N.G.M.B. v. S.T.C., 2026 ONSC 2320

CITATION: N.G.M.B. v. S.T.C., 2026 ONSC 2320

COURT FILE NO.: FS-23-00001079-0000

DATE: 2026/04/27

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

FAMILY COURT

RE: N.G.M.B., Applicant

AND:

S.T.C., Respondent¹

BEFORE: Justice I.F. Leach

COUNSEL: The Applicant self-representing

The Respondent self-representing

HEARD: April 14, 2026

ENDORSEMENT

1This matter was before me on April 14, 2026, for the long-delayed hearing of a motion brought by the Respondent in the context of this ongoing family law litigation; a motion seeking an order prohibiting the parties’ daughter, (now 11), from being taken “to a nudist camp of any kind”.²

2The special appointment hearing before me on April 14, 2026, (which included oral testimony from a number of witnesses pursuant to previously granted leave of the court, as noted below), extended significantly beyond the time at which court staff normally are permitted to leave at the end of a “normal” court day. In the circumstances, time constraints prevented me from rendering any oral decision at the conclusion of that special appointment hearing.

3However, as emphasized by both parties, perceived urgency remains in relation to the parties’ request for a decision in relation to the Respondent’s motion, as its outstanding nature had a significant impact on the planning of vacation events for the child last spring and summer, and seemed destined to have a similar impact on planning for her vacations this spring and summer as well, unless the parties receive a court decision in the immediate future addressing their disagreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the prolonged outstanding nature of the issue also was said to be causing the child distress, albeit for different reasons; i.e., with the Respondent suggesting the child was anxious about having to return to such camps against her will, and the Applicant suggesting the child is anxious for different reasons, in that she very much wants to return to such camps and is disappointed, frustrated and confused by her inability to do so.

4In the result, this decision may not be as fulsome and detailed as I would have preferred, with the benefit of more time; e.g., to carry out further independent research to fill the void left by the self-representing parties in that regard. It nevertheless hopefully will explain the essence of my reasoning, and assist the parties in moving forward.

Further background

5I have considered, in detail, all of the affidavit and viva voce evidence presented by the parties, and the overview summary that follows, (abbreviated by the time constraints noted above), should not suggest otherwise. However, by way of further background:

a. The parties never married, but lived together for an extended period of time; i.e., with the Applicant saying that cohabitation lasted from December of 2013 to February of 2019, and the Respondent contending that the cohabitation extended from October of 2013 to November of 2017.

b. Although the parties never married, their relationship did result in the birth of one child; i.e., their daughter S.E.L.C., who was born on a specified date in 2014, and is currently 11 years old.

c. In the years following their separation, (in circumstances that were said to involve the Respondent struggling with alcohol, and engaging in abusive behaviour that resulted in a restraining order and initially supervised parenting time), the parties repeatedly have been involved in litigation concerning their daughter. That litigation has entailed a number of successive motions, conferences and court orders that have modified arrangements between the parties, vis-à-vis their daughter, over time. For example:

i. On August 9, 2019, a final order was made by Justice Korpan, (pursuant to minutes of settlement and a request from the parties), whereby, inter alia, and in addition to child support arrangements:

1. The Applicant mother was granted sole custody of the child, with the Respondent father having specified supervised access at the Merrymount Access Centre, and provision for the Respondent father to request changes to that access schedule once he had completed required health treatment and provided the Applicant with proof of the same.

2. A holiday schedule for the parties’ daughter was to be agreed upon by the parties, failing which a specified schedule would apply. The schedule included mention of the Applicant mother’s intention to enrol the daughter in programs that included “summer camp”.

3. The Respondent father was not to remove the parties’ child from Ontario without the Applicant mother’s written consent, but the Applicant mother was permitted to travel with the child without needing the Respondent father’s consent or authorization in that regard.

ii. On March 14, 2023, another final order was made by Justice Hassan, (pursuant to further minutes of settlement and a consent endorsement request), terminating the earlier order made by Justice Korpan and replacing it with a new order whereby, inter alia, and in addition to modified arrangements regarding child support:

1. Sole decision-making responsibility for the parties’ child was granted to the Applicant mother, allowing her to make “important decisions” about the child’s “welfare”, including decisions about health, education, “culture, language, religion and spirituality”, and “significant extracurricular activities”, albeit with the Applicant being obliged, in relation to such decisions, to “first consult with the Respondent” in relation to all such “important decisions” and seek the Respondent’s “input, in writing”, before the Applicant would be “at liberty to make a decision” in that regard. The decision or decisions then made in that regard by the Applicant were to prevail, “notwithstanding any opposition or disagreement by the Respondent”.

2. Primary residence of the child was to remain with the Applicant mother. However, the Respondent father was to have regular parenting time that would increase gradually in terms of frequency, with a decrease over time in the need for supervision of such parenting by the Respondent’s new partner, T.H.; i.e., eventually transitioning to the child and her father enjoying unsupervised parenting time with each other on alternating weekends as of a specified date in August of 2023.

3. The Applicant was to inform the Respondent if she was travelling with the child outside of Ontario, (i.e., providing at least seven days notice in that regard), apparently acknowledging, even if only implicitly, that the Applicant was still permitted to do so, while the Respondent still was prohibited from removing the child from Ontario without written consent of the Applicant, (not to be withheld unreasonable), or a court order.

4. The parties once again were to agree on a holiday schedule for the child, failing which a new specified schedule was to apply in that regard.

iii. From the perspective of the Applicant, at least, problems nevertheless began to emerge shortly after the final order made by Justice Hassan; e.g., insofar as the Respondent apparently was finding it difficult to abide by the specified parenting time schedule, (resulting in numerous requests for incidental changes to the specified pick up and drop arrangements and holiday schedule), and the Applicant also was obliged to request incidental changes to the schedule. Additional issues also began to emerge regarding communication between the parties, the ability of each party to communicate with the child while the child was in the other parent’s care, and conflicts regarding the child’s service providers.

iv. In the result, on September 27, 2023, the Applicant mother initiated a further motion to change, (i.e., to revisit the provision of the prevailing final order made by Justice Hassan), which is the broader context of the current litigation before the court. In his response, (dated October 26, 2023), the Respondent father formally requested other changes, (based on stated concerns regarding the Applicant and her behaviour), including proposed revisitation of the decision-making responsibility and parenting time arrangements; i.e., so as to give him sole or ultimate decision-making responsibility in relation to the child, and to alter the child’s primary residence to the home of the Respondent.

d. The current litigation proceeded to a case conference before Justice Bezaire on February 9, 2024, at which time it was noted that the parties had made significant progress despite the high conflict nature of the case. In the result, a consent order was made granting specified temporary and final relief relating to such matters as the mode of communication between the parties, a variation of Justice Hassan’s order in relation to specified health care appointments for the child, (e.g., regarding medical, dental, eye and counselling appointments), and arrangements for the child to communicate with either parent while in the other parent’s care. Apart from further disclosure being ordered, the matter otherwise was adjourned to a further case conference before Justice Bezaire on March 13, 2024.

e. At that further case conference on March 13, 2024, it was noted that the parties continued to make good progress in resolving the issues between them, resulting in a further order amending certain existing parenting time and child support arrangements, (including section 7 expenses relating to the child’s cellphone), and addressing further matters including the child’s use of comfort items during parenting time with the Respondent, the parties refraining from disparaging each other or other extended family members of the child, and the availability of services provided by the Respondent’s union hall. The matter was then scheduled for a settlement conference before on May 2, 2024, to be held before Justice Bezaire, who confirmed that she was seized of the matter only for the purposes of that settlement conference.

f. On April 3, 2024, (i.e., shortly after the case conferences for the matter had been concluded), the Respondent then brought his motion herein. In that regard:

i. The Respondent’s formal notice of motion sought an order specifying “that neither the applicant or respondent will take the child nor permit anyone else to take the child, [S.E.L.C.], to a nudist camp of any kind”. As noted above, the notice of motion also sought ancillary relief whereby both parents would be required to obtain the written consent of the other parent to travel out of the province with the child, and provide further detailed information regarding the contemplated itinerary in that regard, a minimum of three days before travelling; i.e., with the Respondent father later confirming, (as noted above), that the ancillary relief was sought only to enable further specific motions addressing any intention to take the child to a nudist camp if the Respondent’s request for a general order prohibiting such attendance was not granted.

ii. The information initially provided by the Respondent with his notice of motion included the following indications:

1. The child’s initial revelation about going naked camping with her mother and maternal grandparents was said to have emerged in October of 2024 during the course of the child speaking to the Respondent about the child being upset with her mother in relation to a described incident wherein the mother was said to have “given [the child] trouble” for telling another individual what she believed to be the truth about a certain item of clothing, in a manner that contradicted what her mother had said about the item. The child was said to have found the experience of being chastised for telling the truth to be “confusing and overwhelming”. The child then mentioned the existence of “another secret [she was] really not supposed to tell, not even [to her] friends”, before then sharing that she had been going “naked camping” with her “mom, nana and papa”; i.e., with her mother and maternal grandparents. The child also was said to have further indicated to the Respondent father that she did not want to go “naked camping” anymore.

2. After receiving that described disclosure from the child, the Respondent and his new partner then followed up via inquiries made of the Applicant and the maternal grandparents, who apparently confirmed that the naked camping described by the child had been taking place. However, the Respondent and his partner also received assurances from the Applicant and her parents that the atmosphere at the naked camping locations was very safe, (e.g., with the child being supervised at all times), and that the child would not be made to go naked camping again if she did not want to go. In the result, the Respondent apparently decided the situation did not warrant any further action on his part to formally address the issue. According to his motion material, he had been trying to “keep on open mind” about such matters; i.e., nudism and naked camping.

