SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

DATE: 2026-02-09

RE: Matthew Vassair, Applicant

AND:

Bonnie Ehrhardt, Respondent

BEFORE: Honourable Justice R. Misheal

COUNSEL: M. Belansky, for the Applicant

J. Nabuurs, for the Respondent

HEARD: via Videoconference on January 13, 2026

ENDORSEMENT

Overview and Background

1 . The Court heard two competing motions arising from a longstanding and highly contentious dispute between the parties concerning the medical care and dietary management of their nine-year-old child, Cash Bradley Terrance Vassair, born May 4, 2016 (“Cash”).

2 . The parties were married on October 30, 2015. They separated on or about February 2, 2018, and have one child of the marriage, Cash.

3 . On October 21, 2018, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement, as incorporated into the Final Order of Ramsay J. dated January 2, 2019 (hereinafter “the Order”).

4 . The Order at paragraphs 1 and 2 states that:

1. The Applicant, Mathew James Patrick Vassair and the Respondent, Bonnie Kate Vassair shall share joint custody of the child, namely, Cash Bradley Terrance Vassair, born May 4, 2016, with the primary residence of the child to be with the Respondent.

2. The Applicant and the Respondent shall consult with each other with respect to the health education, and general well-being of their child. The parties shall communicate between each other using App Close, Family Wizard, email, or by text messages. The party with the child in their care shall be responsible for making the day-to-day decisions regarding the child's education, general well-being and any non- emergency medical decisions. The Applicant and the Respondent shall make any major medical care decisions together jointly. The Applicant and the Respondent shall consult one another on all major decisions regarding the child's education, healthcare needs and general welfare, and shall obtain the input of the other party prior to making any final decisions, which shall not be made arbitrarily. Any decision requiring such mutual consent or agreement shall be communicated, and mutually agreed upon, in writing.

5 . Paragraph 3 of the Minutes of Settlement states the following:

3. The parties shall follow the advice of their child's medical professionals and communicate any information regarding their child's health, education, and general well-being immediately to the other party. The parties acknowledge that their child has a risk of developing a medical condition called Hashimoto's. In order to prevent this disease from developing, both parties agree that they shall maintain their child's gluten free and dairy free diet. If there is a prescription issued for their child by a doctor, the parties shall follow the prescription & the doctors' instructions, telling the other party immediately the reason for the prescription and the medical condition of the child. The parties shall consult each other on any medical prescription other than over the counter medicine. The parties shall inform each other of all administration times and amounts of medication given.

6 . The Minutes of Settlement included a clear provision requiring that Cash maintain a gluten-free and dairy-free diet in both households. The dietary provision was precautionary and agreed upon in light of the risk of developing a medical condition called Hashimoto's. The Minutes were not framed as temporary, conditional, or discretionary, and to date have never been set aside or varied.

7 . By a way of background, on September 25, 2019, the Applicant commenced a Motion to Change that he has sole decision-making, parenting time with the Respondent and child support. In the Respondent's response to the Motion to Change, she sought sole decision-making, parenting time to the Applicant and child support.

8 . The matter ultimately proceeded to trial before Justice Gordon, with the trial taking place over four days on November 21, 22, 23, and 24, 2022.

9 . On January 13, 2023, Justice Gordon released his decision where he concluded that neither party has established a material change in circumstances warranting a variation of the existing order, and dismissed all claims made by the Applicant and the Respondent (at para. 103).

10 . With respect to paragraph 3 of the Minutes of Settlement, Justice Gordon stated the following:

“This provision was not incorporated into the consent order granted on January 2, 2019. The parties acknowledge the minutes of settlement are a domestic contract within the meaning of section 51, Family Law Act ”.

11 . With respect to the child’s diet, Justice Gordon noted that a significant portion of the trial was devoted to whether the child’s gluten-free and dairy-free diet had caused or alleviated health concerns. He observed that no medical evidence had been tendered and no medical diagnosis had been made to address that issue (at para. 111).

12 . Notwithstanding the absence of medical evidence, Justice Gordon emphasized that the child’s diet was expressly addressed in the Minutes of Settlement, which the parties acknowledged constituted a domestic contract. He held that the term requiring a gluten-free and dairy-free diet must be followed, and further noted that there had been no request in the Motion to Change to vary that provision. Justice Gordon also expressed concern that the Applicant had unilaterally ignored a term of the agreement without the support of any medical opinion (at para. 112).

