Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: ANDRII OPALKO, Applicant
AND:
SHIRIN FARSHIDFAR, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
COUNSEL: Michelle Ho, Agent, for the Applicant
Art Lambert, for the Respondent
HEARD: May 21, 2026 and May 25, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1The applicant father brings this urgent motion for, amongst other things, an order restoring his parenting time with his two children. The respondent mother has withheld the children from the applicant father since late April 2026 after the applicant’s mother allegedly held scissors against their son’s belly and used a knife to cut their son’s pants in the groin area. The respondent mother asks that this motion be dismissed, or in the alternative, that any parenting time ordered by the Court be supervised and take place outside of the applicant’s residence and outside the presence of the paternal grandmother.
BACKGROUND
2The parties were married in November 2022 and are the parents of a five-year-old daughter, EO, and a three-year-old son, RO. The respondent mother has made extensive allegations of domestic violence which the applicant father denies.
Separation/2024 Release Order
3The applicant father states that the parties separated on December 17, 2024 after the respondent mother contacted police and alleged that he assaulted her on that day as well as on February 11, 2023. The applicant father denies these allegations.
4The Release Order dated December 18, 2024 (“the 2024 Release Order”) imposes the following conditions: (a) the applicant father must reside at an address approved by his surety, Hanna Hlukhova; (b) there must be no contact or communication with the respondent mother except through a mutually agreeable third party or pursuant to a valid Family Court Order for the purpose of facilitating childcare access; (c) he is not to be within 100 metres of the respondent mother except for required court appearances, through a mutually agreeable third party, pursuant to a valid Family Court Order for the purpose of facilitating childcare access, or on one occasion to retrieve his personal belongings and only in the presence of a uniformed police officer.
5The applicant father states that as a result of the Release Order, he was required to leave the matrimonial home and to temporarily reside with his parents. He states that the respondent mother restricted his parenting time for several weeks. The applicant states that in January 2025, the respondent attended his parents’ home and proposed a reconciliation. The parties attempted reconciliation. For about 80 days, the applicant stayed overnight in the matrimonial home. During that period, the children regularly spent time with the applicant and his parents. He states that the respondent never expressed concerns regarding his and his parents’ ability to care for the child.
6The applicant states that a final attempt was made at reconciliation in June 2025 when the parties travelled to Mont-Tremblant, Québec for several days while the children stayed with the applicant’s parents. Ultimately, the parties did not reconcile. After June 2025, the applicant states that he stopped attending at the matrimonial home because he wanted to avoid further conflict with the respondent. The applicant states that at this time, the respondent threatened to restrict or eliminate his parenting time.
7On July 9, 2025, the 2024 Release Order was amended to add a further exception to the restraining order namely “except with [the respondent mother’s] written, orally revocable consent, filed with the OIC … at 22 Division” on the basis that the matter is proceeding towards resolution after entering into and completing PAR (the Partner Assault Response program); the complainant provided an affidavit indicating that she wanted contact with the applicant and the parties share two children who are in the need of joint parenting.
Application for Divorce – September 2025
8On September 20, 2025, the applicant commenced this application. Amongst other things, the applicant father seeks a temporary and final order that the parties shall have equally shared parenting time. The applicant states that since separation, he has consistently sought to maintain regular and meaningful parenting time with the children but was refused. In his Form 35.1 affidavit, the applicant states that both children have developmental special needs. He also states he will have the support of his parents, Olena Opalko and Leonid Opalko, in caring for the children.
9The respondent mother has not filed an Answer or a Form 35.1 affidavit.
10The applicant father states on the respondent notified the police on the same day that the respondent was served with this application, that he had breached his release conditions. He states that the respondent once again restricted the applicant’s parenting time with the children.
