Sandra Ang v. Winston Ang, 2026 ONSC 3749

CITATION: Ang v. Ang, 2025 ONSC 7254 COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-29715 DATE: 20260105

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

SANDRA ANG

Applicant

– and –

WINSTON ANG

Respondent

Hanna Kofman and Kelsey Osmond, for the Applicant

Self-Represented Respondent

HEARD: December 15 – 19, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISON

C. STEVENSON J.

1The Applicant, Sandra Gee Ang (“Sandra”) and the Respondent, Winston Ang (“Winston”), were in a relationship for eight and a half years from 2013 to 2022. Each testified to a very different view of that relationship. They agree they were not legally married, although they went through a wedding ceremony in Hawaii in December 2014, followed by a family celebration with some 100 guests at Graydon Hall, Toronto.

2Winston did not continuously live with Sandra for the first five years of their relationship. Instead, he lived primarily with his wife, Jacqueline Ang until March 2018, at which time Winston moved in with Sandra after the birth of their one child, E, on March 3, 2018. E was conceived using in vitro fertilization (“IVF”). Sandra was then 50 years old. Winston was 55 years old. Sandra says she had understood from Winston that he was separated from Jacqueline.

3Winston says he was still living with Jacqueline even after 2018. He and Jacqueline do not have children together, although she helped raise Winston’s two sons by his first wife.

4Winston’s first marriage (Jacqueline Ang is his second wife) had ended very badly with extensive legal proceedings.

5When he met Sandra, Winston very much wanted a daughter. Sandra had a son and a daughter from a prior marriage. She was quite happy to go through the IVF process to have a daughter with Winston.

6Although their living arrangements were imprecise, it is clear that Winston did not play an extensive parental role in respect to E at any material time. Winston focused on being an authoritative provider, rather than a nurturing parent. The evidence established that Sandra was the parent who provided the overwhelming bulk of the nurturing and care for E, both before and after separation.

7The parties separated on January 21, 2022, after Winston threatened Sandra’s life (he denies any threat). Winston was criminally charged with uttering threats. He moved out when the charges were laid. Bail conditions were imposed requiring him to stay away from Sandra. The charges were withdrawn some 10 months later.

8After that event Winston definitively moved back in with Jacqueline Ang, with whom he continues to reside.

9Sandra commenced this Application in 2022. Winston commenced civil litigation which is being dealt with separately from this trial. Jacqueline commenced her own civil litigation, suing Winston and his companies, including one called Blueprint Inc., as well as Sandra.

10Winston is in the construction business and proud of his financial success, although he has failed to pay child or spousal support despite court orders which require him to do so.

11Winston has often gone out of his way to tell people that while he is E’s father, E’s biological or genetic mother, is an egg donor, not Sandra. He told E, when she was only 5 or 6 years old, that Sandra was not her biological mother and showed her photographs of the egg donor. His wife, Jacqueline agrees with Winston’s view that the child should know the truth about how she was conceived. Both believe that Sandra should not be keeping this truth from E, even though she is only a child.

12The only issues in this trial are: what decision-making regime and what parenting time schedule and primary residence are in E’s best interests?

13The facts are strongly contested but in addition to concurrent text messages from Our Family Wizard (“OFW”), supervised parenting reports (“Brayden”) and some audio recordings, the court was greatly assisted by the fact that the parties agreed to have Dr. Helen Radovanovic conduct an assessment pursuant to s.30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990 c, C.12 (CLRA).

14Dr. Radovanovic’s report dated May 31, 2024 (“the section 30 Assessment”) forms part of the evidence at this trial by virtue of s.30(9) of the CLRA. Dr. Radovanovic also testified. While this report and Dr. Radovanovic’s testimony are not binding on the court, Dr. Radovanovic provided thoughtful recommendations which I have considered carefully in reaching my own conclusions. Gibbons v. Byrne, 2024 ONSC 3898 at paras 20-21.

15I have only taken E’s best interests into account in reaching my conclusions, having regard to the requirements in s. 24 of the CLRA. Parental preferences and rights play no role. Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 27 at paras. 19 and 28. I have carefully considered the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and wellbeing (CLRA, s. 24(2)) and all the circumstances listed in s. 24(3) of the CLRA.

16In considering the impact of family violence as I am required by virtue of s. 24(3)(j), CLRA) I have taken into account the various factors listed in s. 24(4) of the CLRA and the fact that s.24(5) provides that past conduct should be considered where it “is relevant to the exercise of … parenting time, decision making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.” In particular, I have considered whether Winston exercises coercive control as that concept has been discussed in cases such as Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, [2022] 1 SCR 517 at paras.143-147 and 178-186, (that discussion is in the context of a relocation case), Ginese v. Fadel, 2024 ONSC 2427 at paras. 123-125 and El Khatib v. Noun, 2023 ONSC 1667 at para. 71.

Sandra’s position

17Sandra claims sole decision-making in respect to E, and for her home to be the primary residence for E.

18Sandra says she has been E’s primary caregiver for her entire life. Sandra’s view is that she alone has provided E with consistency, security, and comfort. She says she has responsibly made decisions in E’s best interests with respect to education, healthcare, extracurriculars, and religion.

