Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
RE: Jessica Agostini, Applicant
AND:
Mohamed Hamza Rochdi, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice J. Audet
COUNSEL: Deanna Paolucci, for the Applicant Jean Claude Dubuisson, for the Respondent
HEARD: May 11, 15 and 19, 2026
Reasons for decision
1This two-and-a-half-day trial was held in the context of the Applicant mother’s Motion to Change the child support and parenting arrangements set out in the Divorce Order of the Superior Court of Quebec dated June 7, 2023. It focused on whether the Respondent father’s parenting time should remain professionally supervised, as ordered by Somji J. on an interim basis on February 7, 2025, or whether it should revert to unsupervised parenting time in accordance with the terms of the Divorce Order.
2The mother also seeks a final order granting her sole decision-making responsibility for the children, as well as various other changes to the parenting provisions of the Divorce Order.
3While the mother originally sought to vary the father’s child support obligations, this claim was abandoned at trial.
Background information
4The parties married on February 29, 2016, in Montréal. They separated on July 1, 2021, and entered into a Separation Agreement on March 10, 2022, which was ultimately incorporated into a Final Divorce Order made on June 7, 2023, by Justice Goulet of the Quebec Superior Court of Justice (“the Divorce Order”).
5The parties are the biological parents of three children: M.R. (born in 2018 – 8 years old, hereinafter “M.R.”), I.R. (born in 2020 – 5 years old, “I.R.”) and A.R. (born in 2021 – 4 years old, “A.R.”).
6Pursuant to the Divorce Order, the parties share joint decision-making responsibility for the children, who reside primarily with their mother. Although the Order provides for the father to have parenting time with the children, its duration and frequency were not specified; it simply states that such parenting time may occur at any time (“à n’importe quel moment”).
7The mother’s evidence, which was not disputed, is that from the date of the parties’ separation until February 2024, the father’s parenting time with the children was sporadic. He would spend a couple of hours with the children at a local park or at the mother’s home. Until he acquired his own vehicle, he would sometimes borrow the mother’s car to transport the children to and from his home. During the father’s parenting time, the mother was required to provide him with all items necessary to care for the children (including bottles, diapers, food, snacks, car seats, and clothing). During this period, the children seldom spent an overnight in their father’s care. On average, the father exercised parenting time for a couple of hours every other week.
8The mother’s evidence, which was also not challenged by the father, is that the parties’ co-parenting relationship deteriorated gradually over time. In her view, this was due to a progressive decline in the father’s mental health, which worsened significantly after he learned in February 2024 that the mother had begun a new relationship with the man who later became her husband.
9The mother testified that, over time, the father’s behaviour toward her and during exchanges became highly problematic. He would attend at her home unannounced, demanding to see the children; he would yell and scream at her during exchanges; and he would behave in an aggressive manner, frequently causing scenes in the children’s presence. On one occasion, he banged on the car windows as the mother was driving away with the children. On another, he refused to leave her home, requiring her to call the police to have him removed.
10Eventually, the mother insisted that all exchanges take place at a police station in order to manage the father’s behaviour and to ensure her and the children’s safety.
11Beginning in early 2024, the father accused the mother and her new partner of physically abusing the children. At that time, M.R. was six years old, while the other children were only three and two years old. On February 7, 2024, the father attended M.R.’s school and removed him from his classroom for the sole purpose of recording him making allegations of abuse against his mother. This incident was witnessed by the school receptionist, who reported it to the mother.
12On or about March 29, 2024, the father brought M.R. to the hospital and told the emergency physician, Dr. Bdira, that upon picking up his son he had noticed two marks on his face and had been told by M.R. that his mother and stepfather had struck him. Based on his observations of M.R. and the father’s report, Dr. Bdira made a report to the CAS, which led to the opening of a file and the commencement of an investigation. The details of the CAS and police joint investigation, as described in their records, are summarized as follows in Somji J.’s decision dated February 7, 2025 (Agostini v. Rochdi, 2025 ONSC 868):
March 30, 2024: The mother received a call from the CAS asking her to come home urgently. The mother attests that M.A. had hurt himself the night before playing with a box for a toy rocket ship with his brother. She had iced his injury. However, when M.A. went to his father’s residence the following morning and the father observed the injury, the father took M.A. to the hospital. The hospital reported to the CAS that they understood the child had been slapped by the mother.
