CITATION: M. R. W. v. S. A. W., 2026 ONSC 1681

COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-59575

DATE: 2026/03/20

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: )

M. R. W.

– and –

S. A. W.

Applicant )

Respondent )

Brian Kelly, Counsel for the Applicant

Richard Niman and Adriana Chimirel, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: January 19 – 22; February 2 – 6;

February 9 – 11; March 9 and 10, 2026

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J. BREITHAUPT SMITH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT – PART ONE

Background

[1] Throughout these reasons for judgment, I refer to the Applicant as “Father” and to the Respondent as “Mother.” Pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s approach in Kirby v. Woods, 2025 ONCA 437, I have given the children pseudonyms to protect their privacy.

[2] I am releasing these reasons for judgment in the trial of this matter in two parts: this one regarding parenting issues and the second part regarding the parties’ incomes and support (both child and spousal). It is currently the March Break school vacation; Mother and the children are out of the country with Father’s consent. As a result of the evidence at trial, I am concerned about the potential for Father to have a dysregulated emotional reaction to my conclusions. I am

therefore releasing this first part of my decision now, during March Break, to allow for a cooling- off period before Mother and the children return home. I will release the second part of my decision as soon as possible.

[3] To their great credit, the parties were able to resolve all property issues inclusive of post- separation adjustments prior to and during the trial.

[4] The parties’ eldest child, Dylan, is now over the age of 18 years. It is undisputed that the relationship between Dylan and Father has been fragile post-separation and this continues to date. Dylan resides with Mother and it is agreed that he makes his own arrangements in having contact with Father.

[5] Their middle child, 16-year-old Zoe, had expressed an intention to reside primarily with Father and had remained in his home as of January 8, 2026. That changed on February 7, 2026 and, as of the last day of trial (March 10, 2026), she was back in Mother’s home. The parties agree that Zoe is strong-willed and is currently making her own decisions regarding her residency arrangements; neither party seeks to force her to reside in a location against her wishes.

[6] The parties also have eight-year-old Marcus. Decision-making and parenting arrangements for him were live for trial.

[7] Two issues are central in the determination of the children’s best interests: (1) allegations by both parties of family violence, including coercive control; and (2) Mother’s proposal to move to Toronto with the children. Note that Dylan, who is now an adult, intends to continue to reside with Mother and is ready to move.

Parties’ Positions on Parenting Issues

[8] Mother seeks to move to the Mimico area of Toronto, where the family originally lived before moving to Waterloo Region in July of 2021. As noted, Dylan intends to move with her if that comes to pass. Mother’s goal would be for Marcus to remain here through to the end of the school year and to commence school in Toronto in September of 2027. Mother asks that Marcus

remain primarily resident with her and spend one overnight on alternate Saturdays in Father’s care. Mother is hopeful that Zoe will join the family if the move is authorized but is not seeking any form of enforcement in that regard. Mother says that she and the children have experienced family violence in a variety of forms at Father’s hands and that joint decision-making is neither realistic nor appropriate. She asks for a restraining order.

[9] Father intends to remain in Waterloo Region where he was born and raised. He seeks joint decision-making for Zoe and Marcus. He seeks to have Zoe and Marcus reside primarily with him if Mother intends to relocate to Toronto; he agrees that no enforcement mechanism for parenting time is necessary. If Mother remains in Waterloo Region, he seeks an equal division of Marcus’ time between the two households on a week about basis. He agrees that Zoe will make her own residency choices. He denies causing any family violence; he says that Mother has been physically and emotionally abusive with Zoe and has physically disciplined the children. He argues that any family violence has been mutual and thus no predominant perpetrator should be identified.

Basic Undisputed Facts

[10] The couple met at a party when they were in college. Their relationship moved forward and, when Father was accepted to a foreign university to upgrade his credentials, Mother joined him on a student work visa. They returned to Canada engaged to be married and settled in Toronto.

[11] They lived in Toronto for seventeen years after their marriage, purchasing a home in the Mimico area in 2005.

[12] Dylan was born in September of 2007. Zoe was born in May of 2009. Marcus was born in January of 2018.

[13] Mother took full maternity leaves with each of Dylan and Zoe. Father did not take any significant parenting time off from work following the birth of either of these two children. Mother was packaged out of her employment when her pregnancy with Marcus was discovered and she remained out of the workforce for approximately 18 months thereafter, during which time she started an investment consulting business. Father took a few weeks of leave when Marcus was

born, although no evidence was provided regarding the division of household and parenting responsibilities between the parties during this brief period.

[14] Mother was primarily responsible for all child-rearing and household tasks; Father was primarily responsible for considerable top-to-bottom renovations at the Mimico residence (including co-ordinating the involvement of professionals and doing some of the work himself).

[15] The parties moved to Waterloo Region mid-2021, purchasing the (now-sold) matrimonial home in April and moving in July of that year. The move was during the height of the COVID situation; the family felt that five people were too crowded together in the smaller Toronto home during lockdowns.

[16] The parties separated on October 19, 2023. They attempted mediation and then engaged an arbitrator. An Arbitral Award was made addressing the sale of the jointly owned properties and denying Mother’s request to move to Toronto on an interim basis. The Arbitral Award set out an interim parenting plan inclusive of holidays. Support was not addressed.

[17] Father has worked primarily in the aerospace industry, generally in purchasing, since graduating in 2002. His work was predominantly in the Greater Toronto Area. He was terminated from his employment on October 13, 2023 following a restructuring and negotiated a severance package with the assistance of a lawyer. He has not been a T-4 employee since.

[18] Mother has been working for her current employer since September of 2023. Her office is in downtown Toronto and the corporate policy is that she must be in the office a minimum of three days per week. She is the Executive Vice President of Marketing; her first task upon being hired was to rebrand the firm.

[19] Prior to Mother’s current position, Father was always the higher income earner. Mother’s income at her current post is almost three times Father’s most recent employment income.

Assessment of Parties’ Credibility

Father

[20] Father’s approach to this litigation has been entirely strategic. From the trial perspective, this started with his refusal to answer basic questions about a central issue – the placement of a video camera in the parties’ master bedroom at the matrimonial home – at Questioning. I allowed that evidence for reasons reported at 2026 ONSC 666.

[21] His memory was crystal clear when his evidence supported his position, but conveniently vague otherwise. For example:

a. Father recited in detail observations made of unsavoury activities in and around a rental house located across the street from the parties’ original Toronto residence. This evidence was proffered in support of his position that a move back to that area would be against the children’s best interests. He failed to clarify, as came out in the evidence later, that the landlord sold the unsavoury rental house years ago to a couple who had fully renovated it by the time the family left for Waterloo Region.

b. Despite the critical impact of the video camera upon this proceeding, which Father said was installed at Mother’s request to “keep eyes on the room” because they suspected Zoe of stealing, Father could not remember whether he ever saw any evidence of any person removing items or attempting to access the in-room safe. This defies credulity. If the video camera was installed for security purposes, as Father maintained, surely he would remember whether or not any evidence of theft had been recorded, particularly if the parties’ daughter was the prime suspect.

