CITATION
CITATION: Smith v. Seyoum, 2026 ONSC 3397
COURTFILENO.: FS-23-00039972-0000
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Jill Leanne Smith
Applicant
– and –
Eyasu K. Seyoum
Respondent
Sarah Elizabeth Mott-Trille, for the applicant
Eyasu K. Seyoum, self-represented respondent
HEARD: April 27, 28, 29, 30, and May 1, 4, and 5, 2026
Robert CentA J.
Table of contents
The parties and their witnesses. 3
Assessing the evidence. 5
A. Reliability and credibility of witnesses. 5
B. My overall impressions of the witnesses. 7
- Preliminary issues. 8
A. Mr. Seyoum’s request to upload trial recordings to Otter.ai 9
B. Mr. Seyoum’s request to seek an equalization of net family property. 10
C. The parties’ requests to add witnesses to the trial are approved. 11
D. The divorce is granted. 11
- Parenting issues and the best interests of the child. 11
A. The situation from separation to trial 12
B. The best interests of the child. 13
C. Family violence. 14
D. The care of the child. 37
E. Relationships between the child, each spouse, and other family members. 39
F. Communication and cooperation. 39
G. Religious upbringing. 43
H. Conclusions. 43
Ms. Smith is entitled to receive child support 49
Mr. Seyoum is not entitled to receive spousal support 51
A. There is no compensatory basis for spousal support 51
B. There is no non-compensatory or needs based basis for spousal support 52
A restraining order is appropriate. 53
Order and costs. 54
1Jill Smith and Eyasu Seyoum dated for about two-and-a-half years before they married each other on February 16, 2009. They had one child together, L., a boy born in October 2020. On December 19, 2023, Ms. Smith left the matrimonial home with L. and moved into a women’s shelter. Ms. Smith commenced this application seeking a divorce, a resolution of issues related to parenting, and child support. The matter proceeded to trial before me over seven days.
2As I will explain below, I find that Mr. Seyoum committed acts of family violence toward Ms. Smith and L. I find that Mr. Seyoum hit Ms. Smith one night when L. woke up crying, spanked L. in anger, and terrorized L. by placing him in a pitch black bathroom as punishment. I also find that Mr. Seyoum exposed L. to violence when, during an overnight supervised parenting session, Mr. Seyoum kicked his own mother hard enough to break her pelvis in two places.
3I find that Mr. Seyoum engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour toward Ms. Smith. Mr. Seyoum isolated Ms. Smith from her family and friends, kicked her out of the matrimonial home and withheld L. from her, and frequently humiliated, belittled, and psychologically abused Ms. Smith.
4I find that Mr. Seyoum has taken no meaningful steps to address his history of violent behaviour. In my view, Mr. Seyoum has no insight into his past conduct. He has not taken any responsibility for the physical, emotional, and psychological harm he has caused to L. He remains far too willing to blame others for the situations that he himself has caused. I am concerned that he continues to lash out to try and control the behaviour of others.
5I conclude that the best interests of L. require me to order that Ms. Smith have sole decision-making authority for L., that L. have his primary residence with her, and that Mr. Seyoum have supervised parenting in an access centre and regular video calls with L. While I order indefinite supervised parenting reluctantly, I see no other order that will maintain contact between Mr. Seyoum and L. and is in L.’s best interests.
6I order Mr. Seyoum to pay table child support to Ms. Smith, and I dismiss his application for spousal support. I also grant Ms. Smith’s request for a restraining order.
1. The parties and their witnesses
7The applicant is named Jill Smith. Ms. Smith is 48 years old. She testified about her relationship with Mr. Seyoum and how it deteriorated over time. She testified candidly about her mental health challenges, including her struggles with post-partum depression and anxiety, which culminated in her hospitalization for a period of 10 days in May 2022. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum committed acts of intimate partner violence and exercised coercive control over her for a period of years. She described discrete incidents of physical violence, and a consistent pattern of Mr. Seyoum isolating her from her family and friends, belittling her, controlling her movements and access to L., and eruptions of anger. Ms. Smith currently works full-time as an executive assistant for Sun Life. Ms. Smith called six witnesses to testify at trial.
8Mayre Rodriguez is a Ph.D. student in chemistry at York University, where she lives in graduate student housing with her husband and children. She met Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum through the campus daycare, where their children became good friends. She testified that the families became close and would see each other about once a week between November 2022 and December 2023. Ms. Rodriguez testified that Mr. Seyoum was not present for about 70% of the time she spent with his family. Ms. Rodriguez testified that L. was a difficult child with lots of energy, but a limited ability to focus. She testified that Ms. Smith was an attentive, engaged, firm, and loving parent to L. Ms. Rodriguez testified less positively about her observations of Mr. Seyoum’s abilities as a parent and described his disrespectful treatment of Ms. Smith. Ms. Rodriguez also testified about one occasion where she watched and heard Mr. Seyoum angrily spank L.
9George Matthew is married to Aster Matthew, who is Mr. Seyoum’s mother. Mr. and Ms. Matthew each agreed to supervise Mr. Seyoum’s parenting time with L. at their home in Ancaster. Mr. Matthew testified about an incident on April 5, 2024, during Mr. Seyoum’s exercise of supervised, overnight parenting time. Mr. Matthew testified that he observed Mr. Seyoum get into a physical altercation with his mother that involved Mr. Seyoum putting his hands around Ms. Matthew’s neck and kicking her while she was on the floor. Mr. Matthew testified that Mr. Seyoum broke Ms. Matthew’s pelvis in two places and that this all took place in front of L. I will address this incident in detail below.
10Kelly Salmon is a friend of Ms. Smith. They have known each other since 1991 and were roommates from 2004 to 2009, when Ms. Smith married Mr. Seyoum. She testified that she was concerned about how Mr. Seyoum treated Ms. Smith throughout their relationship. Ms. Salmon testified that she lived with them for about two weeks after they got married and saw them about once a week after L. was born. She testified about her observations of their parenting and two incidents that particularly concerned her. First, Ms. Salmon described an incident in June 2022 when Ms. Smith came to stay with her after an altercation with Mr. Seyoum. Second, Ms. Salmon described an incident in October 2022 where she was expecting to take care of L. for a weekend while Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum went to an out of town wedding. Instead, she testified that when they arrived at her home, Mr. Seyoum threw Ms. Smith’s things out of the car and drove away erratically and at high speed with L. in the car. I will consider these incidents in more detail below.
11Deborah Nixon met Ms. Smith at work in 2014 at a recruitment firm. She testified about her observations of Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith together, Ms. Smith’s performance as an employee, and how Mr. Seyoum reacted to Ms. Smith’s health challenges.
12Peter Smith is Ms. Smith’s older brother. He testified about his relationship with Ms. Smith, Mr. Seyoum, L., and how that relationship changed after they returned home after a month-long visit in New Brunswick with members of Ms. Smith’s family. He testified about his observations of how Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith interacted. He also testified about how Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum cut the Smith family out of their lives and his understanding that Mr. Seyoum made the decision to take this step.
13Victoria Lang is a registered social worker. She has provided services through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer since 2011. The OCL consented to provide services pursuant to s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, and the request of Des Rosiers J. Ms. Lang completed her report dated July 25, 2025. Ms. Lang’s principal recommendations included that Ms. Smith have sole decision-making responsibility for L., that L. should reside with Ms. Smith and that Mr. Seyoum should have supervised access to and video calls with L.
14Ms. Lang made these recommendations because Ms. Smith had disclosed that Mr. Seyoum had committed extensive emotional and physical and physical abuse of her, and that he had also abused L. and directly exposed him to physical violence. As I will explain below, based on the evidence that I heard in court, I find that Mr. Seyoum did commit intimate partner violence against Ms. Smith, abused L., and directly exposed L. to shocking acts of violence. Having made those findings, and as I will explain, I give significant weight to Ms. Lang’s recommendations regarding parenting issues.
15The respondent is named Eyasu Seyoum. He is 51 years old. He has worked as a painter and photographer. Currently, Mr. Seyoum has a company through which he provides painting, interior decorating, and renovation services. He testified that he felt that he was always responding to one crisis or another during his marriage to Ms. Smith. He testified that his role in the marriage was to provide stability in the relationship by providing emotional and financial support and practical advice. He testified Ms. Smith had an alcohol problem that exacerbated her mental health challenges. He testified that he was the primary caregiver for L. He explained that he and Ms. Smith agreed that Ms. Smith’s family was interfering in their lives with L. and that they made a mutual decision to restrict her family’s involvement in their lives. He denied ever striking Ms. Smith or engaging in any acts of intimate partner violence. He admitted to spanking L. on one occasion but denied that he was angry at the time. He also denied kicking or assaulting his mother and noted that he had been acquitted at trial of the criminal charges arising from that incident.
16Andrew Dugal is a friend of Mr. Seyoum. They met in December 2014 at a supplements store that Mr. Dugal operated and they became friends thereafter. Mr. Dugal had opportunities to observe the relationship between Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith as customers in the store, at dinners together, and during visits to each other’s home. Mr. Dugal did not observe anything concerning about the relationship between Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum and described Mr. Seyoum as a supportive, loving husband who was very calm. Mr. Dugal testified that Mr. Seyoum seemed to be the primary caretaker in the house.
17Devlin Thornhill is a friend of Mr. Seyoum. They have known each other since high school. Mr. Thornhill visited Mr. Seyoum at the York University apartment a few times. He believed that he had met L. four times. He testified that he did not have any concerns how Mr. Seyoum cared for L. during his visit and would not have any concerns about Mr. Seyoum being a danger to anyone.
18Shanique Victoria Edwards is a registered psychotherapist in the qualifying range. She has acted as Mr. Seyoum’s treating therapist since August 2025. They have had about 18 sessions before trial. She was permitted to give evidence as a participant expert. She testified that the purpose of the therapy was to provide support to Mr. Seyoum as he navigated conflict with his extended family, the limitations on his parenting time, and the marital separation. Ms. Edwards confirmed that she did not administer any tests to Mr. Seyoum, did not interview any third parties or corroborate anything Mr. Seyoum said to her. She admitted that Mr. Seyoum was the only source of information she received and that her job is to support him. For the reasons that I explain below, I do not accept that Mr. Seyoum is an accurate or reliable narrator. Given those findings, I place little weight on Ms. Edwards’ observations.
2. Assessing the evidence
19There are many significant factual disputes in this case. Resolving those disputes will require me to assess the reliability and credibility of the witnesses at trial.
A. Reliability and credibility of witnesses
20It is important to recall that credibility and reliability are different. Credibility has to do with the honesty, sincerity, or veracity of a witness. Reliability describes the other factors that can influence the accuracy of testimony, such as the witness’s ability to observe, recall, and recount events in issue.1
21Witnesses can sincerely believe their evidence is true, but that does not mean that what they are saying is reliable. Memory is fallible and becomes increasingly frail over time. I must consider the witness’s capacity to remember and the accuracy of her or his statements.2 Even an apparently convincing, confident, and credible witness may not be an accurate or reliable reporter. There is significant risk in placing too much emphasis on demeanour or the confidence with which a witness speaks where there are contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in their evidence, or where that testimony is inconsistent with contemporaneous records.3 I must assess whether the witness is honestly trying to tell the truth, whether the witness is sincere and frank or biased, reticent, and evasive.4
22One of the leading decisions on assessing credibility is Faryna v. Chorny, where the court explained that:
[t]he credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions.5
23I may accept some, none, or all of the evidence of a witness.6 Considering my assessment of reliability and credibility, I will assess the evidence before me according to many factors, including the following:
a. if the evidence makes sense by being logical or plausible;
b. if there are inconsistencies or weaknesses in the evidence of the witness, such as internal inconsistencies, prior inconsistent statements, or inconsistencies with the evidence of other witnesses;
c. if there is independent or documentary evidence to confirm or contradict the witness’s evidence, or a lack of such evidence;
d. the witness’s demeanour, including their sincerity and use of language, although this must be considered with caution; and
e. if the witness, particularly one that is a party in a case, may have a motive to fabricate.7
24At the end of the day, believing the testimony of one witness and not another is a matter of judgment.8
25I will also draw inferences from the facts that I find. An inference must be reasonably and logically drawn from a fact or a group of facts established by evidence. The first step in the inference-drawing process is to prove in evidence the primary facts that provide the basis for the inference.9 I may then draw factual inferences from the evidence, but only those that can be reasonably and logically drawn from the primary facts.10 As Doherty J.A. cautioned, an “inference which does not flow logically and reasonably from established facts cannot be made and is condemned as conjecture and speculation.”11
B. My overall impressions of the witnesses
26I must approach the evidence at trial in sequence. I will explain my credibility findings on specific points as I work my way through the evidence. I have not considered the evidence in silos, and I have considered the totality of the evidence before reaching any conclusions.12 I will briefly describe my overall impressions of the witnesses here.
27I did not find Mr. Seyoum to be a credible or reliable witness. Overall, I find that Mr. Seyoum worked hard to leave the court with a carefully curated and positive impression of himself and his conduct. However, his evidence was frequently evasive, and he did not directly answer critical questions. Instead, he would deflect the question and provide a more comfortable answer. His evidence is also deeply inconsistent with several contemporaneous emails and text messages and the direct observations of third parties. His own messages revealed a much meaner, angrier, and more volatile person than the image he projected in court. Mr. Seyoum also demonstrated very little insight into how his conduct would affect Ms. Smith or L.
28On the other hand, I found Ms. Smith to be a credible and reliable witness. She testified carefully and without apparent exaggeration. She conceded positive points about Mr. Seyoum and their relationship together. She acknowledged her mental health challenges and explained, with detail, the steps she has taken to improve and maintain her health. Her evidence was internally consistent, and she was not contradicted by contemporaneous emails or text messages.
29Ms. Smith testified at some length about Mr. Seyoum’s use of non-prescription steroids and THC. However, in the absence of expert evidence, I am not prepared to infer that this drug usage, even if it took place, is relevant to any of the matters at issue in this trial. Similarly, Mr. Seyoum testified that he thought Ms. Smith drank too much alcohol. Ms. Smith agreed that before her pregnancy, she sometimes drank more than she should have. However, after her pregnancy, she testified that she did not drink for two to three years and her relationship with alcohol changed. She testified that she has no problem with alcohol. Based on this evidence, and the absence of an expert opinion, I am not prepared to infer that Ms. Smith’s level of alcohol consumption is relevant to any of the matters at issue in this trial.
30I am satisfied that Ms. Rodriguez had a good opportunity to observe the interactions among Ms. Smith, Mr. Seyoum, and L. Ms. Rodriguez saw them very frequently over a period of about 13 months. Ms. Rodriguez admitted that she thinks of herself as a friend of Ms. Smith, but I do not think that this friendship affected her testimony. I found Ms. Rodriguez to be a careful witness who attempted to be fair to both Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum.
31Ms. Salmon also had many opportunities to observe Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum interact over many years. While I have taken into account that she is a long-time friend of Ms. Smith, I do not think that she allowed that friendship to influence her evidence. Her testimony was careful and fair to both Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith. During cross-examination, she made appropriate concessions and acknowledged that Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum had some good times together. I found her evidence to be credible and reliable.
32Ms. Nixon had very few opportunities to observe Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith interact. I do not place much weight on her evidence, except for one conversation that she had with Mr. Seyoum, which I will discuss below.
33I find that Mr. Matthew was a credible and reliable witness. He testified clearly and precisely about the altercation he observed and his evidence was not undermined on cross-examination.
34I believe that Mr. Dugal was an honest witness who did his best to testify honestly about his observations. However, he did not have as many opportunities to observe Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith interact as some of the other witnesses. For example, he testified that he believed he only saw Ms. Smith three or four times since July 2020. It appears that much of his contact with Mr. Seyoum was by text or at the gym, which limited his ability to make direct observations. I also found that his evidence was missing some important details regarding L.’s behavioural challenges, which suggests to me that he did not observe L. as carefully or as frequently as other witnesses, who testified clearly about L.’s challenging behaviour. Mr. Dugal explained that he last saw L. in 2022.
35I believe that Mr. Thornhill was an honest witness who provided candid evidence. The difficulty with his evidence is that he had very few opportunities to observe directly the interactions among Mr. Seyoum, Ms. Smith, and L. As he candidly recalled, he only met L. four times. For this reason, I am inclined to give less weight to his evidence.
3. Preliminary issues
36At the beginning of trial, the parties raised three preliminary issues. I provided bottom line decisions at the time and provide additional explanations below.
A. Mr. Seyoum’s request to upload trial recordings to Otter.ai
37Mr. Seyoum requested permission to make a digital recording of the evidence at trial and to upload that digital recording to Otter.ai, which would produce an unofficial written transcript of evidence for him. Mr. Seyoum explained that he had a learning disability and that he would have difficulty taking notes during the oral evidence.