The CAS worker initially interviewed the child at the father’s house at which time M.A. said he got the bump because his stepfather Ali hit him for not doing something and that this mother dragged him across the room.
The CAS worker then spoke with the mother and Ali who denied any such thing had happened. He also showed the CAS worker a video taken right after the injury where M.A. explained what had happened. Ali took the video because he was worried he would be wrongly accused by the father.
The CAS then reinterviewed M.A. in private at which time he admitted he had lied. He explained he got the bump on his face when playing with his brother and they were spinning in a box. He denied that he is hit at home by either his mother or his stepfather. He asked the CAS worker not to tell his father because he would get mad. The CAS worker interviewed M.A. a second time at school and once again M.A. confirmed the bump came from when they were spinning in the box and that neither of his parents ever hit him.
The CAS also commented in its investigation report that the father’s allegations that the mother and stepfather abuse the children and that the children fear them is not supported by any of the CAS worker’s observations and interactions of the children within the home.
13The CAS closed its file on April 12, 2024, stating in their closing letter:
The CAS did not verify the concerns for the use of physical punishment in your home. However, the concern regarding Mr. Rochdi placing the children at risk of emotional harm due to post separation conflict was verified.
14In the months following the investigation, M.R. began to confide in his mother and Mr. Awada regarding his concerns about his father. He reported that his father had yelled at him and blamed him for telling the truth to the CAS (namely, that Mr. Awada and his mother had not hit him, contrary to what he had previously reported). He further stated that his father pressured him to report abuse by his mother and stepfather to the police, the CAS, and his teachers. He also indicated that his father was angry with him for “not telling the truth to CAS,” and that he would yell at him and force him to watch frightening movies as punishment.
15During a ceremony at M.R.’s school on June 22, 2024, the father caused a disturbance by refusing to allow the children to leave with their mother. Following this incident, the father did not exercise his parenting time for approximately two months. Subsequently, on July 10 and August 23, 2024, the police attended at the mother’s residence after the father requested wellness checks on the children. On each occasion, the police identified no apparent safety concerns and departed.
16In the months leading up to September 2024, M.R. began to exhibit signs of emotional distress. He experienced nightmares, had difficulty sleeping, refused to go to the bathroom or basement alone, and had frequent emotional outbursts at his mother’s home. In or about June 2024, he described to his mother details of horror movies he said he had been required to watch with his father, including scenes involving a menacing clown with blood on his hands, people being killed, and figures emerging from sewers. He referred specifically to films such as Halloween and Pennywise.
17This, coupled with the father’s increasingly aggressive behaviour toward her, reinforced the mother’s belief that the father’s mental health had significantly deteriorated and that the situation was becoming unmanageable. She promptly arranged for private counselling for M.R. and retained counsel in Quebec to attempt to negotiate a temporary modification of the father’s parenting time while her concerns were being addressed.
18On August 16, 2024, after the father had resumed exercising his parenting time, the CAS became involved once more. The concerns were reported by Constable Hull, who had an interaction with the father and M.R. on that day. Constable Hull reported that the father deliberately remained at the police station (where the exchanges were taking place) for an additional 30 minutes, approached the front desk to speak with officers about his application for employment with the RCMP, and suggested that he had been refused employment because his son had not told the truth to the CAS, thus leading the RCMP to believe the father was a liar. These discussions occurred in the presence of the children.
19In addition, Constable Hull reported that the father repeatedly insisted that his son needed to tell the police that he had lied and that his mother was abusing him. According to Constable Hull, the father “appeared to have some mental health struggles, as the things he was saying were not making a lot of sense and his decision-making seemed off.”
20The following day, upon returning home, M.R. told his mother that his father had said he would be speaking to the CAS again and that, if M.R. did not report abuse in his mother’s home, he would never see his father again.
21From August 16, 2024, to April 2025, the father made approximately ten reports alleging abuse by the mother or her husband and sought the involvement of child protection services and the police. This included several instances after he had been expressly prohibited from doing so by Justice Engelking on October 28, 2024.
