Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: JESSICA, Applicant
AND:
ROBERT and SARAH, Respondents
BEFORE: Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
COUNSEL: Howard J. Feldman, for the Applicant
Ash Mazinani, for the Respondents
HEARD: May 21, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1The applicant mother, Jessica, brings this motion primarily for a temporary order that, within four weeks, their seven-year-old daughter, Taylor, exclusively reside with her, with the respondent father “alone” permitted to see Taylor on Sundays despite recently imposed bail conditions which prohibit the applicant mother from contacting and communicating with her daughter and that restrains her from being within 500 metres of her daughter except for required court appearances. The respondent father, Robert, submits that the applicant mother’s parenting time should be supervised by a licensed therapist for one hour per week. He states that the therapist can assess whether, when and how increased parenting time should occur.
2In addition, the applicant mother seeks an order that: (a) Taylor have private counselling with Dr Farnia paid for by the respondent father; (b) Taylor will continue to attend private school paid for by the respondent father; (c) Taylor should be seen by an independent pediatrician and dentist.
3On consent of the parties, I have anonymized the child’s name and the parties’ names in order to protect the privacy interests of the child given the nature of the allegations: See Kirby v. Woods, 2025 ONCA 437, at para. 23.1
4For the reasons described below, I decline to make an interim parenting time order although I have made several interim orders including orders related to the child’s school and medical professionals.
BACKGROUND
5The applicant mother, age 41, and the respondent father, age 48, separated on September 8, 2025 following about 17 years of marriage. The applicant is a university student and her goal is to become a dentist. The respondent father is a dentist who primarily carries on his practice in a town outside of Toronto although he intends to commence a full-time practice in Toronto this summer. The respondent father has a new partner, the respondent Sarah, who resides with him.
6The applicant mother states:
[The respondent father] was coercive, controlling, and physically, psychologically, verbally and emotionally abusive to me. He strangled me several times by putting his hands around my neck until I was unable to breathe. … On one occasion, in or about 2024, he assaulted me and broke my teeth. As he is a dentist, he repaired my teeth as opposed to having another dentist do so. On other occasions, he struck me in the face, on my neck, arms and legs, causing bruises. … Our daughter has witnessed some of these incidents of physical abuse and verbal abuse … . In addition, on August 29, 2025, [Robert] slapped [Taylor], placed his hand over her mouth, and extracted one of her teeth without my consent and without informing me or [Taylor] in advance. … I loved my husband despite his violence but his several incidents of infidelity weakened my trust in him. Ultimately, despite my efforts to maintain family stability, our relationship deteriorated due to ongoing disputes surrounding his infidelity with his patient, [the respondent Sarah]. …
The respondent [Sarah] is a risk to the best interests of the child. On a further motion, I will seek a restraining order against her because I have reasonable grounds to fear for my safety and the health and psychological safety of my daughter. She should not be present with the child. [Sarah] has no legal status with respect to the child or [Robert]. She has no known history of parenting capacity. She and [Robert] are alienating my child. [Sarah] made false allegations that I [was] following her in breach of bail terms on December 8, 2025 and January 19, 2026. She and [Robert] forced the child to say that I threatened to kill [Sarah] when I was with the child under supervision by Brayden. (That is false). This resulted in further charges against me. She accessed my cell phone without my consent, contacted my friends in the community by using contact information in my cell phone and made defamatory allegations against me. She told the Brayden director that the child was her daughter.