38In response to my questions, Mr. Seyoum acknowledged that he had presented no medical evidence of his disability to the court. He also admitted that he did not have a formal diagnosis of a disability, although he has received some accommodations at York and has taken medication that he believed helped him focus on his exams.
39I asked Mr. Seyoum why he had not accepted the trial office’s offer to provide him with access to CART (Communications Access Realtime Translation). Mr. Seyoum stated that he understood that CART would not provide him with a transcript. I reviewed with Mr. Seyoum the email that the trial office sent to him, which explained that CART offered “accurate, near-instant transcription” and “accessible transcripts” of the evidence. He indicated that this would be an appropriate solution and that he would contact the trial office to see if he could obtain CART for use at the trial. However, Mr. Seyoum understood that the services would have to be arranged and would not be available immediately. Had Mr. Seyoum accepted the offer when the trial office first made it, that accommodation would likely have been available on the first day of trial.
40Subsection 136(1) of the Courts of Justice Act states that no person shall make an audio recording at a court hearing. However, s. 136(2) provides that nothing in s. 136(1) prohibits a party acting in person from “unobtrusively making an audio recording at a court hearing, in the manner that has been approved by the judge, for the sole purpose of supplementing or replacing handwritten notes.”
41I exercised my discretion to allow Mr. Seyoum to make a digital recording of the court proceeding for the sole purpose of supplementing his notes. However, I ordered that Mr. Seyoum was not permitted to upload the digital recording to Otter.ai to produce an unofficial transcript.
42As I understand it, Otter.ai is service that allows users to upload an audio file to a cloud-based server where Otter.ai will then process the audio speech and create a transcription of that audio file. Mr. Seyoum did not provide me with any information on the privacy features of Otter.ai, whether the content of uploaded audio files is used to train any artificial intelligence LLMs (large language models) or otherwise shared with third party companies, whether the audio files are retained on Otter’s cloud-based servers, or whether third parties would be able to access the audio file once uploaded.
43Based on the pleadings, I anticipated that the evidence at trial would cover allegations of intimate partner violence, information about a minor child, including personal health information about the health and disabilities of L., and evidence regarding the mental health of the parties to the proceedings. Given the very sensitive nature of this evidence, I was not prepared to allow Mr. Seyoum to upload it to the cloud without clear evidence to satisfy me that the personal information could be protected in a satisfactory way.
44On Wednesday April 29, 2026, Mr. Seyoum contacted the trial office to request access to CART services. I approved his request the same day. Subsequently, Mr. Seyoum did not raise the issue of CART services again or raise any concerns about the utility of his digital recordings.
B. Mr. Seyoum’s request to seek an equalization of net family property
45Mr. Seyoum requested the opportunity to seek an equalization of net family property. Although this claim appeared in his answer, I denied his request.
46On May 18, 2025, Hood J. presided over the trial management conference for this proceeding. The parties submitted a joint trial scheduling endorsement form, which was discussed at the conference. Ms. Smith had raised the issue of the equalization of net family property on the TSEF. Justice Hood struck out that issue by hand. Mr. Seyoum did not indicate that the equalization of net family property was an issue to be determined at trial.
47Justice Hood indicated on the TSEF that net family property statements and comparative net family property statements had not been exchanged and that the time limits for the exchange of such statements were “not applicable,” presumably because the equalization of net family property was no longer in issue. Justice Hood scheduled a seven-day trial to commence on April 27, 2026, which was 11 months after the trial management conference.
48Mr. Seyoum brought a motion to adjourn the trial, which was dismissed by Kraft J. on April 9, 2026. Justice Kraft’s endorsement does not mention any issues related to the equalization of net family property.
49It appears that the first time Mr. Seyoum raised this issue was on April 17, 2026, at the exit pre-trial conference. Justice Sah recorded the issue as follows in her endorsement:
Issues to flag for trial judge: Equalization of NFP was not an issue raised in the TSEF. The respondent now wishes to include this issue for trial. The issue was properly pled. The applicant needs to consider their position on the inclusion of this new issue. The trial judge might have to determine if it is appropriate to include this issue for trial.
50At trial, Ms. Smith objected to including the equalization of NFP among the issues to be tried. She submitted that there many documents relevant to the issue were missing or had not been produced and the matter could not be determined fairly. For example, she had not obtained a valuation of her pension because she did not realize until ten days before trial that the equalization of net family property might be back on the table. Counsel advised that she had been told that a pension valuation could not be prepared before the scheduled end of the trial. Mr. Seyoum did not explain how the court could fairly equalize net family property, given the state of the disclosure and the missing documents.
51In the circumstances, I would not allow Mr. Seyoum to advance the claim for the equalization of net family property at trial. The issues for trial should have been finalized at the time the parties signed the TSEF. For the reasons set out in the endorsement of Kraft J., it was imperative that this trial proceed as scheduled. The next available trial date is in September 2027. It would be unfair to the parties and to L. to adjourn the trial for that length of time. It would be unfair to Ms. Smith to allow the issue of equalization to be raised without complete disclosure and in the absence of many relevant documents and records. It would be unfair to the court and to both parties to adjudicate finally the equalization of net family property on an incomplete record. I did not think that I could do justice between the parties in these circumstances. For these reasons, I dismissed Mr. Seyoum’s request to seek an equalization of net family properties at trial.
C. The parties’ requests to add witnesses to the trial are approved
52Each of the parties asked to call an additional witness not listed on the TSEF. Ms. Smith asked to call Mr. Matthew. Mr. Seyoum asked to call Ms. Edwards. Both parties agreed that the additional witnesses could be heard within the seven days fixed for trial. I granted each party’s request.
D. The divorce is granted
53The parties each applied for a divorce. I am satisfied that the parties meet all of the statutory requirements under the Divorce Act.13 I grant an order for a divorce.
54Because I am granting a divorce under the Divorce Act, the final order for corollary relief is to be granted under the Divorce Act.14
4. Parenting issues and the best interests of the child
55Ms. Smith seeks an order that she have sole decision-making responsibility for L., who would reside with her. Ms. Smith asks the court to order that Mr. Seyoum’s parenting time continue to be supervised in an access centre or by a mutually agreed third party supervisor. Ms. Smith also proposes that Mr. Seyoum have a video call with L. every other day at specified times. Ms. Smith asks the court to order that she be permitted to raise L. as a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and that Mr. Seyoum be required to respect those beliefs. Ms. Smith asks the court to order that Mr. Seyoum obtain unspecified treatment to “address his mental health and emotional support needs” before obtaining any unsupervised parenting time with L. Ms. Smith asks the court to order that she may obtain any government documents for L. and travel outside the country with L. without Mr. Seyoum’s consent.
56Mr. Seyoum seeks an order that the parties have joint decision-making responsibility for L. He also asks for unsupervised parenting time with L. each week from Friday after school until Monday morning. Mr. Seyoum seeks an order that L. “be permitted to maintain relationships with extended family members from both sides where appropriate and in the child’s best interests.” Mr. Seyoum asks the court to order that “neither party shall permit any third party to negatively interfere with the child’s relationship with the other parent.”
A. The situation from separation to trial
57Although there is no legal presumption in favour of maintaining the existing parenting arrangements, I think it will be helpful to describe the parenting arrangements that have been in place since separation.15
58On December 19, 2023, Ms. Smith and L. moved out of the matrimonial home and into a women’s shelter.16 Ms. Smith had planned this move, and her lawyer immediately advised Mr. Seyoum by email that Ms. Smith had moved out, would be commencing a court proceeding, and invited Mr. Seyoum to contact her to arrange parenting time with L.
59Mr. Seyoum contacted the police and asked them to conduct a wellness check on Ms. Smith. The police interviewed Ms. Smith at the shelter and Ms. Smith disclosed to them that Mr. Seyoum had previously assaulted her in January 2022. The police then charged Mr. Seyoum with the assault. This incident will be discussed below. The criminal charges against Mr. Seyoum were eventually stayed by the Crown.
60On February 16, 2024, the parties agreed to a temporary without prejudice order with respect to parenting time. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Seyoum would have supervised parenting time on four consecutive Saturdays between February 7 and March 9, 2024, from 10:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. The permitted supervisors were Mr. Seyoum’s mother Aster Matthew, her husband George Matthew, Mr. Seyoum’s sister Leila Min and her husband James Min.
61On March 1, 2024, Ms. Smith and L. moved to a home in Mississauga. At this time, Mr. Seyoum was residing with his mother and Mr. Matthew in Ancaster.
62The parties entered into a further agreement permitting Mr. Seyoum to have supervised overnight parenting with L. Mr. Seyoum had one overnight visit near the end of March and the second visit took place on April 5 and 6, 2024, at the home of Ms. Matthew and Mr. Matthew. On the evening of April 5, 2024, there was an altercation that resulted in Ms. Matthew’s hospitalization with a broken pelvis. Mr. Seyoum was charged with assaulting his mother and the Hamilton CAS was notified of the incident. Ms. Smith picked up L. on April 6, 2024, at about 1:30 p.m. No one told Ms. Smith about this incident until 6:30 p.m. on April 6, 2024, when Ms. Min called Ms. Smith. In 2026, Mr. Seyoum was acquitted of the charges at trial.
63Ms. Min told Ms. Smith that the family had kicked Mr. Seyoum out of the house and that the family members would no longer supervise Mr. Seyoum’s parenting time with L. Ms. Smith testified that, given the involvement of the CAS, and the two sets of criminal charges, she had difficulty locating a supervised parenting centre that would agree to supervise visits.
64On June 21, 2024, the parties attended a case conference before Des Rosiers J. At the case conference, Des Rosiers J. made a consent order that, among other things, ordered L. to live with Ms. Smith and gave Ms. Smith day-to-day decision-making authority, including the authority to register L. in school. In addition, Des Rosiers J. ordered that Mr. Seyoum could have supervised parenting time at Social Enterprise for Canada’s Peel Region Supervised Access Centre, with additional supervised parenting time at Access for Parents and Children in Ontario, if APCO could accept them. Ms. Smith testified that she immediately registered at the centres and sent the registration information to Mr. Seyoum. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum did not register with the centres.
65On October 28, 2024, the parties attended a settlement conference before Hood J. In his endorsement, Hood J. noted that the supervised parenting time ordered by Des Rosiers J. had not taken place. Justice Hood made a further order for supervised parenting time and daily, 30-minute Zoom calls between Mr. Seyoum and L. This arrangement has remained in place until trial.
B. The best interests of the child
66In making a parenting order, I am to take into consideration only the best interests of the child, giving primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.17 In determining the best interests of L., I must consider all relevant factors, including the factors set out in s. 16(3) of the Divorce Act. Where the factors pull in different directions, I am to resolve them in favour of promoting the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being.18
67Neither party tendered any evidence regarding the views and preferences of L, who is not yet six years old. I cannot ascertain L.’s views and give no weight to that factor.19
68To determine the best interests of L., I will consider below the factors related to the circumstances of the child. As I will explain, I am satisfied that Ms. Smith is capable of tending to the physical, emotional and psychological safety, security, and well-being of L.20 However, I find that Mr. Seyoum is not capable of meeting L.’s needs in these areas. As I will explain below, I am not satisfied that it would be in L.’s best interests for Mr. Seyoum to have any unsupervised parenting time with L. or any decision-making authority for him.
C. Family violence
69Under the Divorce Act, I am to consider any family violence and its impact on the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of L. and the appropriateness of an order that would require Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum to cooperate on issues affecting L.21 The Divorce Act defines family violence to mean:
any conduct, whether or not the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, by a family member towards another family member, that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person — and in the case of a child, the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct — and includes
(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect themselves or another person;
(b) sexual abuse;
(c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;
(d) harassment, including stalking;
(e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life;
(f) psychological abuse;
(g) financial abuse;
(h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and
(i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property;22
70In considering the impact of family violence, I am to take the following into account:
a. the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;
b. whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;
c. whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;
d. the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;
e. any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;
f. whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;
g. any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
h. any other relevant factor.23
1. Physical abuse, including forced confinement, and the direct exposure of L. to such conduct
71I find that Mr. Seyoum physically abused Ms. Smith in January 2022, forcibly confined L. in a dark bathroom as a punishment and directly exposed L. to physical violence when he struck and kicked Ms. Matthew, breaking her pelvis. I also find that Mr. Seyoum spanked L. in anger on one occasion. Whether or not the spanking itself rose to the level of physical abuse, the fact that Mr. Seyoum spanked L. in anger gives me very serious concerns about his ability to parent L., given L.’s energy level and difficulty with self control.
(a) Mr. Seyoum punched Ms. Smith in the head in January 2022
72Ms. Smith testified that about an incident of physical violence in January 2022. Before setting out the evidence before me, I note that in December 2023, Mr. Seyoum was charged with one count of assault arising out of this incident. The charges were withdrawn on September 20, 2024, apparently because the Crown could not proceed summarily.24
73Ms. Smith testified that L. was a little over a year old and, at that time, was sleeping in the king bed between Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith. L. was waking up and crying in the middle of the night. She testified that one night, Mr. Seyoum told Ms. Smith to take L. out of the bedroom. Ms. Smith testified that she told Mr. Seyoum that she did not want to do that because she did not want L. to get used to getting up in the middle of the night. Ms. Smith testified that this made Mr. Seyoum very angry and he pulled Ms. Smith toward him by the hair. She testified that Mr. Seyoum then punched her in the head and yelled at her that L. was hungry and that she should take him to the kitchen. Ms. Smith testified that the blows from Mr. Seyoum left her with bruising under her hairline. Ms. Smith testified that when she later tried to speak to Mr. Seyoum about his conduct, he told her that she was the abusive one and he was just responding to her abuse. Ms. Smith said that Mr. Seyoum complained that she was not nurturing him or giving him what he needed.
74Ms. Smith testified that, while she had always told herself that she would go to the police if Mr. Seyoum ever hit her, she did not make a police report. She testified that she did not feel strong enough to report him and she thought it would get better. It was only when she met with the police after she left the matrimonial home, and they asked her directly about prior acts of violence, that she disclosed this incident to them.
75In his testimony, Mr. Seyoum denied that he ever pulled Ms. Smith by the hair or punched her in the head. He testified that his relationship with Ms. Smith has always been supportive and that he has been a caregiver to her. During cross-examination, Mr. Seyoum was confronted with the OCL report. He admitted that he made the following statement to the OCL clinician, which she recorded in the report as follows:
Mr. Seyoum raised the following concerns:
That Ms. Smith and her lawyer, Ms. Sarah M[o]tt-Trille conspired to deprive him of sleep to provoke a reaction before the separation….
76However, Mr. Seyoum then denied that “there was a reaction” from him. He maintained his evidence that Ms. Smith was trying to antagonize him to get a reaction. Mr. Seyoum testified that, even today, he “suspected” that Ms. Smith had a plan to deprive him of sleep because, starting in 2022, he saw a “remarkable difference in [Ms. Smith’s] behaviour and a strategic way of acting.” He testified that he believed that Ms. Smith was deliberately preventing him from sleeping more than an hour at a time. He testified that he believed Ms. Smith was being coached to do this by “an outside party.”
77During cross-examination, Mr. Seyoum was also confronted with the Form 35.1 Affidavit (decision-making responsibility, parenting time, contact) that he swore on February 7, 2024. In that affidavit, he described the circumstances leading to “an altercation”:
For example, following the birth of our child, I was sleep-deprived. I was caring for him, while also trying to keep up with my studies and do small jobs that allowed me to bring in income, while caring for a newborn and the Applicant.
The Applicant would wait until I got [L.] to sleep and was finally able to rest, drifting off to sleep to start arguing with me about something trivial. On one occasion, she slapped me out of my sleep with the back of her hand, then apologized about it claiming she did it in her sleep. It felt like I was being tortured and I acknowledge that one time it did lead to an altercation. However, that altercation was instigated by her.
78However, when pressed on whether that refreshed his memory about an altercation, Mr. Seyoum stated that he did not recall the altercation. He testified that he remembered Ms. Smith apologizing but concluded that he did not recall any altercation.
79I accept the evidence of Ms. Smith on this issue, and I find that in January 2022, Mr. Seyoum pulled Ms. Smith by the hair and punched her in the head because L. had woken them up crying and Ms. Smith did not want to take L. into another room. This act of intimate partner violence took place in the presence of L.
80Ms. Smith’s evidence was clear and convincing. Her evidence was internally consistent and was not exaggerated or incredible. I do not place any weight on the fact that she did not immediately disclose the violence to the police. Women choose to disclose or not disclose acts of violence for myriad reasons. The lack of an immediate complaint, without more, does not undermine the credibility of Ms. Smith.25
81On the other hand, I do not accept the evidence of Mr. Seyoum. He tendered no evidence to support his theory that Ms. Smith was intentionally interfering with his sleep. It is surprising that he continued to advance this theory in his evidence at trial. It is far more likely that L. was not a good sleeper and cried when he woke up in the night than Ms. Smith was engaging in a sleep deprivation campaign designed to “provoke a reaction” from him. Many parents are sleep deprived when they have a baby that will not sleep through the night in a small apartment. I find it concerning that Mr. Seyoum drew the inference that this was part of a plot by Ms. Smith to torture him.