The mother’s Motion to Change dated August 29, 2024
22Following these events, the mother brought her Motion to Change the Divorce Order seeking supervised parenting time between the father and the children until a psychological assessment could be completed and recommendations made. She also sought sole decision-making responsibility and a restraining order.
23In his Response to Motion to Change, the father sought “full custody”. In the body of his Response, the father accuses the mother and her partner of emotionally, verbally and physically abusing the children, and alleges that the children are at significant risk of emotional, psychological and physical harm in their care.
Legal Framework
24Any decision relating to a child must be made having regard, exclusively, to their best interests. When considering a child’s best interests, the court is required by virtue of s. 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) to consider the following legal principles:
Best interests of child
16 (1) The court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or a contact order.
Primary consideration
(2) When considering the factors referred to in subsection (3), the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.
Factors to be considered
(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including
(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
(d) the history of care of the child;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
Factors relating to family violence
(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall 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.
Urgent motion of October 28, 2024
25On October 28, 2024, the court heard an urgent motion brought by the mother to deal with parenting issues. For oral reasons given (and to which I am not privy), Engelking J. made the following order:
The father shall have parenting time with the children every Sunday from 9:00 a.m., with the exchange to occur at the police station, to Monday morning at school or daycare. If there is no school or daycare on the Monday, the exchange shall be at the police station at 9:00 a.m.
The father shall give the mother two days notice if he is unable to exercise his parenting time. Parenting time missed by the father will not be made up.
Neither parent is to question the children about their parenting time with the other parent.
Neither the parents nor the mother’s husband are to speak negatively about one another to or in the presence of the children.
The father is not to linger with the children at the police station or seek to have the children speak to the police.
The father is to refrain from making reports to the CAS or to the police, and from sending the police to do wellness checks on the children.
The father is not to speak any further to M.R. about speaking to the CAS or the police.
The mother’s husband is not to speak to the father during exchanges or at any other time, unless it is to exchange pleasantries in the presence of the children.
If the father fails to comply with the above conditions, the matter may be brought back before me, or if I am unavailable, another judge, on an urgent basis, at which time today’s order may be revisited, and supervision may be imposed on his parenting time.
26This order did not deter the father from reporting his concerns about alleged abuse by the mother and her partner to the CAS or the police. On December 15, 2024, the mother attended at the police station to drop off the children for the father’s parenting time. Rather than leaving with the children, the father remained at the police station and pressured M.R. to report to the police that he had been struck by his mother.
27A review of the CAS and police records relating to these events indicates that the father was prompting M.R. to make allegations of abuse in the mother’s home. Although M.R. did state that he had been “hit five times by Mr. Awada,” these allegations were not considered credible, and there was no evidence that the alleged abuse had occurred.
28As a result of these events, the mother returned to court, seeking an order that the father’s parenting time be professionally supervised.
Urgent motion of January 29, 2025
29The urgent motion was heard by Somji J. who was satisfied by the evidence before her that the father had not complied with the October 28, 2024, temporary order and was continuing to pressure M.R. to allege abuse against his mother and stepfather. She concluded that:
The father had engaged in a persistent pattern of influencing M.R. to falsely report that his mother and stepfather Ali are abusive and in doing so, is causing emotional and psychological harm to the child.
The father’s influencing and exposure to inappropriate movies was contributing to M.R.’s fears.
The father attendance at M.R.’s school and disruptive behaviour there (pulling him out of class and questioning him), as well as his unfounded requests for wellness checks by the police undermined the children’s emotional safety.
While the mother had demonstrated her support of the father’s relationship with the children, he in turn had not.
There was no evidentiary basis for the father’s allegations of abuse, which had only started to flare up after the mother’s re-partnering with Mr. Awada. Indeed, neither the police or the CAS had verified any of the father’s ongoing allegations in that regard.
While there was no evidence that the father had engaged in this type of behavior towards the younger two children as well, she was not satisfied on the evidence before her that the father would not do so in the future.
30For these reasons, Somji J. found that it was in the best interests of the children for the father to have supervised parenting time with all three children. She ordered that the father’s supervised parenting time take place twice a week, for one hour, at a supervised access center. She also imposed a temporary restraining order preventing the father from attending the children’s school or coming within 100 meters of the mother’s home. Finally, she granted the mother sole-decision making responsibility of the children pending trial.