2025 Release Order
11On September 21, 2025, the applicant father was charged with two counts of assault (February 11, 2023, December 17, 2024), one count of assault with choking (December 17, 2024), and two counts of failure to comply with Release Order (January 1, 2025 to June 29, 2025). Amongst other things, the Release Order dated September 21, 2025 (“2025 Release Order”) requires the applicant father to reside with his mother, Mrs. Olena Opalko. It also prohibits the applicant father from contacting the respondent mother and from coming within 100 metres of the respondent mother except pursuant to a family court order made after that date or for purposes of making contact arrangements for, or having contact with, his children through a mutually agreed upon third party.
12The 2025 Release Order was included in the applicant father’s first affidavit. After the hearing of this motion, pursuant to s. 7.8(2) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) I directed the parties to provide the Court with a copy of any orders of a criminal nature. The Toronto Police Service provided the other release orders and undertaking described below.
2025 Undertaking
13On October 17, 2025, the applicant father was also charged with two counts of assault and three counts of mischief/damage to property not exceeding $5,000. No particulars of these charges were provided. Amongst other things, the related Undertaking (“2025 Undertaking”) prohibits the applicant father from contacting or communicating with the respondent mother and from coming within 250 metres of the respondent mother except pursuant to a family court order made after that date or for purposes of making contact arrangements for, or having contact with, his children through a mutually agreed upon third party.
14The applicant father states that the respondent did not permit him to have parenting time with the children between September 20, 2025 and December 2, 2025. He then had four visits with the children on December 2, 12, 14 and 21, 2025. None of these visits were overnights.
Minutes of Settlement – December 2025
15On December 22, 2025, the parties signed Minutes of Settlement which, amongst other things, resolves the following matters on a final basis: (a) the parties shall have joint decision-making responsibility; (b) the children shall primarily reside with the respondent mother; (c) the applicant father shall have parenting time on alternate weekends, generally from Friday after school until drop off at school on the following Monday; (d) the applicant shall generally have parenting time with the children on two weekdays each week from after school until drop off at school the following day with the specific weekdays for such parenting time determined by the children’s extra-curricular activity schedule; (e) any change to the parenting schedule shall be made with mutual written agreement or further court order (f) applicant father shall pay child support of $1,600 per month to the respondent; (g) the parties shall share the cost of section 7 expenses based on the applicant’s imputed income of $106,000 and the respondent mother’s income of $90,000.
16The respondent mother states that after the parties signed the Minutes of Settlement, the applicant father did not stop his alleged controlling and abusive behaviour. She states:
I hoped that after the Minutes of Settlement were signed, and after weeks of silence, the conflict would decrease and I would be able to resume a normal life with the Children.
Unfortunately, I was mistaken. The applicant did not stop his controlling and abusive behaviour. Instead, he continued to terrorize me through excessive and unnecessary email correspondence usually sent through his lawyer.
The applicant presents these emails as requests for information about the children, even though much of the information he seeks is already available to him or can be obtained by him directly. He then threatens that, if I do not respond to his emails, he will bring the issue before the Court and argue that I am refusing to communicate with him. …
17The applicant father states that, in or about mid-January 2026, the respondent mother removed the children from the matrimonial home and refused to disclose their new address. The applicant states that he does not know where the children live.
18The applicant father states that he consistently exercised parenting time in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement until April 28, 2026. The applicant’s parents reside in a two-bedroom condominium. During overnight parenting time, his son sleeps with hm and his daughter sleeps with his parents. The applicant states that the children are happy and have a loving relationship with his parents.
2026 Release Order
19The applicant father was charged with one count of failing to comply with a release order and one count of failing to comply with the 2025 Undertaking. No particulars of these charges were provided. Amongst other things, the related Release Order, dated April 8, 2026 (“2026 Release Order”) prohibits the applicant father from contacting or communicating with the respondent mother and from coming within 100 metres of the respondent mot her except pursuant to a family court order made after that date or for purposes of making contact arrangements for, or having contact with, his children through a mutually agreed upon third party.
20The respondent’s mother, Olena Opalko, describes having a close relationship with her grandchildren. She states:
(a) She and her husband have been actively involved in their grandchildren’s lives since their birth. Her relationship with her grandchildren has always been extremely important to her.
