the child. E nodded in agreement to attend a session on the Saturday morning three days later; however, she did not attend, with Mr. Huynh later stating that this therapist had made an administrative error when scheduling the appointment.

[40] Ms. Dunham concluded her report as follows;

Reunification is challenging work, and both parents must actively participate in order to interrupt cycles of conflict and focus on restoring healthy family relationships that support the children's well-being. Therapeutic progress with this family has been limited due to several factors, including ongoing difficulties scheduling timely appointments with Mr. Huynh, D, and E. In addition, it has been emphasized to Mr. Huynh that he must both convey and demonstrate to the children that he supports the reunification process.

D is currently presenting as unwilling to participate. This therapist is of the view that the next appropriate step is to focus reunification work on Mr. Huynh, E, and Ms. Hoang, with the intention of hopefully re-engaging D at a later stage. E is at a markedly different developmental and emotional place than D; she has expressed curiosity and questions about her mother that only Ms. Hoang can address. At present, Ms. Hoang remains a stranger to E, making it imperative that the reunification process not be further delayed so that Ms. Hoang can become a known and tangible presence in E's life.

[41] Ms. Dunham then recommended the following next steps:

1. Four individual sessions with E over a five-week period to establish a therapeutic connection and further advance the reunification process.

2. Four individual sessions with Mr. Huynh, and/or joint sessions with Mr. Huynh and E, to support and advance the therapeutic process.

3. In keeping with Dr. Uttendale's recommendations, all sessions are to be conducted in person. Sessions must be scheduled on a regular basis, with minimal time between appointments. For transparency and to support timely progress, all parties are to provide this writer with their availability for weekly sessions for the next six weeks no later than January 16, with counsel copied on all correspondence. This is to include individual availability as well as the availability of the children. Scheduling six weeks in advance will help avoid scheduling conflicts and delays, ensuring sessions occur consistently and the reunification process can proceed without interruption.

4. Re-engagement of D in the reunification process will be considered following the completion of the sessions involving E and Ms. Hoang.

[42] Based on the above, I find that the father breached the requirements in the consent order for him to respond within 24 hours to communications from the therapist, to attend sessions with the therapist as she recommends, to encourage and facilitate the children's attendance, and generally to cooperate and comply with the therapeutic process

[43] First, the father acknowledges in his affidavit that he "paused reunification therapy" out of concern for the children's health (this will be detailed further in the next section). The father had no entitlement to unilaterally "pause" therapy. He was subject to a court order that required him to cooperate with the therapy process. The onus was on him to seek to vary that order, not to take matters into his own hands.

[44] Secondly, the father did not respond to Ms. Dunham's request to provide his availability until three weeks after the deadline she had provided. On February 6, 2026, days before the motion was heard, the father instructed his counsel to write to Ms. Dunham to propose eight one-hour time slots on specific dates and times when he and/or E could attend an appointment. Ms. Dunham's request was that the parties provide "their availability for weekly sessions for the next six weeks", including individual availability as well as the availability of the children. I do not accept that the father and E. are only available during the eight one-hour time slots that he has proposed.

[45] Justice Newton-Smith's order also required the father to provide the mother, via Our Family Wizard, photographs of the children, including their class photos from the past 3 school years, by August 15, 2026. The mother's evidence is that the father did not provide any photos of the children until January 8, 2026, when he provided one grainy photo of each child.

[46] Finally, Justice Newton-Smith's order required the father to provide a weekly update to the mother about the children, including recent photos and updates on the children's schooling, social lives, interests, extra-curriculars and any significant milestones. The mother's evidence is that the father only sporadically provided updates. Sample updates were included in her materials; they were vague, lacking in meaningful detail, and virtually identical.

[47] The father made a last-ditch effort to bring himself into compliance with these orders. On February 6, 2026, through his counsel, he provided his first detailed update about the children and their lives and attached four photos of E, including two school photos from 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. This is insufficient. I find that the father failed to comply with Justice Newton-Smith's order for almost six months before February 6. Further, based on the history of this matter, I have no confidence that further weekly updates and photographs will be supplied.