19She says that Winston is not able or willing to parent E appropriately.

20She points out that he has abdicated all financial responsibility for E, failing to pay child support since July 2023, in breach of Justice Faieta’s interim Order dated February 28, 2023.

21Sandra also relies heavily on the fact that Winston has perpetrated family violence against her, and that E has been exposed to this violence. She says that Winston has threatened Sandra’s life, including telling E he will kill Sandra.

22Sandra argues that Winston cannot separate his intense antipathy towards Sandra from E’s feelings towards her mother. She says that Winston’s parenting role must be carefully circumscribed because Winston does not appreciate or acknowledge the value in E having a positive and close relationship with her mother.

23She argues that there is a real risk, which she says is supported by Dr. Radovanovic’s conclusions, that if Winston is granted expanded parenting time with E, he will seek to alienate E against her mother —in Dr. Radovanovic’s words, he may “use E to avenge himself” against Sandra.

24Sandra says only she is capable of providing the stable and safe home that E requires. E’s best interests necessitate a parenting schedule which should involve her residing primarily with Sandra. She agrees that E should have consistent, appropriate time with Winston, but only with oversight from a mental health professional to protect against Dr. Radovanovic’s concerns.

25Moreover, she says E will benefit from Sandra having sole and final decision-making. Given Winston’s demonstrated pattern of aggressive and confrontational communications with Sandra, she says it is not feasible for the parties to have joint decision-making responsibility. Sandra says she must be empowered to make decisions for E without Winston undermining her judgment.

Winston’s position

26Winston says that Sandra’s request for sole decision making and imposing limits on his parenting time is based on multiple fabrications. In his written opening statement he said that Sandra is a “scorned woman who will not stop her revenge against the Respondent.” In closing he said she has “scorned woman syndrome”. Winston says that Sandra is angry that he never left his wife of twenty-five years, Jacqueline Ang, after an on-again, off-again, eight and a half years relationship.

27Sandra’s first fabrication is said to be her false statement to the police on January 21, 2022 wrongly accusing Winston of having threatened her. He denies threatening her, and relies on the fact that charges which had been laid initially were subsequently withdrawn.

28Winston says Sandra’s second fabrication was her complaints to the police in July and August 2022. Winston notes these did not result in any charges.

29The third fabrication, according to Winston, were Sandra’s false statements to the police in June 2024 wrongly accusing Winston of having told E (then 6 years old) that Winston was going to “destroy” Sandra. He implied in his cross-examination of Sandra that she shouldn’t have relied on what must have been a lie by a 6-year-old. He denies having told E that he would “destroy” Sandra. Again, he relies on the fact that the charges which were initially laid, were subsequently withdrawn.,

30The fourth “fabrication” Winston attributes to Sandra is not a fabrication. It is the fact that Sandra brought an unsuccessful motion on July 9, 2024 to require Winston’s parenting time to be supervised. At the time Winston had limited but unsupervised parenting time. Sandra was concerned about the contents of the May 30, 2024 section 30 assessment and brought her motion to require Winston to be supervised during his parenting time with E, while awaiting this trial.

31Justice Ramsay on December 31, 2024 refused to require that Winston’s parenting time be supervised on an interim motion, without a full record. Instead, Justice Ramsay recommended an expedited trial.

32In addition to his theory that Sandra is out to get him, Winston says that Sandra has not acted in E’s best interests in various ways, including unduly restricting E’s time with Winston and his family, exposing E to aggressive calls between the parties, signing E up for useless art therapy, and assaulting his employee Carrie Chen in E’s presence.

33Winston says that in addition to charges by the police, another consequence of Sandra’s fabrications is that she deceived Dr. Radovanovic and this is one reason why Dr. Radovanovic’s recommendations should be ignored.

34Winston for the first time at trial also argued that Dr. Radovanovic was derelict in her duties as a section 30 assessor. He accused her at trial of cultural and gender bias. Although he had consented to her appointment, in closing argument he said both that she had acted in conflict of interest by virtue of her connection with another assessor who had worked on Mr. Ang’s first marriage dispute years earlier, and that she had improperly failed to obtain from that assessor all the details of Mr. Ang’s behaviour in his first marriage.

35Finally, Winston said that Dr. Radovanovic’s two-year-old report is stale dated and should be ignored.

36In his Answer, Winston had requested joint decision-making responsibility for E, or in the alternative, sole decision-making, and a shared parenting schedule that includes weekends, weekdays, and overnights.

37In his closing argument Winston proposed a draft Order which would have given him sole decision making over important issues. This draft Order also provided that Sandra should be responsible for arranging medical appointments and she must keep Winston fully informed of all routine matters. His draft order also provided that Sandra and her family must be available for pick ups when Winston isn’t available.

Existing Parenting Arrangements

38When Winston moved out in January 2022, he did not initially have any parenting time with E. From March 2022 to October 2022, Winston did have parenting time, which he reluctantly agreed would be supervised by Brayden Supervision Services. This parenting time generally went well, in that E was happy to spend time with her father. However, during this supervised parenting time Winston sometimes spoke negatively about Sandra, and occasionally undermined Sandra’s judgment as a parent to E.