7The respondent father states:
Credibility is of central importance in this motion, as the Applicant denies that she has ever assaulted me or [Taylor], … . However, the evidence that is before the Court will show that:
(a) The Applicant has severe and untreated mental health issues that have resulted in her assaulting me in [Taylor’s] presence, assaulting [Taylor] and putting her life at risk, and making death threats;
(b) The Applicant has made false complaints to the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario and false criminal allegations that I assaulted her in my dental office in the presence of [Taylor]. However, I have the security footage of the incident which shows that the Applicant grabbed my face and used her mouth to bite me right in front of [Taylor]. …
(c) The Applicant has made death threats and claimed to be “blood thirsty” to my current partner, [the respondent Sarah], and she has also been stalking [the respondent Sarah] since separation, resulting in the applicant mother being twice charged with breach of recognizance;
(d) After separation, the applicant put [Taylor’s] life in danger by trying to chase my vehicle while [Taylor] was in the car with her. This resulted in the applicant’s vehicle flipping over and the applicant being criminally charged as a result of the incident …
(e) [Taylor] herself has made numerous disclosures about the applicant physically assaulting her, which has resulted in a no-contact order being in place preventing her from being in contact with [Taylor];
(f) The one time that the applicant had supervised parenting time, Brayden had repeatedly warn her to stop speaking Farsi to the child and the supervisor later disclosed that the applicant was bad mouthing [the respondent Sarah] to the child, despite being warned not to do so.
8The respondent Sarah denies that she has attempted to erase the applicant from Taylor’s life, that she is attempting to take her place as Taylor’s mother, that she contacted Brayden and described Taylor as her daughter, that she falsely alleged that the applicant threatened her during the Brayden visit, that she asked police to take Taylor away from the applicant and to prevent her from returning to her home, and that she has followed or targeted the applicant. The respondent Sarah further states:
I have stepped in to assist because [Taylor] required day-to-day care, routine, calm, and emotional support, particularly given the [respondent father’s] work schedule and the instability caused by the applicant’s conduct. I have done this at significant detriment to my own career as a real estate agent, as I have significantly less time to devote to my work and my relationship with the respondent. …
I have never attempted to assume the Applicant’s identity or role as [Taylor’s] mother. In fact, I have told [Taylor] to call me “[Sarah]” not “mother”.
Since separation, [Taylor] has resided primarily with the respondent. Because I also reside with the respondent, I have assisted the respondent in caring for [Taylor]. I have necessarily become involved assisting with [Taylor]’s day to day care and routine.
My involvement has arisen from practical necessity and from concern for [Taylor’s] well-being, not from any desire to replace the applicant. I have done my best to allow a sense of [normalcy] and stability to return to [Taylor’s] life when she needed it the most. …
It appears that the applicant’s intention is to cut me out of [Taylor’s] life because she thinks it would make the respondent more likely to get back together with her, as she has repeatedly attempted to reconcile with the respondent and posted number social media posts professing her love for him. …
The applicant has made repeated threats against me. I have been fearful of the applicant as a result of her conduct.
To my knowledge, the applicant has stalked me on multiple occasions and has faced further charges arising from that conduct.
The applicant mother has also been charged with breach of failing to comply with bail restrictions. On two occasions dated December 8, 2025 and January 19, 2026, the applicant would rent difference vehicles to drive around and stalk me. [Attached are photos and videos showing the applicant following me in a rental vehicle on those dates]. I deny the applicant’s allegation that I followed her. She was in a rental vehicle and I had no way of stalking her even if I wanted to. …
She has sent me messages threatening violence and death and calling me degrading and vulgar names. By way of example, the applicant sent threats including words to the effect of “Your death is closer than you think” and “I will kill you myself”. I attach … the relevant text message exchanges. …
In my observation, [Taylor] has been deeply affected by the conflict surrounding these proceedings. She has been exposed to a level of adult conflict that no child should have to experience. [Taylor] needs calm, consistency, routine and protection from denigration and adult issues. …
9As will be further described below, the respondent mother is subject to two Release Orders that name Taylor:
(a) A Release Order, dated September 9, 2025, states that the applicant mother shall not communicate with Taylor with the following exceptions: (i) pursuant to a family court order made after today’s date; (ii) through a mutually agreed upon third party for purposes of facilitating visitation.
(b) A Release Order, dated March 10, 2026, states that the applicant mother shall not contact or communicate with Taylor. There are no exceptions.
It also prohibits the applicant mother from being within 500 metres of any place where she knows Taylor to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place she know Taylor to be except for required court appearances. There are no exceptions.
10While there are many allegations that are not corroborated, there are significant events that are better supported by the evidence.