(b) During their marriage, the grandchildren stayed with her and husband when the parties went on week-long vacations abroad or for shorter trips within Canada. She states that when the parties worked outside the home, they frequently relied on her and her husband to assist with childcare.
(c) Following their separation in December 2024, and notwithstanding the criminal charges laid against the applicant, the respondent mother continued to ask Mrs. Opalko to assist with caring for the children. She did so on numerous occasions.
(d) Since the Minutes of Settlement was signed in December 2025, the children have resided with her on alternating weekends from Friday to Monday, together with two weekday overnights.
(e) During his parenting time, the applicant is the children’s primary caregiver and he personally attends to their meals, transportation (with the exception of parenting time exchanges with the respondent), activities, routines, and bedtime.
April 2026 – RO’s Ripped Pants
21The respondent mother states the children told her that Mrs. Opalko used a heavy knife to cut RO’s pants in the groin area while holding scissors against RO’s belly. The respondent relies on a close-up photograph of a pair of pants that shows a small rip below the zipper area of the pants. The respondent states that this was a “retaliatory attack” but she does not explain the reason(s) for this alleged retaliation.
22The respondent mother states:
After the children were returned to me, they told me, fearfully, about the paternal grandmother’s conduct. I also discovered the cut in [RO]’s pants. …
The children were visibly upset and shocked when they told me what had happened.
I promptly reported the matter to police. …
I am not currently aware of the Children’s Aid Society’s position regarding the incident. If this motion proceeds, I respectfully request that the Children’s Aid Society be involved in this matter so that it may advocate for the children’s safety and provide its position to the Court. …
When I brought the incident to the applicant’s attention, he categorically denied that it had occurred.
However, when the police and the Children’s Aid Society interviewed the children, both children confirmed what they had reported to me.
After the incident was reported, the applicant again contacted me seeking parenting time.
I explained to the applicant that the investigation was pending and that, based on the police recommendation and my concerns for the children’s safety, his parenting time should be postponed until the investigation was completed.
At the same time, I advised the applicant that if he was not personally involved in the incident, and if the incident was caused by the paternal grandmother, I was prepared to provide make-up parenting time. However, I made it clear that any parenting time would need to occur in the absence of the paternal grandmother, because the children are afraid of her following the incident.
Unfortunately, the applicant has refused to exercise parenting time anywhere other than the home where he lives with his parents. …
I am asking this Court for a temporary order that the applicant’s parenting time be exercised outside of his residence and away from the paternal grandmother until the investigation is completed and the role of the applicant and the paternal grandmother in the incident is determined. …
I am also asking that the applicant’s parenting time be temporarily supervised, on a without prejudice basis, pending the outcome of the investigation.
My request is not made to permanently change the Minutes of Settlement at this stage. Rather, it is made on a temporary and protective basis because of the serious safety concerns arising from the April 5, 2026 incident.
The children’s safety must be the priority. Until the police and/or Children’s Aid Society investigation is completed, I do not believe it is safe or appropriate for the children to attend at the applicant’s residence or to be in the presence of the paternal grandmother.
23Following the hearing of this motion on May 21, 2026, the respondent mother filed a further affidavit stating that this alleged incident occurred on April 21, 2026 rather than at the beginning of April 2026. She further states:
The applicant has requested that the children be returned to his residence, where he lives with the paternal grandmother. This arrangement could be emotionally damaging to the children especially in light of [the] applicant’s attempt to push children to have relationships with paternal grandmother. Any return shall occur only after confirmation by qualified professionals that it will not harm the children’s emotional health and taking measures to ensure that paternal grandmother time with children is properly controlled.