Step Two: Should this court exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying party?

[48] Once a triggering event has been identified, the onus is on the non-complying party to show why it would be appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion in their favour by not sanctioning that party. This discretion should only be exercised in the non-compliant party's favour in exceptional circumstances. The court's decision as to whether or not to exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying party should take into account all relevant history of the litigation and, more specifically, the conduct of the non-complying party: K.M. v. J.R., 2024 ONSC 1338; Price v. Putman, 2018 ONCJ 86; C.J. v. E.J, 2021 ONSC 4853

[49] The father has not met his onus to establish that it would be appropriate for the court not to sanction him despite his failure to comply with a court order.

[50] The father relies very heavily on what he describes as the children's "ongoing and very serious health issues" to justify his non-compliance (or what he describes in his affidavit as his decision to "pause" the therapy). He has supplied three letters from the children's pediatrician, Dr.Richard Hamat, dated November 13, 2024, August 6, 2025, and January 4, 2026. Dr. Hamat has expressed concerns about how the children are being impacted by the "court-imposed reunification process" and appears to recommend that it be discontinued. I place no weight on Dr. Hamat's opinion, primarily because it is evident from his reports that he has no contextual information whatsoever. The reports reflect no understanding of the basis for the court orders that have been made, or of the orders themselves. For instance, the November 2024 report refers several times to a "court-imposed reunification process" and recommends counselling and supports for the girls instead; however, at that point in time, the order in place was for the girls to participate in individual counselling with a view to determining whether or not reunification therapy should occur.

[51] Dr. Hamat also makes no reference to Dr. Saini's report, Dr. Utendale's report, or Ms. Dunham's progress report. I assume that he would reference the findings of these mental health professionals if he had been provided with them in order to form his opinion. My conclusion is that he was not. There is also no indication that Dr. Hamat consulted with the mental health professionals providing services to his patients. His information was gathered from the father, from D. and to a much lesser extent E. Accordingly, I do not understand how he can reasonably opine that "both children have medical and psychological issues likely related to stress attributable to the reunification therapy currently underway".

[52] Further, there is no reason that Ms. Dunham cannot consider E's medical issues when developing a therapeutic plan for her.

[53] And finally, Dr Hamat's views about reunification therapy were known to the parties and the court at the time that August 12, 25 order was made; nonetheless, the father consented to the order for reunification therapy to take place. This information from Dr. Hamat is not new.

[54] I do not wish to minimize the stress and anxiety that the girls may be experiencing as a result of this process. However, I cannot conclude on the evidence before me that it is the reunification process itself that is impacting them. There is considerable evidence to suggest that it is the father who is the primary contributor to his daughters' distress.

[55] Other than Dr. Hamat's report, the father has supplied no justification for his breaches of Justice Newton-Smith's orders. I note again that the father consented to this order and had counsel at the time it was made. The time to raise concerns about reunification therapy was in August 2025. If he was concerned about the impact on the girls, he should not have consented to the order. (See Allvey-Greiss v. Greiss, 205 ONSC 4438).

[56] Finally, the father's conduct throughout this 5-1/2 year litigation persuades me that I should not exercise my discretion in his favour. Ms. Dunham is not the first clinician whose process the father has attempted to obstruct: Ms. Wisniewski experienced significant difficulties in scheduling appointments with the father and the mother has deposed to the father's delay in starting the court-ordered therapy with Dr. Utendale. This is also not the first order with which he has failed to comply. In June 26, 2024, Justice Sharma admonished the father for his refusal to follow previous court orders and specifically directed that in the event of future breaches, the Court was to consider the imposition of a fine pursunt to rule 1(8) (a.1) of the Family Law Rules.

Step Three: What is the appropriate remedy?

