BACKGROUND
The parties separated in 2022 and initially maintained an interim arrangement providing for equal parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility for their two children. In 2024, the Respondent reported concerns that the Applicant had physically abused the older child. Although the criminal charges against the Applicant were withdrawn in 2025, the Applicant was subject to a peace bond restricting contact with the older child until April 2026. In the interim, the children resided primarily with the Respondent.
The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) became involved, and the Court considered the children’s views, the evidence of abuse, and the Applicant’s insight into the allegations.
The Court ultimately had to determine the appropriate decision-making and parenting arrangements for each child, including whether the Applicant’s parenting time could progress to unsupervised visits and whether overnight parenting time was appropriate.
ANALYSIS AND THE LAW
The Children’s Best Interests and the Evidence of Abuse
The Court emphasized that parenting orders must be determined according to the children’s best interests, pursuant to section 16 of the Divorce Act and section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. There is no presumption in favour of equal parenting time or joint decision-making responsibility. Rather, parenting arrangements must reflect the individual circumstances of the children and prioritize their safety, stability, and well-being.
The Court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Applicant had physically abused the older child between 2022 and 2024, including by pinching him, striking him with a belt, and slapping him. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the older child’s statements to the OCL, evidence from professionals involved with the family, photographs documenting the child’s injuries, and video footage from the matrimonial home.
The Court found the older child’s statements to the OCL credible and reliable. His disclosures were consistent in their central allegation that the Applicant had hurt him, and his emotional responses when discussing the abuse were consistent with observations made by child welfare professionals and the reintegration therapist. The Court also accepted the Respondent’s evidence that he had witnessed the Applicant slap the older child.
Importantly, the Court rejected the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent or paternal grandmother had coached or brainwashed the older child. The Court found no cogent evidence supporting that allegation and concluded that the child’s account was not rendered unreliable by minor inconsistencies in his statements over time.
Although the Court found no evidence that the Applicant had abused the younger child, it remained concerned about the potential risk to both children. The Applicant’s continued denial of responsibility and lack of insight into the abuse raised serious questions about her ability to recognize and address the circumstances that had led to the older child’s harm.
Sole Decision-Making Responsibility
The Court determined that the Respondent should have sole decision-making responsibility for both children. Relying on McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, the Court noted that joint decision-making responsibility should only be considered where both parents are fit and able to meet the children’s needs.
The Court was particularly concerned that the Applicant had not accepted responsibility for the abuse. Although she had completed parenting courses recommended by child welfare authorities, those courses did not specifically address child abuse. She was also not engaged in ongoing therapy or counselling at the time of trial.
The Court explained that taking responsibility for harming a child is an important step toward demonstrating the insight necessary to prioritize that child’s needs. Without such accountability, the Court could not be satisfied that the Applicant had developed the insight required to reduce the risk of future harm.
The parties’ inability to communicate and make decisions together further supported the Respondent’s request for sole decision-making responsibility. Since April 2024, the parties had communicated almost exclusively through counsel or therapeutic interventions, and they had no meaningful track record of making joint decisions in a child-focused manner.
In contrast, the Court found that the Respondent had made appropriate decisions for the children while they were primarily in his care. He maintained their schooling, facilitated medical and dental care, involved extended family in their upbringing, and supported their participation in extracurricular activities. The Court also accepted that he had supported the Applicant’s relationship with the children where it could be facilitated safely.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Respondent have sole decision-making responsibility. However, the Respondent was required to keep the Applicant regularly informed of major decisions and seek her feedback where appropriate and at his sole discretion. The parties were also directed to communicate through a third-party application about the children’s safety and well-being and to obtain information directly from the children’s schools, doctors, and therapists.
Unsupervised and Overnight Parenting Time
The Court separately considered whether the Applicant’s parenting time with the younger child should progress from supervised visits to unsupervised and overnight parenting time.
The Court acknowledged that ongoing supervision is generally not intended to be a long-term solution. It also recognized the importance of maintaining a meaningful relationship between a child and both parents where doing so is consistent with the child’s best interests.
The Court found that continued supervision was no longer necessary for all of the Applicant’s parenting time with the younger child. The Applicant had not abused the younger child, her supervised visits had proceeded without incident for more than two years, and the younger child expressed happiness when spending time with her and a desire to spend more time together.
Nevertheless, the Court declined to order overnight parenting time. The Court was concerned that the abuse of the older child had begun when he was approximately five years old and occurred when the Applicant was alone with him overnight. As the younger child was approaching the same age, the Court considered this a significant risk factor. The Court was also concerned that the maternal grandparents would not be able to effectively supervise the Applicant’s interactions with the younger child overnight while they were sleeping.
The Court further declined to order equal parenting time or a more extensive weekend schedule. Such an arrangement would require the younger child to spend substantial time apart from his older brother and would involve lengthy travel between Toronto and Caledon East.
Instead, the Court ordered a gradual six-week transition from supervised to unsupervised daytime parenting time. The Applicant’s parenting time would ultimately consist of eight hours every Sunday, with exchanges occurring at a midway point, as well as parenting time on Wednesdays after school until 7:00 p.m. for dinner or another community-based activity in Caledon East.
The Court emphasized that the order did not prevent the parties from agreeing to further expansions of parenting time. The Applicant could also seek a variation based on a material change in circumstances. The Court observed that accepting responsibility for the abuse and participating in targeted psychological or other interventions might be sufficient to establish such a change.
The Importance of Accountability and Risk Assessment
A central theme of the decision was that the passage of time and incident-free supervised visits do not necessarily resolve concerns arising from past abuse. The Court distinguished between the Applicant’s demonstrated ability to care for the younger child during supervised daytime visits and her ability to recognize, take responsibility for, and address the conduct that had harmed the older child.
The Court did not treat the absence of abuse toward the younger child as sufficient to eliminate all concerns about future risk. Instead, it considered the circumstances of the abuse, the younger child’s age, the proposed parenting arrangements, and the Applicant’s ongoing lack of insight.
The decision also demonstrates that parenting time and decision-making responsibility require separate assessments. While the Court permitted a gradual move toward unsupervised daytime parenting time with the younger child, it concluded that the Applicant’s lack of accountability and the parties’ communication difficulties made joint decision-making responsibility inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the Court granted the Respondent sole decision-making responsibility and ordered a gradual transition to unsupervised daytime parenting time for the Applicant with the younger child, while declining to order overnight or equal parenting time. The parenting arrangements for the older child were left for further review following the recommencement of reintegration therapy.
Attention Legal Counsel: Professional Mediation Services
When your clients have reached an impasse in settlement discussions, Andrew Feldstein offers third-party mediation services specifically designed for cases where both parties have independent legal representation.
Why lawyers refer cases to Andrew:
- 30+ years family law litigation experience providing courtroom-informed reality testing
- Expertise in complex financial matters including business valuations and professional corporations
- Efficient, structured process that respects counsel’s time and maintains client relationships
- Flexible scheduling including virtual mediation and travel to counsel offices
Cases we handle: Negotiation stalemates, complex asset division, support calculation disputes, parenting arrangements, multi-jurisdictional matters, and post-separation modifications.
Refer your next mediation: Call Andrew directly at 905-415-1635 ext. 255 or email info@separation.ca. Virtual and in-person sessions available throughout the GTA.
Need Help Moving a Family Law Matter Forward?
Whether you are a lawyer seeking an experienced mediator or you are representing yourself and need legal advice, our family law team can help you understand the options and identify a practical next step.
How We Help
Mediation, negotiation, litigation, complex financial disputes, support, property division, and parenting matters. Virtual and in-person appointments are available throughout the GTA.