In determining the issue of parenting time, I ask the Court to consider that there is no prejudice to the applicant if parenting time is re-established gradually through supervised parenting time at the outset. …
I am also concerned that the applicant refuses to acknowledge the incident and categorically denies that it occurred. …
24The applicant father states that on April 28, 2026, he attended the agreed upon exchange location (a local library) to pick up the children. They did not appear. On the following day, the respondent advised the applicant’s lawyer that she had been told by the police not to facilitate parenting time due to “safety concerns” involving the applicant’s mother and that the respondent claimed to be following “police direction”. He states that in an email dated May 4, 2026, the respondent mother stated that she was advised by police to “pause parenting time” and that the matter was under review by the CAS.
25In a further affidavit, the applicant father states that:
To the best of my knowledge there is no independent medical evidence or child protection finding confirming that [RO] suffered any injury connected to the allegations made by Shirin. … I deny that the damage to those pants occurred while [RO] was in my care. …
I strongly disagree with Shirin’s allegation that the children are fearful of my mother. …
I am asking for my parenting time to be reinstated in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.
In the alternative, should the Court consider interim safeguards necessary pending disclosure of CAS and police records, I propose the following temporary plan:
(a) The children resume school, with parenting exchanges occurring at school wherever possible; …
(b) my mother not be alone with the children during my parenting time; … I am also agreeable, on a temporary without prejudice basis if necessary, to [EO] sleeping in the second bedroom together with [RO] and me, rather than sleeping with her grandparents. Both children have their own separate beds, as confirmed by the CAS.
(c) such additional safeguards as the Court considers appropriate pending further disclosure.
26In her affidavit, Mrs. Opalko denies the alleged attack and states:
I reiterate that I never saw the blue pants depicted in Shirin’s affidavit, nor were those pants ever present in my home during or after the Easter weekend. From Easter weekend until April 28th when Shirin withheld the children, I never saw those blue pants, including on April 21, 2026.
… Even if Shirin is now alleging that the incident took place on April 21, 2026, instead of April 5, 2026, Shirin allowed Andrii to have parenting time on April 24 until April 25. I observed the children as happy to us on April 24 and April 25, and I did not observe any fear as stated by Shirin. …
At the conclusion of the conversation, the officer advised that no criminal charges would be laid on me. To the best of my knowledge, I was not cautioned, and I do not know why the police is saying that they cautioned me.
These allegations caused me significant emotional distress and negatively affected both my physical and emotional wellbeing. Given my diagnosis of blood cancer, the stress associated with allegations involving harm to my grandchildren caused me severe anxiety. …
I was deeply distressed by the suggestion that I could intentionally harm my grandchildren, whom I love dearly. I have always acted with love, care, and concern toward my grandchildren and would never intentionally place them at risk of harm. …
27The relationship between the parties is strained. The respondent mother states that the applicant has involved his mother in this conflict. She states that each time that Mrs. Opalko picks up or returns the children from a visit, she creates conflict, swears at, and insults the respondent in front of the children. She states that the applicant father and his mother have told the children that the respondent mother ruined the applicant’s life, that she stole money and that the children should not listen to her. The applicant father denies any such behaviour and states that he has stressed the importance of not speaking negatively about the respondent to his parents, and to the best of his knowledge, they have not done so. On the other hand, Mrs. Opalko refers to a text message that she received from the respondent mother on April 8, 2026, and a few weeks prior to the alleged attack, which (in English) states:
I do not want any further contact or communication from you directly or indirectly and any further communication will result in criminal charges being laid. Please govern yourself accordingly.
28Mrs. Opalko states that the respondent mother did not explain what she had done wrong, that she had no knowledge of what led to that message being sent, or why the respondent was threatening to involve the police.
ANAYLSIS
29The following principles apply on this motion for a temporary parenting order.
30In S.H. v. D.K., 2022 ONSC 1203 (Div. Ct.), 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.”
31In respect of supervised parenting, in Hatab v. Abuhatab, 2022 ONSC 1560, at paras. 32 and 33, Kraft J. stated:
Parents are presumed to be capable of exercising their parental responsibilities without the need for supervision. Supervision orders outside of the child protection context are, and should be, rarely imposed… Supervision should only be ordered in “exceptional circumstances” because of the material impact that has on the parent-child relationship.