[22] Although his presentation was non-combative and polite, Father consistently prioritized his own strategic perspective. He was unable to agree with the suggestions that Mother loved the children, that they love her and that they love one another (in stark contrast with Paternal Grandmother, who immediately supported those propositions). He attested that the text messages authored by him and tendered as exhibits at trial represented only a tiny fraction of all messages, and that many of his communications talked of “how much we can have a great family,” but

presented none of these supposedly positive messages as evidence. He took care to say that his last employment (to which he commuted a couple of times weekly pre-separation) was in North York, not in Toronto. He was adamant that, once both parties found themselves commuting, no family conversation happened before separation about the idea of returning to Toronto, until he reversed this statement and conceded that “there was maybe a discussion somewhere” but that no family agreement was reached.

[23] Father’s strategic approach was underscored during cross-examination. Two incidences stand out. In the first, Mother’s counsel suggests to Father that he has trouble with his memory, and he replies: “It depends on what it is.” In the second, Mother’s counsel was about to show Father one of his Form 35.1 Affidavits to review his evidence regarding an incident that allegedly took place pre-separation when the parties were on vacation without the children. Before the document could be put to him, Father interjected with an attempt to explain why the alleged incident was not described in the document. Except that it was. Father was trying to get out in front of where he thought Mother’s counsel was leading him. This appears to be demonstrative of his entire approach in this proceeding.

[24] Finally, Father was given the opportunity to address evidence raised in Mother’s examination-in-chief by way of reply evidence. His reply evidence was remarkably brief considering some of Mother’s evidence. For example, he did not deny following and observing Mother at the family cottage in April of 2023. I draw an adverse inference against Father from the absence of this denial.

[25] Consequently, wherever Father’s evidence conflicts with that of another witness or the

content of any document entered into evidence in this trial, I have assigned it no weight.

Mother

[26] Mother’s evidence was best described as minimalist. She was occasionally hesitant and stilted; her embarrassment at having to conduct an airing of her family’s dire circumstances in a public setting was palpable. At times, she showed frustration during cross-examination but, overall, her presentation was stoic and direct. I accept her evidence unless otherwise noted.

Assessment of Other Witnesses and Documentary Evidence

[27] Six other witnesses testified.

[28] Paternal grandmother was sincere and open in her testimony. As she stated, she attended the trial to testify “for the children.” She described her beautiful relationships with each of the three children which clearly continue to this day, inclusive of phone calls, text messages, Instagram exchanges and drop-in visits from Dylan and Zoe. I accept her evidence in its entirety.

[29] D.J., a friend of Father’s since high school, is the manager of a furniture store who offered a sales position to Father in December of 2025 and withdrew it in January of 2026 as a result of an economic downturn for the business. I accept his evidence in its entirety.

[30] J.N. is a respected clinician retained by the parties to provide a Voice of the Child Report in the context of the Arbitration that took place in 2024 regarding the interim parenting plan and mobility issue. He was properly qualified as a participant expert and provided the court with the views of Dylan and Zoe as of that time period. I accept his evidence in its entirety.

[31] R.M. is the individual to whom Mother directly reports at work. He is the President and CEO of the corporation where she works; she is the Vice-President of Marketing. His testimony was straightforward and succinct. I accept his evidence in its entirety.

[32] E.B. and S.C. are workers with the local Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”). As one might expect, their testimony was professional and straightforward, and they each acknowledged when they had no independent recollection of events. The parties agreed that their notes could be entered as business records in the absence of direct testimony, however I underscore here that I have been careful not to rely upon inadmissible hearsay contained in those records in reaching my conclusions in this matter. S.C. in particular was generally sincere in accepting responsibility for failing to follow the usual child protection protocols.

[33] Most of the 69 exhibits entered speak for themselves. As noted above, I have been mindful of the existence of double- and triple-hearsay contained in some materials, notably the Society’s

records. I conclude that all of the children’s statements to non-parties are admissible pursuant to the “principled approach” from R. v. Khan [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531, 1990 CanLII 77 (SCC), which I discussed at paragraphs 55 to 58 of in CAS v. C.N. and H.C., 2019 ONSC 5915. Although this is not a child protection matter, I have no difficulty finding that non-party evidence of the children’s statements is necessary having regard to the high conflict nature of this matter; indeed, the parties agreed to such an approach when they jointly retained J.N. to produce the Voice of the Child Report.

[34] One area requires specific comment: the recording of statements attributed to Zoe. For clarity, the issue is not whether Zoe’s statements were accurately recorded by J.N. or by the Society’s employees. The issue is weight to be attributed to such statements. Zoe has made many allegations against each of her parents’ post-separation. Unfortunately, both parties agreed that her ability to be forthright and sincere has been compromised by her lived experience. She is hurting; and hurt people hurt people. Consequently, while I admit the statements for proof of the truth of their contents, I assign little weight to anything alleged by Zoe after October of 2023.

[35] Finally, on the penultimate day of trial, a short statement of agreed facts was entered as Exhibit 69. It reads [as redacted]:

As of February 7, 2026 [Zoe] has been residing with the Respondent, [Mother].

Issues

[36] The issues for the court’s determination are:

a. The impact, if any, of family violence in this matter;

b. Whether a move to Toronto is in Marcus’ best interests;

c. Decision-making for Zoe and Marcus;

d. Parenting schedule for Marcus;

e. Residency arrangements for Zoe;

f. Restraining Order limiting Father’s contact with Mother;

g. Imputation of income to Father for the period commencing November 1, 2023;

h. Father’s spousal support claim for the period commencing November 1, 2023;

i. Calculation of child support for the period from November 1, 2023 to December 31, 2025 and go-forward child support effective January 1, 2026;

j. division of special and extraordinary expenses for the children;

k. the divorce; and

l. costs.

[37] In this first part of my trial decision, I will be addressing issues (a) through (f), being the parenting issues and the restraining order. The balance of the issues will be covered in a separate document at a future time.

The Divorce Act

[38] The parties were married and thus the Divorce Act¹ applies. In determining whether the best interests of the children require decisions to be made primarily by one parent or jointly by both parents, section 16 of the Divorce Act:

a. mandates that the primary consideration be each child’s “physical, emotional and

psychological safety, security and well-being”;

b. incorporates and expands upon the inclusive list of factors delineated at sections 24(2) through 24(5) of the former text of the Children’s Law Reform Act, which factors guided many Ontario decisions before March 1, 2021;

c. adds the consideration of “any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure” relevant to the child’s circumstances;

¹ R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2^nd Supp.), as am.

d. sets out a non-exhaustive list of seven factors to be taken into account in assessing family violence; and

e. clarifies that the “Maximum Contact Principle” does not presume equally-shared parenting but rather means “that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.”

[39] Sections 16.1 through 16.4 and 16.6 are applicable to this family’s situation.² The same factors apply both to the determination of decision-making responsibility and the apportionment of parenting time. The factors for consideration, distilled from the above-listed sections, not all of which are relevant to this family, are:

a. each child’s needs having regard to his or her developmental stage;

b. each child’s relationship(s) with each of the parents³, extended family members and other people special to him or her;

c. each parent’s willingness to support the other’s role in the child’s life;

d. the history of care for the child;

e. each child’s views and preferences;

f. each child’s cultural heritage, inclusive of language and faith as applicable;

g. any plans for the child’s care;

h. each parent’s ability and willingness to meet each child’s needs;

i. the parents’ ability to communicate and co-operate with one another;

j. an assessment of family violence, taking into account:

i. the timing, severity and frequency of the incidents;

ii. any pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour;

iii. whether the child was subjected to or witnessed aspects of the violence;

² Section 16.5 addresses “Contact Orders” between children and non-spouses (such as extended relatives) and sections 16.7 and onward relate to residential moves and relocations.