82I am also troubled by Mr. Seyoum testifying under oath that he did not recall the “altercation” to which he referred in his affidavit sworn in early 2024. I was left with the firm impression that Mr. Seyoum simply did not want to answer that question on cross-examination and thought that the safest path out of that danger was to say he no longer recalled the altercation. In my view, Mr. Seyoum did remember the altercation to which he referred in the affidavit and chose not to be candid in his evidence about this incident. This undermines his credibility, including with respect to his evidence denying this act of violence.
(b) Mr. Seyoum spanked L. in anger in September 2023
83Ms. Rodriguez testified that in September 2023, she and her family were having a BBQ dinner outside the student residence with Mr. Seyoum, Ms. Smith, and L. Ms. Rodriguez testified that as it began to get dark, L. was not listening to his father’s instructions to sit down. Ms. Rodriguez described L. as being overly tired and was on “autopilot” running around and not listening. Ms. Rodriguez testified that she heard Mr. Seyoum tell L. that he was going to spank him if he did not sit down. Ms. Rodriguez testified that this was not the first time she heard Mr. Seyoum threaten to spank L. on his hand or an unspecified part of his body. Ms. Rodriguez testified that L. kept running around and Mr. Seyoum grabbed L., who started crying, and he took L. to the corner of the outside area and started spanking L. on his bottom. She recalled three or more strikes. Ms. Rodriguez testified that she could hear both the sound of the spanking and L. crying. As the spanking continued, Ms. Smith returned to the area of the BBQ. Mr. Seyoum then took L. back to the apartment.
84Ms. Rodriguez testified that she felt that Mr. Seyoum was not himself when he was spanking L. She said that he was losing his patience, he was angry, and he seemed desperate. In cross-examination, Ms. Rodriguez stated that toward the end of 2023, she observed L. run away from Mr. Seyoum in a panic, seemingly worried that L. was going to spank him.
85Ms. Smith also testified about the spanking incident. She recalled that Mr. Seyoum was upset with her about something. She recalled seeing Mr. Seyoum spanking L. in front of Ms. Rodriguez and her family. Ms. Smith testified that this made her really afraid because Mr. Seyoum was now hitting L. in public and that witnesses to the spanking was not enough for him to control his behaviour.
86Mr. Seyoum testified that he only spanked L. one time, at the BBQ described by Ms. Rodriguez and Ms. Smith. Mr. Seyoum recalled that L. was not listening and was running around, including into a street. He recalled speaking to L. several times in an attempt to correct his behaviour. Mr. Seyoum testified that he “tried the spanking method” to correct L.’s behaviour, but he “realized it did not register with L.” and that “it was not helpful.” Mr. Seyoum denied that spanked L. in anger and said that he did not spank L. again. Ms. Smith disputed this evidence.
87All the witnesses agree that L. was not listening at the BBQ and that Mr. Seyoum spanked him. The dispute between the parties centres on what motivated Mr. Seyoum. I prefer the evidence of Ms. Rodriguez to that of Mr. Seyoum. I accept her evidence that Mr. Seyoum lost his patience and was angry and desperate when he spanked L. Ms. Rodriguez is a neutral, third-party observer who was obviously deeply affected by what she saw. I do not think her friendship with Ms. Smith influenced her evidence on this point. Ms. Rodriguez evidence was clear, detailed, and unshaken on cross-examination.
88It is possible that Mr. Seyoum lacked the self-awareness to understand that he lost his patience, and displayed anger and desperation when he spanked L. However, I do not accept his evidence that he applied force only for educative or corrective purposes. In discussing s. 43 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which exempted the reasonable physical correction of children by their parents from the crime of assault, the Supreme Court of Canada made clear that outbursts of violence motivated by anger or frustration fell outside the exemption:
First, the person applying the force must have intended it to be for educative or corrective purposes: Ogg-Moss v. The Queen, 1984 CanLII 77 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 173, at p. 193. Accordingly, s. 43 cannot exculpate outbursts of violence against a child motivated by anger or animated by frustration. It admits into its sphere of immunity only sober, reasoned uses of force that address the actual behaviour of the child and are designed to restrain, control or express some symbolic disapproval of his or her behaviour. The purpose of the force must always be the education or discipline of the child: Ogg-Moss, supra, at p. 193.26
89I find that Mr. Seyoum was desperate that night: L. was not listening to him, and he was running out of ideas. He lost his patience and, in anger, spanked L. three or more times that resulted in L. crying. I also find that L. began to display signs of being fearful of Mr. Seyoum and the prospect of further spankings.
(c) Mr. Seyoum disciplined L. by placing him in a bathroom with the lights out
90Ms. Smith testified that one night L. woke up crying from a nightmare. She testified that Mr. Seyoum reached out to hold L. but L. was upset and kicking and thrashing around. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum rolled over and turned his back to L., who then kicked his back and said, “Shut up, daddy.” Ms. Smith testified that this enraged Mr. Seyoum, who picked L. up and then slammed him into the bed. Mr. Seyoum then shook L. and slapped his hands.
91Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum then put L. in the bathroom with the lights out and closed the door. Ms. Smith testified that L. was crying hysterically and that Mr. Seyoum would not allow her to get L. out of the bathroom. She testified that, eventually, Mr. Seyoum calmed down, relented, and brought L. back to their bed, where L. would not go to Mr. Seyoum. Ms. Smith testified that on at least one other occasion, Mr. Seyoum left L. into the dark bathroom as punishment, despite L. crying hysterically and in terror. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum would also threaten L. by saying that if he did not listen, L. “would be going into the darkness again.”
92In cross-examination, Mr. Seyoum testified that he never put L. into the bathroom with the lights off as a disciplinary measure. Mr. Seyoum testified that he would play hide and seek with L. and that Mr. Seyoum would hide in the bathroom with the lights off.
93I do not accept Mr. Seyoum’s evidence. I am troubled by his explanation that he was the one hiding in the bathroom with the lights off. Respectfully, this explanation sounded very contrived. There is no possibility that Ms. Smith mistook or misremembered a game of hide and seek where Mr. Seyoum was in the dark bathroom for the occasions when Mr. Seyoum put L. in the dark bathroom as a punishment.
94I accept the evidence of Ms. Smith. This incident, like the spanking incident described above, is an example of Mr. Seyoum becoming frustrated, stressed out, and engaging in inappropriate physical discipline of L., which terrified the child.
(d) Mr. Seyoum assaulted his mother in front of L. on April 5, 2024
95One of the most troubling incidents of violence happened on April 5, 2024, during Mr. Seyoum’s second supervised overnight parenting visit with L. at his mother’s house.
96Mr. Seyoum moved back in with his mother in Hamilton in February 2024. Mr. Matthew testified that he and Ms. Matthew, his 70-year-old wife of 26 years, agreed to help supervise parenting time, including overnight visits, at their home in Hamilton. This development was somewhat unusual. Mr. Seyoum admitted that he was estranged from his mother and that he had not even seen her since he got engaged to Ms. Smith.
97In April 2024, Mr. Seyoum was living with his mother and Mr. Matthew. Mr. Matthew testified that on the evening of April 5, 2024, he came downstairs to watch a movie with the rest of the family. As he arrived, he observed L. sitting on the couch between Mr. Seyoum and his mother. Mr. Matthew testified that he saw L. get up off the couch and approach Ms. Matthew, who was knitting. Mr. Matthew heard Ms. Matthew warn L. away but L. picked up the ball of yarn and threw it about 3 feet. Mr. Matthew went over to pick up the ball of yarn as Ms. Matthew got up and walked away from the couch. Mr. Matthew heard her say to Mr. Seyoum “why don’t you correct the child?” Mr. Matthew testified that Mr. Seyoum got up from the couch and responded with words to the effect of “Don’t talk to my child that way” and “Don’t say anything to my child.” Mr. Matthew recalled that this upset Ms. Matthew.
98Mr. Matthew testified that Mr. Seyoum walked toward and then passed him to get closer to his mother. Mr. Matthew testified that he told Mr. Seyoum to stop but that he pushed by him to confront Ms. Matthew in the kitchen. Mr. Matthew said that the next thing he saw was Ms. Matthew on the kitchen floor with Mr. Seyoum on top of her. Mr. Matthew testified that he pulled Mr. Seyoum off Ms. Matthew but that Mr. Seyoum went back at her and was squeezing her neck with his hand. Mr. Matthew testified that he then saw Mr. Seyoum kick his mother while she was on the floor and trying to wriggle under a table to get away. Mr. Matthew testified that he heard Mr. Seyoum say, “I will finish her off.” Mr. Matthew testified that Mr. Seyoum only disengaged from the altercation with his mother when Mr. Matthew threatened to call the police. Mr. Matthew confirmed that L. saw the entire altercation and was calling out during it.
99Mr. Matthew testified that he took Ms. Matthew upstairs where she called her daughter Leila Min, who called 911. The police arrived and Mr. Matthew gave a statement to the police, who then arrested Mr. Seyoum and removed him from the house. Mr. Matthew testified that Ms. Mathew was taken to the hospital, where she remained for about a month due to two fractures in her pelvis. Mr. Matthew then changed L. and tried to put him to sleep. Mr. Matthew testified that L. could not sleep on his own, so he slept with Mr. Matthew that night.
100During cross-examination, Mr. Matthew denied Mr. Seyoum’s suggestion that he smacked L.’s hand during any of his visits. Mr. Matthew stated that he once observed L. playing with a light switch or socket, brought him to the switch and touched L. on the back of the hand while explaining the danger of playing with the switch or socket. Mr. Matthew denied Mr. Seyoum’s suggestion that Ms.Matthew was throwing things at Mr. Seyoum or L. or that she ever said the words “He’s going to get it.”
101Mr. Matthew flatly denied Mr. Seyoum’s suggestion that Mr. Matthew had knelt on Ms. Matthew’s pelvic area, breaking her pelvis. Mr. Matthew testified that “that did not happen. That is strictly a lie.”
102During his testimony, Mr. Seyoum denied assaulting his mother. Mr. Seyoum said that in the weeks leading up to the weekend of April 5, Ms. Matthew had been threatening to call the police on Mr. Matthew and that Mr. Matthew was concerned about that.
103Mr. Seyoum testified that there was a commotion that evening and his mother punched a door three times and opened and slammed a door three times. At some point, Mr. Matthew accidentally knelt on Ms. Matthew, who protested, and then Mr. Matthew got off of her. Afterwards, Ms. Matthew could not get up and the police were called. Mr. Seyoum testified that Mr. Matthew told the police that it was Mr. Seyoum who caused harm to his mother, so they arrested him. Mr. Seyoum emphasized that he was acquitted at the trial of the criminal charges.
104During cross-examination, Mr. Seyoum admitted that he did not call Ms. Smith that night to tell her what happened. He admitted that he did not tell Ms. Smith about the events of the night before when he returned L. to her care at about 1:30 p.m. the next day because he was worried that “it would be used against him” in the family law proceeding. Ms. Smith testified that she had no idea what happened until Mr. Seyoum’s sister called her at 6:30 p.m. and told her about it. Mr. Seyoum admitted that he now realizes that he should have called Ms. Smith to tell her what happened. Mr. Seyoum also stated during cross-examination that he believed that his mother was deliberately trying to instigate a conflict with him in order to provoke a reaction from him. Mr. Seyoum admits that L. would have been traumatized by the commotion and by seeing Mr. Seyoum leave with the police but maintained that L. did not witness any violence that night.
105I acknowledge that Mr. Seyoum was acquitted of the charge of assaulting Ms. Matthew on April 5, 2024. That acquittal, however, does not prevent Ms. Smith from attempting to prove the assault in this proceeding. Issue estoppel does not apply because the parties to this proceeding are not the same as the parties in the criminal proceeding. The doctrine against collateral attack does not apply because no one is seeking to overturn the acquittal. The doctrine of abuse of process does not apply because the concerns associated with relitigation do not apply because of the different standard of proof in a civil proceeding as compared to the criminal proceeding. As the Court of Appeal held:
Ordinarily, relitigation in a civil forum of the facts underlying an acquittal does not engage these concerns because of the different burdens of proof. A finding in the civil case that the defendant probably committed the criminal act of which he or she was acquitted does not undermine the credibility of a system that found there was a reasonable doubt. Thus, it is not a question of whether relitigation has led to a more accurate result; the system contemplates that different results are possible because of the different burdens of proof. If the same result is reached in the subsequent civil proceeding, it may be argued that there has been a waste of judicial resources, expense to the parties that might have been avoided and hardship to the parties and witnesses. However, this is a tolerable consequence because of other competing principles, in particular access to the courts to pursue legitimate claims.27
106Based on the evidence led before me at this trial, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Seyoum physically attacked his mother on the evening of April 5, 2026. I find that he kicked Ms. Matthew while she was on the ground and broke her pelvis in two places. I accept the evidence of Mr. Matthew over that of Mr. Seyoum. Mr. Matthew’s evidence was clear and complete. It explained the trigger for the altercation, described how it progressed and escalated, and provided his direct observations of the assault on Astor.
107Mr. Seyoum’s evidence in contrast makes little sense and, even on its own terms, does not explain what happened that evening. Mr. Seyoum’s evidence did not explain how his mother ended up on the ground and offered no explanation for how or why Mr. Matthew knelt on her pelvis. Mr. Matthew firmly denied Mr. Seyoum’s suggestion that he was responsible for the incident. Mr. Seyoum’s evidence does not explain why the police were called in response to this accident, as opposed to calling an ambulance to treat the accidental injury. Moreover, Mr. Seyoum’s explanation that his mother was trying to instigate a conflict with him is entirely irrelevant if Mr. Matthew accidentally caused the injury. Not only is Mr. Seyoum’s explanation not believable, but it is also remarkably similar to his evidence that Ms. Smith was deliberately trying to provoke a reaction from him by depriving him of sleep. Mr. Seyoum does not take responsibility for his own actions. He seeks to blame others.
108Mr. Seyoum’s failure to tell Ms. Smith about this incident because, in his words, he was afraid it would be used against him, demonstrates his willingness to put his own interests ahead of L.’s interests.
109Mr. Seyoum’s violent attack on his mother is particularly relevant because it took place in front of L. Mr. Seyoum thus directly exposed L. to this act of violence on his second supervised overnight parenting session.
110Ms. Smith testified that L. was deeply traumatized by the incident involving Ms. Matthew. She described that when L. returned home that day, he was behaving unusually. L. was complaining of stomach pain, was clingy, and refused to let his friends play with his toys. Ms. Rodriguez was present that afternoon. She testified that while L.’s behaviour had been improving, on April 6, 2026, he was his “old self,” and fighting and crying over toys and throwing things.
111That night, L. asked Ms. Smith to leave the lights on when he went to bed, and he still had multiple nightmares. As a result of what L. said to her about the incident on April 5, Ms. Smith found a therapist to help L. through play in a safe environment.28 Ms. Smith testified that during those play sessions, L. would engage in very violent play, including having a Hulk doll kick and punch a Barbie doll, which she said was unusual for L. Ms. Smith testified that L. continued to speak to her about what happened through the summer of 2024.
112I find that Mr. Seyoum’s attack on his mother is a very serious act of family violence.29 Any physical attack on a 70-year old woman is by definition extremely serious. In this case, Mr. Seyoum broke his mother’s pelvis in two places, resulting in a month-long hospital stay. This is a very serious incident of family violence that obviously compromised the safety of Ms. Matthew, a family member.30 It is made more serious because it took place during period that Mr. Seyoum was exercising supervised, overnight parenting time. The attack took place while Mr. Seyoum was responsible for ensuring the safety and security of L., and the attack compromised L.’s safety.31
113Moreover, Mr. Seyoum directly exposed L. to this incident of serious family violence.32 This demonstrates a profound lack of self-control and judgment by Mr. Seyoum. Exposing L. to this act of violence caused significant emotional and psychological harm to L. I accept Ms. Smith’s unchallenged description of how L. behaved in the aftermath of the incident and conclude that the incident harmed L.