3. The Respondent nevertheless went on to describe how, after the further conference held in March of 2026 with Justice Bezaire, he was left with significantly enhanced concerns about the child’s “naked camping” outings. In that regard:

a. I am very mindful of the without prejudice nature of such conferences, and deliberately have disregarded certain comments included in the Respondent’s motion material; e.g., insofar as the Respondent described comments that were said to have been made during the conference by Justice Bezaire.

b. On the other hand, I think it fair and proper to say, for present purposes, that following the conference, and further inquiries made by the Respondent of the Applicant and the child, the Respondent had additional concerns about the child being taken on such “naked camping” outings with her mother and maternal grandparents, which included the following:

i. During the previous summer, there apparently had been a troubling incident at one of the nude campgrounds to which the child had been taken by the Applicant mother and maternal grandparents. The incident involved interaction between the child and an individual the child had described as a “creepy man” or “scary man”, whose behavior had frightened the child before the man then had been “kicked out” of the camp for his inappropriate behavior; an incident which was one of the reasons stated by the child for no longer wanting to go on such naked camping outings.

ii. The child also was now a “tween” approaching puberty, and wanted more privacy in relation to her body.

iii. Although the Applicant was contending that the child had “changed her mind” again, and now wanted to resume naked camping after having it explained to her by the Applicant that the “creepy man” would no longer be there, (with the Applicant apparently asking the child to write a further note to the effect that the child was now “okay” with and/or “excited about” going naked camping), such indications from the Applicant were said to remain at odds with the child’s statements to the Respondent about such matters. In particular, the child was said to have emphasized to the Respondent that she does not want to “upset” her mother, but “doesn’t feel she has a voice” in relation to such matters; i.e., such that the child may have indicated to her that she now wants to go naked camping again, and/or have written a further note in that regard, but that is not what the child really wants.

iv. In those described circumstances, the Respondent expressed concern:

1. that the child was being traumatized by apparent requests or directions from the Applicant and/or the maternal grandparents that the child deliberately withhold information from others, (i.e., about going naked camping and about the “creepy man” incident), thereby being encouraged to engage in lies by way of omission; and

2. that the child was being pressured by the Applicant and maternal grandparents to engage in an activity the child herself finds disturbing and/or unpleasant, (regardless of the views of the Applicant and maternal grandparents about such matters), with the child’s true views and preferences not being heard and respected in that regard.

v. The Applicant mother nevertheless was intent on resuming naked camping with the child and maternal grandparents because of her view that such nudist camps were/are “normal”, natural” and “safe”.

g. On April 8, 2025, the Respondent father’s motion came on for hearing before Justice Garson. In that regard:

i. Although a case conference had been held in relation to the issues raised by the father’s motion, such that Rules 14(4) ad 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules no longer applied, (i.e., requiring demonstration of “urgency” or “hardship” as a perquisite to a motion being heard in advance of a case conference), the parties themselves nevertheless apparently had characterized the situation as one of urgency; as the camping season for 2025 was scheduled to begin in the following weeks, vacation plans had to be made, and the next court date for a motion brought on notice was not scheduled to be available in Stratford until August of 2026; i.e., by which time the spring and summer camping season largely would have passed. That had resulted in hearing of the motion being scheduled for April 8, 2025, on an “urgent” basis.

ii. When the parties appeared before Justice Garson by videoconference on April 8, 2026, the Respondent had filed relatively little material and the Applicant apparently had filed no material in response. However, the parties nevertheless apparently had come prepared to provide evidence as necessary by way of viva voce testimony; e.g., with the Applicant having arranged for three additional witnesses to attend the videoconference hearing of the motion.

iii. In the result, however, Justice Garson declined to hear the motion; e.g., finding that the matter actually was not “urgent” insofar as no camping dates were immediately pending and the first likely camping date in that regard was approximately six weeks away, over the May 24^th holiday weekend. It was also felt that adjournment of the motion would allow the parties to file affidavit evidence if they wished to do so, while also allowing them to benefit from continued efforts by Justice Bezaire to resolve the issues, if possible, at a further settlement conference that was scheduled for May 22, 2025. The parties were directed to follow the court’s protocol for obtaining another hearing date if another perceived urgency arose in the meantime.

h. The contemplated settlement conference did not proceed before Justice Bezaire until June 6, 2025, at which time it was confirmed that the parties were unable to resolve their disagreement regarding the child’s continued participation in naked camping; i.e., with the Respondent continuing to raise objections in relation to that “type of vacation” and asking the court to prohibit/restrain it, and the Applicant asking the court to approve her request/desire to take the child to a “nudist camp” again. In the result:

i. Justice Bezaire formally adjourned the Respondent’s motion to a hearing on October 7, 2025, (apparently the earliest further hearing date available), with the court confirming the parties’ agreement that the child would not attend “a holiday of this sort”, (e.g., attendance at a nudist camp, or participation in further naked camping), until the parties’ dispute in that regard had been determined by the court.

ii. Directions were made in relation to further preparations for hearing of the Respondent’s motion; i.e., in terms of deadlines being set for the filing of any further affidavit material, and a direction being made that neither party was required to file a factum.

iii. Leave also was granted for the self-representing Applicant to call viva voce testimony from “two to three” witnesses as contemplated at the return of the motion; i.e., with such witnesses to provide evidence “regarding the safety and benefits of the nudist camp for the child”, and with the self-representing Respondent being permitted to then cross-examine those witnesses.

iv. After making certain further orders on consent, (e.g., adjusting the holiday parenting time schedule), Justice Bezaire commended the parties on their continued efforts to compromise, left open the possibility of a further settlement conference before her on an unspecified date, (if requested by the parties), and adjourned the matter to October 7, 2025, for hearing of the Respondent’s motion.

i. Unfortunately, hearing of the Respondent’s motion then could not proceed on October 7, 2025, for numerous reasons. In particular, it apparently was discovered or realized only belatedly that the motion somehow had been scheduled for a hearing date before Justice Bezaire; i.e., the one judge who could not deal with the motion on its merits, having addressed the issues raised by the motion during without prejudice discussions that took place during the earlier settlement conference. However, there were further impediments to the motion proceeding in any event; e.g., insofar as the Respondent had delivered further affidavit material but that material had not been properly uploaded to Case Centre for some reason, and neither party had filed a confirmation indicating whether or not the motion would be going ahead. The Applicant also was indicating that, in relation to the motion, she had retained counsel who was unable to attend that day. In the result, the motion was adjourned to the next available three-hour special appointment hearing date capable of being obtained through the Stratford trial co-ordinator, with Justice Bezaire once again confirming that the Applicant had been granted leave to call viva voce evidence from three witnesses at the hearing, with each witness being permitted to testify for no more than 30 minutes. The parties also were encouraged to keep talking, and to transform any further independently agreed arrangements into a formal court order by way of Form 14B motions if possible.

j. The parties thereafter apparently were able to agree on at least some further matters, and corresponding variation of existing order arrangements by way of a Form 14B motion. In particular, on July 20, 2025, Justice Moore made a consent order which, inter alia, varied sub-paragraph 2(a) of the earlier order made by Justice Hassan on March 14, 2023, dealing with decision-making responsibility. In the result, existing arrangements in that regard would be replaced going forward by the following governing provisions:

With respect to decision making, both the Applicant, N.G.M.B. and the Respondent, S.T.C., shall have joint decision-making responsibility and will make important decisions together about [the child’s] welfare including decisions about [the child’s] health and education. Where the parties cannot agree on decision with respect to health and education, they will defer to the respective medical and/or educational professionals’ recommendations. The Applicant, N.G.M.B., will continue to have sole decision-making responsibility about [the child’s] significant extra-curricular activities and culture, language, religion and spirituality. [Emphasis added.]

k. However, as far as the Respondent father’s motion concerning the child’s participation in further naked camping was concerned, the next available special appointment hearing date in Stratford turned out to be April 14, 2026; i.e., a date unfortunately more than a year after the Respondent’s bringing of his motion and its initially scheduled hearing date. In the result, the child effectively was prohibited by the parties’ interim agreement from engaging in any further naked camping throughout the spring and summer of 2025, and the motion was scheduled for hearing before me only a few weeks before the 2026 camping season was slated to begin.

Further evidence

6By the time of the special appointment hearing before me, the Applicant indicated and confirmed that she actually had not retained counsel in relation to the motion, and both parties continued to represent themselves in that regard.

7Both parties also had filed further affidavit evidence, and I was presented, (as per the granting of leave noted above), with viva voce testimony presented by three witnesses called by the Applicant and cross-examined by the Respondent:

a. Joseph Stephane Deschenes, who has been a “naturist” since his teenage years, currently operates the Bare Oaks Family Naturalist Park near the city of Toronto, and serves as the president of an organization that was described somewhat inconsistently, in the presented affidavit material and testimony, as the International Federation of Naturists of Canada, (“INF”), the International Naturist Federation (“INF”), or the Federation of Canadian Naturists (“FCN”);

b. Eric Schuttauf, who in addition to being an attorney practising in Florida, also has served as the executive director of the American Association for Nude Recreation (“AANR”) for approximately 25 years; and

c. R.B., father of the Applicant, and the maternal grandfather of the parties’ child.³

8While I have considered all of that affidavit and viva voce evidence, I will not attempt to reiterate it in exhaustive detail here, particularly when, (in my view, for reasons outlined in further detail below), the situation before me calls for an interim order with the probability of one or more further hearings being required to address such matters as the litigation moves forward.

9For present purposes, I nevertheless note, only by way summary overview, that the presented evidence included the following indications and information from the following sources:

a. From the Respondent father, by way of his original and supplementary affidavit evidence:

i. The court was provided with a detailed description of how the child, during a drive home from a Thanksgiving dinner, initially disclosed to her father, and her father’s new partner T.H., that she had been going “naked camping” with her mother and grandparents. At the time, the child described being upset by her perception that her mother wanted the child to lie to others; e.g., about whether a particular item of clothing was a new purchase or not, and about another “really big secret she was not supposed to tell anyone”. That was followed by the child telling her father and Ms H. that the child, her mother and grandparents would go “naked camping”, and the child no longer wished to do so.

ii. The Respondent father indicated that he and his partner contacted the Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society later that day seeking advice, and received a suggestion that the child be asked to prepare a written list of “concerns and feelings about what was happening at home with her mother to better explain herself during a family meeting”. The Respondent followed through on that suggestion, which resulted in the child preparing two pages of handwritten notes which were attached to the Respondent’s affidavit as an exhibit. The notes speak for themselves, and should be read in their entirety, but they include the following comments from the child referring to her mother, the Applicant, and naked camping:

• “She is not a roll (sic) model – for example, she tells me not to lie and then she gets me to lie to others.”