13 . Justice Gordon further observed that there was some consensus regarding the need for medical testing and directed that the parties schedule and attend an appointment with the child’s family physician. He concluded that until a diagnosis is made, the parties were required to comply with the terms of their agreement, including the dietary provision (at para. 113).

14 . Subsequent to the trial, it can be summarized that Cash had the following appointments with respect to his health issues:

a. June 8, 2022

Cash attended with Dr. Bhagirath, pediatrician. Bloodwork was requisitioned, including testing for celiac disease, in response to concerns regarding gluten and dairy intolerance.

b. March 31, 2023

Cash was assessed by Dr. Ha Joung Kim, Naturopathic Doctor, who conducted food intolerance testing. The report indicates reactivity to gluten and dairy and recommended an elimination diet and meal tracking.

c. June 20, 2023

Cash attended with Dr. Pratt, allergist/immunologist. Dr. Pratt concluded that Cash does not have IgE-mediated food allergies to gluten or dairy and recommended an elimination diet rather than further lactose-intolerance testing.

d. May 22, 2025

Cash attended with both parents for a check up and following review of his dietary history and ongoing concerns, referrals were made to a dietician and to the pediatric diet and obesity clinic at McMaster Children’s Hospital.

15 . Currently, Cash is on the waitlist with the pediatric diet and obesity clinic at McMaster Children’s Hospital.

16 . The Respondent commenced a Motion to Change on April 11, 2025, amongst other things, seeking sole decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support.

17 . The Respondent brought a Notice of Motion dated October 2, 2025, seeking enforcement of the Minutes of Settlement as incorporated into the Final Order. She asserts that the Applicant has failed to comply with the requirement that Cash follow a gluten-free and dairy-free diet in both households and seeks structured tracking by both parents of the child’s food intake and symptoms.

18 . The Applicant responded with a cross-motion dated October 22, 2025. He seeks dismissal of the Respondent’s motion and orders directing that Cash‘s family doctor refers the child to a dietician in Welland, Ontario, or in the Niagara Region if one is not available in Welland, with interim dietary restrictions maintained only pending completion of that testing and receipt of professional recommendations.

19 . While both parties assert that they are acting in Cash’s best interests, their narratives diverge sharply. The Respondent frames the matter as one of enforcement of an existing order in the face of non-compliance. The Applicant emphasizes that prior proceedings lacked medical evidence and asserts that the current dispute turns on the need for updated medical information. He submits that Cash does not have IgE-mediated food allergies to gluten or dairy and contends that further assessment is required to properly determine Cash’s needs.

20 . Although framed differently, both motions arise from the same underlying difficulty: persistent medical uncertainty coupled with a level of parental conflict that has undermined consistency, clarity, and effective communication with medical professionals.

21 . Importantly, despite the adversarial positions advanced, the materials reveal some interim common ground. Both parties accept that Cash should remain on a gluten-free and dairy-free diet for the present, albeit for different reasons and with sharply differing views as to duration, justification, and next steps.

22 . The disagreement has evolved beyond food. It now reflects a broader conflict concerning medical authority, the credibility of different sources of health information, and control over decision-making affecting the child.

23 . These reasons address both motions together and are intended to provide a clear and structured framework that enforces existing obligations, supports appropriate medical involvement, and promotes the best interests of the child.

24 . In determining this long motion, the Court was provided with and considered the following materials:

Respondent’s materials:

• Respondent’s Notice of Motion, dated October 2, 2025;

• Respondent’s Affidavit, sworn/affirmed September 30, 2025;

• Respondent’s Reply Affidavit, sworn/affirmed November 23, 2025; and

• Respondent’s Factum, dated December 8, 2025.

Applicant’s materials:

• Applicant’s Notice of Motion, dated October 22, 2025;

• Applicant’s Affidavit, sworn/affirmed October 22, 2025;

• Applicant’s Reply Affidavit, sworn/affirmed December 1, 2025; and

• Applicant’s Factum, dated December 1, 2025.

The Parties’ Positions

The Respondent

25 . The dietary provision was precautionary but deliberate, negotiated in light of unresolved medical concerns and a familial history of autoimmune disease, and has never been varied or set aside, and remains binding on both parties.

26 . The Respondent asserts, and the Applicant admits, that the Applicant routinely feeds Cash gluten and dairy while in his care, despite knowledge of the order and despite Justice Gordon’s express reaffirmation in 2023 that the dietary provision must be followed until a diagnosis is made.