2. Mr. Seyoum’s pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour toward Ms. Smith
114In considering the impact of family violence under s. 16(3)(j), I am to take into account whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member.33
115The Divorce Act defines family violence to mean any conduct that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour and includes (but is not limited to) physical abuse, sexual abuse, threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person, harassment, the failure to provide the necessaries of life, psychological abuse, financial abuse, threats to kill their farm and animal or damage property, in the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property.34 The Supreme Court of Canada recently explained that coercive and controlling conduct includes other conduct not explicitly captured by the statutory definition. Kasirer J. noted that coercive control has been “broadly described as conduct that non-exhaustively includes tactics of isolation; manipulation; humiliation; surveillance; physical, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse; and intimidation that can control, isolate, and entrap intimate partners.”35 Justice Kasirer provided some non-exhaustive examples:
…coercive and controlling conduct faced by an intimate partner can also include: psychological, sexual or emotional violence; controlling behaviour such as stalking, monitoring activities and financial control; intimidation, threats to family members, or making false allegations to the police or to employers; litigation abuse; and preventing the victim from seeing family and friends, working, or participating in other educational or recreative activities (see, e.g., Divorce Act, s. 2(1); Stark (2023), at pp. 15-16).36
116As I will explain, I find that Mr. Seyoum engaged a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour against Ms. Smith.
(a) Mr. Seyoum isolated Ms. Smith from her family and friends
117Mr. Seyoum isolated Ms. Smith by restricting her access to family and friends. Once Mr. Seyoum felt criticized or threatened by any of Ms. Smith’s friends or family members, he would cut them out of Ms. Smith’s life or order them away and insist that she abide by his direction. Ms. Smith provided the following specific examples:
a. When an elder in her congregation noticed that Mr. Seyoum was speaking rudely to Ms. Smith, the elder spoke to Mr. Seyoum about his conduct. Mr. Seyoum then cut off any contact between Ms. Smith and the elder and told her that she was not to pursue a friendship with this elder;
b. When Kelly Salmon lived with Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum for about two weeks, she told Ms. Smith that she was concerned about the abusive way Mr. Seyoum spoke to Ms. Smith and that Ms. Salmon was scared for Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith told Mr. Seyoum about Ms. Salmon’s concerns, and he then ordered Ms. Salmon to leave their house that very night. Ms. Smith convinced Mr. Seyoum to allow Ms. Salmon to stay the night, and she left the next morning.
118Ms. Smith testified that by the summer of 2022, Mr. Seyoum permitted her to see very few of her friends with L. because he had concluded that they were all poisoning L. against him. Ms. Smith explained that there were no examples of this actually happening.
119Mr. Seyoum’s most concerning attempt to isolate Ms. Smith was the way he forced Ms. Smith to cut her family members out of her life. In August 2021, Mr. Seyoum, Ms. Smith, and L. travelled to New Brunswick to visit her family members for a month. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum was “pretty removed” from the day-to-day care for L. during this trip, other than giving her orders on what to do and how to do it. Ms. Smith testified that her sister and brother were alarmed by how Mr. Seyoum treated her, and this led to tension and friction between Mr. Seyoum and her family. Ms. Smith explained that her family would make comments about what they were seeing, and Mr. Seyoum became increasingly isolated toward the end of the trip.
120Ms. Smith testified that when they arrived back in Toronto, Mr. Seyoum wanted to remove them from the family group chat and cut off all contact with her family. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum said she should be loyal to their family and that her family should have no further contact with L. or with them. Mr. Seyoum dictated a message that Ms. Smith was to send to her family members cutting them off from L. Mr. Seyoum also refused to allow Ms. Smith to take L. to visit her family or to allow her family to visit with L. if they came to Toronto.
121Peter Smith, Ms. Smith’s eldest brother, testified that his family had good relations with Ms. Smith up until she got married. He acknowledged that it was difficult for the family members to stay in touch because they were scattered across the country. To help with this problem, the family created a group chat on WhatsApp. Mr. Smith testified that during the month-long trip to New Brunswick in August 2021, he observed that although Ms. Smith was L.’s primary caregiver, Mr. Seyoum gave Ms. Smith instructions as to what she had to do and then criticized her performance. Mr. Smith said that regardless of what Ms. Smith did, it never seemed to be good enough for Mr. Seyoum. Mr. Smith said that Mr. Seyoum demonstrated controlling behaviour towards Ms. Smith, which concerned him.
122Mr. Smith testified that he was surprised to receive the message from Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum cutting them off, especially the suggestion that the family members were a negative influence on L. (who was about one year old at this time). During his cross-examination, Mr. Smith flatly denied disparaging Mr. Seyoum in front of L.
123Mr. Smith testified that he strongly suspected that Mr. Seyoum was behind the message and the decision to cut ties with the family, not Ms. Smith. Mr. Smith said that the family members attempted to repair the relationship to no avail. In 2022, Mr. Smith offered to let Ms. Smith and L. come out to Manitoba for a few weeks after her release from hospital. Mr. Smith testified that he received angry calls from Mr. Seyoum saying that he was undermining their relationship by making this offer. Mr. Smith tried again to smooth things over, but he was not successful.
124Mr. Seyoum testified that he and Ms. Smith together decided to remove themselves from her family’s “interference.” I do not accept his evidence. The evidence is clear that Ms. Smith wanted to keep seeing her family and to keep L. in their lives. Every time she wanted to take L. for a visit with them, it was Mr. Seyoum who refused to permit it.
125During his testimony, Mr. Seyoum criticized Ms. Smith’s family for how they wanted to play with L. in a pool when Mr. Seyoum believed the air temperature was too cold. He also criticized Ms. Smith’s sister’s diaper changing technique. These are undoubtedly normal disagreements among extended family members over parenting techniques. I do not criticize Mr. Seyoum for having his own views on these topics and preferring that things be done his way. However, none of these small issues, taken individually or together, justify cutting Ms. Smith’s family out of L.’s life out of fear of interference. That is not a reasonable response to such minor issues.
126I do not accept Mr. Seyoum’s evidence that Ms. Smith’s family members criticized Mr. Seyoum in front of L. Mr. Seyoum provided no specific examples of any such criticism. I accept Mr. Smith’s evidence that he never did any such thing and never saw any of his family members engage in such conduct.
127I do not accept Mr. Seyoum’s evidence that Ms. Smith’s family became “combative and aggressive” with him. Again, he provided no examples. Certainly, none of the text messages filed during trial demonstrate behaviour of that sort. Mr. Seyoum testified that Ms. Smith’s family “disregarded” L.’s relationship with him and that their “sense of ownership” of L. was greater than his. In my view, Mr. Seyoum has unfairly demonized Ms. Smith’s family. For example, he testified that that he “saw some correlation between efforts from [Ms. Smith’s] family to be involved with L.’s life and her hospitalization at CAMH.” Respectfully, there is no basis in the evidence for Mr. Seyoum’s opinion.
128What Mr. Seyoum described as “setting boundaries” with Ms. Smith’s family was not that at all. Mr. Seyoum cut Ms. Smith’s family out of L.’s life and, to a large extent, Ms. Smith’s life. I find that Mr. Seyoum decided that it was in the family’s best interests to restrict contact with Ms. Smith’s family and to prevent them from having any contact with L. It is clear from the evidence that Ms. Smith wanted to take L. to see her family during the marriage and she resumed such visits as soon as she separated from Mr. Seyoum. Mr. Seyoum did not make the decision to cut Ms. Smith’s family off together with Ms. Smith, but rather he imposed his views on her. There were other examples in the evidence of Mr. Seyoum telling Ms. Smith what she should say to her family members. Mr. Seyoum’s decision had the effect of isolating Ms. Smith and denying her a meaningful source of comfort and support. It also had the effect of depriving L. of all contact with his maternal relatives, which was not in L.’s best interests. I find that Mr. Seyoum took this step as part of a pattern of coercive control over Ms. Smith.
(b) Mr. Seyoum kicked Ms. Smith out of the home and denied her access to L.
129Mr. Seyoum exercised coercive control over Ms. Smith by ordering out of the matrimonial home and denying her access to L. both as a form of punishment and as a method of bending her to his will. I heard evidence about two examples of this conduct: one beginning June 23, 2022; and the second on October 22, 2022.
130Ms. Smith testified that on June 23, 2022, Mr. Seyoum ordered her to leave the matrimonial home during an argument. Ms. Smith testified that she called her friend Ms. Salmon and asked her to come and pick her up. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum told her that she was not permitted to come back to the apartment for a week. Ms. Smith said that Mr. Seyoum told her that he would not “waste the gas” to bring L. out to visit her during this period. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum only relented and allowed her to see L. when L. fell ill and Mr. Seyoum wanted Ms. Smith to care for him.
131Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum had told her that he wanted a divorce. She recalled that he called her repeatedly at Ms. Salmon’s house to yell at her. She testified that she attempted to calm Mr. Seyoum down and to make peace between them. The next day, the parties exchanged a series of text messages that were entered into evidence. All of the text messages sent by Ms. Smith are conciliatory, apologetic, generous, and self-critical. Mr. Seyoum’s messages are angry, mean, threatening, and designed to be hurtful. He told Ms. Smith that he would be fighting for “full custody,” that he would “bleed [her] dry” and warned her that if she tried to “fight for custody and you will never see the end of the legal battle.” Ms. Smith testified that these messages were very typical of the way Mr. Seyoum spoke to her when he was angry.
132Ms. Salmon testified that on June 23, 2022, Ms. Smith called her on speakerphone. Ms. Salmon testified that she could hear Mr. Seyoum on the speakerphone telling Ms. Smith to “get out.” Ms. Salmon testified that Ms. Smith told her that Mr. Seyoum was kicking her out of the house and that she needed to leave. Ms. Salmon testified that she went to pick up Ms. Smith but before she could arrive, Ms. Smith called back to say that Mr. Seyoum threatened to call the police if she did not leave immediately, so Ms. Smith was standing outside the apartment. When Ms. Salmon arrived, Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith were standing outside the apartment. Ms. Smith then went upstairs to grab a few items and got in the car with Ms. Salmon. Ms. Salmon recalled that Mr. Seyoum was distraught and worried about leaving L. with Mr. Seyoum, who was angry.
133Ms. Salmon testified that when they got to her house, Mr. Seyoum would call Ms. Smith on her cellphone. Ms. Salmon said that Mr. Seyoum was yelling so loudly that she could hear his words and that he was swearing at Ms. Smith, who rarely spoke during the call.
134Mr. Seyoum did not directly address this incident during his evidence in chief. During cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the details of the incident. He testified that there were times when he removed himself from the scene to give them a break and sometimes he asked Ms. Smith to “give us a break,” but that he could not speak to those details. He testified that he did not recall asking Ms. Smith to leave for a lengthy period of time, threatening to call the police on her unless she left the apartment, or not permitting Ms. Smith to see L. He testified that he was not interested in separating L. from his mother. Mr. Seyoum testified that he did not recall the text messages sent during that period and said that he had a hard time believing that all of those messages were his.
135I accept the evidence of Ms. Smith and Ms. Salmon over the evidence of Mr. Seyoum. Both Ms. Smith and Ms. Salmon provided detailed recollections of what was undoubtedly an unnerving and upsetting incident. Mr. Seyoum’s vague denials and his failure to recall any of the details of the event even after his memory was refreshed with the text messages were not believable. Ms. Salmon is an independent third party observer to some of the language Mr. Seyoum used, his tone and volume of voice, and that he swore at Ms. Smith. Ms. Salmon’s evidence about Mr. Seyoum’s behaviour is consistent with his own contemporaneous text messages. Mr. Seyoum led no evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of his text messages, and I do not accept his submission that he did not send those messages.
136Mr. Seyoum had no right to tell Ms. Smith to leave the matrimonial home, much less to kick her out for a week. Mr. Seyoum had no right to threaten to call the police if she did not leave her own home. Mr. Seyoum had no right to withhold L. from Ms. Smith when he threw her out of her own home. Mr. Seyoum’s conduct is insidious, dangerous, and threatening. He was exercising coercive control over Ms. Smith by denying her access to her home and L. The fact that Mr. Seyoum behaved this way shortly after Ms. Smith’s discharge from CAMH exacerbated the harm he caused to Ms. Smith.
137The second incident took place on October 22, 2022. The parties intended to drop L. off at Ms. Salmon’s house so that Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith could attend Mr. Dugal’s out-of-town wedding.
138Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum became angry with her because she had increased the spending limit on her credit card by $2,000 without his permission. Ms. Smith testified that the family had to incur a number of urgent expenses, so she purchased the needed items using some of the increased spending limit. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum became very angry with her while they were discussing this situation on the highway drive to Ms. Salmon’s house. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum was yelling at her, speeding, weaving in and out of traffic, breathing heavily, and punching the steering wheel. Ms. Smith recalled that she tried to comfort L., who was crying, by saying “It’s okay,” and Mr. Seyoum kept yelling “It’s not okay.”
139Ms. Smith testified that she texted Ms. Salmon to say that she was in trouble and could she please meet them downstairs at their apartment. Ms. Smith testified that when they arrived at the building, Mr. Seyoum yelled at her to get out of the car, or he would pull her out by her hair. She testified that she got out of the car and Mr. Seyoum threw her suitcase on to the sidewalk, got back into the car, and sped away with L. still in the car. Ms. Smith described Mr. Seyoum as still being angry. Ms. Smith was sufficiently concerned for the safety of L. that she called the police to tell them what happened. The police came to speak to her at Ms. Salmon’s house. Once the police confirmed that they had spoken to Mr. Seyoum and that he and L. were home safe, she did not pursue the matter with the police, and she stayed with her friend for a day or so to let things cool down.
140Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum was very angry with her for calling the police. Her testimony is confirmed by contemporaneous email messages exchanged by the parties starting on October 22, 2022, at 6:18 p.m.:
Mr. Seyoum: Please call me. Hey you call the cops?
Ms. Smith: I was afraid for [L.]
Mr. Seyoum: You can stay there
Ms. Smith I’m worried about [L.]. When can I see him?
Mr. Seyoum: What phone did you call me from. You can’t seem to keep bringing us trouble huh?
Ms. Smith I can speak with my headphones
Mr. Seyoum: You can’t stop bringing us trouble I mean. Did you call from Courtney’s phone?
Ms. Smith: No, my phone
Mr. Seyoum: It said no caller id
Ms. Smith: When I called you? I’m not sure why
Mr. Seyoum: Do you have the house keys?
Ms. Smith: I don’t think so. You didn’t give them to me after going upstairs
Mr. Seyoum: I have them
Ms. Smith: When can I see [L.]
Mr. Seyoum: So you called the cops on me and told them that you’re worried about his wellbeing? How much more will you escalate things?
Ms. Smith: You were driving very erratically and were really upset. What if you got into an accident?
Mr. Seyoum: Wow. There’s nothing left here. You’re going to turn even the law on me huh?
141Ms. Salmon testified that she and her husband were going to take care of L. while his parents went to an out of town wedding. She recalled Ms. Smith texting her, saying she needed help, and asking them to meet her outside the building. She went down to meet them and saw the car drive up. She saw Mr. Seyoum open the door to the backseat of the car and he screamed at Ms. Smith to get out of the car. Ms. Salmon observed L. to be crying. Ms. Salmon testified that Ms. Smith got out of the car and appeared to be shaken. Ms. Salmon recalled that Mr. Seyoum pulled Ms. Smith’s overnight bag out of the car and threw it on the ground. During cross-examination, Ms. Salmon denied the suggestion that Mr. Seyoum just pulled the bag out of the car and put it down.
142Ms. Salmon described Mr. Seyoum as being “in a rage” and that he did not respond to her husband’s greeting to him. Ms. Salmon testified that Mr. Seyoum then got back into the care and “sped off”, going from a stop to about 50 km/h very quickly.
143Ms. Salmon testified that she took a crying and shaking Ms. Smith into her home and told her, “you call the police, or we will.” She recalled that Ms. Smith called the police and several officers came to their house. She testified that Ms. Smith spent the night and they drove Ms. Smith home the next day.
144Mr. Seyoum testified about the events of October 22, 2022. He denied being angry or driving aggressively. He said he was concerned that the family was going into more debt and he “had to process” that. He said he needed some time to think about that, so he left Ms. Smith at Ms. Salmon’s house. He denied ordering Ms. Smith out of the car or threatening to drag her out of the car by her hair. He accepted that he drove away with L. in the car but denied that he drove away quickly. When asked if, after he drove away, he kept L. and did not allow Ms. Smith to be with him, he responded “not true.” He agreed that he “was not happy” with Ms. Smith for calling the police and spoke to her about it. When he was pressed about whether he texted to Ms. Smith that she could “stay there,” he said he did not know. He explained that Ms. Smith was trying to provoke conflict and that he was avoiding escalation by keeping them apart.
145I accept the evidence of Ms. Smith and Ms. Salmon and do not accept the evidence of Mr. Seyoum. Ms. Salmon is an independent witness. I do not think her friendship with Ms. Smith caused her to lie or exaggerate. Her recollection is detailed and precise.
146Mr. Seyoum’s denials are not believable. First, his contemporaneous text messages give a much better sense of his true feelings at the time than did his in-court recollections. In my view, Mr. Seyoum’s testimony significantly understated his level of anger at Ms. Smith calling the police about him. Second, his suggestion that Ms. Smith was trying to “provoke a reaction” from him is, again, completely inconsistent with his own text messages. This is not the only time Mr. Seyoum attempted to discredit the evidence of a witness by stating that they were trying to provoke a reaction from him.