39After a few months Winston refused to continue to pay for Brayden’s services, which resulted in him having no parenting time for some weeks.

40The parties eventually agreed to unsupervised parenting time on Tuesdays and Thursdays after school (to 7pm) and each Saturday from 10am to 3pm. This continues to be the parenting time arrangement. It is mandated by the February 28, 2023 consent Order of Justice Faieta, which also provided that parenting time shall increase gradually, as agreed by the parties. If they did not agree, the parties were directed to consider Dr. Radovanovic’s section 30 report when it became available. They never did agree on revised parenting time. The section 30 report will be discussed below. Thus, Winston’s parenting time has remained as ordered by Justice Faieta, since March 2023.

The events which precipitated the parties’ separation on January 21, 2022

41The parties’ relationship had deteriorated prior to the COVID 19 pandemic’s arrival in March 2020. COVID made matters worse. Sandra, a hospital pharmacist, had been off on a two-year disability leave which was attributable to various events. To make matters worse, her son from her prior marriage almost died from COVID complications.

42Significantly, Sandra felt threatened by what she perceived to be an increasingly angry Winston. She felt that he was mentally and financially abusing her. Although Winston did not hit her, she was concerned that he might. She says Winston would sometimes berate E. She recounted one incident where Winston was angry when E spilled scrambled eggs and blueberry jam on him by mistake. He made E clean up the mess, although Sandra did not suggest this was a common type of incident.

43In early December, 2021 Sandra confronted Winston at work about his relationship with one of his employees, Carey Chung. Sandra believed Winston was having an affair with her. Sandra called Ms. Chung a whore and pulled at her coat. This occurred in front of E. As Sandra admitted at trial, this was not her finest hour. Sandra testified that she regrets having done this.

44On December 13, 2021 Sandra and Winston had a heated telephone call, much of which Sandra recorded. E was with her in the car while this occurred. Both parents agree in hindsight it was inappropriate to have this argument while E was listening. They continued this call despite the fact that both of them knew E was listening. Winston did not know he was being recorded.

45The background to the December 13, 2021 call was that Winston had texted Sandra to call him urgently. She called while taking E to school around 8.30 am. Winston told her he had smashed their “wedding” photographs in his office and he wanted to offer her the opportunity to come to the office and clean up the debris. Winston called her “Chinese trash” and a “fucking cunt”. He said he did not need a “pyscho” in his life and she (Sandra) did not deserve to live in a house.

46Sandra says she started recording when Winston became belligerent. She felt she needed a record of his threatening behaviour. Winston maintained that in an earlier portion of the call which was not recorded Sandra “egged him on”.

47Nothing suggests that Sandra baited him to say things he would not otherwise have said, although I agree that surreptitious recordings are generally to be discouraged in family litigation. Furthermore, it was very ill advised to have this conversation while E was present and listening. It reflects poorly on both of them.

48Sandra testified that she was reluctant to hang up on Winston before he was finished because prior experience told her that, if she did hang up, he would come home in an angry and violent mood, demanding further explanations. Sandra believed she and E would be at greater risk if she hung up the call before Winston was done.

49Although Winston agreed his language in the call was inappropriate, he also maintains that Sandra had long ago accepted his “truck driver’s mouth”. He did not agree that he had been aggressive or that Sandra might reasonably have felt threatened by the manner in which he spoke, or by the contents of his speech.

50I admitted the audio recording into evidence. I do not accept that it distorted the reality of the parties’ communications. To the contrary, I find that it accurately portrayed what Sandra experienced at the time when trying to communicate with Winston. I find that Winston was hostile and aggressive. To make matters worse, his lack of appreciation that this was the case and his refusal to accept he had acted badly, and had scared Sandra, increases the likelihood that he will repeat such behaviour.

51Sandra decided to speak to a lawyer and to a woman’s shelter. She got a second telephone so she could maintain contact if Winston took away her first phone.

52One day in this timeframe, Sandra was in tears when she dropped E off at school. A teacher was concerned and intervened. When the teacher heard the details of why Sandra was upset, the teacher reported the incident to the Children’s Aid Society (CAS).

53CAS later contacted Sandra who was very concerned when CAS told her they would have to interview Winston and make sure, as Sandra now told them, that Winston was not threatening her anymore.

The January 20, 2022 Call

54On January 20, 2022 Sandra called Winston to alert him to the fact that the CAS would be calling him. She tried to downplay the situation in order to appease him. Sandra advised him that she had told CAS that there was no longer a problem. Winston responded aggressively in this call. Sandra started recording again. E was present in the car.

55Again I admitted the recording as a fair and accurate depiction of the conversation, and indirectly of the state of their relationship. While it does not reflect well on Sandra that she continued this conversation in front of E, without the recording the court would not have had so clear a demonstration of both Winston’s fury and the duplicity of his attempt at trial to rationalize his threats as not rising to the level of threats and as being entirely Sandra’s fault.

56In the January 20, 2022 call Winston told Sandra he wasn’t going to lie to CAS but as far as he was concerned, Sandra had thrown the first stone.

57He told her that everyone that he does a favour for, must protect him. “When you make things public, you are going against me”.