³ Note that the Divorce Act, in its focused application to married parents and their children, uses the term “spouse”. I have substituted the word “parent” to reflect each litigant’s role vis-à-vis the children.

iv. the harm or risk of harm to the child;

v. other compromises to the safety of the child or another family member;

vi. current fear experienced by the child or another family member arising from the family violence;

vii. any remedial steps taken by the violent parent; and

viii. any other relevant factor;

k. the impact, if any, of family violence on the ability of the offending parent to care for and meet the needs of each child;

l. the impact, if any, of family violence on the parents’ co-operation moving forward;

m. any legally-founded order, condition or measure relevant to the child’s safety,

security and well-being;

n. past conduct only insofar as it is relevant to a parent’s participation in decision- making for, or parenting time with, the child;

o. the child’s entitlement to as much time with each parent as is consistent with his or

her best interests;

p. a presumption that day-to-day decisions are to be made by the parent caring for the child at the time the decision arises, unless otherwise ordered by the court;

q. the best allocation of decision-making responsibility (regarding major decisions) as between the parents and/or any other participating individual;

r. the means by which information regarding each child’s health and education is to

be sourced, i.e. whether as between the parents or from third parties directly;

s. the existence of a parenting plan submitted jointly by the parents to the court.

[40] Finally, sections 16.9 through 16.96 address mobility, being parents’ change of residence

and any corresponding impact upon parenting time.

A. Family Violence

[41] Both parties engaged in family violence. I thus assess each in turn, starting with my assessment of the Respondent Mother as alleged by the Applicant Father.

[42] For context, Father is 6’1” (about 185 cm) and has been weight training at a gym regularly post-separation. Mother is 5’4” (about 162 cm) and of slim build. My recitation of such data is not to be misinterpreted as demonstrating any predispositions but is relevant in the consideration of all aspects of family violence.

Mother as Perpetrator

[43] Mother was physically disciplined as a child. She admits to having spanked Dylan when he was between 10 and 12 years of age. She admits to having slapped Zoe in the face on two occasions as a knee-jerk response to vile name-calling. She admits to having slapped Zoe on the arm when Zoe’s interaction with Marcus turned abusive and profanity laden. A video of an explosive interaction between Mother and Zoe from this past August was entered into evidence. Zoe is clearly seriously disturbed as a result both of her lived experience since the family moved from Toronto to Waterloo Region (including an episode of extreme bullying by other girls immediately upon arrival here) and the insipid toxicity of the atmosphere in the family home. Zoe is not to be blamed. Mother’s behaviour was wrong, and she regrets it deeply. Mother has invited Zoe to attend counselling twice, and Zoe has recently agreed to attend (although no joint sessions had been held by the time of the trial). Mother denies any family violence toward Marcus or toward Father.

[44] Local child protection services have been involved with the family to investigate two reports: one from Marcus’ school as a result of a display of sexualized behaviour in May of 2025 and the other from Father reporting Mother’s slap of Zoe’s arm at the rented cottage in late July of 2025. Marcus was interviewed regarding the first report and the assigned worker, S.C., determined that he was not at risk for sexual abuse. During the investigation arising from the second report, Zoe made disclosures that: (1) mother had hit her in the face prior to separation causing her jaw to swell and difficulty eating; (2) mother had slapped her on the arm at the cottage; and (3) mother had thrown a mop bucket at her (which was the altercation that was partially videorecorded by Mother).

[45] S.C. confirmed that she did not fully investigate anything other than the cottage slap incident and did not follow the Society’s internal protocols in that regard. She concluded that

physical abuse by Mother against Zoe could not be verified, although she agreed that Mother’s behaviour was abusive. This is a puzzling contradiction and, when seen in the totality of S.C.’s evidence, I conclude that she had developed an alignment with Mother. Having said this, although her conclusions may not have been impartial at the time, her willingness to admit to the failures in the investigative process supports the credibility of her evidence at trial. Note, of course, that Zoe’s statements are hearsay; there is no independent evidence that Mother struck her so hard that her jaw swelled or that she had trouble eating. Mother has admitted to physical violence against Zoe, both reactionary (striking her in the face) and disciplinary (slapping her arm at the cottage). Having regard to the obviously wildly heightened emotional states of both Zoe and Mother as shown in the video taken of the argument in August, I will not comment on the allegation that Mother threw a mop bucket that struck Zoe’s leg in that incident, as Zoe alleges.

[46] Father alleges that he was abused “in every way” by Mother. He points to an incident during a vacation to Mexico about which the parties have very different memories. A second incident occurred on July 30, 2023 when Mother slapped Father in the face and knocked a beer can out of his hand. The parties were on the cusp of separating and Father had engaged in a variety of abusive behaviours, particularized below, during that time. Mother denies any violence directed toward Father, physical or otherwise, although she agrees that the marriage was toxic. I find that Mother’s violence on July 30, 2023 was a stand-alone situational occurrence.

[47] Father further alleges emotional abuse of Zoe by Mother. He equates his text messages to Mother, discussed in detail below, with Mother’s release of the emotional video of Zoe to Zoe’s then-boyfriend and argues that Mother was emotionally abusing Zoe in doing so. I disagree. I find that Mother sent the video for the reason she articulated, out of frustration because Zoe’s then- boyfriend had agreed to participate in the chore Mother had assigned (which triggered the argument). I find that Mother regretted sending the video immediately thereafter.

[48] For clarity, there is no reason to compare or contrast different elements of family violence amongst members of a family. It is not, as was suggested in argument by Father’s counsel, a matter of incidences balancing one another out across time. Of the factors guiding the court’s fact-finding assessment of family violence described in the legislation, balancing incidents off against one another is glaring in its absence. In my view, such an approach is borne out of the myth that there

can be no primarily abusive party in a family situation that is saturated with violence. This is simply not correct.

[49] I find the single instance of Mother sending the video to Zoe’s then-boyfriend to be distinct from the import and impact of Father’s communications with Mother. I conclude that Mother did not engage in emotional or psychological violence toward any of the children.

[50] I note further that Mother has been engaged in counselling for many months to date, with a view to addressing her own emotions and learning parenting and coping strategies in dealing with Zoe. While I am not excusing Mother’s physical aggression with Zoe, the dysregulation triggered in both Mother and Zoe results from their dysfunctional relationship. Thus, counselling (together and separately) provides an opportunity to fix the situation such that future violence will not occur. Being able to connect with her daughter is one of Mother’s main counselling goals; I find her to be sincerely undertaking remedial efforts in that regard.

[51] I find that Mother has engaged in inappropriate physical discipline of Zoe and that there has been family violence in the form of extreme emotional dysregulation that has taken place between Zoe and Marcus, and between Zoe and Mother, while the children have been in Mother’s care. Mother has admitted to historic physical discipline of Dylan which reflected her upbringing and which she now regrets. I do not conclude that Mother has engaged in any family violence with Dylan or Marcus (although I appreciate that they have witnessed some of the emotional dysregulation). Overall, I would classify the family violence in which Mother is the perpetrator as mild and driven by emotion specific to the circumstances of the incidents. I find that Mother regrets her behaviour and demonstrates sophisticated insight into the impact of family violence on all three children.

Father as Perpetrator

[52] While the parties’ marriage had been toxic for many years, and there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that Father was psychologically and emotionally abusive of Mother throughout, I will focus on the critical period leading up to separation and thereafter.