147I find that Mr. Seyoum was angry and speeding aggressively on October 22, 2023. This put all three family members, including L., at risk of serious bodily harm or death. I find that Mr. Seyoum yelled at Ms. Smith in the car, which scared L. and caused him to cry. I find that Mr. Seyoum ordered Ms. Smith out of the car and threatened to pull her out of the car by her hair if she did not comply with his demands. I find that he threw her bag on the ground and sped away with L. in the car. This is another example of Mr. Seyoum kicking Ms. Smith out of the house without any right to do so and denying her access to L.
148While it is perfectly understandable that Mr. Seyoum was stressed out by their family’s precarious financial situation, his response was entirely unacceptable. It was violent, threatening and exposed Ms. Smith and L. to serious harm. It arose out of a dispute over family finances and is another example of Mr. Seyoum engaging in coercive and controlling conduct.
(c) Mr. Seyoum humiliated, belittled, and psychologically abused Ms. Smith
149Mr. Seyoum exercised coercive control over Ms. Smith by humiliating, belittling, and psychologically abusing Ms. Smith in myriad ways and over many years. I will provide only a few of the troubling examples.
150In 2017, Ms. Smith obtained a promotion to work as the executive assistant to Stefan Danis, the CEO of Mandrake, a recruiting company. Ms. Smith was very proud of earning this new role. On January 24, 2017, which was within days of Ms. Smith starting in her new role, Mr. Seyoum sent the following email to Ms. Smith’s new boss:
Dear Stefan,
This is Eyasu Seyoum, Jill Smith's husband.
I have not had the pleasure of meeting you in person yet, but Jill and I are both excited for the opportunity that is before her at Mandrake. For her to work directly with someone as experienced and as talented as yourself.
I can see Jill being an essential contributor to the success of your future projects, but I feel it necessary to write you about our expectations.
Jill is a self-motivated and ethical strategic planner/organizer. This is the root of her success. Chaos, poor communication and last minute panicked scrambles are work situations neither Jill or I wish to be constantly exposed to.
Hard work is in our DNA, and Jill and I believe flexibility, and making yourself available when necessary is essential for success. It is a fact however that constant excessive hours reduce productivity and stagnate creativity and sharpness. We strive for quality over quantity, and more results, not just showing more hours for mediocre results. So we feel a work-life balance is part of the recipe for greater success, and reduced stress.
If you want to utilize Jill's full potential I suggest giving her every opportunity to plan ahead and prepare for possible future eventualities. Thus allowing her to better predict and deliver on your work related needs often before even you realize them. At the end of the day this job has to work for Jill, and when it fails to do so I will encourage her to find another job that will.
I hope you too will see and harness the valuable skills Jill brings to her work. I wish you great success in 2017!
151Ms. Smith testified that the first time she saw this email was when Mr. Danis showed it to her. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Danis was very upset to receive this message and that she had to scramble to smooth things over with him. Ms. Smith testified that she was mortified when Mr. Danis showed the message to her and that she felt that Mr. Seyoum had overstepped and crossed boundaries. She testified that when she spoke to Mr. Seyoum and told him he crossed a boundary, he replied that it was appropriate to send the message and that he had set the tone for Mr. Danis about how he would treat her.
152In cross-examination, Ms. Smith denied the suggestion that she saw a draft of the email before it was sent. She testified that she recalled discussing with Mr. Seyoum concerns about her workplace but adamantly denied that she ever asked Mr. Seyoum to address those issues or to send the email.
153Mr. Seyoum testified that Ms. Smith often came to him with help for work challenges, that they discussed those issues, and he supported her in any way that she could. He offered no apology for sending the message.
154I accept Ms. Smith’s evidence on this issue. Viewed objectively, the content of Mr. Seyoum’s message to Ms. Smith’s new boss was incredibly ill-advised. I accept Ms. Smith’s evidence that she was mortified when Mr. Danis showed the email to her. Ms. Smith’s reaction makes sense. I accept Ms. Smith’s evidence that she never saw a draft of the email. Mr. Seyoum provided no documentary evidence to suggest that he shared a draft of the email with Ms. Smith before he sent or that he copied her on that message at the time he sent it. A reasonable person would have objected strenuously to the content and tone of the email Mr. Seyoum sent to Mr. Danis.
155By sending this message to Ms. Smith’s new boss without her knowledge or consent, Mr. Seyoum was directly and dramatically interfering with Ms. Smith’s relationship with her employer. Mr. Seyoum threatened her employment relationship and showed Ms. Smith that his views of how her employment relationship should function were more important than her own. I do not accept that this message could be sent by a misguided spouse in a good-faith effort to be supportive. The text of the message does not permit such a benign interpretation. By sending this message, Mr. Seyoum clearly signalled to Ms. Smith that he held the power over her employment, that he would decide for her what working conditions were appropriate, and that he felt free to express his views, even if that included threatening her boss and her job security. This episode is extremely troubling. It sheds real light on how Mr. Seyoum viewed Ms. Smith as early as 2017 and how much control he was prepared to exercise over her and her economic future.
156Although Mr. Seyoum denied it, I find that Mr. Seyoum routinely embarrassed, belittled, and abused Ms. Smith psychologically. Each of Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Salmon, Ms. Nixon, and Mr. Smith testified that they observed Mr. Seyoum behave in one or more of the following ways. The witnesses testified they saw Mr. Seyoum:
a. speak to Ms. Smith in a raised voice and with a harsh tone;
b. behave toward Ms. Smith in ways that were domineering, disrespectful, and abusive;
c. criticize and disparage Ms. Smith’s actions and make her feel bad about the good things she was doing for L., Mr. Seyoum, and others;
d. give Ms. Smith directions on what clothes she could and could not wear and make her change her clothes if he did not like what she was wearing;
e. tell Ms. Smith to “shut up, I’m talking, don’t interrupt”;
f. swear at Ms. Smith; and
g. be generally controlling of Ms. Smith.
157Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum would frequently lecture her about her supposed shortcomings and what she needed to do to improve herself. She testified that Mr. Seyoum would tell her to write down what he was saying so that she would remember it and he would not have to repeat himself. Ms. Smith testified that on July 21, 2022, she made one such note of what Mr. Seyoum said to her about herself:
I’ve neglected our marriage for 15 years. I don’t know what it is to be a wife. I’ve not defined myself as a person. What sort of person do I want to be. What do I stand for. What are my values.
158Ms. Smith denied Mr. Seyoum’s suggestion in cross-examination that these were her thoughts about herself. Ms. Smith emphasized that this was part of daily interactions with Mr. Seyoum where he spoke to her about her shortcomings and told her to write them down so she could remember them. She explained that while there were things she wishes she had done differently, she does not believe that she neglected their marriage.
159During cross-examination, Mr. Seyoum took Ms. Smith to another of the notes in her phone, dated April 29, 2023, which read as follows:
Eyasu wants me to help him find a job so he can get financially stable enough to leave me. He can't stand living with me any more. He's worse off for having met me. I am in a much better place than him because he's supported me for so many years and I haven't supported him because I only think about myself. He stays up half the night because he can't stand being around me and he avoids me during the day. When he met me nobody wanted to be around me because I'm so miserable. Now he's miserable being around me. He's constantly cleaning up after me and he's not been able to find work or pass his classes because I've set so many fires that he's been overwhelmed and distracted and because I don't support him. We are in the financial situation we're in because of my mismanagement of our money. I am going to be all alone with no support. He wants me to stop seeing my therapist because she only sees my perspective of our situation and she's not being objective. Instead she takes my side assumes the fault lies with Eyasu. This has been damaging to our marriage. So if I want to stay with Eyasu, I have to find a new therapist.
160Mr. Seyoum suggested to Ms. Smith that these were her own words. Ms. Smith flatly denied this suggestion and testified that this was her log of their conversation, and it was verbatim what Mr. Seyoum said to her on that day.
161Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum would swear at her and call her a “fucking bitch”, “a monster” and “abusive”. This happened in front of L. and happened so frequently that L. started to use the word “fucking” as an adjective when speaking with his friends. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum got more aggressive and volatile over time. He started speaking rudely to her even in public; so rudely that people began to call him out and tell him his behaviour was inappropriate.
162Ms. Smith testified that there were two versions of Mr. Seyoum. One version was wonderful and was the man with whom she had many good times. The other version of Mr. Seyoum was an angry man who exercised no self-control, did not measure his words, and threatened Ms. Smith. For example, on December 11, 2023, about a week before Ms. Smith left the matrimonial home, Ms. Smith texted Mr. Seyoum when she noticed that their chequing account was low on money. Her text prompted the following exchange:
Ms. Smith: There's $2 left in the account
Mr. Seyoum: Okay?
What do you want from me?
You really really need to think about the message you're sending out and how that affects your relationships with those you're interacting with.
I'm at work fucking covered in dust and dirt. I fucking get to fellow feeling, instead you interrupt my work to send me this shit
Now well wishes, not appreciation, just this.
I'm not in school, I'm just a fucking atm
Working in a hazardous environment to make sure you get your money and you're going to hound me to my grave.
No fucking break, no kindness, no support, no keeping the place clean unless there's trouble or someone visiting. No putting yourself in anyone else's shoes and thinking about how what you say and do affects their lives. Just aggression, and demands.
Can you please clean the litter box for me?
Nothing! Are you sure you want to leave things this way?
163Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum’s abuse caused an increase in her stress levels and social anxiety and an overall decrease in her mental health. Mr. Seyoum also belittled Ms. Smith and her work with her therapist. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Seyoum overheard one of her treatment sessions on July 13, 2022. Mr. Seyoum then sent her the following text messages:
Do you think you can stop being so dramatic with your psychiatrist? You need to stop playing the victim in front of her too.
Start showing her and all of us that you are taking charge, and helping yourself. Convince us that you can believe in yourself.
Yes?
164Ms. Smith testified that in April 2023, Mr. Seyoum told her that he did not think it was healthy for Ms. Smith to be treated by her therapist and that she needed to end her seven-year relationship with her treating therapist for the marriage to continue. Ms. Smith found this to be an anxiety-inducing demand, in what was already a very challenging time for her.
165Mr. Seyoum testified that he was always supportive of Ms. Smith and that he was a caregiver to her. He testified that he did not frequently criticize Ms. Smith and that he did not recall criticizing her in front of others. He admitted that he did tell Ms. Smith she was the one who was abusive to him.
166I do not accept Mr. Seyoum’s evidence. His evidence that he was always supportive of Ms. Smith is plainly contradicted by his own text messages to her, which I find to be abusive, demeaning, and belittling. His evidence that he was a caregiver to her is contradicted by his texts attempting to interfere with Ms. Smith’s relationship with her therapist. Mr. Seyoum’s evidence that he did not frequently criticize Ms. Smith is contradicted by his text messages and, in particular, by Ms. Smith’s contemporaneous notes of what he said to her.
167Mr. Dugal and Mr. Thornhill each testified that they did not observe Mr. Seyoum act inappropriately or mistreat Ms. Smith in any way. Mr. Dugal described Mr. Seyoum as a supportive and loving husband and a person who was very calm.
168I accept that Mr. Dugal and Mr. Thornhill gave their honest evidence about their observations of the interactions between Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith. However, Mr. Seyoum’s text messages and Ms. Smith’s contemporaneous notes satisfy me that they did not observe all of the complexities in the marriage. Ms. Smith admitted that Mr. Seyoum was sometimes a kind and generous person, which is consistent with the evidence of Mr. Dugal and Mr. Thornhill. The fact that they did not observe Mr. Seyoum behave in an inappropriate manner does not undermine the mountain of evidence that Mr. Seyoum was an abusive, controlling spouse.
169I accept the evidence of Ms. Smith, Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Salmon, Ms. Nixon, and Mr. Smith. The evidence of these witnesses tells a consistent and coherent story. Their evidence is consistent with, and not contradicted by, Mr. Seyoum’s own text messages to Ms. Smith. I find that Mr. Seyoum frequently humiliated, berated, and psychologically abused Ms. Smith. I have no doubt that this abuse put additional pressure on Ms. Smith and contributed to the deterioration of her mental health.
3. Mr. Seyoum has taken no steps to prevent further family violence from occurring
170In considering the impact of family violence, I am to take into account any steps taken Mr. Seyoum to prevent further family violence from occurring and to improve his ability to care for and meet the needs of the child.37 In my view, Mr. Seyoum has taken no meaningful steps to prevent further violence.
171Although Mr. Seyoum has taken an anger management course, Ms. Smith points out that he was completing that course at the time he assaulted his mother. I conclude that Mr. Seyoum did not learn anything from the course.
172I acknowledge that since August 2025, Mr. Seyoum has had therapy sessions with Ms. Edwards, a registered psychotherapist in the qualifying range. They have had 18, 50-minute Zoom sessions since that time. Ms. Edwards testified that she was providing ongoing therapeutic support to Mr. Seyoum through his criminal and family law proceedings. The stated treatment goals “remain focused on stress management, maintaining relationship with son, and supporting client through legal proceedings while preserving psychological well-being.” Consistent with her scope of practice, Ms. Edwads did not perform any psychiatric, psychological, or diagnostic assessments of Mr. Seyoum.
173Ms. Edwards testified that she saw her role to be to provide support to Mr. Seyoum as he navigated his court proceedings. As she put it, “my job is to support him.” She did not attempt to verify anything Mr. Seyoum told her and did not obtain information from any source other than Mr. Seyoum. This is a profound limitation in Ms. Edwards’ work with Mr. Seyoum. For example, while Ms. Edwards stated that Mr. Seyoum had demonstrated “insight and a willingness to reflect on his experiences and responses,” there is no evidence that Mr. Seyoum disclosed any of the incidents of violence or coercive or controlling behaviour to Ms. Edwards. Indeed, although she received a copy of the OCL report, she did not read it. Had she read it, she would have known about some of the very serious allegations of violence made against Mr. Seyoum. She might then have been in a better position to assess whether or not Mr. Seyoum was demonstrating insight or being candid with her.
174While Ms. Edwards may have assisted Mr. Seyoum to self-regulate between court dates, I am not satisfied that, to date, Mr. Seyoum has obtained any therapy that would prevent further family violence from occurring. He has not done the hard work or self-reflection that is a necessary first step to satisfy me that he is less likely to engage in the type of violence described above.
4. Conclusion
175I find that Mr. Seyoum has engaged in serious family violence, over an extended period of time. The family violence took many forms. He physically assaulted both Ms. Smith and L. Mr. Seyoum acted in anger toward L. and engaged in a range of unacceptable disciplinary conduct. Mr. Seyoum assaulted his own mother and did so in the presence of L. during a supervised overnight parenting visit. Mr. Seyoum compromised the safety and indeed put the lives of Ms. Smith and L. at risk by driving dangerously. Mr. Seyoum engaged in pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour towards Ms. Smith over the course of their relationship.
176Mr. Seyoum’s history of family violence has demonstrated that he has little to no ability to care for and meet the needs of L.
D. The care of the child
177In assessing the best interests of L., I am to consider the history of care of the child, any plans for the child’s care, and the ability and willingness of Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum to care for and meet the needs of the child.38
178There is no dispute that Ms. Smith has been the sole caregiver for L. since she left the matrimonial home in December 2023. Since that time, Mr. Seyoum has only exercised limited supervised parenting time. Prior to that, I accept Ms. Smith’s evidence that she was the primary caregiver for L., except for immediately after the birth of L., when she was recovering from the Caesarean section and when she was hospitalized for ten days. I accept that Mr. Seyoum was very involved in the care of L. from his birth in October 2020 until January 2021, when he started taking remote classes at York University. The parties continued to share daycare pickup and drop-off. Ms. Smith testified about L.’s daily routine and her involvement in that routine.
179I accept the evidence of Ms. Rodriguez, who testified that Ms. Smith was the primary caregiver for L. Ms. Rodriguez testified that Ms. Smith was always attentive to L.’s needs and would always have snacks, toys, and other things for L. packed in the stroller. In contrast, Ms. Rodriguez testified that when Mr. Seyoum was caring for L., he was frequently distracted by and using his phone, particularly if there was a parent of another child present on whom Mr. Seyoum would rely to keep an eye on L. Ms. Rodriguez rejected Mr. Seyoum’s suggestion in cross-examination that he would only be on his phone for a brief moment. Ms. Rodriguez felt that Mr. Seyoum was inattentive to L., which was particularly problematic given L.’s high level of energy and behaviour. Ms. Rodriguez testified that Mr. Seyoum needed to prioritize taking care of L. over looking at his phone.