Sandra told him: You were very awful that day. I was shaken that day. I told them you apologized.

Winston replied: “I’m telling you right now, you’re done… No-one does that to me and lives to tell about it… I will destroy, annihilate, total and complete annihilation is my common… Go hide... You can interpret whatever you want… I’ll speak to them. You go fuck yourself... I just asked you bitch, anything else...Go find your own condo.”

Sandra stated in the call that she had contributed money too. Winston responds saying, “we” will give you whatever you deserve.

Winston says: “Life is not fair… When you get a crazy wife who goes and does stupid things, then she suffers the consequences... Your stupidity puts me on a record” (he testified that he was referring to a record with CAS).

Sandra then asked him: Why did you have to treat me so poorly?

Winston told her: “You deserve it. Go find your own place. I have said it for many years now…I have a way to deal with things effectively. The proper way…You are the one who is going to be suffering at the very end… Nobody does this to me and lives to tell about it… I’m the boss…I’m not threatening anything. I’m just telling you. Nobody lives to tell about it…”

“I will annihilate you in court if I have to.”

Sandra then told Winston: I was trying to help. I told them everything is good now. You apologized. We did have an argument.

He then said: This will teach you in your future relationships not to pull stunts.

Sandra said: You just smashed photos. You call me horrible names. After month and months of this from when you had the affair with Carrie.

You listen to me bitch… January 20 is not a good day for you.

Sandra said: This is going to hurt E. Winston replied: “You keep saying that like the bible thumper you are…There’s a war. Declared today. This is the day I was engaged to my ex-wife… I’m not the type to reason when people do stupid things…I don’t need to be your husband…Whatever…You reported this to CAS”.

Sandra told him that the teacher made the report. Winston said: I already heard all that. I’m not scared of fights.

Sandra: I’m giving you the opportunity not to fight.

Winston replied: You go ahead and destroy your life… You got to think before you do things…Don’t talk to me while I’m making money right now…You don’t deserve a good husband. Find another man”.

Winston maintained his position at trial that he had not threatened Sandra

58One might have expected Winston to have apologized for his threats in that call and perhaps to have attempted to explain them as an admittedly unacceptable reaction to a very stressful situation. That did not happen. At trial Winston did not accept that he had been aggressive or threatening in this call. Although he agreed his language was inappropriate, he said Sandra was used to it and it was not threatening.

59Winston relied repeatedly on having said in the middle of the call that he would annihilate Sandra “in court”.

60To Winston this established conclusively that he was not threatening violence and that he was simply telling Sandra the way this matter would unfold: by his inevitable victory in court and Sandra’s legal destruction, for having been so stupid as to challenge his dominant role as the “boss”.

61It was clear that Winston believed at the time of the call, and he continued to believe at the time of trial, that only he had been done wrong, and that Sandra should be chastised for questioning his behaviour and putting him in a position where he had to respond to both the CAS and the police.

62Winston believed himself to have been completely vindicated by the fact that the charges were withdrawn and CAS closed its file. He did not recognize that any aspect of his behaviour had been questionable or had contributed to the predicament in which he found himself. As far as he was concerned Sandra was entirely and exclusively at fault for CAS having investigated him and the police having laid charges. As already noted, he described Sandra’s complaints as a fabrication intended to harm Winston and extract revenge on him for not marrying her.

63Winston essentially invited the Court to put Sandra in her place and concurrently to acknowledge his faultless behaviour. He clearly believed Sandra had no right to question his dominance and no grounds of complaint about his behaviour. He does not recognize that he had engaged in family violence in part because the criminal charges were withdrawn and CAS closed its file, leaving the issues to the family court.

64Winston’s rationalization of this conversation was delusional. Winston lacks self awareness and he still fails to understand that his anger and aggression threatened Sandra-and it would have felt threatening to any reasonable person. The trial established that Winston is still unable or unwilling to take responsibility for his own behaviour. His behaviour continues to be aggressive and domineering towards Sandra. He engaged in “coercive control” in 2022 and he continues to try to exercise control over Sandra as set out below.

65The family violence endured by Sandra must be considered when determining E’s best interests. These findings reinforce the court’s conclusion below that joint decision-making is not in E’s best interests. L.B. v. P.E., 2021 ONCJ 114 at paras. 106-107.

66Section 24(3)(j) of the CLRA expressly includes family violence as a factor to be considered in deciding these types of parenting issues. All the relevant factors in section 24(3) are repeated below for ease of reference. I have taken them all into account in reaching my decision, with particular emphasis on the subsections I have put in bold print:

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

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

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

(d) the history of care of the child;

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

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

(g) any plans for the child’s care;

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

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

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

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

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate 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.

OFW Messages

67Various Our Family Wizard (OFW) messages were put into evidence. Many show that Winston is extremely critical of Sandra’s parenting decisions. For example, his irrational opposition to art therapy for E and his domineering directions to Sandra telling her she needed to cut E’s nails, wash and care better for E’s hair, deal differently with potential bullies at school, obtain better medical care for E, and arrange a new paediatrician in the manner he demanded. In short, on many day-to-day issues, as well as more significant matters such as healthcare, Winston believed he knew better than Sandra and his directions should be followed without question.