31I heard no credible evidence at trial that would call into question Somji J.’s conclusions, which I adopt.
Supervised access visits
32The father’s visits commenced in March 2025 at Muslim Family Services Ottawa (MFSO) and, in April 2025, were transferred to Family Services Ottawa (FSO), where they have continued. Although Somji J.’s February 2025 interim order provided for two supervised visits per week, each of one hour, over time this appears to have evolved into one visit every two weeks, lasting two hours.
33A review of the supervisors’ notes, which were entered into evidence at trial, reveals the following. It is clear that the children love their father and that he, in turn, loves them very much. The children were observed to greet their father spontaneously, hugging him and telling him that they missed him. At no time did any of the children appear hesitant to attend the visits or to spend time with their father. During the visits, the father engaged in appropriate activities with the children: he actively participated in their games, suggested activities, demonstrated appropriate affection, and the children appeared to enjoy his company, sharing frequent laughter.
34In addition, the father consistently brought healthy, home-cooked food for the children, as well as snacks and treats, which they shared during the visits. The visits were consistently positive for the two younger children and, for the most part, positive for M.R.
35Despite the foregoing, a number of concerns were raised regarding the father’s behavior during these visits, all of which appear to be connected to his strongly held belief that the children are being abused by their mother and stepfather. The supervisors’ notes contain multiple references to the father prompting the children to say certain things or to make disclosures, pointing to bruises, scratches, or other marks on their bodies, and questioning them about how those marks occurred.
36The notes also document several instances in which supervisors were required to intervene due to the father’s inappropriate communications with the children. For example, he repeatedly emphasized the importance of “telling the truth,” despite redirection by supervisors; asked the children about what they had told others, including the police; inquired whether they were afraid; questioned them about watching horror movies; warned them against doing so; and asked about events allegedly occurring at home or about what they had been told by their mother or stepfather. He also made negative comments about the children’s appearance (for example, “you look skinny”) and whispered to them in a manner that could not be monitored by the supervisor.
37Lisa Roots, who supervised many of the father’s visits at Family Services Ottawa (FSO), testified at trial. She confirmed that, while the visits were generally positive for the children, there were significant concerns regarding the father’s behaviour, including his tendency to speak quietly to the children and the need for supervisors to intervene to end inappropriate conversations.
38Ms. Roots also described her observations of M.R.’s demeanour, which often changed partway through the visits. At times, it appeared that M.R. was being asked questions designed to elicit a particular response, which would cause him to become upset. In response, the father would raise his voice and appear frustrated when he did not receive the answer he was seeking. M.R. was frequently observed to become emotionally overwhelmed and frustrated during visits, at times raising his own voice.
39Ms. Roots explained that supervisors meet with older children before supervised visits to establish a “safe word” that the child may use at any time if they feel unsafe or uncomfortable. If the child uses the safe word, the visit is immediately terminated.
40M.R. used the safe word during a visit on January 10, 2026.
41Over time, and particularly following the January 2026 visit, the center implemented additional measures to prepare supervisors and monitors assigned to this family, in light of the father’s behavior and the family dynamics. Staff were also directed to provide M.R. with opportunities to speak privately during visits, as a means of checking on his well-being.
The father’s strongly held belief that the children are being abused
42The father’s testimony at trial demonstrates, unequivocally, that he remains convinced that the children are being abused by their mother and stepfather. No amount of investigation, evidence, or reporting of what M.R. has conveyed to the authorities appears capable of altering this belief. Despite repeated communications from the CAS, the police, and this Court regarding the complete absence of objective evidence supporting these allegations—and, indeed, the presence of compelling evidence to the contrary—the father is unable to accept this.
43The father has been told on numerous occasions that his ongoing pressure on M.R. to report alleged abuse to the CAS and the police is harmful to the child. He has been provided with detailed police and CAS reports summarizing M.R.’s private interviews, which make clear that it is the father’s behaviour—not that of the mother or her husband—that is of concern. He has also been cautioned by both the CAS and the Court that his conduct toward M.R., in particular, is causing him significant emotional harm. Nevertheless, the father has shown himself to be wholly incapable of gaining insight into the impact of his behaviour.
