Overview

This case centered on a decision regarding parenting time in a high conflict family matter. There were allegations of violence and criminal charges laid by each party against the other.

Facts

There were two main incidents of family violence reported.

The first occurred in August of 2020. The police were called to the party’s home and found that the father had suffered multiple injuries (cuts and abrasions). They found that his injuries were caused by the mother, and as such, they charged her with assault. The father urged the Crown to drop the charges upon learning she was pregnant, at which point, the parties resumed cohabitating together.

The second incident, similar in nature to the first, occurred on February 4, 2021. The mother attended the hospital after the incident. The hospital staff noted bruising on the mother’s arms and called the police to investigate. Upon the police’s arrival, they charged the father with assault. When the father went to court for his criminal matter, the court found that the mother had initiated the incident, and they acquitted the father as a result.

Issues

The court considers the following issues:

• Whether the father’s parenting time should be truncated,
• Whether the father’s parenting time should be supervised by a third party,
• Whether the father’s parenting time should include overnight visits, and
• Whether the father’s parenting time should only be gradually increased in the near term.

Analysis

The court in this case recognized that they must be cautious when making decisions in cases where family violence is alleged as family violence can cause damage not only to the party’s involved, but also to the children of those parties.

The court therefore considered the incidents noted above, but they could not find evidence sufficient to restrict the father’s parenting time as there did not appear to be any risk to the party’s child.

The court considered the mother’s argument that the father had spent little time with the child and therefore a restricted, gradual reintroduction of parenting time is warranted.

However, the court then noted that the mother had imposed conditions on the father’s parenting time, which were often introduced at the last moments and after arrangements without such conditions had already been previously agreed upon. These conditions made it increasingly difficult for the father to exercise his parenting time.

The mother claims these conditions were imposed as a result of the incidents noted above. However, the court found her imposition of conditions arising from the altercations she herself initiated was unfair, and arbitrarily created the recent lack of content she was grounding her argument in for the restriction of the father’s parenting time. The court did not find it justifiable to restrict the father’s parenting time as a consequence of incidents for which he was exonerated.

The court also found it notable that both prior to and since the incidents leading to the criminal charges, the mother relied on the father to parent their child extensively, including for long periods of time on his own. The evidence seemed to suggest the father is a thoughtful and considerate parent, and does not pose a danger to his child.

Conclusion

The court found that the evidence does not support the level of restriction advocated for by the mother but rather that the children’s best interests are served by a reasonably expeditious path towards shared parenting time. Further, there was no evidence that the father posed a risk to the child, or that the recent lack of contact should serve as justification to reduce or restrict the father’s parenting time. As such, the court made an Order for the parenting schedule proposed by the father.