• “She makes stuff up and lies to other people.”

• “She does not listen to how I feel.”

• “I do not want to go naked camping for [wording obscured] I GET EATEN ALIVE. No privacy.”

iii. The Respondent father described a number of “family meetings” held to address the concerns raised by the child, including the concern raised in relation to the child’s further participation in “naked camping”. In particular, the Respondent described one meeting held at the Respondent’s home on October 14, 2024, (attended in part by the child, and also by the Respondent, the Respondent’s partner and the Applicant, with a cousin of the Respondent’s partner, M.G., who works as a Protection Manager at the Sharnia Lambton Children’s Aid Society, joining the meeting virtually to “facilitate” the discussion), and another meeting held at the Applicant’s home on October 18, 2024, attended by the same individuals and by the Applicant’s parents, (with the child once again attending only in part), and M.G. once again participating as a facilitator for part of that second meeting. According to the Respondent, and the typed notes of the meeting made by M.G. and sent to the Respondent by letter, (attached to the Respondent’s affidavit as an exhibit, and the content of which effectively was adopted by he Respondent in relation to what was said to have been discussed at the meeting), the meetings addressed a broad range of concerns raised by the child, but included the following indications in relation to naked camping:

1. The child was said to have “told everyone” that she no longer wanted to go “naked camping” with her mother and maternal grandparents.

2. The Applicant and the maternal grandparents were said to have expressed relief that the Respondent and his new partner now were aware of the naked/nudist/naturist camping, as they, (the Applicant and her parents), previously had been worried about what the reaction would be.

3. Everyone was said to have agreed that the most important thing was the safety and emotional well-being of the child. The Respondent, in particular, indicated that his “only concern at that time” was with the child being “comfortable and safe” in relation to such camping. In response, the Respondent says, he was assured by the Applicant and her parents that the child was never left unsupervised when they went naked camping, and that they would always ensure her safety.

4. Everyone was said to have agreed that the child would not have to go naked camping if she did not want to go. In the result, it was said that everyone agreed upon a plan that the child would no longer go to the nudist camp, as she did not want to go any longer.

iv. However, the Respondent said that, during a later parenting time visit with the child in early 2025, there had been a further discussion about naked camping. In particular:

1. The child was said to have indicated that she had tried to speak further with the Applicant about not wanting to go naked camping again, but felt that her mother was not listening to her.

2. When the Respondent asked the child why she did not want to go naked camping, the child initially responded by making references to the current American president and the length of the drive to such camping; i.e., because the relevant nudist or naturist camp frequented by the Applicant and her parents, with the child, was located in the United States.

3. The Respondent’s new partner Ms H. then advised the Respondent that the child had been scared by Ms H. raising the possibility of people at the relevant camp taking photos of the child while she was naked. In that regard, Ms H. then apologized to the child, indicating that she had not meant to scare the child, but did want to ensure the child was aware of concerns, (held by the Respondent and Ms H.), that the child might have her picture taken while naked without knowing that had been done, and without knowing what would be done with that picture. In that regard, the Respondent indicated in his affidavit that he remained very concerned about the possibility of a naked photo of the child being taken and shared on the internet without anyone noticing, and without the child’s consent or knowledge.

4. The Respondent indicated that all that discussion/information was then shared with the Applicant.

v. The Respondent said that, in March of 2025, the Applicant then sent an email indicating that she felt the child’s indication of not wanting to go naked camping was attributable to an incident that had happened at the nudist/naturist camp the year before involving a “scary man” who had visited the camp and interacted with the child. In that regard:

1. The Applicant explained that the nudist/naturist camp in question conducts “specific screenings” in relation to single men who attend at the camp, which had led the Applicant to believe that the man in question was safe.

2. The Applicant and the child, (who was 10 at the time), had been playing pool with the single man in question, (whom the Applicant and child had just met, and knew nothing about), while all three were naked. The Applicant had then left the child alone with the man for approximately 10 minutes to refill her water bottle.

3. While the Applicant was parted from the child and the naked single man, the Applicant then was informed by other guests that they had “worries” about the man in question, at which point the Applicant rushed back to the child’s location. The single man in question was then “evicted” from the camp a short time later for “not following the rules”.

4. In the result, (i.e., because the “scary man” in question had been evicted from the nudist camp in question), the Applicant therefore had been emphasizing that the child should feel comfortable and safe about attending the camp again.

5. The Respondent nevertheless was very concerned by the indication that the 10-year-old child had been left alone with such a male stranger for 10 minutes, while both were naked, as that information was at odds with the prior indications the Respondent had received from the Applicant and her parents that the child was always supervised and kept safe during such naked camping.

6. The Respondent also was concerned by the Applicant’s indications that the child now wanted to go naked camping again, as the child herself continued to indicate that was not the case.

vi. More generally, the Respondent was concerned that the child’s voice was not being heard, and/or that any further indication of the child now wanting to go naked camping again was not a true reflection of the child’s wishes in that regard; i.e., as she has continued to state repeatedly that she does not want to go naked camping again. The Respondent fears, in particular, that any indications to the contrary from the child might stem from the child’s inclination/desire to keep others happy and tell them what they want to hear, just so they will not be upset with her.

vii. Emphasis also was placed on the child having particular vulnerabilities. In that regard, the Respondent noted that the child had experienced a number of issues that had been overseen/addressed by her pediatrician, Dr Danby, over the course of the past 5-6 years. In that regard, the Respondent tendered a number of medical records relating to the child which included the following indications:

1. In May of 2024, (at a time when the child was said to have gone camping two weeks earlier, and been with her father that weekend playing outside near a bush), the child attended Dr Danby with several swollen red areas on the child’s arms and legs. The swelling was attributed to bug bites, with the child being given a prescription for medication, and advised to henceforth wear long pants and sleeves if playing in such areas.

2. The child also has been formally diagnosed as having “anxiety and depression with PTSD after witnessing abuse”, in respect of which she continues to take prescription medication. (There was also a question of the child possibly having ADHD, but she was found not to fit the criteria.) As of November, 2024, the child was reporting that she generally had been doing well, (e.g., experiencing emotions characterized more as “fears” rather than anxieties), which admittedly caused the child to feel “freaked out” from time to time, but without any sustained impact on her day-to-day functioning, sleep or school. In the circumstances, consideration was being given to gradually weaning the child off her various anxiety medications.

b. From the Applicant mother, by way of extended responding affidavit evidence, which in turn relied in part on correspondence, research papers and literature provided to her by father, Mr Deschenes and Mr Schuttauf:

i. It was emphasized that the child had gone naked camping with the Applicant and her parents for the past six years; i.e., as an intergenerational vacation activity and “family tradition” that the Applicant’s parents had been doing since 2012, which the Applicant and the child had joined in 2019; i.e., going naked camping every summer, at least every other weekend and sometimes every other week.

ii. While the child’s naked camping activity admittedly was not disclosed to the Respondent and his partner before the fall of 2024, the Applicant denied that the child was ever told it was a “secret” she was obliged to keep. She was instead said to have been told it was “something some people don’t agree with”, such that the family therefore “just don’t talk about it”.

iii. The Applicant agreed that the Respondent, when first informed about the child going naked camping with the Applicant and the Applicant’s parents, essentially had indicated that, while it was not an activity that appealed to him personally, (i.e., not his “cup of tea”), he would be supportive of the child continuing to participate in the activity so long as the child remained safe, comfortable and willing to participate.

iv. The Applicant emphasized her view that naturism is important for children; i.e., to counter the sexualization of nudity, in a safe, nurturing and non-judgmental environment that encourages freedom, self-expression, self-esteem, lack of self-consciousness about one’s looks, and confidence. The Applicant says she has experienced such development herself, and believes she has seen similar growth and development in the parties’ child. The child was also said to have made many friends at the naturist resort frequented by the family, where the child actively engaged in many activities and events, (e.g., “cook offs”, “duck races” and parades), organized by the resort.

v. The Applicant indicated that she will/would respect the child’s wishes if the child chooses not to attend such naturist camps or resorts. However, the Applicant emphasized her view that the child actually “loves to go” to such naturist resorts, and has said so repeatedly to the Applicant and the Applicant’s parents. Indeed, the child is said to ask repeatedly about when she will be allowed to return to participation in such activity, while indicating that “it’s not fair” her father “doesn’t listen” and “doesn’t want [her] to go”.

vi. The Applicant acknowledges that there was a time in May of 2025 when the child told the Applicant she no longer wanted to go to any naturist resorts. However, the Applicant says the reasons initially provided by the child in that regard, (e.g., relating to the current American president, the long drive to the resort in the United States, and being “eaten alive” by bugs while naked at the resort), did not make sense to the Applicant; as such expressed concerns had not been raised by the child as issues before then, and the child was reminded that she had received more bug bites at locations other than the naturist resorts she had attended. As for other reasons identified by the child for no longer wanting to participate in such naked camping or attend such naturist resorts:

1. The Applicant described how the child had indicated a fear, (attributed to things apparently said to the child by the Respondent’s new partner, Ms H.), of the child possibly having her naked photo taken and posted on the internet. However, the Applicant emphasized, and had explained to the child, that picture taking at the naturist resorts generally was forbidden, and that those who break the rules in that regard risk eviction from such resorts, loss of membership, and having such a loss of membership “flagged”; i.e., brought to the attention of other naturist resorts such an evicted person might try to attend. It was also emphasized that the restrictions on someone taking and posting the child’s photo actually were far greater within the “controlled environment” of such resorts than elsewhere in our society – although the child obviously would not be naked in such other locations.