68On July 3. 2023 Winston told Sandra that she was wrong to show E “fake wedding photos” (referring to the wedding photos of Winston and Sandra) and that E should be told the “truth”. This truth, he stated, was that “you agreed to be a surrogate, and an egg donor from Seattle, Washington was used to have E…Below are photos of the egg donor in case you’ve forgotten who she is. This is who E has a strong resemblance With respect to E calling me, she’s more than welcome to do so anytime as she is after all my DNA daughter.”

69It was clear that Winston’s consistent view since separation has been and continues to be that Sandra is an inadequate mother to E, he knows better than she does how to care for E, and that Sandra needs to follow his parenting instructions.

70Sandra’s responses to Winston’s provocations were generally measured and reasonable, although she made occasional comments which she later regretted. Nonetheless, I find that Sandra since early 2022 has for the most part dealt with Winston in a calm and restrained manner. It is unfortunate that the police have been involved as often as they have been. The lack of any successful prosecution is a testament to the lack of utility of criminal charges in some family cases.

71I find, however, that Sandra is clearly acting in E’s best interests. I also find that Sandra’s reasonable parenting communications stand in almost complete juxtaposition to Winston’s often inappropriate and belligerent communications with Sandra.

72Sandra even sought advice from a parenting counsellor to help her deal with Winston is an appropriate way. She is to be commended for doing so. Oddly, Winston considered this to be inappropriate on Sandra’s part.

73Winston’s evidence was consistently defensive and uniformly hostile to Sandra, whom he believes to have initiated this litigation to get revenge on him, rather than acting in E’s best interests. Winston’s views have no connection to reality and reflect poorly on his own judgment as to what is in E’s best interests.

Winston’s view of Sandra as E’s mother

74I find that Winston told E that she was conceived by means of an egg donor and IVF. He says this is simply the truth and that a child should be told the truth. He suggested, but I do not accept, that Sandra had first raised this issue with E and that he had only responded to E’s questions on the subject. I find that Winston decided to share this extremely sensitive information with E because he wanted to undermine E’s relationship with her mother, Sandra, by quite literally telling E that Sandra was not her “real” mother.

75Winston has limited experience caring for E, including overnights. The last time Winston has spent any overnight time with E was pre-separation, when Sandra was present and cared for E. Sandra continues to be E’s primary caregiver post-separation, just as she was during the relationship.

76Winston’s testimony as a whole confirmed that he does not believe there is value in E having a close relationship with Sandra. He does not believe Sandra is a good mother. Winston said that he does not know if E loves Sandra. This is to be contrasted with Sandra’s express recognition that E loves her father and should spend time with him.

77Winston’s uniformly negative perception of Sandra clouds his ability to support E’s bond with her mother, contrary to E’s best interests. I find that Winston does not have the ability to attend to E’s needs on a shared or equal basis.

Winston’s extended family

78Winston talked often about the business success of his two adult sons, Mark and David. Mark and David did not testify, and nor did any of Winston’s extended family other than his second wife Jacqueline Ang.

79Winston denied that he was estranged from his sons or they from each other. He said E should be enabled to have a relationship with them and they would be good role models for her. Whatever the truth of his relationship with his sons, or of their step-mother Jacqueline Ang with them, it is significant they did not testify in support of their father or his parenting skills. Nothing in Winston’s self-serving evidence about how well he had raised his sons was supported by any independent evidence. In any event, they are now adults living independently and did not testify to having any interest in developing better ties with E.

80Winston agreed he had been a strict disciplinarian with his boys but that nonetheless he, and E, had a good relationship with them. But there was minimal evidence to support that dubious proposition. Winston said that one of the boys had texted positively with E on one occasion. This is insufficient to support Winston’s claims.

81Winston did not remember if the boys had attended his 2014 wedding ceremony with Sandra. When confronted with a photograph, Winston conceded they had attended.

82The evidence did not suggest Mark and David are likely to have much of a supportive role raising E in future.

83Although Mark and David did not testify, Winston did call three of his male business associates (one of whom does not have children) to testify to his good relationship with E and his prowess as a father. None of them had, however, spent any significant time with E and Winston, and their evidence was superficial at best. It did not provide the court with any confidence that it is in E’s best interests to increase Winston’s parenting time.

84To the extent there might be any validity to Winston’s complaint that his current, relatively minimal parenting time with E precludes his family from spending much time with her, it was significant that none of his family testified on his behalf, other than Jacqueline Ang. Furthermore, her testimony only occurred at the last minute and was prompted by a summons served by Sandra’s counsel.

85Jacquline acknowledged that after Winston had a stroke in 2013 (from which he recovered fully) she gave him “carte blanche” to live his life as he saw fit. He says this allowed him to have sexual relationships as he saw fit. It was significant, however, that Jacqueline conceded that she was unaware of his daughter, E’s, existence until after she was born and his relationship with Sandra had fallen apart.