[53] In late March of 2023, Father discovered that Mother had engaged in an affair conducted entirely over the internet. He learned this through viewing video recordings of Mother in the parties’ master bedroom. Thereafter, Father’s behaviour destabilized entirely. The following provide some examples, all of which are either from his evidence or are undisputed by him:

a. On March 27, 2023, roughly two months after Mother admitted to having an online affair, Father sent a text message to her graphically describing in detail a video in his possession of an instance of her online interaction. He demands admissions from Mother, who denies his narrative. In explaining his approach, Father suggested that he was trying to reason with Mother and that the text message was an attempt to bring the parties closer together by getting the truth from her.

b. In March of 2023, Mother discovered an Apple AirTag tracking device in the vehicle that she was driving. She changed to another vehicle and discovered in August of 2023 that the device had been moved to that vehicle. The device was connected to Father’s old cellphone.

c. In late April of 2023, Father encouraged Mother to go to the family cottage for the weekend to get some rest. He then drove there, leaving the children home alone, and observed the cottage itself but did not advise Mother of his presence. Mother was awakened by police on a wellness check pounding at the door.

d. In May of 2023, Father had an irate episode, screaming and throwing objects around in the basement of the matrimonial home. He escalated to the point that Mother took the children to a hotel for the night.

e. Father admitted to involving the parties’ children, and particularly Dylan, deeply in the post-separation conflict, including after Dylan’s withdrawal from parenting time with him. He claimed that he did so to try to repair his relationship with Dylan and to save the marriage. He was unable to explain how that result would be achieved by his behaviour.

f. Father’s evidence was that “everything was going great” in the parties’ post- separation work with the assistance of a mediator in late 2023 and into 2024.

Against that backdrop, on December 27, 2023, Father sent 35 text messages to Mother, including a video taken of her in the master bedroom and the following phrases:

i. I hope you go get banged by a million guys trying to find love again. Just to realize nobody gives a sh*t about you. Cause they don't.

ii. I will make sure the kids know exactly what happened. And your friends, and your family.

iii. For the rest of your life I hope whenever someone is thrusting into you, you realize how much of a whore you are.

iv. Waste of skin nobody slut.

v. Like a 10 dollar whore that wanted to abort their 3rd born. Sound familiar? (In his evidence, Father admitted that this text was “just reminding her of when she wanted to abort [Marcus].”)

vi. But I will not stop until I know the whole truth. The more I find out that

you don’t tell me. The more I tell everyone.

vii. It will be 10x worse if you don’t tell me and I find out. You decide.

viii. You’re actually not smart. You’re confident and just a bully. People get tired of your snake tongue and back down. You’re not right.

ix. I think you should check stock of how people perceive you because nobody likes you.

x. Only you can change the outcome. Only you can change your heart. Only you can chart the path now.

g. On February 4, 2024, Father was residing at his parents’ home during the “nesting period” where each party vacated the matrimonial home while the other parented the children there. Sometime late in the evening, Paternal Grandmother advised

him that police had been seen on the grandparents’ doorbell camera; Father was in the shower at the time. Father did not contact police; instead, he started calling Mother and Zoe (who was in Mother’s care at the matrimonial home). He attested that he was “fearful for the kids” but wrote an email to the parties’ mediator at 11:45

p.m. that night, before attending at the matrimonial home, excerpted below [sic]:

I was getting out of the shower when 3 cops showed up at my parents house. I didn’t make the door in time. I cant get a hold of my wife or my kids now. I have a funny feeling that something sinister is going on here and it has everything to do with the divorce or custody.

I see what’s going on here. It looks as though our mediation discussions were coaching calls for her benefit and the long game was to go to court. Just happy to put this in writing before I get arrested on trumped up charges and manipulation. She’ll also be in the clink beside me for assault and yes this is actually real to me and to my daughter and its all on video so bye bye [Mother’s employer] and Bay street. We can do this nice 50/50 or we can make this ugly.

h. Shortly after midnight on February 5, 2024, Father and Paternal Grandparents went together to the matrimonial home. Father gained entry to the locked home using a screwdriver. He went upstairs where Mother had locked herself, Zoe and Marcus in the master bedroom and was on the telephone with police (Dylan was out at the time). As he was leaving, police arrested Father.

i. Father emailed Dylan (then 16) on February 5, 2024 after he had been released from custody. In cross-examination, he said that he didn’t copy Zoe (then 14) because she didn’t have an email address. He was unable to affirm with certainty that the email would have a negative impact on Dylan and admitted to sending other emails to Dylan about Mother. Examples from the February 5^th email, in which “she” is Mother, include [sic]:

i. She’s a liar and a cheat – scum of the earth.

ii. She’s FULL of lies. All lies. Just trying to make me look bad to have the upper hand and make sure she has you kids of has some poor excuse for her actions.

iii. She turned her back on me and you and the rest of our family to pursue what? lied to f*ck me over right now.

iv. She’s pure garbage. Nobody respects her and they never will. Full of lies and her time is up! She’s F*cked.

v. She backstabbed me. Killed our family. Not me!

j. Father admitted to corresponding with a mutual friend to discourage that person from lending Mother any money to assist her with funding her representation at trial. Although the evidence was not clear, it appeared to have been sent shortly before, or possibly during, the trial.

[54] Section 2(1) of the Divorce Act defines family violence as including “any conduct … that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour…” Coercive control can be defined as a pattern of abusive behaviours used to control or dominate a family member or intimate partner.

[55] Father admitted that he sent the communications to Mother, to Dylan, and to the mutual friend in an attempt to alter Mother’s behaviour. It is not reasonable to conclude that he sent the text messages to Mother out of love on December 27, 2023; his intention was to bully and threaten her, including threatening her employment and attempting to damage her relationship with the children. His intention with the email to Dylan, was to negatively influence Dylan’s perception of Mother and cause him to blame her for the family breakdown. His intention in communicating with the mutual friend could only have been to minimize the resources in Mother’s hands and constrain her approach to the litigation. Coercive control is clear.

[56] Father has been in counselling since well prior to separation. While he expressed embarrassment at having sent the text messages on December 27, 2023, he consistently showed a

lack of insight regarding the impact of his communications on the family. This is concerning: counselling is not intended as an emotional crutch; its goal must be for the perpetrator of family violence to break free from toxic behaviour patterns permanently. Let me be clear: I am not purporting to assess the sincerity of Father’s statements of regret; I am concluding that there is little likelihood of rehabilitation from his toxic behaviour patterns as years of professional assistance have generated no results to date.

[57] Readers will note that we have not yet discussed the installation of video cameras in the parties’ master bedroom in detail. This is intentional; I find the presence of serious coercive control in this matter even without considering the video cameras. I would be remiss, however, if I were to disregard the evidence surrounding the video cameras entirely.

[58] Father has been charged with voyeurism; he has pleaded not guilty and the charge remains before the criminal court at this time. Father’s counsel implored this court to reach no conclusions regarding the installation and use of the video cameras as the criminal proceeding remains outstanding. The suggestion was made that I ought not to engage with the facts surrounding the video cameras in any detail whatsoever, and even that this court was not able to make any findings on the point. I disagree. Surveillance is a component of coercive control, and allegations in that regard cannot be simply ignored in an assessment of family violence. Further, it would be a bizarre result if judges addressing family litigation were prohibited from considering evidence of family violence simply because the same facts were concurrently before a criminal court.