Motor Vehicle Accident – September 8, 2025
11In her Amended Application, the applicant mother describes this accident in an understated fashion as follows:
The applicant mother was in an automobile accident on September 8, 2025. Their daughter was in the car at the time. No other vehicle was involved in a collision with her vehicle. No one was injured. The respondent father wrongly caused charges to be laid against her relating to this accident and other alleged events. He did this out of his own financial interests. …
On or about Monday, September 8, 2025, the applicant mother and the respondent father agreed that he would leave early in the morning to drop off [Taylor] at school and then he would make his usual trip [… ], to his dental practice. The applicant mother went to York University for classes. The applicant mother attempted to contact him as they usually had daily and frequent contact by text or telephone. He did not respond. His office said he was not available. The applicant mother was concerned about him. She attended at the school to pick up [Taylor]. The applicant mother was involved in a one-vehicle automobile accident. The child was in the vehicle but no one was injured.
Emergency services attended and confirmed that the applicant mother and [Taylor] were both uninjured. However, the applicant mother was arrested at the scene in [Taylor’s] presence and held overnight for the accident and unrelated issues. The applicant mother learned that the respondent had taken [Taylor] home.
12Subsequently, in her affidavit, the applicant mother adds that she encountered the respondent father at the school when she arrived to pick up Taylor and drove her vehicle in a parking lot in such a manner that resulted in it flipping over. She states:
I was very surprised to see [the respondent father] come to the school in a vehicle with [Sarah]. This was very inappropriate for him to come to the school with [Sarah]. After I approached them in my vehicle, they wheeled around me in her vehicle at high speed. I put my vehicle in motion but hit the curb and my vehicle overturned. I deeply regret this one-vehicle accident, which was out of character for me. … After the accident, on September 8,2025, the Toronto police arrested me regarding previous charges against me, including a charge for dangerous driving related to the accident. …I have obtained legal advice and I wish to take the protections of section 9 of the Ontario Evidence Act, section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act, and sections 7, 11, 13 and other sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I rely on these protections.
13In his affidavit the respondent father states:
On September 8, 2025, I went to pick up [Taylor] from school. I noticed that the applicant was already there and that she had [Taylor] in the car with her. I wanted to avoid an altercation because I knew how unstable the applicant was, so I attempted to leave in my vehicle. However, the applicant attempted to follow me in her vehicle at such a high rate of speed that she flipped the car over in the school parking lot with [Taylor] in it. After police extracted [Taylor] from the wreckage, the applicant texted me and claimed that the accident was a hit and run and that I tried to kill my own daughter.
The applicant initially lied to the police and told the police that it was a hit and run caused by me and that I was trying to hurt the applicant and [Taylor]. Police examined the vehicle that [Sarah] and I were in, found no evidence of a hit and run, and proceeded to charge the applicant with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
14As noted below, the applicant was charged with dangerous driving in respect of this accident.
Applicant’s Release Order September 9, 2025
15On or about September 9, 2025, the applicant was charged with six (6) criminal offences:
(a) Assault with a weapon on April 16, 2023 (two counts);
(b) Threaten death/bodily harm on August 23, 2025;
(c) Distribute an intimate image on August 23, 2025;
(d) Assault on August 23, 2025;
(e) Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle on September 8, 2025.
16The conditions of the Applicant’s Release Order dated September 9, 2025 state:
(a) The Applicant must reside with her surety;
(b) Do not contact or communicate in any way either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with the following person: Sarah
(c) Do not be within 500 metres of (the location of the respondent father’s dental practice located outside of Toronto)
(d) Do not contact or communicate in any way either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with the following: Robert
Except for indirect contacts through legal counsel for the purpose of family court proceedings.
(e) Do not be within 500 metres of any place where you know Robert to live, work, attend school, or happen to be.