2. In relation to the “creepy man” or “scary man” incident described by the Respondent, the Applicant acknowledged that the child admittedly had indicated at one of the family meetings in October of 2024 that she did not want to go naked camping anymore because of a male she had encountered at the campground the summer before. In that regard:

a. The Applicant effectively suggested that safety concerns in that regard had been exaggerated or blown out of proportion. In particular, the Applicant emphasized that naturist resorts “take every precaution to ensure a safe [and] healthy environment for all”, “don’t want anything happening” to undermine that experience, and therefore exercise due diligence and AANR rules “to the tenth degree” as they do not want to be “shut down” and/or “lose their club status”. Every adult member of such a naturist resort therefore is obliged to provide photo identification retained by management, and “lewd” or otherwise “inappropriate” behaviour by anyone attending the resort, (whether a member or not), is “dealt with and addressed swiftly”. A “small limit” is also placed on the number of single male visitors able to attend such a resort. In the result, the Applicant feels strongly that attending a naturist facility poses no greater threat to her child’s safety than her attendance at any other recreational facility.

b. The Applicant did acknowledge that there was an occasion during the summer of 2024 wherein the Applicant had left the naked child alone for a time with a naked male “day visitor” who came to the campground, and whom the Applicant did not realize was such a “day visitor”. In particular, the naked male in question had entered the clubhouse, asked to join the Applicant and the child while they were naked and playing pool, and was permitted to do so for about 10 minutes before the Applicant left the child alone with the male while the Applicant went to retrieve some water. While doing so, the Applicant admittedly was advised by another member that the male in question was “a concern”, which prompted the Applicant to return immediately to where she had left the child and male visitor; i.e., such that the male was said to have been alone with the child for “a maximum of maybe 4-5 minutes”. While not wanting to scare the child, the Applicant and others instructed the child she was no longer to be alone with that particular male; a male who was then evicted from the camp approximately 10 minutes later, and told never to return, because he had made “a few of the female members uncomfortable”, in turn prompting a complaint to the resort’s management.

c. It was said that the child, (after being reassured by the Applicant’s parents that the particular male in question was “not a good fit for the campground”, and had been “kicked out” of the campground “before anything happened”), now was looking forward to returning to the campground again, despite that troubling incident.

d. It was also said that the child’s other indicated reluctance or resistance to further participation in summer camping had been overcome by other “rebuttles” and “logic” said to have been provided to the child by the Applicant’s mother.

3. More generally, the Applicant feels that all of the child’s previously indicated concerns about further participation in naked camping now have been adequately addressed, such that the child should and does wish to resume her previous naked camping activity with the Applicant and the Applicant’s parents.

4. As noted above, the Applicant, in her affidavit material, also tendered and essentially sought to rely upon various additional items of correspondence, academic literature, research studies and similar papers/information that had been supplied to her by her father, by Mr Deschenes and/or by Mr Schuttauf. For the sake of clarity, I will note and describe that information further in my overview summary of the information essentially provided or sought to be provided by those additional witnesses.

c. From Mr Deschenes, by way of the material provided to the Applicant and attached to her affidavit as exhibit material, and by oral testimony:

i. Mr Deschenes confirmed that he was not personally familiar with the Applicant or the parties’ child. In particular, he had not met the child, and was not familiar with her personal mental health struggles or the underlying family dynamics involved. Nor was he able to speak to the child’s personal preferences or experiences in relation to nude camping; e.g., insofar as he had no knowledge about the incident, noted above, wherein the child was left alone with an adult male visitor to the same camp who had acted inappropriately and was evicted from the premises.

ii. Mr Deschene instead attended the hearing to provide what he regarded as more fact-based evidence about his experience with naturism, nudism and nudity, (such as its general philosophy and practices), acquired through activity such as his role as president of International Naturist Federation, (based in Austria), as the owner/operator of the Bare Oaks Naturist Park, and as someone who has worked with the Ontario Association for Children’s Aid Societies; e.g., preparing a paper to assist child protection workers with a more complete understanding of naturism in Canada. In that regard:

1. In the literature, studies and other material provided by Mr Deschene to the Applicant and attached to her affidavit, (cross-referenced and supplemented by Mr Deschene in the course of his testimony), it was recognized that there has been longstanding generalized concern and associated debate, (often highly emotional and controversial), about the possible negative impact on children being exposed to nakedness, (sometimes characterized by concerns that such exposure is dangerous and/or offensive), albeit frequently based on questionable assumptions and with little clarity about what those negative effects would be, and without adequate regard to empirical evidence concerning naturism and its effects, (including potentially positive effects, such as body image, self-esteem and overall well-being), on children.

2. It was emphasized that, in Mr Deschene’s experience, naturism, (often called nudism, particularly in the United States), is a longstanding movement that promotes “body acceptance” and “living in a healthier, more natural way”; i.e., wherein nudity is not the “goal”, but a “tool” used to achieve such other objectives, with context, and distinctions between nudity and sexualization, being extremely important considerations. In particular, in Mr Deschene’s experience, adherents of the movement regard naturism as an “effective antidote to the body shame, objectification and hyper-sexualization that is so pervasive in today’s society”.

3. Mr Deschene, through his professional, private and own family experience with child-raising, personally has witnessed the positive effects on children of their being raised in a naturalist environment.

4. While Mr Deschene admittedly also has personal familiarity with children being reluctant to attend naturist events as they get older; e.g., as they increasingly are exposed to body shaming and peer ridicule, and begin to question or reject some of the naturist values, beliefs and practices parents have tried to impart. He also has personal familiarity with some parents, in the context of separated families, being resistant to the idea of child participation in naturist activity. However, in his experience, such reluctance frequently has stemmed from a misunderstanding that exposing children to nudity puts them at greater risk and situations of enhanced danger, whereas the practices and procedures universally adopted by naturist or nudist resorts, operating under commonly accepted standards, actually were felt to create a safer environment for children than many other situations in society; i.e., one where the naturist environment essentially exists within “gated and controlled communities” that cannot be accessed without the production of formal identification, completion of registration, and compliance with strict codes of conduct enforced by a very watchful community constantly on the look out for those with inappropriate intentions, who are quite quickly excluded. Moreover, children attending such naturist or nudist resorts always do so in the company of particularly watchful parents or guardians, such that “anything bad” happening there “would be quite unusual” in his experience. Mr Deschenes said that, in his experience, a “proper naturist resort”, (i.e., one operating under the standards and practices promoted by the International Naturist Federation), with “proper safeguards” in place for the protection of all concerned, creates much less risk for children than the risks commonly found “out in the mainstream world”.

d. From Mr Schuttauf, by way of the material provided to the Applicant and attached to her affidavit as exhibit material, and by oral testimony:

i. Like Mr Schuttauf, Mr Schuttauf confirmed that he had not met the parties’ child, and was not personally familiar with her personal mental health struggles, her personal preferences, or the underlying family dynamics involved, although he had reviewed the affidavits filed in relation to the matter. Nor did he have any personal knowledge about the incident, noted above, wherein the child had been left alone with an adult male visitor to the same camp who had acted inappropriately and was evicted from the premises.

ii. Mr Schuttauf nevertheless was able to confirm, during the course of his testimony, that the Applicant and other members of her family, (i.e., the Applicant’s parents), were members of the American Association for Nude Recreation, (or “AANR”), noted above. He also was familiar with a specified naturist resort in Michigan, said to be attended by the Applicant and members of her family, which was operated in accordance with AANR principles.

iii. More generally, Mr Schuttauf provided fact-based evidence in relation to the following matters:

1. He described the typical stringent screening protocols applied in relation to those wishing to attend a naturist facility in the United States, and those in Canada adhering to AANR practices and protocols; i.e., with AANR currently representing over 220,000 individuals and nearly 200 clubs and resorts situated throughout the United States and Canada. Such protocols begin with membership applications, and online education about principles and standards of the Association, as well as rules of etiquette members are expected and obliged to follow. That is supplemented by an “in person” organized tour and introductory meeting carried out at facility in a membership applicant’s geographic proximity; a meeting which simultaneously provides information to the applicant while allowing the Association to assess and qualify the applicant; e.g., in terms of ascertaining whether the person intends to access such naturist facilities for “the right reasons” rather than improper motives. In that regard, all prospective members are made familiar with the Association’s “strong policies” against certain practices, including policies which generally place severe restrictions on photography and recordings; i.e., usually implementing strict prohibitions in that regard, except under certain “credentialed” and “clearly identified” circumstances. As part of the orientation process, applicants for membership and visitors to any facilities also are required to complete paperwork and provide formal identification, with many clubs also requiring authorization to conduct a “background check” on the individual.

2. Mr Schuttauf indicated that, while some AANR resorts are specifically oriented towards particular sports programs or designed for those 18 or 21 or older, (in a manner he likened to certain cruises which do not accept children in order to reduce the cares and concerns of attending adults), most of the clubs working with the Association are very “child friendly”, or “very, very family friendly”, and have been since 1931. He personally was the father of four children who all had been raised, throughout their lives, going to AANR resorts.

3. Mr Schuttauf confirmed that the particular Michigan club attended by the Applicant and members of her family was a “very family-oriented club”, providing a “wholesome family-oriented experience”. In particular, he noted that the state of Michigan and that specified resort had a longstanding history in that regard; i.e., owing to a 1958 decision of the state’s Supreme Court that had confirmed the propriety of men, women and children being together at that nudist facility. In the result, the facility in question enjoyed what Mr Schuttauf described as a “very strong reputation within the AANR community”; e.g., with Mr Schuttauf being unable to recall a single complaint, (from a member, guest, fellow club or state agency), about the level of conduct there during his past 35-30 years of work with the Association.

4. When cross-examined about the “creepy man” incident described by the parties in their affidavit material, (i.e., concerning a male resort visitor who had interacted with the child and the Applicant before being ejected for inappropriate behaviour), Mr Schuttauf was reluctant to concede, in cross-examination, that the described situation demonstrated the possibility of problematic individuals gaining access to Association resorts and children attending them. He instead viewed the situation as one in which the Association’s contemplated protocols and safeguards had worked as intended; i.e., where the very watchful community at the resort had been sufficiently observant to detect and promptly address such inappropriate behaviour.

e. From the Applicant’s father, R.B., by way of letters attached as exhibits to his daughter’s affidavit, and by oral testimony:

i. Mr B. indicated that he and wife are members of the Federation of Canadian Naturists and the American Association for Nude Recreation, that they have been attending naturist resorts and events for approximately 13 years, and that the Applicant and the parties’ child began joining them in doing so approximately six or seven years ago.

ii. It was acknowledged that the Respondent was not advised of the child attending such naturist resorts with her mother and maternal grandparents until 2024, but Mr B. denied that the child was ever instructed to keep such matters a “secret”, told that they were to be “hidden”, or that she was to “lie” in that regard. According to Mr B., the child instead was told that “it was not something that she was to openly discuss”, or needed to openly discuss at school or in social settings, “unless she felt she needed to”, as “there are people who don’t agree or see things in the same light as others”, and who might be judgmental about such things.

iii. Mr B. emphasized that, in his experience, such naturist resorts were “very security conscious”, and more secure than many other parks, campgrounds and other public places. For example:

1. From the time of their first attendance at such resorts, Mr B. and his wife have been required to provide proof of identification, as well as full contact information, and he says that background checks are now required by the resorts they attend.