180Ms. Rodriguez testified that when both Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum were present, Mr. Seyoum would give orders to Ms. Smith to take care of L.’s needs (for example, to change his diaper or to feed him dinner), but that Mr. Seyoum himself did not do much of the caregiving. Ms. Salmon and Mr. Smith gave very similar evidence based on their observations. I prefer their evidence to that of Mr. Dugal and Mr. Thornhill, who had far fewer opportunities to observe the provision of care to L.
181I accept the evidence of Ms. Salmon that in May 2022, during Ms. Smith’s in-patient stay at CAMH, Mr. Seyoum brought L. to her house for a weekend. Ms. Salmon testified that during that weekend, she and her husband took care of L. because Mr. Seyoum needed to sleep. I do not fault Mr. Seyoum for needing some respite care while he was solo parenting during Ms. Smith’s hospitalization. What is more troubling is Ms. Salmon’s evidence that Mr. Seyoum expressed his annoyance that Ms. Smith was hospitalized and said that Ms. Smith was trying to take a holiday away from her responsibilities at home. This evidence is consistent with the evidence of Ms. Nixon. She testified that she called Mr. Seyoum to express her concerns about Ms. Smith’s hospitalization, and he was dismissive of her concerns. The witnesses’ evidence left me with the strong impression that Mr. Seyoum saw himself as the real victim in Ms. Smith’s hospitalization, which causes me to doubt that Mr. Seyoum is well-situated to care for L.
182I find that Ms. Smith has a much better plan for caring for L. than does Mr. Seyoum.
183Ms. Smith currently lives with L. in a one-bedroom condominium. She is employed full-time. Ms. Smith has been very involved with L.’s school to work out a plan to help L. with his emotional regulation and to develop an IEP to help him succeed academically. L. has shown significant progress at school, where he is recognizing his triggers, expressing his needs, and starting to demonstrate leadership traits. Ms. Smith indicated her intention to remain involved in the school to support L.
184Ms. Smith has also identified therapists to support L. and help him control his emotions. She has also worked with L.’s pediatrician to get L. a referral so that he can obtain treatment for his mental health. Ms. Smith testified that L. has received a diagnosis of ADHD and is being assessed for high functioning autism.
185In his own evidence, and in cross-examination of Ms. Smith, Mr. Seyoum made much of Ms. Smith’s anxiety, depression, post-partum depression, and hospitalization. I accept Ms. Smith’s evidence that she struggled with post-partum depression, which exacerbated some of her longstanding issues with anxiety and depression. I accept that Ms. Smith attended an emergency room over her mental health concerns once or twice before L. was born. I also accept that after she returned to work in October 2021, she became increasingly anxious and suffered panic attacks. In April 2022, she started a new job at Sun Life, which she found very stressful. This culminated in her ten-day in-patient stay at CAMH in May 2022. Ms. Smith testified that during this stay, doctors identified that one of her medications was exacerbating her anxiety. Ms. Smith took a medical leave from June to September 2022, followed by a gradual return until she was back full-time in October. Ms. Smith testified that once her medications were adjusted, she started to feel better. Ms. Smith explained that by October 2022, she was feeling much better. Her medication was in balance and helping her, she was seeing her psychiatrist weekly and felt better than she had in years. The witnesses who testified on her behalf echoed her views.
186If Mr. Seyoum was suggesting that people with mental health challenges cannot be fit parents, I firmly reject that suggestion. If Mr. Seyoum was suggesting that Ms. Smith is not capable of caring for L. given her mental health, the evidence is to the contrary.
187Mr. Seyoum shares a bungalow with another family (two adults and their newborn baby). He has one bedroom within the house, and he there are two shared bathrooms and kitchens in the house. Mr. Seyoum testified that L. would stay with him in the bungalow on weekends or L. could be with him in the house only during the day until he obtained his own place. Mr. Seyoum is not currently employed but he is working in his own business doing painting. He is not currently looking for full-time work, even though he earned more money at his final place of employment than he is earning out on his own. Mr. Seyoum provided no other evidence of a parenting plan for L.
188I find that Ms. Smith has been primarily responsible for the care of L. for almost all of his life, including for the past 2.5 years. I find that Ms. Smith has a far more developed plan for the care of L. than does Mr. Seyoum. Ms. Smith has thought about how to foster L.’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. She has engaged with the professionals necessary to support L.’s development and is dedicated to L.’s growth and fulfilment.
189In contrast, Mr. Seyoum did not describe any coherent or detailed plan of care for L. Mr. Seyoum’s current housing situation seems somewhat precarious, but that alone would not be a barrier to increased involvement in L.’s life.
E. Relationships between the child, each spouse, and other family members
190In assessing the best interests of L., I am to consider the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse and grandparents, as well as the willingness of each spouse to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse.39
191During the marriage, as set out above in paragraphs [119] to [128], Mr. Seyoum did not support a healthy relationship between L. and Ms. Smith’s family members. Mr. Seyoum is also estranged from his own extended family. I do not think Mr. Seyoum is likely to foster positive relationships between L. and his extended family members.
192I am satisfied that L. loves both his parents and enjoys spending time with each of them. He has obviously spent more in-person time with Ms. Smith since the separation, and I would be reluctant to disrupt that bit of stability in L.’s life.
193On balance, in the circumstances of this case, I see this factor as far less important than the other factors at issue.
F. Communication and cooperation
194In assessing the best interests of L., I am to consider the ability and willingness of Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum to communicate and cooperate with one another on matters affecting L.
195I rely on my findings in paragraphs [149] to [169] regarding Mr. Seyoum’s history of belittling, abusing, and humiliating Ms. Smith through his communications with her. I also note Mr. Seyoum’s failure to tell Ms. Smith about the incident of family violence that took place in front of L. on April 5, 2024, during the overnight supervised visitation.
196The parties have been communicating through Our Family Wizard since around November 18, 2024. Over 1,000 of OFW messages between Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith were marked as an exhibit at trial.
197Mr. Seyoum pointed to a number of messages that indicated that L. did not want to join the video call with him at a particular time and other messages that suggested rescheduling the calls. I do not see anything inappropriate in those messages. It is unsurprising that from time to time the parties needed to reschedule a call because one or the other was not available at the planned time. Similarly, it is not surprising that occasionally L., who was very young at the time, did not want to get on a video call from time-to-time. I do not see anything in the messages or the testimony of the parties to persuade me that Ms. Smith was undermining the video contact between L. and Mr. Seyoum. I accept her evidence that L.’s behavioural challenges sometimes created a “complicated dynamic.”
198While many of the messages are unremarkable, there are several instances of Mr. Seyoum taking unnecessarily adversarial positions with Ms. Smith. On one occasion, L. was hospitalized for five days with an acute onset illness. Ms. Smith took L. to the hospital and notified Mr. Seyoum promptly about the incident, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment for L. The parties exchanged many messages around this difficult situation. On December 1, 2024, Mr. Seyoum sent a message to Ms. Smith that included the following passage:
As [L.’s] father and joint guardian, I share responsibility for his care and decision-making. It is important to me-and in [L.’s] best interest-that I am kept fully informed of his treatment and that hospital staff recognize my right to receive updates directly and to participate in decisions regarding his care. I would appreciate it if we could ensure the hospital is made aware of this.
199Mr. Seyoum’s message did not accurately reflect the allocation of decision-making responsibility between Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum that Des Rosiers J. put in place in her order dated June 22, 2024. That order provided that:
[Ms. Smith] shall have day-to-day decision-making authority for the child [L.]. In a health emergency, [Ms. Smith] shall have the authority to make decisions as health professionals recommend. She must inform [Mr. Seyoum] as soon as possible.
200Mr. Seyoum testified that he was L.’s father and he believed he had joint decision-making responsibility with Ms. Smith because they had made joint decisions before they separated and there was no final order. Mr. Seyoum is not correct.
201Having reviewed the correspondence relating to this incident, I am satisfied that Ms. Smith was doing her best to keep Mr. Seyoum informed as to what was going on during a very stressful time. Ms. Smith testified that things at the hospital were moving very quickly, and doctors needed speedy responses to treatment recommendations so that they could address L.’s health situation. In my view, Ms. Smith kept Mr. Seyoum as informed as reasonably practicable. Mr. Seyoum’s communications to Ms. Smith did not fairly reflect the stress and seriousness of the situation. Instead, he was often positional and seemed unduly focussed on his desire for input, control, and visits with L., rather than on L.’s best interests during a health emergency.
202I also find that Mr. Seyoum has not cooperated with Ms. Smith with respect to the on-site supervised parenting visits. After the order of Des Rosiers J., dated June 22, 2024, the parties got on the waiting list to obtain a time slot for supervised parenting time at SEC Peel Region. In the meantime, they obtained a spot at the Aurora site for parenting time on one or two Fridays a month.
203In June or July 2025, SEC Peel offered the parties a spot on Sundays, between 2:30 and 4:00 at the Mississauga Peel location. Mr. Seyoum declined this spot and stated that he preferred to continue at the SEC Aurora location. Mr. Seyoum made this decision despite the fact that the Mississauga site was 15 minutes away from the home of Ms. Smith and L. and was also significantly closer to his home, whereas the Aurora site was 90 minutes away.
204Ms. Smith spoke to the director at Mississauga and asked the director to give her more time to try and persuade Mr. Seyoum to agree. Ms. Smith testified that the director agreed but warned her that both parents had to agree in order for Mississauga to accept the placement and that there were other parents on the waiting list. On July 16, 2025, counsel for Ms. Smith wrote to Mr. Seyoum to ask him to reconsider his position. Counsel reminded Mr. Seyoum that the order of Des Rosiers J. contemplated that the parenting time would take place in Mississauga as soon as a space opened up. Counsel also explained to Mr. Seyoum why moving supervised parenting time from Aurora to Mississauga was in the best interests of L.:
The SEC Peel Time Slot is in [L.’s] best interests as:
Travelling to the Aurora SEC location for the current Friday evening parenting time slot takes 1 to 1.5 hours each way during the rush hour (2 to 3 hours combined travel time) for [L.] and my client.
Travelling to the Mississauga location would only take about 15 mins (1/2 hour combined travel time); Travelling to the Aurora SEC location on Friday evenings means that [L.] falls asleep by 9:30-10 p.m., well past his usual bedtime; Currently for the Friday evening visits at the Aurora SEC location, my client has to leave work early and take the 407 during rush hour which costs her $75.00/month. There is no such 407 costs with the Mississauga location;
I understand that you may currently be living in Hamilton. The Mississauga SEC location is closer to you than the Aurora one.
The current Friday Aurora SEC location arrangements is unsustainable long term and is unnecessary given that the Mississauga location is now available.
205Mr. Seyoum did not agree to this request. In his testimony, he acknowledged that Des Rosiers J. ordered that the parenting time was to take place in Mississauga, and that he did not agree to the request to accept the Mississauga placement. Mr. Seyoum explained that he believed that L. was comfortable at the Aurora location and that moving parenting time to Mississauga would be disruptive for L. Mr. Seyoum downplayed the extra distance to Aurora, noting that he lived further than Ms. Smith from the Aurora site.
206In its report, the OCL described Mr. Seyoum’s decision as “unfortunate” and noted that Mr. Seyoum did not appear to consider the impact of the car travel on L.:
It is unfortunate that Mr. Seyoum declined a recent offer to move to the Mississauga branch of Social Enterprise of Canada, citing a preference for the Aurora office. Ms. Smith has shared that it takes 1- 1.5 hours each way to get to the Aurora centre and that [L.] has to stay up 90 minutes past his bedtime for these visits. While Mr. Seyoum’s reasoning appears to be child centred, he did not take Ms. Smith's views into account nor did he appear consider the impact of the long car journeys on [L.], when he rejected the transfer. It is recommended that all efforts be made to secure the supervised access spot at the Mississauga branch of Social Enterprise of Canada, as this is only a fifteen minute car ride for [L.].
207I agree with the opinion expressed by the OCL. While Mr. Seyoum clothes his refusal to move to Mississauga in child-centred principles, I do not accept that he is acting in a child-centred way. A parent who was truly committed to the best interests of the child would see that saving 2.5 hours of travel time for each visit was worth a brief disruption as L. adjusted to the new location. Instead, I conclude that Mr. Seyoum’s true motive is to inconvenience Ms. Smith as much as possible, even if it causes himself to be deeply inconvenienced. I find that not only is Mr. Seyoum not weighing the impact of the long car journey on L., that consideration is irrelevant to him as long as he can force Ms. Smith to leave work early, incur additional expenses, and suffer the inconvenience of 3 hours of travel time. I find that Mr. Seyoum is not cooperating with Ms. Smith to ensure that the supervised parenting time can take place in a manner that is in L.’s best interests. Rather, he is continuing to try and exercise control over Ms. Smith by making the exercise of his supervised parenting time as onerous as possible.
208In conclusion, I find that Mr. Seyoum is not a good communicator and has failed to cooperate with Ms. Smith to promote L.’s best interests.
G. Religious upbringing
209In assessing the best interests of the L., I am to consider the child’s religious and spiritual upbringing.40
210Ms. Smith is a practising member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith. Mr. Seyoum was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith but left the church in 2022.
211Ms. Smith intends to raise L. as part of her faith community. Ms. Smith has observed that during Mr. Seyoum’s video parenting time with L., Mr. Seyoum has attempted to introduce shows to L. that are not consistent with the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ faith. For example, shows that address themes of Hallowe’en, heaven, or hell.
212Mr. Seyoum takes the position that Ms. Smith does not get to determine what is being watched during his parenting time. I am concerned that Mr. Seyoum has a level of hostility toward the Jehovah’s Witnesses. For example, on February 10, 2025, he sent an email to counsel for Ms. Smith that included the following:
Furthermore, I will be consulting with another law firm regarding a potential lawsuit against the Jehovah's Witness organization for defamation and false allegations of violence. This lawsuit may include the involvement of Circuit Overseer Daniel Smith, Elder Courtney Salmon, and publishers such as Leila Min, along with other individuals whose only commonality is their affiliation with the organization. The multi-provincial effort to separate me from my son appears to be a coordinated attempt to forcibly raise [L.] as a Jehovah's Witness, overriding my parental rights. [Emphasis in original.]
213I am concerned about Mr. Seyoum’s focus on his “parental rights” instead of L.’s best interests. I am also concerned about Mr. Seyoum’s apparent hostility to L. being raised in the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith. Mr. Seyoum’s posture causes me to doubt that he will foster L.’s involvement in his mother’s religion. The evidence before me does not suggest that the parents will be able to agree on matters of religion for L.
H. Conclusions
214As noted above, the parties have very different proposals on what is in the best interests of the children on the issues of primary residence, parenting time, and decision-making.
215In making my parenting order, my sole focus is on the best interests of L.41 The best interests of the child is the only proper consideration in determining the residence, decision-making responsibility, and parenting time for L.42 Parliament has directed that my primary consideration must be L.’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well being.43
1. Decision-making
216Pursuant to s. 16.3 of the Divorce Act, the court has a wide discretion to craft a framework for decision-making that supports and promotes the best interest of the child. The court may:
a. grant sole decision-making responsibility in all areas to one spouse;
b. grant joint decision-making responsibility in all areas to both spouses;
c. grant joint decision-making responsibility to both spouses in one or more areas of responsibility but give sole decision-making authority in the other areas to one spouse or allocate those other areas of decision-making between the spouses;
d. allocate each party sole decision-making responsibility in separate specified areas, with no provision for joint decision-making in any areas; and
e. require the parties to engage in all reasonable efforts and take all reasonable steps to make some or all significant decisions jointly, but to designate which party has final say in each area of decision-making in the event of disagreement.44
217Justice Chappel has helpfully summarized the legal principles to be considered when determining what type of decision-making order is in the best interests of the children.45 I have considered all of these principles, but I will address only the ones most relevant to this case.
218I carefully considered ordering that the parties share joint decision-making responsibility for L. There are many benefits to having the parents share decision-making responsibility for their children.46 However, as Kraft J. explained, before a court can make an order for shared decision-making, there must be evidence that the parties are able to communicate effectively with one another despite their differences.47 In my view, this is not an appropriate case to order joint decision-making responsibility. I order that Ms. Smith have sole decision-making responsibility in all areas for five reasons.
219First, for the reasons set out above in paragraphs [114] to [169], the parties’ ability to cooperate and communicate about issues related to L. is not sufficiently functional to support an order for joint decision-making.48 This is not a case where Ms. Smith has created conflict and problems with Mr. Seyoum to justify a claim for sole decision-making responsibility.49 The fault for this situation lies almost entirely with Mr. Seyoum and this factor supports an order granting sole decision-making responsibility to Ms. Smith. Ordering joint decision-making in these circumstances would cause more conflict between Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith, which is not in L.’s best interests.