[57] The mother has proposed a series of penalties that would accrue to the father if he fails to provide a timely schedule of his availability to the therapist, fails to attend for appointment to facilitate appointments based on a minimum frequency, and fails to continue to provide photographs and weekly updates.

[58] I am satisfied that a monetary penalty is appropriate in these circumstances. As noted by Justice Sah in Cousins v Healey, 2024 ONSC 688, a decision that predates the introduction of rule 1(8) (a.1):

[128[ Rule 1(8) allows the court to "deal with" the failure to obey an order. This allows the court the ability to control its own case management process. This to me means imposing a monetary consequence.

[129] Consequences permitted under the subrule include limiting a party's ability to obtain any other order from the court and striking their pleadings. These consequences can be far more damaging to litigants than ordering that a sum of money be paid.

[130] Whether called a penalty or fine, I view the purpose of the payment is to incentivize compliance with court orders and to signal to the offending party that the court will not tolerate non-compliance, in other words, to do what is necessary to achieve enforcement.

[131] This type of remedy provides for an efficient and effective consequence to the party who failed to comply with the court order.

[59] In Dalla Bona v. Lucas, 2024 ONSC 4397, at paras 6-8, Justice Mathen made the following comments about the purpose of Rule 1(8) (a.1):

... The recent amendments to Rule 1(8) (a.1) are a tool to make family law proceedings before this Court fairer and more efficient. Facing unresponsive, indifferent or defiant parties, Rule 1(8) (a.1) provides the Court with additional means to hold them accountable.

I believe that the clear message of Rule 1(8)(a.1) is that, in the face of blatant or chronic disregard of the rules, judges should utilize all remedies possible to maintain the integrity and coherence of the family law system.

[60] I find that the father has been unresponsive, indifferent and defiant of the family court process and that a monetary penalty will be an effective means to hold him accountable. Frankly, I do not see any other means of incentivizing him to comply with the reunification therapy process that he has already agreed to, or to comply with the requirements for photographs and weekly updates.

[61] Given D's age and her privacy interests, I will impose only a penalty for the father's failure to comply with the court order to provide past school photographs (as he should not have agreed to this order if this was a genuine concern) and not in respect of ongoing compliance with the requirement for photographs and updates about D.

[62] With respect to the other breaches, I am concerned that the mother's proposed schedule of fines is too nebulous. If the father is to be fined for not complying with steps in the process, he must have clear notice of what steps he is required to take. I am particularly concerned about the aspect of the mother's proposed order that requires the father to provide his and E's availability for sessions with the therapist by a specified date. The father's February 6, 2026 schedule of proposed appointments makes it clear that he does not understand (or chooses not to understand) what is required of him. I do not wish to sow the seeds for another motion focused on whether the father has provided a sufficient summary of his availability for therapy. Also, my view is that the father has had ample opportunity to provide a actual summary of his and E's availability for therapy, as opposed to a schedule based on his convenience. At this critical juncture in the process, the therapist's availability must prevail. I have therefore exercised my discretion to fashion a different remedy that I find is more likely to encourage compliance with the breached order.

[63] Finally, the mother has also asked for an order that Ms. Dunham facilitate a session between her and E after the completion of the above sessions. She has provided confirmation that Ms. Dunham would support such an order. I am satisfied that this order is in E's best interests. The purpose of this therapeutic process is to establish a relationship between E and her mother, the parameters of which are still to be determined. The purpose of the individual sessions is to prepare E and her father for that eventuality. If that goal is not articulated, the individual sessions will have no focus – or alternatively, they will be focused on the father's attempts to convince Ms Dunham that E should not be required to have a joint session with her mother. In any event, the father has already agreed to an order requiring him to facilitate contact between the children and the mother, as directed by the therapist.

[64] I do note that there is no indication that comprehensive psychological assessments have been facilitated for the children, in accordance with Dr. Utendale's recommendations. Further to the August 12, 2025 order, Ms. Dunham was to implement this recommendation or to recommend a professional who could execute it. This matter needs to be attended to, although for clarity, it is not a pre-condition for joint sessions between E and her mother.