2. In Mr B.’s experience, the management at such resorts “keep a close eye” on regular members as well as new members, with people looking out for children in particular “because nobody wants this to become an issue”.

3. In Mr B.’s experience, all such naturist resorts have had security and safety precautions in place; e.g., such that they are surrounded by fencing, with security gates through which one must pass to enter and exit, and police being called if and as necessary to remove and charge anyone trespassing or acting inappropriately.

4. In Mr B.’s experience, the people attending such resorts form a very close community; i.e., wherein “everybody’s looking out for everybody else”, and almost everyone is within eyeshot or earshot of someone else capable of lending assistance if and when needed.

iv. Mr B. also described how the naturist resorts he and his family members have attended maintain strict rules about the use of electronic devices, which include general prohibitions against the taking of photos or videos of anyone without the express consent of everyone depicted, whether principally or anywhere within the frame of the recorded image. In the result, when any photos are taken, (as persons employed by a resort admittedly may do from time to time to enable their demonstration to others that their resort is a family oriented facility, albeit not by any posting of such photos on Facebook or other social media), those taking any such photos or making any such video recordings are required to ask permission of anyone who will be depicted therein, and those denying permission are asked to move out of the frame if/as necessary. Anyone seen taking pictures or videos without authorization is immediately asked to delete the images and prove that deletion has been done, failing which the person taking the picture or video is asked to relinquish his or her device, with any refusal to do so resulting in the resort essentially forcing the person to remain on site until the police are called and able to arrive on site to address the situation; i.e., with the situation not being one where someone violating such rules of the resort is able to simply “jump in their car and take off”.

v. Mr B. says the environment at the naturist resorts he and his family members have attended has been very non-judgmental, welcoming, respectful and family oriented; e.g., with all the resorts having playgrounds and organized games, crafts and other activities geared towards children. In that regard, Mr B. says the resorts do recognize that, as children grow older, and particularly when they are entering puberty, they may very well be inclined to wear more clothing than when they were younger. However, the resorts also were said to be “clothing optional” in that regard; i.e., such that attendees, (including children), were free to wear clothing within the resorts except in certain areas, (such as the swimming or sauna areas), where nudity was required.

vi. Mr B. says that his granddaughter S. has actively participated in such activities at the resorts, freely interacting with the children and adults she meets there, in a manner that has markedly improved her confidence and enthusiasm over time.

vii. Mr B. was aware of past indications by the child that she no longer wanted to attend naturist resorts, as well as the Respondent’s indications that the child continues to express repeated opposition to further participation in such naturist activity. However, Mr B. says that is entirely at odds with what the child has been indicating to him and his wife; i.e., with the child repeatedly indicating that she wants to go back to the naturist resorts, and repeatedly asking when that can happen. In that regard, Mr B. acknowledged the possibility of a child, perhaps intimidated by parents or others, expressing different views at different times to please others. However, he felt that the choice should be left up to the child and, in this case, he believed the child genuinely wanted to resume her attendances at the naturist resorts as soon as possible; i.e., based on her repeated indications that she likes to go to the naturist resorts, and “absolutely” wants to go again. In that regard, Mr B. attributed any statements of the child to the contrary to:

1. the Respondent and his new partner telling the child that such conduct was wrong, inappropriate and immoral, which Mr B. characterized as concerns of the Respondent and his partner rather than concerns of the child; and

2. the Respondent and his new partner scaring the child with misinformation about matters such as naturist resort security and/or the taking and sharing of photographs of the child while naked.

viii. Mr B. acknowledged that there had been family discussion of the described incident wherein the child had been left alone at the naturist resort with a man who was evicted from the park shortly thereafter for inappropriate conduct, but emphasized that the child had no concerns in that regard until she was expressly instructed not to associate with the man in question, and claimed that the child has thereafter not expressed any further concern about the incident when asking to return to the resorts as soon as possible.

ix. Mr B. also acknowledged that, in response to the child indicating a lack of understanding as to why she currently was not being permitted to attend the naturist resorts, he expressly indicated to the child that it was her father who was trying to stop her from attending, and that the matter was before the courts to decide, with her mother having agreed that the child would not return to the resorts until the issue had been decided.

10Again, the above provides only a summary outline of some of the evidence that was presented for my consideration. I nevertheless have considered all of that evidence in my approach to the matter.

Assessment

11By way of assessment, I begin by noting that I was not supplied with any Canadian authority addressing issues raised by the Respondent’s motion; something not very surprising given the self-represented nature of the parties, and the court’s earlier direction indicating that neither was required to file a factum.

12Moreover, the research I independently was able to conduct in the time available suggests a dearth of Canadian caselaw addressing situations where attendance of children at nudist or naturist resorts has been an issue, and/or the subject of any detailed consideration by our courts. In that regard:

a. I am mindful of numerous decisions arising from prosecutions alleging commission of “indecent acts” and/or “nudity” pursuant to ss.173 and 174 of the Criminal Code and their predecessors. However, such authorities self-evidently focus on the specific wording and essential elements of those legislated offences; e.g., commission of an indecent act in a “public place” or in “any place with intent to insult or offend”, and/or being nude “without lawful excuse” in a “public place” or “exposed to public view while on private property”. In my view, such decisions raise issues and established tests in that regard that are not readily or transferable to the context of private naturist or nudist resorts, deliberately removed and sheltered from public view, in situations where those within such resorts expressly and/or implicitly have given or received consent to mere nudity. Having said that, the apparent lack of reported prosecutions of such offences in relation to nudist/naturist resorts, despite the presented evidence indicating the longstanding existence of such resorts in this country, indirectly suggests an acceptance by Parliament, law enforcement authorities and/or Crown prosecutors that mere nudity within such resorts, in the presence of children or otherwise, is not something to be regarded as criminal/illegal conduct.

b. My search for authorities addressing situations involving nudism and children included decisions where a parent’s intention to take a child to such a nudist resort was referenced in passing as an indication of “immoral if not amoral” conduct,⁴ but other decisions where a parent’s intention to reside with a child at a nudist resort and/or a parent merely being a self-professed nudist who had shown his nude body to his children appeared to be matters mentioned only in passing, without being regarded as having significance from a moral perspective or otherwise in the absence of other reasons for concern.⁵

c. In the limited number of cases where courts have focused on child attendance at nudist resorts with a parent or parents, considered and addressed at more length in the family law and/or child protection context, courts have avoided and/or expressly denied passing judgment on the moral or immoral character of nudism or naturism in the abstract, emphasizing instead the importance of approaching such matters through a mandated/legislated focus on what may or may not be in the best interests of a particular child in the particular circumstances before the court. For example:

i. In Renwick v. Renwick (1982), 1982 2559 (SK QB), 16 Sask. R. 429 (Q.B.), custody of a six-year-old girl had been granted to a mother, with reasonable access to the father. The father remarried, and he and his partner became nudists who practised nudity at their home, (both alone and with consenting visitors), and as members of a specific nudist campground in a secluded area near Regina where camp members were nude at most times and mandatorily so while swimming. The mother was quite willing to permit access between the father and child in circumstances where the child would not be exposed to nudity, but objected to the child being exposed to such nudist/naturist practices. In that regard, the mother argued that, as the custodial parent, she had attempted, (e.g., through specified home, school and church activities), to give the child a certain set of values at odds with regarding social nudity as an acceptable activity. The father argued in response that the nudist activity at his home and nudist camp were not unlawful, indecent or immoral, and that the mother and the court accordingly should not interfere by imposing restrictions on his child access in that regard. Other evidence before the court confirmed that the child was being pulled in opposite directions, was confused accordingly, and was not old enough to decide if she wished to be involved in such nudist/naturist activity. In the result, the court made an order that all access between the father and child would be conditional on the father refraining from taking the child to the nudist campground or any other place or facility were nudism was practised, while also refraining from deliberately exposing the child to any practice of nudism within the father’s home. Notable aspects of the court’s decision in that regard included the following:

1. It was emphasized that the court’s decision necessarily was focused on the best interest of the child, rather than any simple focus on whether or not nudism was a legal activity. In particular, as emphasized by the court at paragraph 16 of the decision: “There may be activities which might not be contrary to law and at the same time not in the best interest of the child. The dominant matter for consideration is the welfare of the child.”

2. In the particular case before the court, emphasis was placed on the different roles of a custodial parent and an access parent. In particular, the father’s desire to introduce the practice of nudism into the child’s life was characterized as an effort to change or alter the child’s general direction, mode of life and upbringing in a manner fundamentally at odds with the beliefs of the custodial parent, and the corresponding choices made for the child in that regard by the custodial parent. The court regarded such effective interference with the values the custodial parent was attempting to give the child as something inherently detrimental to the well-being of the child. In particular, without any demonstration “that nudity of itself would advance the welfare of the child”, that was sufficient, in the court’s view, to decide the matter.