27 . The Respondent does not assert that Cash has a confirmed allergy. Rather, she maintains that Cash suffers from intolerance and gastrointestinal issues, significant weight gain, and related health concerns, none of which have been definitively explained. In her view, the absence of a diagnosis necessitates caution, not unilateral relaxation of dietary restrictions.

28 . The Respondent relies heavily on Justice Gordon’s finding that, although no medical diagnosis had been established, the parties were nevertheless required to comply with their agreement and that unilateral deviation was concerning. She characterizes the present motion as one of enforcement, not variation.

29 . Given the ongoing medical uncertainty and lengthy wait for tertiary care, the Respondent seeks an order requiring both parties to track Cash’s food intake, symptoms, and bowel movements, including photographs of meals, so that reliable, consistent information can be provided to treating professionals.

30 . The Respondent supports maintaining Cash on the wait list for the pediatric diet and obesity clinic at McMaster Children’s Hospital, which she views as an appropriate tertiary-care centre. She opposes any steps that would undermine or interfere with that referral.

31 . The Respondent maintains that continued adherence to the ordered diet, coupled with structured tracking and coordinated medical involvement, best protects Cash’s health and welfare while awaiting professional guidance. She emphasizes that her position is not punitive, but precautionary and child-focused.

The Applicant

32 . The Applicant opposes the Respondent’s motion for enforcement and seeks relief that he characterizes as necessary to address ongoing medical uncertainty concerning the child, Cash.

33 . The Applicant emphasizes that there is no confirmed medical diagnosis establishing that Cash has celiac disease, lactose intolerance, or any other condition requiring strict elimination of gluten or dairy. He relies on physician-led testing, including an allergist assessment, which he submits did not support a diagnosis of food allergy.

34 . While acknowledging that the Minutes of Settlement incorporates a gluten-free and dairy-free diet, the Applicant asserts that the restriction was precautionary and should not continue indefinitely in the absence of medical confirmation. He maintains that the continued restriction may itself be contributing to nutritional or weight-related concerns.

35 . The Applicant acknowledges that he feeds Cash gluten and dairy while in his care. He denies doing so out of disregard for the Court’s authority or for convenience, and instead frames his conduct as guided by his understanding of the medical evidence and his view of the child’s best interests.

36 . The Applicant frames the dispute as one requiring an update, physician-led medical assessment. He seeks orders directing further testing and professional input, rather than enforcement of what he views as an outdated precautionary measure.

37 . Central to the Applicant’s requested relief is an order that the parties proceed through Cash’s family doctor for coordination of further assessment and referrals. He submits that a family physician is best positioned to determine whether further testing, specialist referral, or dietary modification is clinically appropriate.

38 . The Applicant does not oppose the existing referral to the pediatric diet and obesity clinic at McMaster Children’s Hospital. However, he maintains that attendance at McMaster may ultimately prove unnecessary if primary-care assessment resolves the issue.

39 . The Applicant maintains that his proposed approach, updated medical assessment, reliance on physician guidance, and limiting dietary restriction absent diagnosis, better serve Cash’s long-term health and well-being. He asserts that continued enforcement without medical confirmation risks entrenching parental conflict rather than resolving it.

Issues

40 . The issues to be determined are:

a. Is there a material change of circumstances?

b. What is the Court’s Role in Medical Disputes and the child’s best interest?

c. Is the Respondent entitled to enforcement of the dietary provision contained in the Final Order?

d. Is it appropriate to order dietary and symptom tracking as an interim, child-focused measure?

e. Should the Court grant the Applicant’s request for referral through the child’s family doctor?

f. How should the Court address the child’s continued placement on the McMaster Children’s Hospital wait list?

Analysis

A. Is there a material change of circumstances?

41 . The threshold issue is whether there has been a material change since the prior trial decision.

42 . The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon v. Goertz (1996) , 19 R.F.L. (4th) 177 sets out a two-stage process that governs motions to change decision-making responsibility, parenting time, including medical decision-making for a child.

43 . First, the party seeking a change must satisfy the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances affecting the child. Second, if that threshold is met, the court must undertake a fresh inquiry into what arrangement is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all relevant circumstances relating to the child’s needs and the ability of the parents to meet them.

44 . In L.M.L.P. v. L.S., 2011 SCC 64 , the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that a material change must be substantial and continuing, and must be one that, if known at the time the original order was made, would likely have resulted in a different order. The Court further emphasized that, even where a material change is found, the court must limit itself to the variation justified by that change.