(f) Do not communicate in any way either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with the following: Taylor
Except
pursuant to a family court order made after today’s date;
through a mutually agreed upon third party for purposes of facilitating visitation
(g) Do not possess any weapons
(h) Attend anger management counselling as directed by her surety;
(i) Sign releases to allow her surety to monitor her progress;
Supervised Parenting Time – October 9, 2025
17The applicant mother had parenting time on the afternoon of October 4, 2025 for 3 ½ hours with Taylor in her surety’s home which was supervised by a representative from Brayden Supervision Services. The notes prepared by Brayden supervisor include the following observations:
(a) The Supervisor met Taylor at the respondent father’s motor vehicle in front of the applicant’s home. The Supervisor noted that the applicant mother was videorecording from the second floor. Taylor was reluctant to leave her father. He encouraged her to go and the Supervisor reassured Taylor that she would be safe.
(b) The Supervisor told the applicant mother that she had to speak aloud and in English. Despite that direction, the applicant spoke to Taylor in Farsi. The Supervisor reminded her to speak English. About twenty minutes later, the applicant followed Taylor into a room and closed the door behind her leaving the Supervisor outside. The Supervisor told the applicant that the door needed to remain open as she needed to be in eye and ear shot.
(c) The applicant mother asked the Supervisor who had dropped off Taylor. The Supervisor advised that the respondent father had completed the transfer. The applicant mother asked if Sarah was present. The Supervisor confirmed that she was present and the applicant mother said “nasty girl”.
(d) At the end of the visit, the Supervisor returned Taylor to the respondent father and advised that everything had went well. Taylor spoke to her father. The respondent father asked to speak with the Supervisor alone and asked whether the applicant had called Sarah a “nasty girl”, which she confirmed.
18Sarah states that Taylor told her in the days after this visit, that she was worried about her. She states that Taylor routinely tells her to make sure that the doors are locked before she goes to bed because she is afraid that the applicant other will come to harm them.
19Following these events, Robert has refused to permit Jessica to have supervised parenting time with the applicant mother.
Applicant’s Release Order January 23, 2026
20On or about January 23, 2026, the applicant was charged with failing to comply with the Release Order on January 19, 2026. This charge appears to relate to the applicant’s following of Sarah described earlier.
21The Applicant’s Release Order dated January 23, 2026 states that she must comply with the following conditions:
(a) Reside with surety [at an address in Markham]
(b) Remain in your residence at all times except for medical emergencies involving her or a member of her immediate family, for purposes of travelling directly to, from and while at work or school; when she is in the direct and continuous presence of her surety;
(c) Stay out of the following area: City of Richmond Hill;
(d) Do not contact or communicate in any way either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with the following: Sarah;
(e) Do not be within 500 metres of any place where you know Sarah to live, work, go to school, frequent, or any place you know Sarah to be except for required court appearances.
(f) Do not possess any weapons
Respondent Father’s Release Order January 30, 2026
22On or about January 30, 2026, the respondent father was charged with nine (9) criminal offences:
(a) Assault on January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2025 in the Town of Richmond Hill
(b) Assault on August 23, 2025 in the City of Toronto
(c) Assault with a weapon on April 1, 2023 – April 30, 2023;
(d) Assault causing bodily harm on April 1, 2023- April 30, 2023 in the Town of Richmond Hill
(e) Assault causing bodily harm on April 24, 2024 in the Town of Richmond Hill;
(f) Assault causing bodily harm on August 25, 2025 in the town where Robert’s practice is located;
(g) Forcible confinement on August 25, 2025 in the town where Robert’s practice is located;
(h) Assault with choking on September 15, 2024 in the Town of Richmond Hill;
(i) Threaten death January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2025
23The Respondent father’s Release Order dated January 30, 2026 states that he must comply with the following conditions:
(a) Do not contact or communicate in any way either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with the following: Jessica
(b) Do not be within 200 metres of any place where you know Jessica to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know the person(s) to be except for required court appearances.
(c) Do not possess any weapons
24In respect of the charges of assault and forcible confinement in respect of an incident on August 25, 2025, the respondent father states:
On August 25, 2025, the applicant physically assaulted me at my place of work. I was sitting at a table with [Taylor]. The applicant sat down at the table, grabbed my ear and used her mouth to bite my face. I immediately stood up and removed the applicant from the room to de-escalate the situation in [Taylor’s] presence. I attach …the security footage. The applicant has reported this incident to the police and made false allegations that resulted in me being charged as a result. The applicant did not tell the police that I forced her out of the room after she grabbed my ear and bit me.