Supervision orders may be beneficial in attempting to protect children from risk of harm; continue or promote the parent/child relationship; direct the access parent to engage in programming, counselling or treatment to deal with issues relevant to parenting; create a bridge between no relationship and a normal parenting relationship; and, avoid or reduce the conflict between parents and thus, the impact upon children (See: VSJ v. LJG, [2004] OJ No 2238).
32“Self-help in family law matters is not permitted unless there is an immediate danger and no opportunity to apply to the court for a variation order”: Hoda v. Hoda, 2021 ABCA 122, at para. 4.
33A court should be very “circumspect in making factual findings on conflicting affidavits and rebuttals untested by cross-examination”: R.S. v. N.B., 2023 ONSC 633, at para. 8.
34Temporary orders “… are imperfect solutions to complex problems put in place on imperfect evidence (limited in its nature, submitted in affidavit form, which often conflict, without cross-examination), designed to provide an acceptable a solution until the matters can be resolved at trial on a full evidentiary record”: Redmond v. Redmond, 2018 ONSC 4559, at para. 15.
35The police and the CAS interviewed the children. No charges have been laid. There are no records from the police or the CAS that reflect any statements taken from the children, the paternal grandmother or other, or that corroborate the reporting of these events, or the events themselves.
36I find as follows:
(a) Until the alleged attack occurred, there was no evidence that the parties have failed to comply with the parenting time provisions of the Minutes of Settlement or that the children have been unsafe in the respondent father’s care.
(b) It is unclear when this alleged “retaliatory attack” occurred. In her first affidavit, the respondent stated that this attack happened in the beginning of April 2026 and on the same day that the applicant was again arrested on charges related to assault and non-compliance with a restraining order. The 2026 Release Order shows that the applicant was arrested on or about April 8, 2026. Neither charge was an assault charge. In a subsequent affidavit, the respondent states that this alleged incident occurred on April 21, 2026 and that she learned of it on April 22, 2026 when the children were returned to her custody.
(c) There is no dispute that there were no physical injuries to RO as a result of this alleged attack.
(d) The respondent mother provided a photograph of [RO], which she states was taken on April 22, 2026 after she picked up the children from the applicant’s mother, and which she states shows [RO] to be wearing the damaged blue jean pants. The photograph is taken from about two to three feet from the child. I do not see the rip in the child’s pants. However, the applicant father acknowledges that damage to the pants is visible. He also states that the damage is not consistent with a knife cut. I agree with his view that one would have expected some mark or injury on RO’s leg to be visible had a knife been used to rip his pants while he was wearing the pants given the fit of the pants.
(e) The respondent mother states that she reported this alleged attack to the CAS on April 22, 2026. She also states that she reported this matter to the police who met with her on April 28, 2026. The respondent mother states that the police and the CAS interviewed the children and both children confirmed what they had reported to the respondent mother. There is no evidence to corroborate these statements, nor were a copy of the records of the police and the CAS provided.
(f) After this alleged attack, the applicant father had overnight parenting time with the children from April 24, 2026 until April 25, 2026 at his parents’ home and with his parents present. The respondent mother states that she did not oppose this parenting time as she was concerned that if she withheld the children, then the applicant father might allege that she had breached the Minutes of Settlement or acted improperly.
(g) On April 28, 2026, the applicant father attended an agreed upon exchange location (a local library) to pick up the children. The children did not appear. On April 29, 2026, the respondent mother sent an email to the applicant’s lawyer stating that he police advised her to not facilitate parenting time due to unspecified “safety concerns” regarding the applicant’s mother. Similarly, the respondent mother states that she relied on the police for guidance on how to proceed. She states that the police advised her on April 28, 2026 that despite the Minutes of Settlement, she could limit the applicant father’s parenting time if there were safety concerns. The respondent mother states that after receiving this information from the police, she limited the applicant father’s parenting time based on her concerns for the children’s safety and emotional well-being.