45 . The change relied upon must have arisen since the making of the final order, or since the most recent variation of that order. See N.S. v. A.N.S., 2021 ONSC 5283 ; K.M. v. J.R., 2021 ONSC 111 .

46 . A change, standing alone, is not sufficient. The change must materially affect the child, the parents, or both. The threshold test is intended, in part, to prevent parties from resorting to litigation whenever any change occurs, however minimal. See K.M. v. J.R., 2021 ONSC 111 ; M.A.B. v. M.G.C., 2022 ONSC 7207 .

47 . On a Motion to Change, the court is not required to dismantle an existing final order in its entirety. Where appropriate, the court may restrict the scope of the variation to address a specific issue while otherwise maintaining the integrity of the existing order. See Elaziz v. Wahba , 2017 ONCA 58 .

48 . Ontario courts have also recognized that worsening parental conflict, particularly where it impacts a child’s well-being or the parents’ ability to exercise joint decision-making, can constitute a material change in circumstances. See Wreggitt v. Belanger ; Hackett v. Sever , 2017 ONCJ 193 ; K.M. v. R.J. , 2022 ONSC 111 ; Brethour v. Anderson , 2022 ONSC 4341 ; C.L. v. P.S., 2025 ONCJ 100 .

49 . Applying these principles to the evidence before the Court, I am satisfied that the threshold of a material change in circumstances has been met. Since the making of the final order, the dispute regarding the child’s medical care and dietary management has intensified, the parties’ conflict has worsened, and their inability to cooperate has begun to materially interfere with effective medical assessment and decision-making for the child.

50 . The evidence demonstrates that the disagreement has evolved beyond a difference of opinion regarding diet. It now reflects a broader and entrenched conflict concerning medical authority, the interpretation of medical information, and control over health-related decision-making, all of which directly affect the child’s well-being.

51 . This escalation of conflict, combined with ongoing medical uncertainty and inconsistent implementation of the existing order, constitutes a change that is substantial, continuing, and child-focused, and one that, if known at the time the final order was made, would likely have resulted in a different or more structured medical-decision framework.

52 . In addition, on the current record, the Respondent acknowledges that physician-led testing for celiac disease and lactose intolerance has returned negative results. While the absence of a diagnosis was also noted at the time of the prior trial, the evidence now establishes that the parties have moved beyond testing into a protracted and escalating conflict over how that uncertainty should be managed, with direct consequences for the child’s medical care.

53 . I am therefore satisfied and conclude that a material change in circumstances has occurred, warranting the Court’s intervention and a limited variation of the domestic contract and the Order, restricted to the medical and dietary issues that have given rise to the present motions, while otherwise preserving the integrity of the final order.

B. The Court’s Role in Medical Disputes and the child’s best interest.

54 . It bears emphasizing that the Court is not diagnosing the child, ranking medical professionals, or adjudicating between competing scientific views.

55 . The Court’s task is to determine what interim structure best promotes the child’s best interests in the context of shared decision-making, an existing final order, and demonstrable parental conflict.

56 . Decisions respecting parenting and decision-making responsibility are governed by the best interests of the child under both the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act . In assessing best interests, the Court must consider the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological well-being, including the child’s health and health-care needs, and must prioritize outcomes that promote stability, safety, and effective care.

57 . Where parental conflict has reached a point that undermines effective medical care, the Court must impose structure.

58 . Best-interest determinations must be evidence-based, fact-specific, and child-focused. Courts must avoid orders that entrench conflict or invite repeated enforcement litigation.

59 . Where disputes concern health and medical care, courts generally afford the greatest weight to objective evidence from qualified medical professionals acting within their expertise.

60 . The parties' narratives relating to gluten and dairy are uneven in quality. It ranges from diet counselling based on parental report to naturopathic testing to specialist assessment.

61 . The Applicant relies on the report of Dr. Pratt, the allergist/immunologist, dated June 20, 2023. The report states explicitly that the child does not have IgE-mediated food allergies to gluten or dairy.

62 . The Respondent relies in part on naturopathic testing by Dr. Ha Joung Kim, dated March 31, 2023, which concluded that Cash showed “high reactivity” or “sensitivity” to gluten and dairy and an elimination diet removing gluten and dairy for 7–10 days, along with tracking meals and symptoms.

63 . Courts have consistently recognized that judges are not medical experts. Where disputes arise concerning diagnosis, treatment, or referral, it is appropriate to defer to qualified medical professionals.