86Nonetheless, Jacqueline professed her willingness to be an engaged step-mother to E. Nothing suggested, however, a close bond between Jacqueline and E. Indeed, it was troubling to hear Jacqueline repeating Winston’s position that E had to be told the truth, namely that Sandra’s was not E’s biological mother and that E was the product of IVF. This evidence undermined Jacqueline’s potential as a healthy support to Winston during his parenting time with E. It was also inconsistent with the professional opinion of Dr. Radovanovic about how to deal with such a sensitive issue with a young child.

87Furthermore, Winston himself has proven to be an unreliable parent when it comes to picking up E. Various examples were given but one incident occurred at the end of the second day of trial. Winston failed to arrange for someone to pick up E after school when he was stuck in court, as he knew he would be. Winston thought he could leave the pick-up to Sandra even though it was his parenting time because he was in court at the trial (as was Sandra). This was not the first such occasion. Winston does not have a firm grip on what is required to father a seven-year-old, and his evidence did not establish an adequate support network to help him do so.

88While Winston is E’s father and he should have parenting time, the evidence supports the inevitable conclusion that it is not appropriate or in E’s best interests for her to spend more parenting time with Winston than she currently does.

89Winston argued for more parenting time in part based on the reasons of Justice Ramsay dated December 31, 2024. Those reasons do not assist him. They dealt primarily with whether supervised parenting was warranted pending trial. That decision notes that a final decision will turn on the full trial record. That full record is now before this court and establishes the Applicant’s claims on the balance of probabilities.

Sandra’s extended family

90The evidence at trial from Sandra and her witnesses, including her adult daughter from a prior marriage, sister and niece-in-law, demonstrate that Sandra is a caring and dedicated mother. It was obvious that Sandra provides E with consistency, security, comfort and meets all her needs. Sandra has an excellent support network who love and care for E. Her relatives also confirmed that they would support Winston in his role as E’s father.

Sandra has acted in E’s best interests

91Sandra has been very supportive of E’s school and extra-curricular education. Even more obvious was Sandra’s love and support which have helped ensure E receives appropriate medical care, for example, for her port wine stain birthmark.

92Sandra had consistently provided E with emotional comfort. With the exception of the audio-recorded events summarized above where E was present (her presence was understandable, if inappropriate) Sandra is attuned to E’s needs and responds to them appropriately given E’s developmental level.

93I find that Sandra has made appropriate decisions for E throughout her life, and I have no doubt she will continue to do so. Sandra prioritizes E’s needs and I am satisfied that she has been supportive of E developing an appropriate parental relationship with Winston.

Dr. Radovanovic’s Report

94Dr. Radovanovic met with Sandra, Winston, E, and several other people involved in E’s life, including Winston’s wife Jacqueline Ang and various members of E’s community.

95Dr. Radovanovic’s report and testimony were insightful, persuasive and consistent with the court’s conclusions based on the rest of the evidence at trial. I reject Winston’s suggestion that Dr. Radovanovic acted in conflict of interest or with any cultural or gender bias. The report was thorough and professional in all respects. The report was not “stale” in that there was no evidence of any material events between the May 30, 2024 report and the December 2025 trial which would warrant a different conclusion, other than my view on the need for counselling which is discussed below.

96Dr. Radovanovic’s report remarked on the fact that Winston has engaged in a pattern of coercive control, anger, and abuse towards Sandra. Dr. Radovanovic expressed concern for E’s wellbeing while she is in Winston’s care.

97I acknowledge that the views and conclusions expressed in section 30 assessment are not binding on a court: C.C. v. S.C., 2021 ONSC 3899. The court has no obligation to accept the report or the recommendations of a clinical investigator or assessor: D’Angelo v. Barrett, 2016 ONCA 605, at para. 8; Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305, at para. 20. The court must come to its own conclusion as to what is in the best interest of the child: Singer v. Davila-Singer (2003) 2003 48471 (ON CA), 42 R.F.L. (5th) 202 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 6.

98Dr. Radovanovic’s testimony and report, however, support the court’s independent conclusions that:

(a) Joint decision-making is not appropriate due to significant concerns about the conflict between the parties, including Winston’s animosity toward Sandra and his aggressive and accusatory communication style with Sandra;

(b) Sandra should have final decision-making authority for all of E’s health care, education, religion, and welfare; and

(c) E’s best interests will be best met by continuing to reside primarily with Sandra.

99Dr. Radovanovic recommended that parenting time be provided on a slightly different schedule to what is currently in place. I have decided, however, that there is no need to change the current parenting time schedule which has been followed for more than two years and E is used to it. It will continue in place “as is”.

100Dr. Radovanovic suggested that Winston’s parenting time should be supervised in the event that Winston refused to attend parent coaching/counsellor with a parenting coordinator, or if the parenting coordinator, upon completion of coaching/counselling, found that the coaching/counselling was unsuccessful.

101I do not impose that requirement. Winston expressed strong opposition to having parenting counselling imposed on him or Sandra. He repeatedly expressed the view that the issues between the parties could easily be resolved and that further conflict could be avoided in future communications.

102I don’t accept that this is the case, but I do not believe that imposing therapeutic counselling on Winston will have any useful impact unless he comes to the personal realization that he needs help both to communicate with Sandra and to be a better father to E.