Application
25On February 10, 2026, the applicant mother commenced this application for a divorce, parenting time, sole decision-making responsibility, child support, spousal support and other relief. The applicant also seeks a order against Sarah restraining her from, amongst other things, residing with the child, not attending within 500 metres of the child’s residence and school, and communicating with the child.
26On February 23, 2026, the applicant mother submitted an amended application which indicated that she was not seeking a divorce unless the respondent father was seeking a divorce.
Applicant’s Release Order February 20, 2026
27On or about February 20, 2026, the applicant mother was charged with ten (10) more criminal offences alleged to have occurred in the City of Richmond Hill:
(a) Assault with a weapon or imitation weapon on January 1, 2023 and on November 3, 2023;
(b) Assault on November 3, 2023, November 13, 2023, April 1, 2024, September 14, 2024, January 15, 2025 and on April 15, 2025;
(c) Uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm on April 15, 2025.
28The Applicant’s Release Order dated February 20, 2026 states that she must comply with the following conditions:
(a) The Applicant must reside with her surety [at an address in Markham];
(b) Remain in your residence at all times except for medical emergencies involving her or a member of her immediate family, for purposes of travelling directly to, from and while at work or school; when she is in the direct and continuous presence of her surety;
(c) Stay out of the following area: City of Richmond Hill;
(d) Do not contact or communicate in any way either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with the following: Sarah and Robert
(e) Do not be within 500 metres of any place where you know the above named person(s) to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know them to be except for required court appearances.
(f) Do not possess any weapons.
29There are no particulars regarding these charges however it appears that at least some of these charges involve Taylor. A letter from Hailey Fisher, Intake and Assessment Work, York Region Children’s Aid Society, dated April 20, 2026, to the applicant mother states that
“… the Society has been unable to verify the concerns [historical incidents of physical force by the applicant mother against [Taylor] alleged to have occurred between 2022 and 2024] due to inconsistencies in [Taylor’s] statements regarding the alleged incidents, concerns about the reliability of the information provided given the historical nature of the alleged incidents, the lack of context provided regarding the incidents, and the possibility that [Taylor’s] disclosures may have been influenced by adult involvement. As such there is insufficient consistent and independent information to substantiate the allegations.
There is evidence to suggest that [Taylor] has been directly involved in parent’s post-separation conflict including being exposed to parent’s speaking negatively/denigrating one another to [Taylor] and being exposed to adult narratives about her relationships with her parents which is not developmentally appropriate. As such, the Society did verify concerns that [Taylor] is likely to experience emotional harm due to exposure to post-separation conflict.
The Society strongly recommends that parents address issues related to custody and access through their respective counsel, mediation or in family court. The Society also recommends that parents each attend 1 Family, 2 Homes and/or High Conflict Divorce which are both program offered by Jewish Family and Child Services …
The Society further recommends and believes that it would be in [Taylor’s] best interest to engage with a children’s mental health professional who specializes in supporting children who have been affected by trauma, divorce and post-separation conflict. …” [Emphasis added]
Applicant’s Release Order March 10, 2026
30On or about March 10, 2026, the applicant was charged with four (4) more criminal offences:
(a) Assault with a weapon on July 25, 2022-July 29, 2022;
(b) Assault on May 1, 2025 – August 3, 2025;
(c) Fail to comply with a release order on March 2, 2026;
(d) Harassment by repeated communication with a person on March 2, 2026.
31The Applicant’s Release Order dated March 10, 2026 states that she must comply with the following conditions:
(a) The Applicant must reside with her surety [at an address in Markham];
(b) Notify the Officer in Charge or designate of you address in writing within 24 hours of any change in your address;
(c) Remain in your residence at all times except for medical emergencies involving her or a member of her immediate family, for purposes of travelling directly to, from and while at work or school; when she is in the direct and continuous presence of her surety;
(d) Stay out of the following area: City of Richmond Hill;
(e) Do not contact or communicate in any way either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with the following: Robert, Sarah, Sofia or Taylor.