3. More generally, the court found that, “having regard to all the evidence”, it was “not in the best interests of the child to be placed in surroundings where nudity is prevalent”. However, the court expressly did so without find it “necessary … to decide the issue of the morality of such nudity”.

ii. In Children’s Aid Society of Sudbury & Manitoulin (Districts) v. B.(D.), 2008 ONCJ 171, the parents were practising nudists/naturists, and included their four children, (whose ages ranged from seven to 14 years), in their preferred lifestyle. They did so both at home and at a nudist camp attended by the family. The relevant Children’s Aid Society had numerous child welfare concerns, which included but were not restricted to the nudist lifestyle favoured by the parents. Matters apparently came to a head when the parents sought to develop and/or share nude photographs of the children in various situations and poses, alone and with others. Concerns about child pornography and other forms of child exploitation and harm resulted in formal apprehension of the children; e.g., on grounds that included not only allegations that the children had been exploited, but allegations that some of the behaviours demonstrated by the parents created a risk of emotional harm to the children. The parents argued in response that their preferred lifestyle was natural, non-sexual and innocent, and that it was those who saw it differently who had a problem or who made such matters a problem. In the result, the Court found that, in the particular circumstance of the case before it, the Society had met its onus of establishing that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the children were likely to suffer harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, such that the parents’ request for return of the children was denied. Notable aspects of the court’s decision in that regard included the following:

1. The court emphasized that nudism or the “naturalist lifestyle” are not sufficiently notorious or monolithic to warrant judicial notice, or corresponding inferences or determinations, as to whether such a lifestyle should be regarded as acceptable or non-acceptable, nor any automatic inferences as to whether exposure of a child to such a lifestyle inherently carried a risk that the child would suffer harm in that regard. In that regard, each case instead demanded a focus on the specific evidence before the court. In particular, the court said this at paragraph 45 of its decision: “To be very clear regarding the ‘naturalist’ lifestyle, this court concludes neither that practising the ‘naturalist’ lifestyle with children automatically establishes reasonable grounds to believe that a child is likely to suffer harm, to cite the language of the section, nor that practising the ‘naturalist’ lifestyle with children is acceptable. In fact, there is insufficient evidence before the court even to define the meaning of a ‘naturalist’ lifestyle or ‘nudist’ lifestyle, or whatever expression may be preferred by its proponents or opponents. The nudist or naturist lifestyle is not so notorious that the court can take judicial notice of its practices. It is more likely that the very freedom that its participants advocate results in there not being a single lifestyle but rather nudist lifestyles that run the entire spectrum of preferences, with amorphous and undefined boundaries, varying by participant depending on individual circumstances, sentiments, character, modesty, reserve, prudishness, etc.”

2. As emphasized at paragraph 46 of the court’s decision, evidence of a parent ostensibly consulting and obtaining a child’s consent to participation in nudist or naturalist activity also should not be regarded as decisive in determining whether such activity carries risk of harm to a child and/or should be regarded as consistent with the child’s best interest, and should instead be approached with caution. In that regard, courts must be mindful:

a. that children frequently seek to please their parents or, conversely, seek to avoid disappointing their parents or demonstrating disavowal of their parents’ lifestyle; and

b. parents may seriously underestimate their power and influence over their children, to the extent children may reflect the views of their parents in relation to such matters.

3. As emphasized at paragraph 47 of the court’s decision, social mores regarding nudity are varied and evolving, and context is all important in determining whether particular parenting conduct and practices may be consistent with a particular child’s welfare and best interests. In that regard, the court noted and emphasized the following: “In many countries and cultures, persons bathe in public. In others, communal saunas and steam baths are commonplace, publicly and within families. Clothing optional beaches or baths are nothing new. Private nudist camps (by that name or any other) are available for persons who share similar preferences. The issue … is not whether to validate or condemn these activities. It is sufficient to remark that, where parents practice or permit nudity within a family or in the company of other adults or children, this will inevitably raise concerns about boundaries and parental influence and judgment. This is the society in which we live.”

13For such reasons, although a significant portion of the evidence tendered by or on behalf of the Applicant seemed focused on broader questions of whether nudism or naturist practices should be regarded as moral or acceptable in Canadian society, and/or be validated accordingly, in my view the determination of such issues in the present context is neither necessary nor appropriate.

14The more appropriate question, in the particular circumstances of this case, is whether further attendance of the parties’ child at nudist/naturist camps, resorts or similar facilities, (with her mother and/or maternal grandparents), would be in this particular child’s best interests, as determined in accordance with section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.12, (i.e., “the CLRA”), as amended.

15While that is the more focused approach mandated by law, it is also consistent with the indication by the Respondent father in this case that he takes no issue with nudist or naturist practices per se, but does feel that particular considerations which have emerged in this case warrant the order he has requested; i.e., an order, more particularly described in his written material and oral submissions, that “neither the Respondent or Applicant or any other caregiving adult will take the child, S.E.L.C., to nudist camps or other recreational nudist events or activities”.

16The provisions of section 24 of the CLRA are well-known, and I have regard to them in their entirety. However, for ease of reference, provisions of the section include but are not limited to the following:

24. (1) BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD – In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section.

(2) PRIMARY CONSIDERATION -- In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

(3) FACTORS – Factors related to the circumstances of the child includes:

(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things:

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

17By way of assessment of such considerations, in the particular circumstances of this case:

a. As far as the child’s needs are concerned:

i. There was nothing before me to suggest that the child’s situation currently is anything but generally stable, apart from the current dispute regarding whether time spent with her mother and her maternal grandparents should include nudist/naturist activity.

ii. Having said that, I am mindful that considerations relating to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety in this particular case involve identified vulnerabilities which include, perhaps most importantly, a professionally diagnosed condition of anxiety and depression accompanied by post traumatic stress disorder, in respect of which the child currently takes prescription medication. Although the child has been doing well lately in that regard, such considerations suggest that the potential impact on this particular child of a traumatic experience is likely to be far more profound than that which might be expected in relation to a child of similar age not suffering from such vulnerabilities.

iii. Like all children, the child at the centre of this particular case needs to be kept safe. In that regard, I have no reason to doubt the presented evidence indicating that the nudist/naturist resorts to which the child has been taken by the Applicant and the Applicant’s parents take significant measures to secure their premises, carefully screen those who are permitted to enter such premises, and maintain a high degree of community vigilance to deter, detect and quickly address any inappropriate behaviour. Having said that:

1. I think it also needs to be recognized that the need for such enhanced security, screening and monitoring procedures is commensurate with elevated risks inherent in adults and children, practising nudism/naturism, rendering themselves more vulnerable to possible interaction with those with nefarious intent who do not view nudity in the same non-sexualized manner. In particular, in comparing the safety of the environment within such resorts to the safety of the environment found in other public places where children interact with adult strangers, it seems neither logical nor fair to focus solely on the enhanced security and screening procedures present in the naturist resort setting without acknowledging that those procedures are enhanced precisely because of the elevated risks that otherwise exist in such settings. For example, the risks associated with leaving a naked young girl alone with a naked male adult and stranger for a short time seem inherently greater than the risks associated with leaving a clothed young girl alone with a clothed male adult stranger for an equally short period of time. Such elevated risks presumably were the catalyst and rationale for such enhanced safety protocols implemented at nudist/naturist resorts.

2. As commendable as the security, screening and monitoring protocols of the nudist/naturist resorts in question may be, they demonstrably are not infallible; i.e., as the “creepy man” or “scary man” incident described in the evidence makes clear. Although the risk or danger posed to the child in that instance was quickly identified and addressed, in my view that does not negate the reality that the situation came to pass, and created the potential for an incident capable of seriously traumatizing a vulnerable child already struggling with diagnosed anxiety, depression and PTSD issues.

3. Although such risk or danger apparently and thankfully did not result in any overt harm to the child on the described occasion, I nevertheless think it important to recognize that the child was made aware of that risk or danger and its potential for harm; i.e., insofar as she was instructed to stay away from the “scary man” in question, and no doubt was able to infer that he posed a risk of harm to her if she did otherwise. In my view, that awareness, in and of itself, seems likely to have affected the child to some extent; i.e., insofar as her prior sense of security and lack of self-consciousness in the nudist/naturist resort environment inevitably was thereby compromised, regardless of later assurances she may have received that the particular situation involving that particular man had been addressed. Like any adult, a child once exposed to the reality of risk and the potential for something bad to happen reasonably may doubt assurances that the same situation will never happen again.

iv. Of less significance perhaps, but still of relevance in the circumstances, and the issue of whether the child should attend nudist resorts, is medical documentation also indicating that this particular child is susceptible to pronounced redness and swelling via bug bites when she does not wear protective clothing; reactions unusual enough to prompt a specific medical appointment to address the situation.

v. I also am mindful, in terms of the child’s age and stage of development, that she is 11 and entering puberty; a phase of life wherein, (as nudist/naturist resorts themselves apparently recognize), children often become more self-conscious and desire more privacy, even if they previously may have embraced the nudist/naturist lifestyle.

b. As for the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each of her parents, as well as her maternal grandparents and father’s new partner, nothing in the presented evidence suggests to me that the child does not enjoy spending time with all of those individuals. While the relief being requested by the Respondent father would have an obvious impact on the particular form of activities the child would be able to enjoy with her mother and maternal grandparents, it would not curtail the amount of time the child would be able to spend with those members of her family. I am mindful that such time arguably would not be as enjoyable as it otherwise would be if restrictions are placed on absolute freedom of choice as to where and how such time is spent; i.e., with the Applicant and the maternal grandparents, and perhaps the child, being denied the ability to spend that time in the way they may consider most enjoyable and worthwhile, at nudist/naturist resorts. However, there also obviously are a multitude of highly enjoyable activities a child can enjoy with a mother and grandparents that do not involve nudist/naturist camping. In my view, the restriction sought by the Respondent would not substantially undermine the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with her mother or maternal grandparents.

c. As for each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent:

i. I note again that the relief sought by the Respondent father does not seek to curtail any amount of time the child spends with the Applicant or the Applicant’s parents.