[59] Father’s explanation for the video cameras is that valuables were going missing from the master bedroom and the parties suspected Zoe as thief. He said that Mother insisted on the installation of the video camera in a hidden location (embedded in the unused wall mounting unit for a television) to “keep eyes on the room”. He explained that the video camera was pointed at the master bed, not at the safe in which the valuables were kept, because a thief would need to walk past it to retrieve the key to the safe from a nightstand. No one was asked why the key couldn’t simply be moved to another location in the room, or why the video camera wasn’t pointed at the location of the valuables, rather than at the bed. No one was asked why the safe needed to be in the master bedroom in the first place.

[60] Father leveraged videos that had been taken of Mother to bully and intimidate her. He sent copies of videos to her and graphically described certain content relating to Mother’s personal behaviour in the master bedroom. Despite these demeaning communications, Father insisted that Mother wanted a replacement installed after the first video camera was removed. Father installed another one in the same location, again aimed at the bed.

[61] In January of 2024, Mother and Dylan had a conversation in the master bedroom in which Dylan expressed concern that Father had been made aware of prior private discussions between them. Mother assured Dylan that she had not disclosed anything to Father. Dylan then discovered the second video camera. Mother contacted police.

[62] Father’s evidence was that Mother insisted on the installation of both video cameras and that she continued to support his exclusive role in accessing the footage. The recordings were password-protected and Father noted that the children (it was unclear whether this was Dylan, or Zoe, or both of them) had gained access to some of it without his approval. Despite his alleged role as protector in monitoring the video camera for security purposes, Father was unable to provide any evidence regarding any footage (or the absence thereof) connected with the supposed original reason for the video cameras’ installations, being theft from the master bedroom. Considering that Zoe was the prime suspect, this is very strange. As was alluded to in my assessment of Father’s credibility, surely he would remember if his daughter was, in fact, a thief caught on video, or if the footage instead exonerated her?

[63] I will give Father the benefit of the doubt regarding the circumstances around the installation of the first camera in the master bedroom. I conclude, however, that the second installation was done by Father with the intention of surveilling Mother and surreptitiously recording her activities in the master bedroom.

[64] When the evidence regarding Father’s vile communications with Mother and Dylan are taken together with the surveillance (including both the AirTag and the second video camera), it is obvious that Father engaged in a repetitive and serious pattern of family violence. This is not mitigated by any insight or counselling done by Father, as his behaviours have not changed despite ongoing professional assistance.

B. Mother’s Proposed move to Toronto

[65] In any relocation case, the first issue is in assigning the burden of proof. Section 16.3(1) specifies that the burden is on the person seeking to move where an existing Order, agreement or arbitral award specifies roughly equal parenting time. Section 16.3(2) places the burden upon the non-residential parent where the children spend the “majority” of time in the care of a primary residential parent. Section 16.3(3) reads: “In any other case, the parties to the proceeding have the burden of proving whether the relocation is in the best interests of the child.” It appears that the parties agree that no presumptive burden applies; I concur and find that section 16.3(3) applies. Each party must demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that his or her proposal is in the best interests of the children.

[66] As the Supreme Court of Canada wrote in Barendregt v. Grebulinas, “the common law relocation framework [in assessing mobility cases] can be restated as follows” (2022 SCC 22, [2022] 1 SCR 517):

152The crucial question is whether relocation is in the best interests of the child, having regard to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. This inquiry is highly fact-specific and discretionary.

153Our jurisprudence and statutes provide a rich foundation for such an inquiry: see, for example, s. 16 of the Divorce Act. A court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, which may include the child’s views and preferences, the history of caregiving, any incidents of family violence, or a child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage. A court shall also consider each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent, and shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent, as is consistent with the best interests of the child. These examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. While some of these factors were specifically noted under Gordon, they have broad application to the best interests of the child.

154However, traditional considerations bearing on the best interests of the child must be considered in the context of the unique challenges posed by relocation cases. In addition to the factors that a court will generally consider when determining the best interests of the child and any applicable notice requirements, a court should also consider:

• the reasons for the relocation;

• the impact of the relocation on the child;

• the amount of time spent with the child by each person who has parenting time or a pending application for a parenting order and the level of involvement in the child’s life of each of those persons;

• the existence of an order, arbitral award, or agreement that specifies the geographic area in which the child is to reside;

• the reasonableness of the proposal of the person who intends to relocate the child to vary the exercise of parenting time, decision making responsibility or contact, taking into consideration, among other things, the location of the new place of residence and the travel expenses; and

• whether each person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility or a pending application for a parenting order has complied with their obligations under family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance.

The court should not consider how the outcome of an application would affect either party’s relocation plans — for example, whether the person who intends to move with the child would relocate without the child or not relocate. These factors are drawn from s. 16.92(1) and (2) of the Divorce Act and largely reflect the evolution of the common law for over 25 years.

[67] Looking first at the best interests’ factors from the Divorce Act as are applicable to this family, I conclude as follows:

a. Each child’s needs having regard to his or her developmental stage:

Zoe has complex emotional needs. She has been seriously negatively impacted by her parents’ toxic separation. She had a terrible experience of bullying when the family arrived in Waterloo Region which led to suicidal ideations for which she was taken to hospital. During a family vacation in Mexico with Mother in 2024 she was out until 3:00 a.m. having turned her cellphone location off and, once, was found in the company of a strange man. She may have narrowly escaped become a victim of human trafficking in another incident when she snuck out of Mother’s home in the middle of the night. Zoe has agreed to participate in counselling with Mother; there was no evidence from Father regarding psychological interventions

for her. Neither parent presented any details regarding plans to improve her school attendance and participation, which, sadly, has been very poor of late. Zoe has post-secondary aspirations and needs to be carefully parented to provide her with autonomy in a protective setting.

Marcus has also experienced a significant negative impact on his social development. He has only two friends. Although he has been involved in scheduled activities such as soccer, he struggles to develop and maintain friendships. However, he has had the benefit of consistency in attending the same elementary school throughout.

b. Each child’s relationship(s) with each of the parents, extended family members and other people special to him or her:

Again, Zoe’s situation is complex. Mother is undertaking counselling with Zoe; Father has made strides in encouraging their positive relationship through shared interests such as working out at the gym. Paternal Grandmother texts with Zoe and they talk on the telephone regularly. Zoe has two close friends, both of whom continue to be positive influences upon her. Zoe’s own tendency toward emotional dysregulation makes her relationship with her brothers difficult at times but doubtless they love one another.

Marcus loves both of his parents and is closely bonded to both. He has a strong bond with his older brother, Dylan, who has been directly involved in caring for him post-separation due to the demands of Mother’s employment. It is undisputed that Dylan has expressed an intention to limit his post-secondary education applications to relative proximity to Mother’s home so as to stay close to Marcus. Marcus has a unique and special bond with Paternal Grandmother: they like to spend time together in her garden.

c. Each parent’s willingness to support the other’s role in the child’s life:

In light of the email sent by Father to Dylan maligning Mother, including her abilities as a parent, I am quite concerned about his willingness to support Mother’s role in the lives of Zoe and Marcus. Father testified that he didn’t send the email

to Zoe because she didn’t have an email address at that time; his answer was straightforward and his lack of insight apparent. When asked if Mother loves Marcus, Father said that he “thinks” and is “pretty sure” that she does, demonstrating a minimization of that relationship in his mind. Further, Father sought to press child protection services to taking more strident action against Mother, particularly in connection with allegations by Zoe of events that had taken place during the parties’ marriage and about which he was already aware (i.e. the injury to Zoe’s jaw). I am concerned that Father’s strategic approach is focused on winning, with Mother as his opponent, and that the children’s connection with Mother would be readily expendable if he thought that distancing them from her would be to his advantage.