64 . In Macgregor v. Stone , [2004] O.J. No. 4191 (S.C.J.) aff’d in , [2005] O.J. No. 4313 (C.A.) the court ordered that decisions concerning gastrointestinal treatment be guided by the child’s primary care physician, expressly recognizing that neither the parents nor the court was equipped to resolve the dispute independently.

65 . That principle applies with equal force here.

66 . The Court does not discount that naturopathic practitioners are members of a regulated profession. However, the weight afforded by such evidence depends on reliability, scope, and the practitioner’s qualifications to opine on the issue in question.

67 . Appellate authority confirms that it is an error to rely on purported medical evidence without assessing whether it is reliable, independent, unbiased, and authored by someone with expertise in the relevant area.

68 . Courts have cautioned that a practitioner’s designation alone does not resolve the question of expertise, particularly where opinions touch on conventional medical diagnosis or necessity.

69 . At the same time, courts have accepted that naturopathic services may be used in conjunction with medical care, provided they do not supplant physician-led diagnosis or treatment.

70 . What emerges from jurisprudence is not an ideological hierarchy of health professions, but an evidentiary one. Where the issue concerns diagnosis or medical necessity, the Court’s role is not to choose between competing medical theories, but to ensure that determinations as to diagnosis, treatment, and next steps are made by qualified medical professionals acting within their scope of expertise.

71 . On this record, there is no reliable physician diagnosis establishing that Cash has a gluten or dairy allergy requiring strict elimination. The Respondent’s case is therefore not one of ignoring a confirmed diagnosis, but of managing uncertainty through continued restriction in the view that it is in the child’s best interest.

72 . The Court also notes that both Dr. Kim and Dr. Pratt acknowledged that Cash’s gastrointestinal symptoms may be influenced by factors other than food sensitivity, including anxiety and the effects of parental separation.

73 . During submissions, both parents further advised the Court that Cash has recently commenced counselling.

74 . Where credible professional evidence raises the possibility that a child’s symptoms may be multifactorial and influenced by emotional or environmental stressors, the Court must take that evidence into account when assessing both the child’s best interests and the appropriate framework for medical decision-making.

C. Is the Respondent entitled to enforcement of the dietary provision contained in the Final Order?

75 . The dietary provision in the Minutes of Settlement remains binding.

76 . Disagreement with its continued necessity does not entitle either parent to disregard it unilaterally.

77 . The Court accepts the parties’ position that the provision was precautionary. However, precautionary does not mean optional.

78 . Until such time as the order is varied, it must be complied with.

79 . The evidence demonstrates that the parties fundamentally disagree about what Cash eats, what symptoms he experiences, and when those symptoms occur.

80 . Each parent presents sincerely held views. However, sincerity does not equate to reliability.

81 . Medical professionals depend on accurate histories. Inconsistent diets and conflicting reports undermine diagnosis and treatment.

82 . The Court is satisfied that the lack of objective, shared information has materially contributed to the parties’ ongoing impasse.

D. Is it appropriate to order dietary and symptom tracking as an interim, child-focused measure?

83 . The Respondent seeks an order requiring dietary and symptom tracking.

84 . The Court finds this relief to be necessary, proportionate, and directly connected to Cash’s best interests.

85 . Tracking is not punitive. It does not assign blame or pre-judge medical outcomes.

86 . Rather, it serves three essential purposes:

a) it enforces consistency with the existing order;

b) it provides reliable data for medical professionals; and

c) it reduces the scope for conflict based on competing narratives.

87 . Given the parties’ history, the Court is of the view that voluntary cooperation is unlikely to achieve these objectives.

88 . A court-ordered framework is therefore warranted.

E. Should the Court grant the Applicant’s request for referral through the child’s family doctor?

89 . The Applicant seeks an order directing the parties to request a referral through Cash’s family doctor.

90 . As noted earlier in these reasons, where disputes arise concerning medical diagnosis, medical necessity, or the appropriate sequencing of further assessment, the Court must be cautious not to substitute its own judgment for that of qualified medical professionals. The Court’s role is not to determine what medical steps should be taken, but to ensure that such determinations are made through an appropriate, reliable, and coordinated medical process.

91 . The family doctor is uniquely positioned to fulfil that role. Unlike individual specialists or practitioners retained for a discrete purpose, the family doctor has ongoing and historical knowledge of the child’s medical history, access to prior testing and consultations, and responsibility for integrating that information. This places the family doctor in the best position to assess the child’s overall presentation and to determine whether further referrals are clinically required, and if so, in what sequence.