ii. I am mindful of suggestions advanced by the Applicant and her father, in the course of their evidence, that the Respondent’s motion is actually a reflection of the Respondent’s ongoing desire to control and/or otherwise continue abuse of the Applicant; i.e., thereby exhibiting a form of behaviour intended to undermine the Applicant’s chosen manner of developing and maintaining a relationship with her child. However, that was not my general impression from the evidence. In that regard, I note in particular that the Respondent did not immediately seize upon revelation of the child’s participation in nude-camping as an opportunity to challenge the Applicant’s decisions in that regard; e.g., by immediately trying to bring any urgent motion, in advance of the case conferences, to restrict the child’s participation in such activity. To the contrary, it was not disputed that the Respondent initially indicated that he had no objection to such activity, (although it was not his personal preference or “cup of tea”), and that the Respondent did not take any steps to bring that issue before the court until there was a revelation of an incident, (i.e., the child being left alone and naked with a “scary man”, also naked, who acted inappropriately enough to be evicted from the resort a short time later), which caused the Respondent to question the safety of the child during such activity, and whether her continued participation in such nudist/naturist activity was appropriate given other indicated concerns, including the child’s stated desire to no longer participate in any further naked camping. In that regard, I note that the Respondent continues to indicate and emphasize that he does not object to nudist/naturist activity per se, and that his primary concern is focused on the well-being of his daughter and respect for her wishes.

d. As for the history of care for the child:

i. I am mindful that, although the child’s participation in such naked camping activity was disclosed to the Respondent only recently, there apparently is no dispute that it has formed a regular part of the child’s life experience for the past five to seven years. I also have no reason to doubt the evidence presented by the Applicant and her father that the child, by returning to the same nudist resort or resorts on a regular basis, has formed friendships and relationships there with other children and adults. Until recently, at least, participation in such activity also apparently has not resulted in any notable concerning behaviour that has been attributed to such activity.

ii. I also am mindful that, since the time of the parties’ separation, the Applicant has been the party with custody or decision-making responsibility in relation to the child, (at least in relation to significant extra-curricular activities and culture), and the Applicant’s decision to have the child regularly participate in nudist/naturist activity therefore arguably forms a significant component of the beliefs of the Applicant, as well as the corresponding general direction, mode of life and manner of upbringing the Applicant has chosen for the child in relation to such matters. As the court noted in Renwick v. Renwick, supra, the efforts of the other parent lacking such authority to interfere with such values and choices may therefore be viewed as something inherently detrimental to the child. That having been said, a child’s best interests, determined by regard to all the circumstances of a particular case, nevertheless obviously may transcend the preferred choices of a parent with custodial or decision-making responsibility.

e. As for “the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless such views and preferences cannot be ascertained”:

i. In my view, that is a major consideration in this particular case, and one that troubles me greatly. In particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing;

1. The child in question is currently 11 years old and nearer to the age of 12, and no one disputes that she is quite capable of articulating her views and preferences both verbally and in writing.

2. No one disputes that the child, at different times, had indicated that she no longer wants to go naked camping. Beyond the Respondent’s affidavit evidence in that regard, the child has provided an express indication to that effect in her own handwriting, coupled with reference to her having “no privacy”, and to her mother not listening to how she feels. In their evidence, the Applicant and Mr B. effectively suggest that the child was induced to make such statements through irrational fears and/or lack of understanding, (e.g., prompted by comments made by the Respondent and/or the Respondent’s partner), and that the child has changed her mind and now wants to go naked camping again now that the fears and concerns she may have been experienced have been adequately addressed and allayed. Again, however, neither the Applicant nor Mr B. deny that the child has made statements indicating that she no longer wants to go naked camping.

3. The situation is not one where the child’s possible change of heart in relation to continued participation in naked camping is something that must be regarded as an inexplicable mystery. As noted above, the evidence indicates various identified reasons which, alone or collectively, may have led the child to change her views and preferences in that regard, including:

a. her growing awareness of the current political environment in the United States and an aversion to attending nudist/naturist camps in that environment;

b. her increased sensitivity and/or lack of tolerance as far as increased exposure to insect bites may be concerned;

c. her becoming more self-conscious about her body as she matures and enters puberty;⁶

d. her increased sensitivity, (via becoming more self-conscious and/or via comments by the Respondent and/or his new partner), to the possibility of her being photographed naked and that photo being preserved for all time and/or circulated in the future without her consent in circumstances beyond her control;⁷

e. her being made to realize, by the described “creepy man” or “scary man” incident, that the security, screening and monitoring protocols and practices implemented at such nudist/naturist resorts or camps do not ensure perfect security from those who may attend such places for improper reasons and/or with nefarious intent; and/or

f. her general concern, stated in writing, that she has “no privacy”.

4. The court was presented with very divergent and inconsistent accounts of the child’s current views and preferences; i.e., in terms of what the child currently is saying to the Respondent and his partner on the one hand, and to the Applicant and the Applicant’s parents on the other, in terms of whether she wants to go naked camping again. While that may suggest that someone is deliberately lying about what the child currently is saying about such matters, that was not my impression. I think it more likely that the child may be trying to please each of her parents, as well as her grandparents; i.e., by telling them what the child knows they each wish to hear, in circumstances where at least some of her statements actually may not accord with her true wishes and preferences. Indeed, one of the more troubling aspects of this case are the overt indications that the various adults interacting with the child effectively have been presenting the child with arguments and counterarguments about whether and why she should or should not be comfortable with continued participation in naked camping. While the adults in question ostensibly may have been emphasizing that the child’s views and preferences should govern, (i.e., that the child should not be forced to go naked camping against her wishes, and should not be restrained from doing so if that is what she wants), in my view they consciously or subconsciously have been engaged in active efforts to sway the child’s views and preferences in that regard. The resulting pressures on this 11-year-old child, and fears of disappointing at least some of the beloved adults in her life, seem likely to loom large from her perspective.

ii. For the time being at least, I nevertheless am inclined to place more weight on the notes written by the child herself, expressly and clearly indicating that she no longer wants to go naked camping and feels that she has “no privacy”, and expressing her upset that her mother does not listen to how she feels. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

1. In my view, that evidence provides an indisputable indication that the child herself, at one point at least, no longer wished to engage in such activity. Moreover, as noted above, there are various identified reasons why the child may very well have changed her mind about continued visits to such nudist/naturist resorts.

2. One obviously must allow for the possibility of the child genuinely having changed her mind again about such matters, some time after her written indications noted above; e.g., at some later time, after giving the matter more consideration, after listening to reasons presented by her mother and grandparents to address and allay possible concerns, and/or perhaps after realizing that she was missing the friends, relationships and activities she previously may have enjoyed at the nudist/naturist resorts she had been attending.

3. Having said that, it seems to me that the possible detrimental impact of the child being denied the opportunity of attending such resorts with her mother and maternal grandparents, in circumstances where she truly wishes to resume such activities, pales in comparison to the potential psychological trauma and other negative emotions that might be experienced by such a young girl, (already struggling with medicated anxiety, depression and PTSD), being forced to attend such a nudist/naturist resort against her true wishes; i.e., if her previous views and preferences favouring her ongoing participation in nude camping did indeed change, for any or all of the reasons outlined above, so that she really no longer wishes to participate in such activity. At the very least, it seems to me that the situation calls for an extremely cautious approach by the court; i.e., one potentially erring on the side of restraining the child from being taken to such nudist/naturist resorts or participating in similar events and activities until her true current wishes and preferences in that regard can be more objectively ascertained and confirmed, and until the court can be provided with more objective and detailed information regarding the likely positive or negative impacts on this particular child of any such attendance and participation; i.e., through desirable involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

f. As for the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage:

i. The child has no indicated Indigenous upbringing or heritage, and her linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage are not in issue.⁸

ii. As noted earlier, nudism and naturism indisputably have formed part of the child’s cultural life for many years following the parties’ separation, and prior to the current dispute emerging in 2025. On the one hand, that arguably militates in favour of the child being permitted to proceed down that cultural path, particularly when doing so is favoured by the parent with custodial or decision-making authority in relation to such cultural and/or extra-curricular matters. On the other hand, there arguably is a need for change if the child personally now has rejected that culture, and would find continued participation in that culture traumatic from a psychological or emotional perspective, and/or something that would reinforce her extant challenges with anxiety, depression and PTSD.

g. Plans for the child’s care generally would not change if the requested relief was granted, apart from the extent to which the child would or would not be permitted to spend recreational time with her mother and maternal grandparents at nudist/naturist camps or resorts, or other recreational nudist/naturist events or activities.

h. As for the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child:

i. Nothing in the evidence before me suggests that any of the adults caring for the child are unable or unwilling to care for and meet the needs of the child, apart from the extent to which the commendable measures taken to safeguard the child while attending the nudist/naturist resort frequented by the Applicant and her parents are demonstrably imperfect.

ii. Having said that, I have no reason to believe that the Applicant and/or her parents would not be even more vigilant and attentive in the future if the child is permitted to return to such nudist/naturist resorts or activities; e.g., to ensure that the child is never again left naked and alone with any adult unfamiliar to the Applicant and/or her parents.

i. As for the ability and willingness of each parent in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child:

i. Despite the history of previous high conflict in relation to this matter, the parties apparently have made commendable progress in terms of their ability communicate and co-operate with one another on matters affecting the child; e.g., as demonstrated by their undisputed holding of “family meetings” to openly discuss matters affecting the child, and as noted repeatedly by Justice Bezaire in her endorsements commenting on the conferences over which she has presided in relation to this matter.

ii. That having been said, I do find it remarkable and troubling that the child’s participation in naked camping activity with her mother and maternal grandparents clearly and admittedly was not disclosed to the Respondent until the fall of 2024, (i.e., many years after the parties’ separation, and many years after the child had embarked on such activity), and that the non-disclosure in that regard apparently was deliberate and something in which the child effectively was encouraged to participate. The desire to avoid “judgment” in relation to participation in nudist/naturist activity, (articulated by the Applicant’s father), may be understandable from the perspective of the adults involved. However, it ignored the fundamental entitlement of the Respondent to receive information about his child, and did effectively encourage the child to keep secrets from one of her parents; something inherently at odds with maintenance of a healthy parent-child relationship.

iii. More importantly, for present purposes, the demonstrated reticence of the Applicant and her parents to readily share information about the child’s participation in such nudist/naturist activity, including any potential concerns in that regard, effectively creates a zone of uncertainty about adequate disclosure of all information relevant to preservation of the child’s welfare and promotion of her best interest. Quite simply, neither a parent nor the court can be sure that such concerns are being adequately addressed if information in that regard, relating to a child’s participation in a particular activity, effectively is the subject of deliberate non-disclosure – and the Applicant and her parents may be even more reticent about disclosing any future or further troubling developments in that regard. That in turn is a consideration that arguably militates against the child’s continued participation in such activity.

j. Although there is a reported history of family violence in this matter, (as noted above), in my view it has little or no relevance to the current issue before the court. Not only has the Respondent apparently made commendable progress in that regard, (e.g., insofar as the situation has moved well beyond the Respondent being subject to a restraining order or supervised parenting time), but the issue currently before the court is largely divorced from any potential conduct of the Respondent, and is instead focused on how the child should or should not spend time with the Applicant and maternal grandparents in one particular respect. In my view, the history of family violence arguably has tangential relevance only to the extent it has been suggested that the Respondent’s objection to the child’s participation in nudist/naturist camping or similar activity is said to reflect a form of ongoing effort to dominate, abuse and/or undermine the Applicant; a consideration already addressed above.

k. As for “any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security or well-being of the child”:

i. Nothing before me suggests the existence of any ongoing criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure in that regard.

ii. This motion clearly arises in the context of ongoing litigation focused on possible changes to the civil orders made by this court in relation to the parties’ child, in respect of which some changes already have bee made on consent while other disputes continue. For present purposes, however:

1. I note that the specific relief sought by the Respondent’s motion does not seek to alter the child’s primary residence or the existing division of parenting time between the parties. It instead focuses on a requested specific restriction on a particular type of activity in which the child previously has participated during her parenting time with the Applicant and the Applicant’s parents.