Mother’s relative minimization of Father’s parenting time with Marcus (should she be allowed to move) is also troubling. Although her original Notice of Relocation suggested that Marcus could be in Father’s care on alternate weekends from Friday after school through to Monday delivery to school, her closing position at trial was for Marcus’ time with Father to be limited to alternate Saturdays at 9:00 a.m. to Sundays at 3:00 p.m. While her evidence was that this would minimize the impact of the drive to and from Toronto for Marcus, it demonstrates a dramatic reduction in Father/Son parenting time.

d. The history of care for the children:

Mother attested that she was the primary caregiver for the children throughout. Both parties worked full time and, at certain periods, a housekeeper was employed to provide some basic assistance. The arranging of these supports was left to Mother; she was also responsible for making the majority of medical and dental appointments for the children. Mother credited Father for his cooking skills and for assisting with the bedtime routine.

Father relied largely upon Paternal Grandmother when he was responsible for the children while Mother was working. He attested that he was unable to look for full time work in late 2025 because of the needs of this litigation and his parenting

obligations (Zoe, then 16, being with him most of the time and Marcus being with him on alternate weekends). It is thus clear that the obligations of part-time single parenthood (in 2024 and 2025) are considerably more challenging compared with his parenting role during the marriage when he worked full time.

e. Each child’s views and preferences:

Zoe expressed her desire to remain at her current high school. As has previously been noted, she moves independently from one household to the other. As of the date of release of these reasons, she is living in Mother’s household; it is unclear how she might react if Mother is permitted to move to Toronto.

Marcus’ views were not ascertained.

f. Any plans for the child’s care:

Neither parent provided much by way of detail regarding plans for the children. Marcus would presumably remain in similar activities in which he has participated to date were he to stay in Waterloo Region; Mother attested that there are numerous opportunities for him to participate in activities in Toronto.

g. Each parent’s ability and willingness to meet each child’s needs:

While I am certain that both parents are willing to meet the needs of Zoe and Marcus, I conclude that Mother has better insight and is better positioned, in part due to her primary caregiving role, to actually do so.

h. The parents’ ability to communicate and co-operate with one another:

See “past conduct,” below.

i. Past conduct relevant to decision-making:

I have already determined the presence of serious family violence in this matter which render joint decision-making unsuitable.

In addition, three examples of Father’s propensity to see decision-making as entrapment by Mother, thus disqualifying this family for joint decision-making,

stand out in the evidence: (1) Our Family Wizard; (2) counselling for Marcus; and

(3) Labour Day 2025. Note that, in this section of my decision, I have relied

exclusively on Father’s own evidence.

1. Our Family Wizard is a co-parenting communication application that includes the “tone meter” feature which assists separated parents in managing the content and emotional volatility of their communications. Father’s previous counsel originally suggested its use when the parties were obligated to communicate through a non-party following Father’s arrest, and Mother agreed. The necessary criminal undertaking variation was never completed. On the stand, Father said that he thought that it looked like a trap when Mother’s counsel raised it, he said that he could see “what was happening here” bit did not elaborate.

2. Marcus has struggled socially; he does not have any particular friends at school and has been unable to connect with children on the soccer field or in other activities. He has two consistent friends, one being a girl who lives near the matrimonial home (both parties have since moved from that location), and a couple of other more casual friends. Mother asked many times for Father to consent to play therapy for Marcus. Father refused, saying that it was not recommended by the school and insisting that Marcus could simply meet with the school’s Child & Youth worker whose name he could not remember even when prompted by counsel. He expressed his opinion that Mother was not qualified to assess whether Marcus might benefit from counselling and that school officials who witnessed Marcus interacting with other children would have a better professional opinion. He did not research a play therapy; he did not even interview the professional suggested by Mother. Surprisingly, he attested that Mother could have signed Marcus up without his consent and thus shifted the blame for the delay to her. Three times during this evidence he indicated his belief that play therapy was another trap set by Mother. After a delay of two months, he agreed that counselling could be arranged for Marcus.

3. This past Labour Day weekend, more than two years post-separation and amid this litigation, Father defied the Arbitral Award and overheld Marcus. Father agreed that Marcus was to be in Mother’s care for the weekend; he attended more than 2 hours early on Friday to deliver Marcus to Mother’s home. When he concluded that no one was present (Dylan was, in fact, home at the time), he left with Marcus. His position, arising from his interpretation of the Arbitral Award, was that Marcus could only be left in Mother’s care. Dylan texted Father asking about Marcus. The next day, Dylan went to Father’s home to collect Marcus. Father refused to respond or to allow Marcus to leave with Dylan; Father refused to communicate with Paternal Grandmother, who was the agreed-upon conduit at that time. Father claimed that he was “waiting on direction from my counsel.” On Sunday, he was contacted by police to ensure Marcus’ safety. He failed to deliver Marcus to Mother’s care at any point over the weekend, claiming that he was “put in a very, very difficult spot” and that he did the best he could. He had no back-to-school supplies or arrangements for Marcus, who eventually returned to Mother’s care from school on Tuesday. He showed no insight into the impact of this unnecessary turmoil on little Marcus, who should otherwise have been enjoying his last summer weekend and looking forward to starting back to school. In argument, this incident was waived off as having no importance because the parenting time had been made up in an exchange of days around the Christmas holiday break.

One cannot make decisions collaboratively with a person who presumes that the decision itself is some kind of strategic contest.

j. Maximizing time in the child’s best interests:

The parties acknowledge that Zoe will make her own arrangements for time with each parent.

Father’s proposal would see Marcus spending equal time between households; Mother’s closing proposal provided very little time for Marcus with Father. There

was no evidence supporting a conclusion that Marcus’ time with Father should be

reduced so drastically.

k. Existing parenting plan:

The parties are subject to the Arbitral Award dated August 21, 2024, which provides that Zoe and Marcus are intended to have dinner with Father on Wednesdays in Week 1, spending the weekend (Friday after school to Monday delivery to school) with him and then being in his care Wednesday after school to Friday delivery to school in the following week. This is a 7-3-2-2 schedule with the children spending 9 overnights in Mother’s care and 5 in Father’s care (plus dinner on alternate Wednesdays). Zoe has oscillated between households based on her own emotional state; when she remained at one parent’s home she had minimal overnights with the other.

[68] Turning then to the additional factors applicable in mobility cases as set out in Barendregt, I make the following findings:

a. Reasons for the proposed move:

Mother has clear and sensible reasons for her proposed move. She is currently commuting between four and six hours daily, three days per week. Her employer attested that the corporate policy which mandates a minimum of three in-office days weekly is intended for staff; the unwritten expectation for executive employees is daily attendance. Mother’s time with Marcus is truncated by her commute; she relies heavily on Dylan to get him to and from school, which assistance may no longer be available once Dylan starts his post-secondary studies. Mother attested that she has had emotional breakdowns during the drive; whilst choosing the GO Train could reduce the stress of traffic, it would do little to change the timing of her workday.

b. Anticipated impact upon the children:

If the move is permitted, Mother, the primary caregiver, will regain weekday mornings and evenings with Marcus (and Zoe, should she choose to move). This is no small matter – a parent’s presence in preparing a child for school can be instrumental in the child’s adjustment and participation. Marcus will change schools, but Mother is confident that little would be lost as he has few connections with other children currently. Zoe too would change schools, which Mother characterizes as a fresh start for a child who is struggling to maintain even basic attendance in her morning classes. In the event of an emergency, Mother will be closer and thus, presumably, more available than she is now. It also behooves the court to seriously consider the positive impact of reduced stress and exhaustion caused by Mother’s current commute. We must give “due regard To the relationship between the quality of the custodial parent’s emotional, psychological, social and economic well-being and the quality of the child’s primary caregiving environment.” (See Bjornson v. Creighton, 2002 CanLII 45125 (ONCA) at paragraph 20.)