(f) Do not be within 500 metres of any place where you know Robert, Sarah, Sofia or Taylor to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know them to be except for required court appearances.
(g) Do not attend at [an address in North York, ON] or [an address in the town where Robert’s dental practice is located]’
(h) Do not possess any weapons.
Request for Urgent Motion
32A case conference has not been held. On May 4, 2026, the parties appeared in To Be Spoken To Court in response to the applicant mother’s urgent motion for parenting time. On May 13, 2026, Justice Nakonechny ordered that “… the issues of the applicant’s parenting time, counselling for the child and status quo of the child’s school, medical and other professionals be argued on May 21”.
33The only relevant consideration in making a parenting order, whether temporary or final, is the child’s best interests: Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 16(1). Numerous factors, including criminal proceedings that are relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child, are to be considered when determining the best interests of a child: Divorce Act, s. 16(3). When considering these factors, the court shall give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being: Divorce Act, s. 16(2). Generally, it is in the best interests of the child to maintain until trial the status quo parenting arrangements whether established by court order or otherwise.
34In S.H. v. D.K., 2022 ONSC 1203 (Ontario Divisional Court), Dambrot J. stated at para. 26:
Parenting arrangements may be informal, they may arise from a separation agreement, or they may be fixed by an interim or final judicial order. From time to time, courts are asked to vary parenting arrangements in each of these circumstances on an interim or temporary basis. As stated by Pazaratz J. in F.K. v. A. K., 2020 ONSC 3726, 43 R.F.L. (8th) 411, at para. 52, and accepted by the parties before the motion judge here, courts must exercise caution before changing an existing arrangement that children have become used to, particularly where the change is sought on an interim motion. There is ample authority for this requirement. To refer to but one example, in Grant v. Turgeon (2000), 5 R.F.L. (5th) 326 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 15, MacKinnon J. stated that "generally, the status quo will be maintained on an interim custody motion in the absence of compelling reasons indicative of the necessity of a change to meet the children's best interests. That is so whether the existing arrangement is de facto or de jure." As was stated by Benotto J., as she then was, in Davis v. Nusca, [2003] O.J. No. 3692 (Div. Ct.), at para. 8"the basic principle of maintaining the status quo until trial ... is extraordinarily important in family law cases."
Preliminary Issues
35The first Release Order, dated September 9, 2025, prohibited the applicant mother from contacting or communicating with Taylor “except pursuant to a family court order made after today’s date”. No such exception is found in any of the other Release Orders, including the Release Order dated March 10, 2026 that restrains Jessica from contacting or communicating with Taylor and from coming within 500 metres of Taylor.
36During the applicant mother’s submissions, I asked counsel whether it was appropriate for this Court to order, as requested by the applicant mother, that Taylor have parenting time with Jessica “subject to a bail variation” being granted by the criminal Court.
37In Why is Judicial Independence Important to You?, May 2016, the Canadian Judicial Council stated at page 12:
On an individual level, each judge has the right, freedom and duty to decide the case alone, truly independent from any outside influence whatsoever”:
38The above statement reflects the view expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada, per curiam, in Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391, [1997] S.C.J. No. 82:
71 The essence of judicial independence is freedom from outside interference. Dickson C.J., in R. v. Beauregard, (sub nom. Beauregard v. Canada), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56 (S.C.C.), described the concept in these words, at p. 69:
Historically, the generally accepted core of the principle of judicial independence has been the complete liberty of individual judges to hear and decide the cases that come before them: no outsider — be it government, pressure group, individual or even another judge — should interfere in fact, or attempt to interfere, with the way in which a judge conducts his or her case and makes his or her decision. This core continues to be central to the principle of judicial independence.
72 What emerges from all of this is a simple test for determining whether the appearance of judicial independence has been maintained: whether a reasonable observer would perceive that the court was able to conduct its business free from the interference of the government and of other judges.