2. Moreover, the relief being requested is focused on desired orders, conditions or measures said to enhance rather than undermine the safety, security or well-being of the child.

18On balance, and having regard to all the circumstances, I find that the situation calls for an interim order whereby, pending any further order of the court, neither parent, nor any other adult entrusted with care of the child, shall take the child to nudist/naturist camps, resorts or other recreational nudist/naturist events or activities.

19Having said that, for reasons outlined above, my temporary order in that regard is based in large measure on what I regard as the court’s current inability to discern with clarity whether or not the child genuinely may have changed her mind about further participation in such activity and the extent to which such further participation would have a positive or detrimental impact on this particular child. For the reasons outlined above, I find it advisable to err on the side of caution in relation to such matters, and restrict the child’s attendance and/or participation in that regard, unless and until the court is provided with more objective and detailed information, preferably through the desired assistance of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”).

20I therefore also intend to make a further order, pursuant to ss.89(3.1) and 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43, inviting OCL involvement in this matter focused on this specific parenting time issue relating to the child’s further participation in nudist/naturist activities, including but not restricted to the child’s possible further attendance at nudist/naturist resorts. Ideally, that OCL involvement would not be limited to child representation and/or a “voice of the child” report objectively ascertaining, confirming and presenting the child’s true wishes and preference in relation to such participation in nudist/naturist activities, but extend to a clinical assessment focused on the possible beneficial and detrimental effects on this particular child of further participation in such nudist/naturist activities. As the parties are self-representing, I anticipate that the court office will assist in preparation and processing of the necessary OCL order, in the standard form, which nevertheless shall incorporate the “judicial comments” specified below.

21Once that contemplated OCL involvement hopefully has occurred, and/or corresponding further information has been made available, either party may bring a further motion to rescind or vary the temporary order I have made, or seek a final order in relation to such matters at trial.

22In that regard, it should be noted that, while I am not averse to having the matter come before me again, I am not seized of the matter, which may be addressed by any judge of the court who is not precluded from doing so by having presided over a conference discussing such issues on a without prejudice basis.

23No costs of the motion were requested by either of the self-representing parties, and no costs are ordered.

Conclusion

24By way of summary and conclusion:

a. A temporary order, (which includes the full unredacted names of the parties and their minor child and the child’s specified birthdate, although that information may have been initialized and/or redacted in this endorsement), shall go whereby, pending further order of the court, obtained on notice, neither party, nor any adult caregiver entrusted with care of the parties’ child, S.E.L.C., born [on a specified date in 2014], shall take the child to any nudist/naturist camp or resort, nor to any other recreational nudist/naturist event or activity.

b. A further order shall go in the prescribed form, (once again setting forth the full unredacted names and of the parties and their minor child and the child’s specified birthdate, although that information may have been initialized and/or redacted in this endorsement), and be served on the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, whereby, inter alia:

i. Each of the parties shall complete and forward a separate Intake form of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer within 14 days of this date;

ii. This matter shall be referred to the Children’s Lawyer to provide such services, under s.89(3.1) and s.112 of the Courts of Justice Act, supra, as the Children’s Lawyer deems appropriate for the minor child, S.E.L.C., born [on the specified date];

iii. The Children’s Lawyer will notify the court in writing forthwith if the Children’s Lawyer determines no such services are appropriate;

iv. The Children’s Lawyer shall have the full powers required to provide legal representation under s.89.3(3.1) of the Courts of Justice Act, supra, and act for the said child as though a party to the proceeding, including the specific powers normally set forth in the prescribed form of order, if the Children’s Lawyer determines to provide such legal representation;

v. The Children’s Lawyer shall have the full rights required to provide an investigation and report under s.112 of the Courts of Justice Act, supra, including the specific rights normally set forth in the prescribed form of order, if the Children’s Lawyer determines to do so; and

vi. The Children’s Lawyer shall have regard to the following judicial comments, (in bold and italicized print, to be added to the “Judge’s comments” section of the order as it is being finalized), when making its determinations: “The underlying circumstances are described at length in the court’s extended endorsement dated April 27, 2026, to which the Children’s Lawyer should refer. However, by way of abbreviated summary, this is a matter with a history of high conflict between the parties, in respect of which the parties have reached an impasse in relation to whether their daughter, (currently 11 and turning 12 shortly), should participate further in nudist/naturist activities, (including but not restricted to the child’s possible further attendance at nudist/naturist resorts), as the child did with her mother and maternal grandparents for a number of years after the parties’ separation, without the father becoming aware of such participation until the autumn of 2024, at which time such participation was paused by party agreement until such further participation could be addressed by the court. Such participation now has been restrained by a temporary order of the court, pending any further order in that regard. The evidence of the child’s supposed wishes and preferences in relation to such participation, presented by the parties, is directly in conflict; e.g., with the child’s father insisting that the child no longer wishes to engage in such nudist/naturist activities, (with the child having indicated in writing that she no longer wishes to do so, and reportedly repeating that position verbally to the father and the father’s new partner), and the child’s mother and maternal grandparents insisting that the child now wishes to continue such participation, (despite what the child may have written or said on earlier occasions), reportedly repeating that position verbally to her mother and maternal grandparents. The parties also dispute the extent to which such further participation would have a beneficial or detrimental impact on this particular child, who has existing vulnerabilities that include professionally diagnosed anxiety, depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder currently being treated by prescription medication. More objective determination, confirmation and representation of the child’s views and preferences in relation to such continued participation would be extremely helpful to the court, as would more objective and/or professional information and insights regarding the possible or probable effects of continued participation in such nudist/naturist activities by this particular child, before any further or final order is made in that regard.”

c. Once that contemplated involvement of the Children’s Lawyer has occurred, and/or corresponding further information has been made available, either party may bring a further motion to rescind or vary the temporary order noted above, or seek a final order in relation to such matters at trial.

d. No costs are ordered in relation to the Respondent’s motion.

Footnotes

1. 1The names of the parties and their child, including the child’s specified birth date, are set forth in full in the underlying pleadings. Having regard to the subject matter addressed herein, I nevertheless have taken the liberty of referring to the parties, their daughter and other relatives of the child only by their initials in an effort to maintain the child’s privacy.
2. 2In his underlying notice of motion, dated April 3, 2025, the Respondent also sought ancillary relief that would increase the obligations on either parent seeking to travel out of province with the parties’ child; i.e., in terms of obtaining written consent from the other parent, after the provision of increased written notice and details of travel. In the course of his oral submissions, however, the Respondent indicated that such relief was contemplated and requested only if his primary relief for a general order prohibiting the parties’ daughter from being taken “to a nudist camp of any kind”, (informally expanded in his confirmation of motion to a request for an order prohibiting his daughter from being taken “to nudist camps or other recreational nudist events or activities”), was denied. In particular, the Respondent confirmed that he had included his request for such ancillary relief only to provide him with a practical opportunity to bring further a further motion or motions, if/as necessary in the future, if his request for such a general order was denied and he received future notice of any intention to take the child to a specific nudist/naturist camp, resort or similar event or activity.
3. 3As I noted and endeavored to explain and emphasize to the self-representing parties and attending witnesses, the Applicant had been granted leave to call viva voce testimony from the three attending witnesses only for the specified and focused purpose of speaking to the “safety and benefits of the nudist camp for the child”. [Emphasis added.] Moreover, no steps had been taken, as required by Ontario law, to properly qualify any of the witnesses as an expert witness entitled to give opinion evidence; i.e., such that each of the witnesses would be confined to giving fact testimony, (as opposed to opinion evidence), in relation to that specified limited focus of their testimony, and within the time limits noted above.
4. 4See, for example: MacDonald v. MacDonald, 26 N.B.R. (2d) 549 (N.B.Q.B.), at paragraph 16.
5. 5See, for example: Bergen v. Bergen, 2011 ONSC 1930, at paragraph 10; and British Columbia (Director of Family & Child Services) v. F.(E.), 2003 BCPC 406, 2003 B.C.P.C. 406, at paragraph 36.
6. 6Again, the presented evidence suggests that such changes in preference are not uncommon among children attending the nudist/naturist resorts frequented by the Applicant and her parents.
7. 7While I am mindful of the nudist/naturist resort restrictions on photography and video recordings emphasized in the presented evidence, it also does not seem unreasonable to think that a child in the position of the parties’ child might question whether a photo or recording might be made in undetected contravention of those restrictions, whether she truly has the ability as a child to deny consent to being photographed or recorded in a way that will be respected, and whether photos taken by resort personnel for intended “internal” promotion might one day somehow be the subject of wider circulation.
8. 8In that regard, it was my impression, based on the presented evidence, that nudism and naturism reflect cultural beliefs and lifestyles, more than matters relating to religion or spirituality.