Mother attested that Paternal Grandmother would be welcome in her home at any time, and that she would encourage Paternal Grandparents to spend as much time as possible with the children in Toronto. Paternal Grandmother spoke fondly of her time with her grandchildren when the family lived in Toronto, including travelling there to care for them when they were ill while both parents worked.

If the move is permitted, Father’s weekday overnight parenting time will be discontinued unless he should choose to move also. This would be a reduction of at least three overnights (Sunday in one week; Wednesday and Thursday in the other) in a bi-weekly period.

c. Each parent’s current time with the children:

As noted, Mother currently has the children in her care 9 nights out of 14 and Father

cares for them 5 nights out of 14, including three weekday (“school”) nights.

d. Any existing geographic restrictions:

As the Arbitral Award is temporary, and this trial seeks a final order, this criterion is not applicable.

e. Reasonableness of the moving parent’s plan:

The only unreasonable aspect of Mother’s plan is her restrictive approach to Father’s alternate weekend parenting time. I appreciate that she is concerned about the impact of the Friday night commute on Marcus, however he is now eight years old and the disruption to his schedule is not inordinate. Similarly, a return time of 3:00 p.m. on Sunday provides insufficient time with Father; more time is warranted so that Father and son can have full weekends together.

f. Anticipated compliance with orders:

It is often said that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. Thus, the parties’ compliance with existing orders (or, in this case, the Arbitral Award) becomes relevant to a determination of the likelihood of future compliance. Setting aside Zoe’s change of residency, the focus is on Marcus. The instance of non- compliance with the Arbitral Award that had the greatest impact upon Marcus is Father’s overholding during the 2025 Labour Day weekend. Overholding is a serious breach of the fragile trust that a decision-making authority hopes to nurture with a temporary order. Combined with Father’s recalcitrant stance about the events of that weekend, including his suggestion that he was the victim, we cannot be confident that he will not overhold again in future.

Mother is not blameless: she too failed to comply with the Arbitral Award when she did not drop Marcus and Zoe off on time to Father’s care this past Christmas. This, however, was remedied by Mother immediately such that the children were delivered to Father within hours of the required time. It is distinct from the three- day experience for Marcus over Labour Day.

[69] Having regard to all the evidence and to my findings of fact, I conclude that it is in the best interests of Marcus, and Zoe should she choose to attend, to move with Mother to Toronto. In the absence of any clearly superior parenting plan put forward by either party, this conclusion is based on the significant family violence perpetrated by Father; Mother’s clear role as primary caregiver throughout the marriage and post-separation, which is currently unduly hampered by her commute; and Mother’s ability to maintain the children’s connections with Paternal Grandmother. Mother shall be entitled to start her arrangements to move immediately, and she is encouraged to arrange such a move to coincide with the conclusion of the 2025-2026 academic year.

C. Decision-making for Zoe and Marcus

[70] One aspect of decision-making can be addressed on consent: both parties agree that the

children’s names will not be changed.

[71] The findings that I have made regarding serious family violence in the form of emotional and verbal abuse, including admitted coercive control, weigh against joint decision-making. Further, the three examples of Our Family Wizard; counselling for Marcus; and the overholding on Labour Day show a toxic attitude in Father’s approach that is incompatible with collaborative discussion and agreement. Although few decisions remain for Zoe, Marcus is only eight: decisions will continue for him for the next ten years.

[72] Consequently, Mother will have sole decision-making responsibility for both children, regardless of Zoe’s residency. She will keep Father apprised of all decisions regarding either child’s health or education. Father will have unfettered access to all professional persons working with either child.

[73] The parties will communicate using Our Family Wizard.

[74] Mother will be the custodian of the children’s government documents and shall keep them up to date at her expense without the need for Father’s participation in application or renewal. The non-travelling parent’s consent shall be required for international travel with Marcus, but not for travel with Zoe, and shall not be unreasonably withheld.

D. Parenting Schedule for Marcus

[75] As noted, Mother’s proposed parenting schedule presents an unreasonable reduction of parenting time between Marcus and Father. The total time she proposes is 30 hours every two weeks, some of which Marcus would spend asleep. This is not sufficient considering the positive and loving bond between Marcus and Father. I find that, after the move has taken place, Marcus should be in Father’s care on alternate weekends from Fridays after school, or 5:00 p.m. if school is not in session, through to Sundays at 7:30 p.m., extended to Monday at 7:30 p.m. where Monday is a statutory holiday.

[76] Father has historically worked in the Greater Toronto Area. He may do so again in the future. Should that be the case, and/or while he has flexibility with his employment hours (he is not currently working), he will continue to have Marcus in his care for a dinner visit on Wednesday evenings. If Father decides to move to a residence within 25 kilometers of the children’s school, such visits shall be overnight, ending with delivery to school on Thursday.

[77] It is important for the family to transition to the new schedule now so as to provide weekday stability in preparation for the move to Toronto. Consequently, commencing Wednesday, March 25, 2026, Marcus will be in Father’s care on the following regular schedule:

a. until Mother moves to Toronto, every Wednesday from pick up at school overnight to Thursday delivery to school;

b. upon Mother’s move to Toronto, every Wednesday from pick up at school to 7:30 p.m., at which time he will be delivered to Mother’s residence, and Father shall remain in his vehicle and shall confirm his arrival by Our Family Wizard message;

c. Wednesday parenting time shall be conducted in the County or Regional Municipality in which Mother resides unless otherwise agreed between the parties in advance in writing by Our Family Wizard message;

d. commencing Friday, March 28, 2026 and alternate weekends thereafter on Friday from pick up at school to Sunday at 7:30 p.m., to be extended to Monday at 7:30

p.m. where Monday is a statutory holiday, at which time he will be delivered to Mother’s residence, and Father shall remain in his vehicle and shall confirm his arrival by Our Family Wizard message;

e. if Father decides to move to a residence within 25 kilometers of the children’s school in Toronto, every Wednesday from pick up at school overnight to Thursday delivery to school; and

f. such further and other parenting time as the parties may agree upon in advance in writing by Our Family Wizard message.

[78] With respect to the summer vacation parenting schedule, Marcus will be in his parents’ care on a week about schedule commencing on the Friday at the conclusion of each academic year, on which day he will start his first vacation week in Father’s care in every year. Exchanges will take place on Fridays at 6:30 p.m. with the delivery of the children to the residence of the receiving parent or such other location as the parties may agree upon in advance in writing.

[79] Regarding the balance of the holiday schedule, it shall take place in accordance with the draft terms proposed by Mother which mirror the terms included in the Arbitral Award, except that: (1) Canada Day and the Civic Holiday will fall naturally in the summer week about schedule; and (2) Marcus will be in Mother’s care for the Labour Day weekend in every year. That weekend will commence on the preceding Friday at 6:30 p.m., with Marcus being delivered to Mother’s home or such other location as the parties may agree upon in advance in writing.