220Second, Mr. Seyoum’s history of engaging in family violence, described above in paragraphs [69] to [113], demonstrates that he is not able or willing to meet the needs of the child. Just as importantly, Mr. Seyoum’s history of coercive and controlling conduct towards Ms. Smith demonstrate that it would not be appropriate to require them to cooperate on issues affecting the child. I have no doubt that if Mr. Seyoum had any decision-making responsibility for L., or if he was entitled to be consulted, he would use that responsibility to continue his coercive and controlling conduct toward Ms. Smith, which would not be in L.’s best interests.
221Third, Ms. Smith has a demonstrated track record of caring for L., attending to his physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. She has proved able and willing to care for L. and to meet his needs. In contrast, Mr. Seyoum has not proved himself capable of caring for L. or meeting his needs. Indeed, I am not certain that Mr. Seyoum has the ability to place L.’s needs before his own.
222Fourth, for the reasons set out in paragraphs [209] to [213], I do not believe that the parties will be able to agree on matters related to L.’s religious faith. In my view, it is appropriate that Ms. Smith be assigned sole decision-making responsibility for that issue and that Mr. Seyoum be directed not to interfere with or undermine Ms. Smith’s parenting of L. in this regard.
223Fifth, the OCL recommended that Ms. Smith have sole decision-making responsibility. The report of the OCL recommended as follows:
Ms. Smith is to have sole decision-making responsibility for [L.] She is to make all major decisions (medical, academic, religion, extracurricular activities). Ms. Smith is to provide regular, child centred updates to Mr. Seyoum, including photographs, reports and updates. Ms. Smith will sign all necessary consents to allow Mr. Seyoum to connect with professionals and service providers for the purposes of receiving updates related to [L.]
224The OCL’s recommendation was based on a number of concerns as a result of its investigation. My findings of fact substantiate many of those concerns.
225For all these reasons, I am satisfied that Ms. Smith should have sole decision-making responsibility for L. and that she need not consult with Mr. Seyoum before making any decisions.
2. Primary residence and parenting time
226The parties agree that L.’s primary residence should be with Ms. Smith. In his draft order, Mr. Seyoum only seeks parenting time with L. from Friday after school to Monday. Implicit in this request is that L.’s primary residence will be with Ms. Smith. I agree. There is no doubt that L.’s primary residence should be with Ms. Smith.
227I find that it is not in L.’s best interests for Mr. Seyoum to have unsupervised parenting time with L. The findings that I have made in paragraphs [219] to [225] above, in relation to decision-making, apply with equal force to parenting time.
228In my view, Mr. Seyoum has no insight into his past conduct. He has not taken any responsibility for the physical, emotional, and psychological harm he has caused to L. He remains far too willing to blame others for the situations that he himself has caused. I am concerned that he continues to lash out to try and control the behaviour of others. He has made accusations against Ms. Smith that are unsupported in the evidence. For example, in his sworn affidavit on parenting issues, he said the following:
The Applicant mother suffers from mental illness (diagnosed) that causes her to be combative, paranoid and extremely reactive to perceived offense. Throughout our 15-year relationship, the Applicant mother has been physically, emotionally and financially abusive/exploitative towards me. Due to her mental health challenges, at times she has been unable to care for [L.]
The Applicant is easily triggered and uses inappropriate discipline towards [L.] She slaps him in anger, to the point where I have had to intervene and tell her that what she is doing is assault. She has thrown his toys against the wall and broken them.
She often leaves dangerous items out within his reach, including her medication and matches.
For at least the first 2.5 years of [L.’s] life she was unable to care for him, or attune to his needs so I was his primary caregiver during that time. She suffered severely from post-partum depression.
229I am prepared to accept that the notes from the on-site supervised parenting sessions are largely positive. I also accept that Mr. Seyoum and L. love each other and enjoy each other’s company. These positives are dramatically outweighed by Mr. Seyoum’s history of violence and coercive control. I share Ms. Smith’s concern that Mr. Seyoum will be a loving and doting parent only until something goes wrong. In my view, Mr. Seyoum is not well-suited to providing care to L., a five-year old with a great deal of energy, who has documented behavioural challenges. I am very concerned that Mr. Seyoum is likely to become angry and lose self-control when L. does not behave in the way desired by Mr. Seyoum. I have significant concern that such a situation may end in Mr. Seyoum behaving violently toward L. I must give primary consideration to L’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.50 For these reasons, I find that it is not in L.’s best interests to allow Mr. Seyoum to have any unsupervised parenting time with L.
230I am also not prepared to allow Mr. Seyoum to have any parenting time supervised by members of the community. First, Mr. Seyoum did not propose any members of the community that are prepared to act as supervisors. Thus, Ms. Smith could not provide her comments about any proposed persons, and I could not assess whether the proposed persons were appropriate. Second, given what happened at the supervised overnight parenting session on April 5, 2024, I am not satisfied that supervised parenting in the community would provide sufficient safeguards for L’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.
231Based on the evidence before me, I carefully considered not allowing Mr. Seyoum to have any in-person parenting time. However, I am prepared to permit supervised parenting time in a parenting centre for three reasons.
232First, the OCL recommended that Mr. Seyoum be permitted to have parenting time in an access centre. I take the OCL’s recommendation very seriously. They have a great deal of expertise in this area and are dedicated to advancing L.’s best interests. Their recommendation carries significant weight.
233Second, Ms. Smith submitted that supervised parenting time is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. Ms. Smith knows L. very well and I am prepared to give her considered view weight as I determine what is in L.’s best interests.
234Third, the notes from the on-site supervised parenting visits satisfy me that L.’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being can be safeguarded in that structured and carefully observed environment. If, and only if, such safeguards are in place, I am satisfied that in-person supervised parenting time is in L.’s best interests.
235I make this order reluctantly. I understand that supervised access is to be time-limited and not to be a permanent feature of a child’s life.51 It should rarely be used as a long term remedy. Nevertheless, it is the only type of parenting time that is appropriate at this time. I am to award parenting time that is consistent with the best interests of the child.52 I wish to preserve an in-person connection between Mr. Seyoum and L. in the hope that Mr. Seyoum will someday prove that it is in L.’s best interests to expand his parenting time. Mr. Seyoum has not, however, provided me with a reasonable graduated plan to move beyond supervised parenting.53
236I also considered ordering that the parenting order be subject to a review at a specified time. However, I decline to include a built-in review mechanism. Based on the evidence before me, absent a material change in circumstances, increased or unsupervised parenting time for Mr. Seyoum would not be in L.’s best interests.
237To date, Mr. Seyoum has not accepted responsibility for his actions, has demonstrated no insight into his behaviour or its consequences on L. or Ms. Smith. Mr. Seyoum continues to see himself as a victim and to blame others, which causes me to doubt that he is capable of acting in the best interests of L.54 For example:
a. In the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form, Mr. Seyoum identified “Parental alienation and breach of good faith by the applicant and her counsel” as an issue for trial. There was no evidence presented to support this allegation.
b. Mr. Seyoum contacted the Peel Children’s Aid Society on December 4, 2025, to “express concerns about parental alienation.” Again, there was no evidence presented to support this allegation.
c. Mr. Seyoum continues to believe that Ms. Smith and her lawyer came up with a strategy that included depriving Mr. Seyoum of sleep by having L. cry at night.
d. Mr. Seyoum considered, but decided not to pursue, litigation against the representative from the OCL that conducted the assessment.
e. Mr. Seyoum has considered filing additional law suits against members of his family for perceived wrongs.
f. Mr. Seyoum has considered commencing further legal proceedings against the opposing parties in this litigation.
238While Mr. Seyoum’s current therapeutic relationship may be useful in helping him manage the stress of the litigation, there is no evidence before me that the therapy is addressing the very serious problem Mr. Seyoum has with anger management and his pattern of abusing and controlling others. I am not able to predict the future. I hope for Mr. Seyoum’s sake that he takes meaningful steps to address these issues and to demonstrate that there has been a material change in circumstances that justifies increased parenting time.
239I order that Mr. Seyoum’s parenting time shall be supervised in the either the Social Enterprise Canada Peel access centre, the Thrive access centre in Burlington, or any other access centre that is approved by Ms. Smith in her sole, non-reviewable discretion. Parenting time will take place on no more than one day per week and it shall be on a day that is agreeable to Ms. Smith.
240In addition, Mr. Seyoum may have video calls with virtual zoom call parenting time with L. on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6:30 to 7:00 p.m., Sundays from 9:00 to 9:30 a.m. and such other calls on other dates as initiated by L. This is consistent with the recommendation of the OCL, and I believe this should provide a workable and not overtaxing schedule.
241The terms of my order regarding parenting time may be modified with the written consent of each party.
5. Ms. Smith is entitled to receive child support
242Child support should be determined in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines, based on whatever parenting arrangement is ordered by the court.55 Ms. Smith proposes that the parties share certain s. 7 expenses proportionately, in accordance with their incomes. Mr. Seyoum is obliged to support L. in accordance with his income. Child support is the right of the child and that right exists independent from statutory provisions and court orders.56
243Mr. Seyoum voluntarily paid $400 in child support to Ms. Smith for the months of January, February, and March 2024. On June 22, 2024, Des Rosiers J. ordered Mr. Seyoum to continue to pay $400 per month of child support on a temporary and without prejudice basis. Mr. Seyoum did not comply with the order of Des Rosiers J. and by January 2026, he was approximately $6,500 in arrears. The Family Responsibility Office garnished Mr. Seyoum’s tax return and, as of April 18, 2026, his arrears balance was zero.
244Ms. Smith asks me to impute an income of $56,117 to Mr. Seyoum and order him to pay retroactive and prospective child support in the amount of $518 per month, plus his proportionate share of s. 7 expenses.
245Mr. Seyoum submits that according to his notices of assessment, his total income was $34,500 for 2025, $27,024 for 2024, and $11,918 for 2023. However, in his sworn financial statement dated February 7, 2024, Mr. Seyoum stated that he earned self-employment income of $4,000 per month. He testified that he started work at Spray-Net in early March 2024, and that he worked there for about a year. He presented a letter of employment dated July 11, 2024, from Spray-Net, which indicated that he earned $27.00 an hour and that he had been averaging about 40 hours a week. This amounts to $51,840 per year, based on 48 work weeks per year. It is difficult to reconcile the employment letter with Mr. Seyoum’s tax returns for 2023 and 2024.
246In his 2025 tax return, Mr. Seyoum declared that he had no employment income, but received a $34,500 dividend from Seyoum Meta Corporation, his personal corporation through which he runs his painting business. Because of the differential tax treatment of dividends and employment income, it is necessary to gross up the dividend income before determining the amount of child support under the Guidelines. This would generate a total income of $39,675, which in turn yields a monthly child support payment of $330.56 per month.
247Mr. Seyoum did not provide a valuation of the company or an income report. He did not provide the financial statements of the company for the last three years or a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries and other payments paid to or on behalf of non-arm’s length third parties.57 While he provided a basic balance sheet and income statement for the business for 2024, I cannot readily determine whether there are personal expenses being run through the business that should be properly attributed to Mr. Seyoum as income for child support purposes. For example, spending $2,608 on meals and entertainment may or may not be reasonable on total sales of $26,428. In addition, I am concerned about Mr. Seyoum’s decision to run his own business when it appears that he is earning less money than when he was last an employee.
248Mr. Seyoum did not provide the information he was legally required to provide. The court is entitled to impute such income to a parent as it considers appropriate in the circumstances where the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so.58 In my view, determining Mr. Seyoum’s income under s. 16 of the Guidelines would not be the fairest determination of his income.
249However, I do not think it is appropriate to impute an income of $56,117 to Mr. Seyoum. Based on his personal income tax returns, there is no evidence that he ever actually earned that much money at his last painting jobs. In my view, it is appropriate to set Mr. Seyoum’s income at $45,500 for child support purposes. This yields a monthly child support under the Guidelines of $400.10, which I will round down to $400.
250Mr. Seyoum should have been paying child support at $400 per month from the date of separation onward. He should have paid monthly child support for the 18 months from January 1, 2023, until June 22, 2024, which was the date of the order of Des Rosiers J. Mr. Seyoum should receive credit for the three months of child support that he did pay, which leaves child support owing for 15 months at $400, totaling $6,000. Mr. Seyoum shall also pay go-forward child support in the amount of $400 per month. This support order shall be registered with FRO and shall be adjusted annually to reflect Mr. Seyoum’s true income from all sources.
251Mr. Seyoum should also contribute his proportionate share toward s. 7 expenses. According to her notice of assessment, Ms. Smith’s total income in 2025 was $91,176. Therefore, Mr. Seyoum should pay 33.3% of section 7 expenses and Ms. Smith should pay 66.6% of section 7 expenses, which include before/after school care expenses, health/dental premiums, dental expenses over and above the coverage provided through the Ms. Smith’s benefits, co-pay expenses for L.’s therapist, summer daycare, and developmental classes.
6. Mr. Seyoum is not entitled to receive spousal support
252Although Mr. Seyoum initially advanced a claim for spousal support, he did not address that issue in his closing submissions. Nevertheless, I will consider his claim.
253Section 15.2 of the Divorce Act authorizes the court to make an order requiring a spouse to pay sums as the court thinks reasonable for the support of the other spouse. In making such an order, the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs, and circumstances of each spouse including the length of time the spouses cohabited, and the functions performed by each spouse.59 An order for spousal support should:
a. recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;
b. apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;
c. relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and
d. in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.60
254These objectives are to be considered together, cumulatively not alternatively, in establishing the economic consequences of the dissolution of the spousal relationship.61
255The mere fact that one spouse has a higher income than the other does not automatically entitle the spouse with the lower income to an order for spousal support.62 Entitlement to spousal support can be based on compensatory or non-compensatory principles.63 In my view, Mr. Seyoum is not entitled to spousal support on a compensatory or non-compensatory basis.
A. There is no compensatory basis for spousal support
256Compensatory claims for spousal support are based either on the recipient’s economic loss or disadvantage because of the roles adopted during the spousal relationship, or on the recipient’s conferral of an economic benefit on the payor without adequate compensation. Its purpose is to share equitably the economic advantages and disadvantages that accrued because of the spousal relationship and its subsequent breakdown.64 Sometimes, spouses sacrifice their own employment opportunities or advancements for the sake of the relationship and family unit. Sometimes, these sacrifices may enhance the earning potential of the other spouse.65
257According to the SSAG Revised User Guide, common markers of a compensatory claim include: being home with children full-time or part-time, being a secondary earner, having primary care of children after separation, moving for the payor’s career, supporting the payor’s education or training, and working in a family business.66
258In my view, Mr. Seyoum has not made out a compensatory claim for support. There is no evidence to suggest that he has suffered an economic disadvantage that accrued because of the spousal relationship or its breakdown. There is nothing about his role in the marriage that caused an economic loss or disadvantage to him. He participated in the workforce and sought out educational advancement opportunities during the marriage. He did not make any economic sacrifices for the sake of domestic considerations. There is nothing about the roles adopted during the spousal relationship that contributed to the economic disparity between Mr. Seyoum and Ms. Smith. The nature and structure of the marriage did not impair Mr. Seyoum’s ability to maximize his earning potential.67
259I find that Mr. Seyoum did not prove a compensatory basis for support.
B. There is no non-compensatory or needs based basis for spousal support
260Non-compensatory support (sometimes called needs based support) is based upon economic interdependency and a post-relationship loss of standard of living. Need alone, unconnected to any disadvantage arising from the spousal relationship, may be sufficient to require spouses to contribute to the needs of their former partners when they have the capacity to pay.68 Common markers of non-compensatory claims include the length of the relationship, the drop in standard of living experienced by the claimant after separation, and the economic hardship experienced by the claimant.69
261Because Mr. Seyoum did not prepare an income report or provide complete documentation about his corporations, I am not satisfied that there is any difference in standard of living between Ms. Smith and him. In addition, Mr. Seyoum had a higher paying job with Spray-Net that he quit for reasons entirely unrelated to the marriage. While he is entitled to choose to try to earn more money through his businesses, in the circumstances of this case, Ms. Smith is not required to subsidize that choice.
262I find that Mr. Seyoum is not entitled to support on non-compensatory basis.
7. A restraining order is appropriate
263Ms. Smith asks that the court impose a restraining order in the following terms:
In addition to the restraining orders of earlier orders, [Mr. Seyoum] shall not attend at or within 500 meters of [Ms. Smith or her] home or [L.’s] school. [Mr. Seyoum] shall not attend at [L.’s home] or [L.’s] school in any circumstances.
264Section 46 of the Family Law Act permits the court to make a final restraining order against a spouse or former spouse where the applicant has reasonable grounds to fear for his or her own safety.70 Pursuant to s. 46(3), the order may restrain the respondent from directly or indirectly contacting the applicant. Section 35 of the Children’s Law Reform Act also permits the court to make a final restraining order against any person if the applicant has reasonable grounds to fear for his or her own safety or for the safety of any child in his or her lawful custody.71
265I have considered legal principles related to the issuance of restraining orders and no contact orders.72
266I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for Ms. Smith to fear for her own safety and for the safety of L.73 For the reasons set out above in paragraphs [114] to [169], I have found that Mr. Seyoum has engaged in a lengthy history of coercive and controlling behaviour toward Ms. Smith. This has included acts of physical and psychological abuse of Ms. Smith and L. I am satisfied that Ms. Smith has a subjective fear of Mr. Seyoum and that that fear is objectively reasonable.