Orders

[65] For the reasons above, the following orders shall issue:

a. The Respondent father shall adhere to the next steps in the therapeutic process recommended by the court-appointed therapist, Sheena Dunham, MSW RSW ("the therapist") and required by paragraph 4 of the Consent Order of Justice Newton-Smith dated August 13, 2025 ("the Consent Order"), specifically;

i. The Respondent shall facilitate the attendance of the child, E., at four individual in-person sessions with the therapist. These sessions shall proceed over a five week period, which five-week period shall start on Monday March 2 2026 ("the Five-Week Period");

ii. The Respondent shall attend four individual in-person sessions with the therapist and/or joint sessions with the therapist and E. These four sessions shall proceed over the Five Week Period.

iii. By end of day on Tuesday February 24, 2026, the therapist will provide the Respondent with two proposed dates for each of the four individual in-person sessions with E and two proposed dates for each of the individual in-person sessions with the Respondent (which may also be joint sessions with E, at the therapist's sole discretion), to proceed over the Five Week Period;

iv. By the end of the day on Thursday February 26, 2026, the Respondent will advise the therapist of the dates he has selected for each appointment. For clarity, this will be a total of 4 appointments for E and a total of 4 appointments for the Respondent (or joint appointments with E, if directed by the therapist).

v. The Respondent may be required to take time off work to attend these appointments and E. may be required to miss school. For clarity, the Respondent is not entitled to decline an appointment because it is taking place during work hours or because it is taking place during school hours.

vi. If the Respondent fails to select dates for each appointment, as required by paragraph (iv) above, he shall pay to the Applicant a penalty of $500 per day until he complies with this provision and selects dates for each appointment.

vii. If E does not attend an appointment as scheduled in accordance with the above provisions, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant a penalty of $1000 for each missed appointment

viii. If the Respondent and/or the Respondent and E do not attend an appointment as scheduled in accordance with the above provisions, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant a penalty of $1000 for each missed appointment.

ix. Following the completion of the Five Week Period, there shall be an introduction between the Applicant and E, supervised and supported by the therapist. Thereafter, there shall be sessions between E. and the Applicant, at minimum once per week, with the method of the session (in person or virtual) to be determined by the therapist until the therapist recommends those sessions no longer take place. The Respondent shall facilitate E's attendance at these sessions, even if they are scheduled during his work hours or during the school day

x. On or before April 20, 2026, the therapist shall provide an updated progress report to the parties setting out the therapist's recommendations for next steps. The parties may bring motions after the release of the updated progress report.

xi. The Respondent shall comply with paragraph 9(a) of the Consent Order by providing to the Applicant the children's class photographs from 2023-2024, 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 by Tuesday February 24, 2026, and at least 3 photographs of E. taken within the last year. Until the Respondent complies with this order, he shall pay to the Applicant a penalty of $500 per day.

xii. The Respondent shall comply with paragraph 10 of the Consent Order by providing weekly updates about E, every Friday commencing Friday February 27, 2026, which must include at least three specific details about each child such as her social engagements (ie birthday parties or playdates attended), the classes she is taking and enjoying and any major school projects or exams, and her interests (ie the books they are reading, movies she is enjoying, new hobbies, favourite foods, etc). For every week that the Respondent does not comply with this paragraph, he shall pay a penalty to the Applicant of $500.

Costs

[66] The Applicant was wholly successful on this motion and is presumptively entitled to her costs. The parties are encouraged to reach an agreement on costs. If they are unable to do so, the Applicant shall serve and file written submissions on or before March 5, 2026. The Respondent shall serve and file responding submissions on or before March 19, 2026. Written submissions shall comply with the requirements set out in r. 24(19) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.

Justice Carolyn Leach Date: February 19, 2026