E. Residency Arrangements for Zoe

[80] Zoe currently resides with Mother in Waterloo Region. Mother is moving to Toronto. This court encourages Zoe to move with Mother to Toronto. In that regard, and subject to Zoe’s views and preferences, the schedule set out above for Marcus is equally applicable to her.

F. Restraining Order

[81] Section 46(1) of the Family Law Act authorizes the court to make an order restraining a

spouse or former spouse where the applicant spouse has “reasonable grounds to fear for his or her

own safety or the safety of any child in his or her lawful custody.” Section 46(3) confirms that a person can be restrained from forms of communication and from attending within a specified distance and provides that the court may set out exceptions.

[82] In her trial decision in Fatima v. Akhtar Agha, 2024 ONSC 7040, Justice Kraft determined that a final restraining order was appropriate in a circumstance of family violence largely characterized by emotional abuse and coercive control. She quoted prior caselaw with approval at paragraph 130:

When a court grants a restraining order in an applicant's favour, …it is not necessary for a respondent to have actually committed an act, gesture or words of harassment, to justify a restraining order. It is enough if an applicant has a legitimate fear of such acts being committed. An applicant does not have to have an overwhelming fear that could be understood by almost everyone; the standard for granting an order is not that elevated. However, an applicant's fear of harassment must not be entirely subjective, comprehended only by the applicant. A restraining order cannot be issued to forestall every perceived fear of insult or possible harm, without compelling facts. There can be fears of a personal or subjective nature, but they must be related to a respondent's actions or words. A court must be able to connect or associate a respondent's actions or words with an applicant's fears.

[83] Justice Kraft further noted, at paragraph 133, that:

a. a restraining order is necessary where parties are unable to restrain themselves and require the state to tell them how to behave;

b. a restraining order is serious and should not be ordered unless a clear case has been made out;

c. a restraining order carries criminal consequences if it is breached; and

d. a restraining order will likely appear when a criminal record search is conducted and thus could impact upon a person’s employment, ability to travel, or immigration status.

[84] I note the possibility that a restraining order could negatively impact Father’s ability to work in the aerospace industry, however, as will be discussed in greater detail in Part Two of this decision, Father has taken no steps to re-engage in that industry since October of 2023. Thus, such an impact is speculative at best. Provided that Father never breaches the terms of the potential restraining order, no criminal record would be generated.

[85] Mother has been subjected to significant coercive control and family violence at Father’s hands, the worst of which took place long after Father had commenced therapy. Father has followed through on his threat to involve the children in the separation; he made a similar threat to negatively influence Mother’s employment. Father has demonstrated, by his behaviour over the Labour Day weekend roughly six months ago, that he is not bound by the terms of an Arbitral Award. I have no confidence that he would see himself bound by the terms of this decision limiting contact with Mother in the absence of an enforcement mechanism.

[86] I find that Mother has a legitimate fear of Father’s behaviour and that her security interests outweigh any potential prejudice to Father. Father will be restrained from communication with Mother except in accordance with the terms of the Final Order (i.e. through Our Family Wizard) and from attending within 100 meters of Mother except: (1) for the purposes of parenting time exchanges; (2) to attend school events where parents are welcomed; and/or (3) pursuant to Mother’s advance written consent which may be withdrawn in writing.

Final Order

[87] Final Order on the parenting issues as follows⁴:

1. per paragraphs 1 – 7 and 10 of the attached Appendix “A”

2. The non-travelling parent’s consent shall be required for international travel with [insert parties’ son’s full name and date of birth], but not for travel with [insert parties’ daughter’s full name and date of birth], and shall not be unreasonably withheld. The travelling parent shall provide a detailed itinerary for travel at least fourteen (14) days

⁴ Note that, for privacy reasons, the Appendix has been omitted from the published version of this decision.

in advance of departure, including a completed Consent Letter for Travel with Child for the non-travelling parent’s signature. The non-travelling parent shall return the signed Consent Letter for Travel with Child and any attendant documents at least seven

(7) days in advance of departure. If Father is travelling with the children, their travel documents (Passports) shall be provided to him at least 48 hours prior to departure and shall be returned with the children at the next parenting exchange following travel.

3. Parenting time set out herein for the child, [insert parties’ daughter’s full name and

date of birth], is subject to her views and preferences.

4. Commencing Wednesday, March 25, 2026, the children will be in Father’s care on the

following regular schedule:

a. until Mother moves to Toronto, every Wednesday from pick up at school overnight to Thursday delivery to school;

b. upon Mother’s move to Toronto, every Wednesday from pick up at school to 7:30 p.m., at which time they will be delivered to Mother’s residence, and Father shall remain in his vehicle and shall confirm his arrival by Our Family Wizard message;

c. Wednesday parenting time, whether overnight or evening, shall be conducted in the County or Regional Municipality in which Mother resides unless otherwise agreed between the parties in advance in writing by Our Family Wizard message;

d. commencing Friday, March 28, 2026 and alternate weekends thereafter on Friday from pick up at school to Sunday at 7:30 p.m., to be extended to Monday at 7:30

p.m. where Monday is a statutory holiday, at which time they will be delivered to Mother’s residence, and Father shall remain in his vehicle and shall confirm his arrival by Our Family Wizard message;

e. if Father decides to move to a residence within 25 kilometers of the children’s school in Toronto, every Wednesday from pick up at school overnight to Thursday delivery to school; and

f. such further and other parenting time as the parties may agree upon in advance in writing by Our Family Wizard message.

5. per paragraphs 13 (a) – (f); 13 (j) – (m); 13 (o) of the attached Appendix “A,” with the

following additions:

Summer School Vacation Break: The children will be in the parties’ care on a week about schedule commencing on Friday at the conclusion of every academic year with Father having the first vacation week. Exchanges will take place on Fridays at 6:30

p.m. with the delivery of the children to the residence of the receiving parent or such other location as the parties may agree upon in advance in writing.

Labour Day Weekend: The children will be in the care of the Respondent Mother from the preceding Friday at 6:30 p.m. at which time they will be delivered to Mother’s home or such other location as the parties may agree upon in advance in writing.

6. Either party may send another adult to parenting exchanges as his or her proxy, provided that such person is well known to the children, and the other party shall not refuse to complete the exchange because of the presence of the proxy.

7. per paragraphs 14 – 16; and 18 of the attached Appendix “A”, but the word “restrain” in paragraph 18 is replaced with “not permit”.

8. The parties shall not discuss any aspect of the litigation within the presence or hearing of the children, nor shall they permit any other person to do so, with the sole exception being a professional person working with either child.

9. per paragraphs 27 and 28 of the attached Appendix “A”, but the phrase “a Family Court Order” in each paragraph is replaced with “the terms of this Final Order”.

10. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, Father shall be entitled to attend within 100 meters of Mother at school events where parents are welcomed and/or pursuant to Mother’s advance written consent which may be withdrawn in writing at any time.

11. The balance of the issues raised in this proceeding, including costs, remain under reserve.

J. Breithaupt Smith J.

Date: March 20, 2026

CITATION: M. R. W. v. S. A. W., 2026 ONSC 1681

COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-59575

DATE: 2026/03/20

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

M. R. W.

– and –