267It is particularly concerning that Mr. Seyoum has not acknowledged his behaviour or demonstrated any insight into his conduct or remorse for it. Rather, he continues to blame others unfairly for the situation in which he finds himself. I am not satisfied that he sees the need to change his behaviour or conduct. This is one of the reasons that Ms. Smith’s fears are reasonable.
268In my view, it is appropriate to grant the order sought by Ms. Smith, with a few adjustments. First, the order after trial should replace all previous orders, so that its terms are clear. Second, the final clause of the draft order is redundant and should be deleted.
269With respect to communication, the parties shall continue to communicate only through OFW.
8. Order and costs
270All earlier temporary court orders in this proceeding are varied by this order.
271Pursuant to the Divorce Act, I make a final order that:
a. Jill Smith and Eyasu Seyoum, who were married on February 16, 2009, be divorced and the divorce take effect 31 days after the date of this order.
b. L., born October 16, 2020, shall continue to reside with and be in the primary care of Ms. Smith.
c. Ms. Smith shall have sole decision-making responsibility in all areas for L. She shall provide regular, child-centred updates to Mr. Seyoum about L. via the Our Family Wizard application. These updates shall be provided monthly and shall include photographs, reports, and updates about any illnesses or missed school days, as appropriate. Ms. Smith shall sign all consents necessary to allow Mr. Seyoum to receive direct updates from L.’s professionals and service providers, providing that such updates do not disclose any of Ms. Smith’s address, and the name or address of L.’s school.
d. Mr. Seyoum shall have in-person supervised parenting time with L. one time each week in either the Social Enterprise Canada Peel or the Thrive Supervised Parenting Time Program in Burlington. The parties shall attempt to register in both centres and try to arrange for supervised time in each centre in alternate weeks. This schedule is subject to reasonable adjustment to accommodate illness, travel, and special events. The in-person supervised parenting time shall not take place during Ms. Smith’s three week summer vacation with L.
e. In addition to the supervised in-person parenting time, Mr. Seyoum shall have virtual parenting time on Zoom each week on the following schedule:
i. Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.;
ii. Sundays from 9:00 to 9:30 a.m.; and
iii. Such other calls on other dates as requested by L.
f. With respect to the video calls,
i. The timing of the calls may be adjusted reasonably to accommodate illness, vacations, travel, special events or changes in congregation meeting times.
ii. Ms. Smith shall permit Mr. Seyoum and L. to speak to each other privately, subject to the provisions of paragraph [270(g)] below.
iii. Ms. Smith shall facilitate any spontaneous requests that L. makes to speak to Mr. Seyoum.
iv. They shall not take place during Ms. Smith’s three week summer vacation with L., except as permitted below.
g. Ms. Smith may raise L. within her Jehovah's Witnesses faith and Mr. Seyoum shall respect and not disparage or undermine that faith through his comments to L. or by watching programs, shows, or movies that undermine Ms. Smith’s right to raise L. within the Jehovah's Witnesses faith. Ms. Smith make take the necessary steps, including terminating a particular video call, if she believes it is in L.’s best interests to do so.
h. Ms. Smith is entitled to a three-week summer vacation with L. Neither the in-person supervised parenting nor the video calls shall take place during this vacation. Notwithstanding this provision, Ms. Smith shall facilitate video calls between L. and Mr. Seyoum during the summer vacation if L. requests to speak to his father.
i. Ms. Smith may travel with L. without Mr. Seyoum’s consent, which she does not require. Ms. Smith shall notify Mr. Seyoum of all her travel plans with L. and provide an itinerary for the trip to Mr. Seyoum prior to departure. Ms. Smith does not need to provide the addresses where she will be staying to Mr. Seyoum.
j. Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum shall communicate solely through Our Family Wizard. Each of Ms. Smith and Mr. Seyoum are responsible for paying their own registration costs, if any.
k. Ms. Smith is entitled to obtain and renew all government issued identification and documents without the consent of Mr. Seyoum.
l. In their conversations with L, neither Ms. Smith nor Mr. Seyoum shall
i. make any disparaging remarks about the other parent;
ii. blame the other parent; or
iii. discuss finances or court proceedings.
m. Neither parent may relocate outside of the Greater Toronto Area without the permission of the other parent or a court order obtained on notice to the other parent.
n. Mr. Seyoum shall pay $6000.00 to Ms. Smith in respect of child support owing for the period January 1, 2023, to June 22, 2024. Mr. Seyoum shall make this payment within 30 days of the date of this order. A support deduction order and a support deduction information form shall be registered with the Family Responsibility Office.
o. Starting June 1, 2026, and on the first day of each following month, Mr. Seyoum shall pay $400 to Ms. Smith each month for one child, based on him having an imputed income of $45,500. This support order shall be registered with the Family Responsibility Office and reviewed annually to accord with Mr. Seyoum’s true and total income.
p. Mr. Seyoum shall pay 33.33% of L.’s special or extraordinary expenses including but not limited to before/after school care expenses, health/dental premiums, dental expenses over and above the coverage provided through the Ms. Smith’s benefits, co-pay expenses for L.’s therapist, summer daycare, and developmental classes. Within 15 days after delivery of a receipt from Ms. Smith for such an expense, Mr. Seyoum shall make the required payment in the manner directed by Ms. Smith.
q. Mr. Seyoum shall provide Ms. Smith with:
i. Timely notice of any change to his employment or self-employment or business arrangements;
ii. Copies of his personal and corporate income tax returns and notices of assessment within 30 days of receipt;
iii. His home address and particulars of his living arrangements.
r. The police shall continue to enforce this parenting order.
s. The Support Deduction Orders to issue in accordance with these reasons.
272Pursuant to the Family Law Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, I make a final order that Mr. Seyoum shall not attend at or within 500m of Ms. Smith’s home or L.’s school.
273All other claims advanced in the application and the response are dismissed.
274If the parties are not able to resolve costs of this application, Ms. Smith may email her costs submission of no more than three double-spaced pages to my judicial assistant on or before June 16, 2026. Mr. Seyoum may deliver his responding submission of no more than three double-spaced pages on or before June 23, 2026. No reply submissions are to be delivered without leave.
Robert Centa J.
Released: June 9, 2026
CITATION: Smith v. Seyoum, 2026 ONSC 3397
COURTFILENO.: FS-23-00039972-0000
DATE: 20260609
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Jill Leanne Smith
Applicant
– and –
Eyasu K. Seyoum
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
R. Centa J.
Released: June 9, 2026
Footnotes
- R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, 241 C.C.C. (3d) 45, at para. 41, citing R. v. Morrissey (1995), 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), 22 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), at p. 526; R. v. Sanichar, 2012 ONCA 117, 280 C.C.C. (3d) 500, at paras. 36, 69-70, rev’d on other grounds, 2013 SCC 4, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 54; and Fitzpatrick v. Orwin, 2012 ONSC 3492, at paras. 62-68, aff’d 2014 ONCA 124.
- R. v. White, 1947 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1947] S.C.R. 268, at p. 272; A.M. v. C.H., 2018 ONSC 6472, at para. 87, aff’d 2019 ONCA 764, 32 R.F.L. (8th) 1.
- Sanichar, at para. 35; R. v. McGrath, [2000] O.J. No. 5735 (S.C.), at paras. 10-14; R. v. Stewart (1994), 1994 CanLII 7208 (ON CA), 18 O.R. (3d) 509 (C.A.), at p. 517; R. v. Norman (1993), 1993 CanLII 3387 (ON CA), 16 O.R. (3d) 295 (C.A.), at pp. 313-14.
- White, at p. 272.
- Phillips et al. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al., 1971 CanLII 389 (ON CA), [1971] 2 O.R. 637 (C.A.), at p. 645, citing Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.), at p. 357.
- R. v. D.M., 2012 ONCA 894, 295 C.C.C. (3d) 159, at para. 59.
- R. v. A.M., 2014 ONCA 769, 123 O.R. (3d) 536, at paras. 12-14; Caroti v. Vuletic, 2022 ONSC 4695, 38 B.L.R. (6th) 1, at para. 436; 1088558 Ontario Inc. v. Musial, 2022 ONSC 5239, 38 C.L.R. (5th) 199, at para. 83; McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, 57 R.F.L. (8th) 1, at paras. 40-41; Virc v. Blair, 2016 ONSC 49, 80 R.F.L. (7th) 124, at para. 40, aff’d 2017 ONCA 394, 138 O.R. (3d) 191, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 37678 (November 23, 2017); Misiuda v. Misiuda, 2021 ONSC 5258, at para. 29.
- F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, at para. 76.
- The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. Moyse, 2016 ONSC 5271, 35 C.C.E.L. (4th) 242, at para. 74, aff’d 2018 ONCA 283, 130 O.R. (3d) 675, leave to appeal refused, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 295.
- Morrissey, at p. 530.
- Morrissey, at p. 530.
- McDougall, at paras. 58-59.
- Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 4.
- Rothgiesser v. Rothgiesser (2000), 2000 CanLII 1153 (ON CA), 46 O.R. (3d) 577 (C.A.); Okmyansky v. Okmyansky, 2007 ONCA 427, 86 O.R. (3d) 587.
- K.M. v. J.R., 2022 ONSC 111, 66 R.F.L. (8th) 35, at para. 71; Hulli v. Hulli, 2025 ONSC 7036, at para. 99; Valerio v. Valerio, 2025 ONSC 7071, at para. 128; Predotka v. Dudek, 2023 ONSC 7025, at para. 17; Persaud v. Garcia-Persaud, 2009 ONCA 782, 81 R.F.L. (6th) 1.
- Ms. Smith testified that she decided to move out on October 30, 2023, when she discovered evidence on an iPad that was used by Mr. Seyoum and L. that Mr. Seyoum had been engaged in sexual activity and making pornographic videos with a couple he met on the internet. Mr. Seyoum did not address this evidence in his testimony. In my view, given my other findings, it is not necessary to determine whether this conduct is relevant to Mr. Seyoum’s fitness to parent in the best interests of L.
- Divorce Act, ss. 16(1) and (2).
- McBennett, at para. 82; Goja v. Goja, 2026 ONSC 869, at para. 28.
- Divorce Act, s. 16(3)(e).
- Divorce Act, s. 16(2).
- Divorce Act, s. 16(3)(j).
- Divorce Act, s. 2(1), definition of “family violence.”
- Divorce Act, s. 16(4).
- On September 23, 2024, a representative of the Victim/Witness Assistance Program advised Ms. Smith by email that “The reason for the charge being withdrawn is because the charge was laid outside of the one-year limitation period for proceeding summarily, therefore the Crown had to proceed by indictment and that permitted the defense to demand a trial by judge and jury. Judge and jury trials are heard at the Superior Court of Justice, however due to limited court time availability, cases proceeding at the Superior Court of Justice are prioritized based off the seriousness of the offence and there is no way to accommodate this matter.”
- R. v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275, at para. 65; R. v. J.M., 2021 ONCA 150, 154 O.R. (3d) 401, at para. 28.
- Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, at para. 24.
- Polgrain Estate v. The Toronto East General Hospital, 2008 ONCA 427, 90 O.R. (3d) 630, at para. 24.
- Ms. Smith testified that L. described to her what happened on April 5, 2024. I am not satisfied that I should admit L.’s hearsay statement for the truth of its contents as I am not certain that it is necessary or reliable. It is, however, admissible for the fact that it was said because it explains why Ms. Smith found a therapist for L.
- Divorce Act, s. 16(4)(a).
- Divorce Act, s. 16(4)(e).
- Divorce Act, s. 16(4)(e).
- Divorce Act, s. 16(4)(c).
- Divorce Act, s. 16(4)(b).
- Divorce Act, s. 2(1).
- Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, at para. 190.
- Ahluwalia, at para. 187.
- Divorce Act, s. 16(4)(g).
- Divorce Act, ss. 16(3)(d), (g), and (h).
- Divorce Act, ss. 16(3)(b) and (c).
- Divorce Act, s. 16(3)(f) provides that I am to consider “the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage.” The only factor raised by the parties was religious and spiritual upbringing.
- Divorce Act, s. 16(1).
- Proulx v. Proulx, 2022 ONCA 428, at para. 12.
- Divorce Act, s. 16(2).
- S.V.G. v. V.G., 2023 ONSC 3206, 93 R.F.L. (8th) 77, at para. 107.
- McBennett, at paras. 97-98; S.V.G., at paras. 107-12; see also Predotka, at para. 30.
- Predotka, at para. 26.
- Predotka, at para. 26, citing Kaplanis v. Kaplanis (2005), 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), 249 D.L.R. (4th) 620 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 11; Ladisa v. Ladisa (2005), 2005 CanLII 1627 (ON CA), 11 R.F.L. (6th) 50 (Ont. C.A.); Van v. Palombi, 2018 ONSC 6228, 16 R.F.L. (8th) 103, at paras. 20-22.
- Berman v. Berman, 2017 ONCA 905, at para. 5; M.P. v. M.P., 2020 ONSC 4559, at paras. 39-41.
- Lawson v. Lawson (2006), 2006 CanLII 26573 (ON CA), 81 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), at para. 15; Ursic v. Ursic, 2004 CarswellOnt 8728 (S.C.), rev’d on other grounds (2006), 2006 CanLII 18349 (ON CA), 32 R.F.L. (6th) 23 (C.A.); Andrade v. Kennelly (2006), 2006 CanLII 20845 (ON SC), 33 R.F.L. (6th) 125 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 77, aff’d 2007 ONCA 898, 46 R.F.L. (6th) 235.
- Divorce Act, s. 16(2).
- M.(B.P.) v. M.(B.L.D.E.) (1992), 1992 CanLII 8642 (ON CA), 97 D.L.R. (4th) 437 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 460-61; see also: V.S.J. v. L.J.G. (2004), 2004 CanLII 17126 (ON SC), 5 R.F.L. (6th) 319 (Ont. S.C.), at paras. 138-40
- Divorce Act, s. 16(6); Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 517, at para. 135; V.S.J. v. L.J.G. (2004), 2004 CanLII 17126 (ON SC), 5 R.F.L. (6th) 319 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 139.
- Van Aman v. Mugo, 2025 ONCA 886, at para. 10.
- V.S.J. v. L.J.G., at para. 69.
- Federal Child Support Guidelines, S.O.R./97-175 (the “Guidelines”).
- D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231, at paras. 38-40, 48 and 54.
- Guidelines, s. 21(1)(f).
- Guidelines, s. 19(1)(f); Daud v. Temor, 2026 ONCA 83, at paras. 20-21.
- Divorce Act, s. 15.2(4).
- Divorce Act, s. 15.2(6).
- Racco v. Racco, 2014 ONCA 330, 44 R.F.L. (7th) 348, at para. 23.
- Berger v. Berger, 2016 ONCA 884, 85 R.F.L. (7th) 259, at para. 53; R.L. v. M.F., 2025 ONCA 595, 19 R.F.L. (9th) 39, at para. 36, citing Farrar v. Farrar (2003), 2003 CanLII 15943 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (3d) 141 (C.A.), at para. 60.
- Bracklow v. Bracklow, 1999 CanLII 715 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420, at para. 15; R.L., at para. 27, citing Miglin v. Miglin, 2003 SCC 24, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303, at para. 201; Berger, at para. 95. While contractual grounds is a third possible basis for support, it is not relevant to this case.
- Gray v. Gray, 2014 ONCA 659, 122 O.R. (3d) 337, at para. 38.
- Moge v. Moge, 1992 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813, at p. 861.
- Carol Rogerson & Rollie Thompson, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide, (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2016), at p. 6 (“RUG”).
- Gray, at para. 38, citing Moge, at p. 861.
- Kalaba v. Bylykbashi (2006), 2006 CanLII 3953 (ON CA), 23 R.F.L. (6th) 235 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 81, leave to appeal refused, [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 144.
- Smith v. Noel, 2023 ONSC 6682, at para. 71, citing RUG, at p. 6.
- R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3.
- Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 35.
- Joseph v. Molnar, 2020 ONSC 5237, at para. 92, citing Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.S., 2017 ONCJ 506, 98 R.F.L. (7th) 225, at para. 44 (and the cases cited therein); Stec v. Blair, 2021 ONSC 6212, 93 C.B.R. (6th) 217, at para. 59; Yenovkian v. Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279, 62 C.C.L.T. (4th) 45, at para. 45.
- Azimi v. Mirzaei, 2010 ONCA 455, at paras. 2-3.