39In my view, it is inappropriate for this Court to issue an Order granting interim parenting time to a parent “subject to bail variation”. Specifically, it is inappropriate for this Court to issue an interim parenting order that conflicts with the terms of a Release Order issued by the Ontario Court of Justice as a reasonable observer would perceive that this Court’s interim parenting order made “subject to bail variation” suggests that a bail variation should be granted and, as a result, interferes with the exercise of discretion by a Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice to decide whether the Release Order should be varied. Accordingly, I decline to make the parenting time Order sought by the applicant mother. Further, nothing in this Endorsement should be interpreted as suggesting that this Court would have otherwise granted, or refused, the interim parenting time Order sought by the applicant mother. Should the interim parenting order sought by the applicant mother no longer conflict with the Release Order issued by the Ontario Court of Justice, or upon its expiry, then this Court will be able to consider the applicant mother’s motion for interim parenting time on its merits.
40The applicant mother also asks this Court for the following order:
Contact by the applicant mother and the respondent father with Kidcrew, Smile Squad, Dr. Farnia and the child’s school, Brayden Supervision or other supervision service, or other third party or professional agreed through counsel, is deemed not to be contact by the applicant mother with the respondent father, or by the respondent father with the applicant mother.
41Any amendments to, or clarifications regarding, the “no contact” provisions found in the Release Order made by the Ontario Court of Justice should be sought from the Ontario Court of Justice. This Court has no authority on a motion for an interim parenting order to directly or indirectly amend a Release Order made by the Ontario Court of Justice. Accordingly, this request is dismissed.
Parenting Relief Not Prohibited by the Release Orders
42The applicant mother seeks various orders for activities that are not prohibited by the Release Orders.
43The respondent father consents to the applicant mother’s request that: (a) the child remain at her current private school with the tuition paid by him; (b) the child have an independent dentist with Smile Squad in Toronto; (c) the child’s pediatric physician shall continue to be Dr. Erin Maszczkiewicz or her replacement at Kid Crew; (d) the parties shall be entitled independently to obtain information and documents from the child’s school, her counsellor, her doctor and her dentist; (e) other parenting issues and other issues will be addressed at an urgent case conference on June 2, 2026.
44The respondent father submits that an order should be made requiring Taylor to attend therapy. He states:
Given the severe emotional distress [Taylor] has undergone as a result of OUR conflict and the events since separation, it is important the [Taylor] attend therapy.
[Taylor] has had a few sessions with an informal counsellor, however in the past the Applicant did not consent to her having an official counsellor. Official counsellors require the mother’s consent and since the Applicant was not giving permission, we were unable to take [Taylor] to counselling. [Emphasis in original]
45The applicant mother states:
Due to the conflict and impact on [Taylor], I am asking for an order that she will have her own counsellor, Fataneh Farnia, who like [Taylor] and our family, speaks Farsi as well as English. [Taylor] will be more comfortable with a therapist who speaks both Farsi and English. It is crucial that counselling for our child is confidential so she is free from influence. … I also support confidential counselling between me and [Taylor] together with Reyhane Namdari, RP. … Since the accident, I have been attending individual counselling with a psychotherapist. I completed an anger management program required by my terms of bail.
46Both parties consent to an order that a professional be appointed, under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”), to report on the needs of the child and the ability and willingness of the parties to satisfy the needs of the child.
47In my view, it is premature to appoint a counsellor for Taylor without first obtaining a report under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act. The report should include recommendations on a course of care to promote Taylor’s well-being. In the meantime, given that it appears that the child has suffered emotional harm as a result of their behaviour, the parents should, at a minimum, should attend the 1 Family, 2 Homes and/or High Conflict Divorce programs offered by Jewish Family and Child Services as recommended by the Society.
ORDER
48Order to go, on a temporary basis, as follows:
(a) The names of the parties, the subject child, and members of the subject child’s family shall be anonymized. This matter shall be identified by the randomly generated names “Jessica v. Robert and Sarah”. The subject child shall be identified as “Taylor”.
(b) The applicant mother’s motion for temporary parenting time is dismissed on a without prejudice basis.
(c) Taylor shall continue to attend her current private school and the respondent father shall be responsible for the payment of her tuition.