103Winston has the option to obtain his own coaching or counselling from a parenting coordinator, but his failure to do so, by itself, will not be grounds for requiring his parenting time to be supervised. However, it is difficult to imagine that his parenting time will be increased in the future without proof that Winston has changed for the better. E’s best interests are the criteria. Evidence of Winston’s participation in counselling and of his positive change might assist him in this regard if in some future year he suggests there has been a material change in circumstances. But it is up to him.

Conclusion

104The Applicant, Sandra, is entitled to an Order in the form and content she filed at trial, subject to the amendments specified above i.e., paras. 10, 10(b) and 25 must be amended and paras. 29-35 deleted. (The full name of the child should be included in the formal Order). Specifically, the Respondent’s parenting time shall remain as it has been for the past two years, and there shall be no provision that his parenting time be “supervised” even if the Respondent fails to seek therapeutic input from a parenting consultant or coordinator.

105The precise Order shall be as follows:

Decision-Making Responsibility

1. The Applicant, Sandra Ang (“Sandra”) shall have sole-decision making authority for the child, E…, born March 3, 2018 (“E”).

2. Sandra shall make all final decisions for E’s healthcare, education, religious upbringing, and welfare. Where possible, Sandra shall consult the Respondent, Winston Ang (“Winston”) and obtain his opinion before making any final decision around major child-related issues. Sandra shall keep Winston informed about major decisions for E in a timely manner.

Major healthcare decisions

3. This term shall apply to decisions related to the choice of healthcare professional for E, prescription medications, and healthcare investigations and treatments (e.g. prescription medications, medical tests, diagnostic scans, surgery, orthodontia work, physiotherapy, speech therapy, counseling, etc.)

a. Sandra shall notify Winston about any major medical/healthcare decisions that have been or need to be made for E, as well as provide Winston with the name and contact information of the attending physician(s) or professional(s).

b. Sandra shall make major healthcare decisions for E. Winston’s opinion shall be canvassed where possible ahead of any major decision.

c. The parties shall notify each other as soon as possible of E’s emergency visits to a physician and/or hospital. Winston may make emergency decisions should Sandra be unavailable. These emergency decisions shall be made in consultation with the qualified healthcare/medical professionals.

d. Should E be admitted to the hospital, both parties shall have separate and reasonable access to her.

Major education decisions

4. This term shall apply to decisions related to school selection, academic programming, class placement, psychoeducational testing, tutoring, etc.

a. The parties shall make their own arrangements for parent/teacher interviews.

b. Sandra shall alert Winston regarding any upcoming major decisions for E’s schooling. The parties may separately consult with and obtain the opinions of the relevant professionals, as necessary. Sandra shall make the final decision should there be a disagreement regarding major education decisions.

Religion

5. Each party may participate with E in celebrating religious traditions and holidays and provide religious education that they determine is in E’s best interests. Both parties shall respect and support the other party’s religious practices with E.

6. The parties shall consider E’s preferences, particularly as she matures, in planning for any religious education and participation in activities/events related to faith or religious-based practices.

7. Sandra shall make the final decision if there is disagreement about a major decision related to E’s religion or religious practices.

Extra-curricular Activities and Lessons

8. The parties may enroll E in activities that occur on their own parenting time (if there is no impact on the other parties’ parenting time) without the other party’s consent.

9. The parties shall communicate via Our Family Wizard about relevant information related to E’s extra-curricular activities and lessons regardless of whose time the activity/lesson falls on.

10. Agreement is generally required for enrolment in any activities that overlap both parents’ time with E.

a. The exception to this paragraph is that Sandra shall be responsible for decisions related to E’s registration in summer and March break camps, even when this impacts Winston’s time with E. Sandra shall keep Winston apprised of these registrations. Winston shall pick up E at the end of camp on the days that he spends with E. E’s time with Winston shall be extended to 7:30 p.m. on these days.

b. In the event of a disagreement about the choice of extra-curricular activity on overlapping time, Sandra shall make the final decision.

Day-to-day Decisions

11. Day-to-day decisions about E shall be the responsibility of the residential parent.

Day to day and routine medical and healthcare decisions

12. Sandra shall be responsible for organizing and attending at healthcare appointments for E. Sandra shall keep Winston informed about the outcome of the appointments, any treatments recommended, and other investigations which might be anticipated.

13. Sandra shall send a message in OFW to Winston regarding the outcome of a health care appointment as soon as possible and within 24-hours.

14. Sandra shall schedule these appointments during her parenting time, when possible. If this is not possible, and should the healthcare warrant more immediate attention, Sandra shall alert Winston to the need to reschedule his parenting time and Sandra shall provide make-up time for E to be with Winston.

15. Either party may obtain information directly from the physician/healthcare provider. Winston shall request notes/reports from the physician/healthcare provider. Sandra shall not be expected to provide these documents to Winston on a routine basis; however, she shall forward any significant documents provided to her by the healthcare provider to Winston to inform his care of E.

16. The resident parent shall be responsible for making day-to-day healthcare decisions while E is in his/her care (e.g. when to give over the counter medication, attendance at healthcare professional’s office for immediate or timely attention for an illness or injury, etc.). The administration of any prescribed medication shall adhere to the healthcare professional’s opinion about dosage and frequency.