44During cross-examination, the father was asked what additional evidence he would require in order to be satisfied that the children were not being abused. He responded that he possessed numerous video recordings of M.R. which, in his view, demonstrated that the children were being abused. The father’s own evidence confirms that he recorded many videos in which the children allegedly reported incidents of abuse by their mother and stepfather. None of these recordings were introduced into evidence at trial. I doubt that these would have been admissible in any event based on the balance of the evidence before me.
45The father’s testimony further demonstrates that, if the children were to spend time with him without professional supervision, they would likely be subjected to repeated questioning regarding alleged abuse in their mother’s home, be prompted to report such allegations to the authorities, and face negative consequences if they were to later retract or contradict those statements.
The father’s mental health
46Although no medical evidence was filed at trial in this regard, it is apparent that the father is currently experiencing mental health difficulties. Notably, the father failed to attend on the first day of trial. His counsel confirmed that the father was aware the trial was scheduled to commence that day, as they had met over the preceding weekend to prepare; however, despite multiple calls and emails, counsel was unable to contact him. The trial therefore proceeded in the father’s absence.
47The following day, the father attended trial and provided a note from an emergency physician at Gatineau Hospital, who had seen him the previous day. The note confirmed that, following a mental health crisis, the father had been referred to the psychiatry department, where he spent the day.
48The father’s ongoing inability to accept that the children are not being abused—despite consistent findings to that effect by the CAS and the police, the contents of M.R.’s interviews, and the extensive evidentiary record before the Court—strongly suggests that he is currently experiencing significant mental health challenges. There is no evidence before the Court that the father is addressing these issues in any meaningful way.
49Until the Court is provided with a comprehensive mental health assessment, and the father demonstrates some insight into the impact of his behaviour, I am of the view that the children would face a significant risk of emotional and psychological harm if they were to have unsupervised parenting time with him.
The children
50Since the father’s parenting time has been professionally supervised—thereby significantly reducing opportunities for him to pressure the children to report abuse—the children are no longer dysregulated during exchanges. There is no longer any crying, clinging to their father, or refusal to return to their mother’s care. There have also been no further reports by the father to the police or the CAS. M.R. is no longer emotionally dysregulated: his night terrors have ceased, he is no longer expressing distress or sadness, and the need for ongoing counselling has been substantially reduced.
51It is clear that the father loves the children, and that they love him in return. Their visits are positive for the children, and it is important that they continue on a regular basis. However, at this time, continued professional supervision is required to minimize the risk of emotional harm to the children.
Virtual parenting time
52I find that virtual parenting time between the children and their father is no longer positive or beneficial to them. The evidence establishes that, given their young age, the children have difficulty remaining engaged during these calls and instead prefer to play together. Moreover, the mother testified that she is frequently required to terminate these virtual calls prematurely due to the father prompting the children for information or engaging them in inappropriate discussions, including about frightening movies or other topics not suitable for them.
53The father himself acknowledged in his testimony that, while he enjoys these calls, they are not beneficial to the children.
54I therefore find that it is not in the children’s best interests to continue virtual parenting time at this time.
Decision-making responsibility
55The joint decision-making responsibility regime agreed to by the parties in 2022 has not been successful. The evidence before me confirms that the parties have been unable to make decisions together in the best interests of the children. I find, as a fact, that the father has been difficult to work with, generally opposing most requests made by the mother for consent to decisions, and doing so without any legitimate basis.
56For example, when the mother sought to reschedule virtual visits due to a child being ill, sleeping, or required to attend an appointment, the father’s typical response was to refuse. The father also consistently refused the mother’s requests to travel internationally with the children, instead requiring that the issue be addressed by the Court. It was only following Somji J.’s decision in February 2025, which granted the mother interim decision-making responsibility, that she was able to obtain passports for the children. Fortunately, the children’s school and daycare have not required the father’s consent for their registration.
57In practice, the mother, as the children’s primary caregiver, has attended to all of their needs. I find that she has done so competently and with exclusive regard to their best interests. In the circumstances of this case—particularly given that the father’s parenting time remains supervised until further order—I find that it is in the children’s best interests for the mother to have sole decision-making responsibility with respect to all major decisions affecting them.
58The mother will, of course, be required to comply with the relevant provisions of the Divorce Act prior to relocating the children’s primary residence. She shall also keep the father informed of any significant developments relating to the children’s health, education, and general welfare.