(d) Taylor’s pediatrician physician shall continue to be Dr. Erin Maszczkiewicz who is with Kid Crew Pediatric Medical Clinic, Toronto. If Dr. Maszczkiewicz leaves, then Dr. Dina Kulik or such other physician as may be in charge at Kidcrew will provide another pediatrician at Kidcrew for Taylor. The applicant mother and the respondent father shall independently irrevocably direct any other physician of the child to forward the child’s health information to Kidcrew.
(e) Taylor shall have an independent pediatric dentist with the Smile Squad in Toronto. The respondent father shall provide the child’s dental records of the treatment of the child by him and any other person at his clinic, and any other records relating to the child’s dental treatment, to Smile Squad. The parties shall independently irrevocably direct any other dentist who has treated the child to forward their records to Smile Squad. Any dental cost or expense that is not covered by health plan insurance shall be advanced by the respondent father.
(f) The applicant mother and the respondent father shall be entitled independently to obtain information and documents from the child’s school, from Dr. Farnia, Kidcrew and Smile Squad.
(g) Other parenting issues and other issues will be addressed at the Urgent Case Conference on June 2, 2026.
(h) An assessment shall be prepared by a professional pursuant to s. 30 of the CLRA. The professional shall assess and report to the court on the needs of the child and the ability and willingness of the parties or any of them to satisfy the needs of the child, shall be appointed. The report should include the professional‘s recommendations on a course of care to promote Taylor’s well-being. The professional shall be appointed by the Court. By June 5, 2026, the parties shall notify the Court of the professional they have agreed upon or they shall deliver written submissions (no longer than two pages), along with the curriculum vitae of their recommended professional, that explains why their selection should be preferred. The respondent father shall pay for the cost of the assessment and report and the applicant mother shall reimburse the respondent for one-half of such cost from any equalization payment to which she may be entitled or by such other method as may be ordered by this Court.
(i) The parties shall make best efforts to retain the professional appointed under s. 30 of the CLRA within ten days of the appointment and to comply with all requests made by the professional.
(j) The applicant mother shall make arrangements to attend and then shall attend the High Conflict Divorce program offered by Jewish Family and Child Services on June 16, 2026 program.
(k) The respondent father shall make arrangements to attend and then shall attend the next High Conflict Divorce program offered by Jewish Family and Child Services after the June 16, 2026 program.
(l) The applicant mother shall immediately make arrangements to attend, and then shall attend the 1 Family, 2 Homes program offered by Jewish Family and Child Services in person that commences in the Fall of 2026.
(m) The respondent father shall make arrangements to attend, and then shall attend the next 1 Family, 2 Homes program offered by Jewish Family and Child Services in person that commences after the Fall of 2026 program.
(n) The parties shall not denigrate or disparage the other parties or members of their extended family, either overtly or covertly, in any communication with Taylor or in her presence. Each party shall make their best efforts to prevent any other person from speaking negatively about the other parties in the presence of Taylor.
(o) The parties shall not seek to involve Taylor in this litigation or speak to her about this litigation, except and only as necessary to advise them of a parenting schedule or to have her participate with third party professionals involved in this litigation (e.g., Police, CAS, or an assessor). The parties shall not seek to influence or coach what Taylor states or reports to professionals who are or become involved in this case.
(p) At all times, the parties shall encourage a positive and loving relationship between Taylor and both parents.
(q) The parties shall not seek to record conversations they have with Taylor for a litigation purpose.
(r) The above orders are subject to the terms and conditions of all applicable Release Orders.
(s) If available, I shall hear any further motions in this proceeding. If any direction is required regarding the implementation of this Order I may be contacted through my judicial assistant, Kevin Wailoo, at kevin.wailoo@ontario.ca.
(t) Any party claiming their costs of this motion shall deliver their costs submissions by June 22, 2026. Responding costs submissions shall be delivered by June 29, 2026. Maximum length of each costs submission is three pages excluding any offers to settle and an outline of costs.
(u) This Order is effective immediately without a formal Order being issued and entered.
Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
Date: June 1, 2026