17. The parties shall use the current healthcare professionals for E until that healthcare professional is no longer available or another healthcare professional would better meet E’s needs.

18. Any mental health professionals working with E shall give direction about the parties’ potential involvement and participation in E’s treatment.

Day to day and routine Education decisions

19. E’s school shall have contact information for both parties in the case of an emergency. It is the responsibility of each party to provide their information to the school. The parties shall provide the school with a copy of the parenting schedule. Sandra shall be contacted for an earlier pick-up in case of E’s illness or injury at school. Should Sandra not be available, she shall delegate a family member to pick up and care for E until she arrives. Sandra shall keep Winston informed about E’s health status and plans for return to Winston’s care.

20. Each party is independently responsible for utilizing the school’s calendar (available on their website) and shall remain advised of the schools’ relevant events (e.g. the days that the school is closed, special events, trips, concerns, parent-teacher meetings, etc.). Each party shall request that the school directly provide them with important notices, report cards, etc.

21. The parties shall not attend functions together. These functions include such events as: open houses, curriculum night, religious services, fundraisers.

22. Sandra shall complete the school documents that require written parental authorization. Sandra shall keep Winston apprised of the more important school-related decisions/events.

E’s documents

23. Sandra shall be responsible for holding and renewing E’s government-issued documents in a timely manner. Sandra shall be the librarian for E’s passport, health card, and birth certificate. Winston shall be provided with a copy of E’s health card.

Parenting Time

24. Sandra shall have primary residence of E.

25. Winston shall have unsupervised parenting time with E as follows:

a. Tuesday and Thursday: Winston shall pickup E at dismissal time from school/camp, and drop E off inside the Leaside Public Library, 165 McRae Drive, Toronto at 7:00 p.m. (or 7:30 p.m. if pickup was at camp).

b. Saturday: from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., with transition occurring inside Leaside Public Library.

c. All exchanges that do not occur at E’s school or camp shall occur inside Leaside Public Library.

d. All exchanges for weekday visits when there is no school or camp Winston shall pick up E at 4:00 pm and drop her off at 7:30 pm.

e. E shall reside with Sandra at all other times.

26. The parties shall follow the below holiday schedule, which shall override the regular schedule:

a. Christmas Eve/Christmas Day: E shall spend 5 hours with Winston on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. If there is a disagreement about the time Sandra will make the final decision.

b. Easter: E shall spend Saturday of the Easter weekend with Winston, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. E shall be with Sandra for Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

c. Thanksgiving: E shall spend the Saturday of the Thanksgiving Long Weekend with Winston, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. E shall be with Sandra on Thanksgiving Sunday and the holiday Monday.

d. Summer vacation: E shall have the opportunity to vacation with Sandra for two non-consecutive 1- week (7 day) periods, or one consecutive 2-week (14 day) period.

i. Sandra shall notify Winston of her chosen weeks by April 30 of each year.

ii. In the event of a disagreement on this proposed vacation between the parties, Sandra shall have the final decision.

iii. Winston’s parenting time shall be adjusted to accommodate this vacation.

iv. Winston shall have an additional day of parenting time with E during the week after the vacation with Sandra.

e. March Break: E shall have the opportunity to travel or vacation with Sandra over this one-week (7 day) period.

i. If Sandra vacations with E during this time, there shall be an additional parenting day with Winston the week following the vacation.

f. Mother’s Day/Father’s Day: E shall be with Sandra on Mother’s Day. E shall spend Father’s Day with Winston from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

g. E’s Birthday: The regular parenting schedule shall apply.

Communication

27. The parties shall communicate exclusively through Our Family Wizard (“OFW”)

a. All communication shall be respectful and neutral in tone and use of language.

b. All communication shall pertain only to E and related matters.

c. No communications are to occur through third parties with respect to parenting issues.

d. Neither party shall denigrate or judge the other parent in any communication.

e. All communication shall be kept to a minimum and shall be brief, while also ensuring that important information about E is shared in a timely manner.

f. All communication shall be checked and responded to as soon as possible and within 48 hours.

g. If a specific reply to a request cannot be provided within 48 hours, that party shall send a prompt response to the other party advising why the requested information/opinion cannot be provided and inform as to when a response can be expected, and such response shall be provided as soon as possible and within a reasonable time frame to address the issue at hand.

28. E may call the non-resident parent if she wishes, but all calls shall occur at a reasonable time of the day, based on the routines and activities with the resident parent. The calls shall be arranged through OFW.

29. Costs are reserved to a further decision of this court.

106The Applicant shall make costs’ submissions in writing within 7 days. These shall not exceed three pages, double spaced, plus a copy of any applicable Offer to Settle and a bill of costs. The Respondent shall provide his costs’ submissions within 7 days of receiving the Applicant’s costs’ submissions. These shall not exceed three pages, double spaced, plus a copy of any applicable Offer to Settle and his bill of costs, if he chooses to file one. No right of reply.

__________________________ Justice C. Stevenson

Released: January 05, 2026

CITATION: Ang v. Ang, 2025 ONSC 7254 COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-29715 DATE: 20260105