(h) On May 13, 2026, representatives from the Children’s Aid Society interviewed the applicant’s parents. It was only at that time that the applicant’s mother became aware of the specific allegations against her. Since then, the CAS has not contacted the applicant’s mother again.
(i) On May 19, 2026, the applicant father had parenting time with the children. He states that the children told him that they wanted to go to their grandmother’s house to play with their toys. The respondent mother acknowledges that the children had a “short” visit on May 19, 2026
(j) On May 21, 2026, the applicant’s mother received a telephone call from the police to discuss the alleged attack. At the conclusion of the conversation, the police officer advised that no criminal charges would be laid. She states that to the best of her knowledge, she was not cautioned. However, I find that she did receive a caution given the email dated May 22, 2026 from Detective Sergeant Dave Lim of the Toronto Police Service which states:
You will be happy to know that DC Kim spoke to the grandmother last night, and she was formally cautioned for her behaviour.
However, there is no evidence regarding the content of the caution delivered by DC Kim.
(k) On May 21, 2026, the applicant’s counsel requested parenting time with the children on Saturday, May 23, 2026, and Sunday, May 24, 2026, from 9:00 am until 2:00 pm. He proposed that his father facilitate parenting time exchanges at a local library. Given his belief that the respondent mother would not otherwise allow parenting time, the applicant proposed, on a without prejudice basis, to ensure there was no contact between his mother and the children. The respondent refused this proposal.
(l) The respondent mother states that a counsellor from Victim Services Peel visited the children on May 22, 2026. She states that RO told the counsellor about the alleged incident and described what happened while holding his pants.
(m) Except for the email dated May 22, 2026 described above, none of the statements attributed to RO, the police or the CAS are corroborated or supported by documents. Further, there is no evidence to support the respondent’s statement that the CAS has an ongoing investigation into this alleged attack.
37Having considered the available evidence, I am not satisfied that Mrs. Opalko tore RO’s pants using a knife while he was wearing them. As a result, there is no basis to grant supervised parenting time or to vary the terms of the applicant father’s parenting time under the Minutes of Settlement. Rather than seek a court order varying the terms of the parenting time arrangements in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement, the respondent exercised self-help remedies by withholding the children. As a consequence, and given the result of this motion, the respondent wrongfully denied the applicant’s parenting time. Any missed time shall be made up before September 4, 2026. However, out of an abundance of caution, I will impose certain conditions around parenting time as offered by the applicant father.
ORDER
38Order to go on a temporary basis as follows:
(a) The parties shall comply with the parenting time arrangements reflected in the Minutes of Settlement.
(b) When the applicant father has parenting time with the children, he shall on a without prejudice basis take all reasonable steps to ensure that: (i) the children are not left in the sole care of his mother, Olena Opalko; (ii) the children shall sleep in the same bedroom as the applicant father and in their own separate beds.
(c) The applicant father shall be granted make-up parenting time to be exercised before September 4, 2026 for all the time the respondent mother wrongfully withheld the children since April 28, 2026. Such arrangements shall be made, acting reasonably, within one week through the applicant’s counsel.
(d) The parties shall immediately share with one another any reports or records from any police organization or a Children’s Aid Society pertaining to this alleged attack on the children on April 21, 2026.
(e) Neither party shall denigrate or disparage the other party or members of their extended family, either overtly or covertly, in any communication with the children or in their presence. Each party shall make their best efforts to prevent any other person from speaking negatively about the other party in the presence of the children.
(f) Within 20 days, the respondent mother shall serve and file an Answer, a Form 35.1 affidavit and a Financial Statement.
(g) The applicant shall deliver his costs submissions shall be delivered within one week and the respondent shall deliver her costs submissions within two weeks. Costs submissions, exclusive of any offers to settle and a costs outline, shall be no more than three pages in length.
Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
Date: June 10, 2026