59While I am prepared to grant the mother permission to travel internationally with the children without the father’s consent, I require that she provide no less than 60 days’ notice of any such travel. This will afford the father the opportunity to bring an application before the Court should he oppose the travel on valid grounds.
RESTRAINING ORDER
60I am satisfied that a continued restraining order is appropriate in this case. I accept the mother’s evidence that the father’s aggressive behaviour toward her has gradually and significantly increased since he became aware of her relationship with Mr. Awada in January 2024.
61This behaviour has included attending at her home unannounced; yelling and screaming at her during exchanges (which led her to require that exchanges take place at a local police station, thereby reducing, but not eliminating, such conduct); engaging in physical acts in her presence (such as banging on her car windows and forcibly taking items from her hands); and generally acting in a hostile manner that has caused the mother to fear for her safety.
62That said, given that the father’s parenting time will occur at a supervised access centre until further order of the Court, any restraining order made pursuant to s. 46 of the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3, shall be limited to prohibiting the father from coming within 100 meters of the mother’s residence, her place of employment, or any location where he knows she to be present, as well as the children’s school. This restraining order shall be in effect for a period of two years, which can be extended at the request of the mother by way of a motion which shall be served on the father by way of special service.
63All communication between the parties shall occur exclusively through OurFamilyWizard.com.
ORDER
64The Final Order of the Honourable Justice Dominique Goulet of the Quebec Superior Court of Justice, dated June 7, 2023, shall be varied as follows:
Decision Making
The Applicant mother shall have sole decision-making responsibility with respect to all decisions related to the care and wellbeing of all three children, namely M.R. (born in 2018), I.R. (born in 2020), A.R. (born in 2021) without the need for the father's consent. This includes but is not limited to, decisions pertaining to the children's school, medical needs, and religion, and also passport applications, registration for activities, and travel. The mother, Jessica Agostini shall not be required to provide the father's consent while registering and applying for the above.
The mother shall inform the father, through Our Family Wizard and advise him as to the decision that needs to be made and the father may provide his input, including whether or not he agrees with the proposed decision and if he doesn't, why he does not agree, with proposing an alternative resolution. Should the father not respond within 3 days of the mother's initial message notifying him of the decision, or should the parents not be in agreement, the mother may make the final decision independent of the father.
The Respondent father shall be kept up to date with who the children receive medical services from in the community, where they attend for school and daycare and if they travel out of country with their mother, she shall advise the father as to when they will be traveling, where they will be traveling to and how they can be contacted while abroad, not less than 60 days before the planned departure.
Restraining Order
- The Respondent father shall refrain from attending within 100 metres of the mother's home, place of employment, or any other place the mother is known to be, including the children's school, without prior written and revokable consent from the mother.
Parenting time
The father's parenting time with the children shall remain supervised at a rate of once every two weeks for two hours each visit. The supervision shall occur at a supervision centre or with a third-party supervisor who is agreed upon by the parties in writing and in advance of the parenting time.
The level of supervision and any increase of the father's parenting time shall be at the discretion of the mother and shall only change with her written consent subject to the following:
(a) The mother must at all times place the best interests of the children at the forefront when considering any requests for change to the father's parenting time and
(b) The mother shall not unreasonably prevent any progression given it remains in the child's best interests.
(c) The father may only request a change to his parenting time after a period of consistent and positive parenting time and only three times a year. His request must be brief, to the point and child focused.
COSTS
65The mother is the successful party in this proceeding. If the parties are unable to agree on costs, I will accept written submissions not exceeding five (5) pages, double-spaced, with a Bill of Costs and relevant offers to settle, in accordance with the following timelines:
The mother to serve and file by July 10, 2026
The father to serve and file by July 24, 2026
Any reply to be served and filed by the mother by July 31, 2026
The Honourable Justice Audet
Date: June 26, 2026
CITATION: Agostini v. Rochdi, 2026 ONSC 3720
COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-1587
DATE: 2026/06/26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Jessica Agostini, Applicant
-and-
Mohamed Hamza Rochdi, Respondent
COUNSEL: Deanna Paolucci, for the Applicant
Jean Claude Dubuisson, for the Respondent
REASONS FOR Decision
Audet J.
Released: June 26, 2026