92 . This approach is consistent with the jurisprudence already referenced earlier in these reasons. In Henderson J.’s decision in Macgregor v. Stone , the Court was confronted with a dispute strikingly similar to the one before me: divergent parental views regarding dietary restrictions, gastrointestinal symptoms, and the necessity of further specialist investigation. There, as here, the Court recognized that neither the parents nor the Court were experts in gastroenterology, and that judicial resolution of competing medical theories was neither appropriate nor desirable.

93 . In deferring to the child’s primary care physician to guide further investigation and treatment, Henderson J. articulated a principled and restrained approach. The Court did not reject complementary or alternative care outright, nor did it impose its own view of medical necessity. Rather, it placed responsibility for determining next steps squarely with the child’s primary medical doctor, while ensuring that both parents were bound to respect those medical recommendations.

94 . That same principle applies in the present case. The order directing referral through Cash’s family doctor does not represent a preference for one parent’s position over the other. Nor does it resolve the underlying medical debate. Instead, it establishes a clear and authoritative pathway for addressing ongoing uncertainty, grounded in physician-led care.

95 . Importantly, this order does not undermine the enforcement of the existing dietary provision. Rather, it complements it. Continued dietary consistency, coupled with objective tracking as ordered, will assist the family doctor in assessing the child’s condition and determining whether further testing, referral, or modification of dietary restrictions is warranted. In this way, the orders made are mutually reinforcing, enforcement promotes consistency; tracking promotes reliability; and physician coordination promotes informed decision-making.

96 . In the Court’s view, this approach best accords with the child’s best interests under both the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act . It reduces the scope for parental conflict, avoids unnecessary or duplicative medical interventions, and ensures that decisions about diagnosis and treatment are made by those professionally qualified to do so.

F. McMaster Children’s Hospital Wait List

97 . While Cash remains on the wait list for the pediatric diet and obesity clinic at McMaster Children’s Hospital, it remains possible that further assessment through primary care may determine that tertiary-level intervention is not required.

98 . Accordingly, Cash shall remain on the McMaster Children’s Hospital wait list pending the outcome of assessment and recommendations made by his family physician, or by any medical professional to whom the family physician refers the child.

99. Unless and until medical advice indicates otherwise, neither party shall take steps to remove Cash from the McMaster Children’s Hospital wait list or to interfere with, undermine, or circumvent that referral.

Conclusion

100. The Court is mindful of the need to avoid micromanaging parenting decisions.

101. However, where conflict impairs a child’s access to effective medical care, judicial intervention is justified.

102. The orders made are interim, reviewable, and designed to promote clarity rather than entrench positions.

103. The Court is concerned by the degree to which parental conflict has required repeated judicial intervention in matters relating to Cash’s medical care. Should the parties continue to be unable to cooperate or defer appropriately to medical advice, either party may seek an order to vary decision-making responsibility with respect to medical issues.

Costs

104. In determining costs, the Court has considered the principles set out in Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules , including the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, the degree of success achieved by each party, the reasonableness of the parties’ positions, and the importance of encouraging parties to act in a manner that is child-focused and proportionate.

105. The Court is satisfied that the outcome of the motion and cross-motion represents a divided success, in that each party obtained some, but not all, of the relief sought.

106. In these circumstances, and having regard to the ongoing parenting relationship and the nature of the issues before the Court, the Court finds that it would not be appropriate to depart from a neutral costs disposition.

Disposition

107. Accordingly, order to go on the following terms:

The Respondent’s motion is granted in part.

1. The Court orders that the Applicant and Respondent shall maintain Cash on a gluten and dairy-free diet and symptom tracking, including:

a) daily recording of all food and beverages consumed;

b) photographs of meals and snacks sufficient to assess portion sizes; and

c) tracking of gastrointestinal symptoms, bowel movements, bloating, and related complaints.

2. The tracking records shall be shared between the parties and made available to treating medical professionals.

The Applicant’s motion is granted in part.

3. The parties shall jointly request referral and guidance through Cash’s family doctor, who shall act as the coordinating medical professional.

4. Cash shall remain on the wait list for the pediatric diet and obesity clinic at McMaster Children’s Hospital, unless determined otherwise by his family physician, the consent of the parties, or further court order.

5. All other relief not expressly granted is dismissed.

6. Each party shall bear their own costs of the motion and cross-motion.

The Honourable Mister Justice R. Misheal

Released: February 9, 2026