St. Catharines, ON – A St. Catharines court has ruled on a contentious parenting dispute between separated parents, awarding the mother sole decision-making responsibility for their 10-year-old son while implementing a gradual reintroduction of the father’s parenting time. The decision in K.M. v. G.C., 2025 ONSC 4507 (CanLII) follows an escalating conflict between the parents that culminated in a physical altercation in the child’s presence and the father’s subsequent criminal charges, later withdrawn.
K.M. (the father) and G.C. (the mother) began living together in 2012 and welcomed their son, B.M., in 2014. They separated in 2018 and entered into a separation agreement in 2020, granting them joint decision-making authority, primary residence with the mother, and a defined parenting schedule. The arrangement functioned with relative cooperation until late 2023, when tensions rose. The father claimed the breakdown was due to his request for more parenting time; the mother attributed it to his new relationship.
Section 56(1) of Ontario’s Family Law Act permits a judge to set aside terms of a separation agreement if doing so is necessary to protect a child’s best interests. While the parents’ 2020 agreement provided for joint decision-making, the court found that the level of conflict and breakdown in communication required sole decision-making to be placed with the mother, while still ensuring the father’s right to receive information and provide input.
In January 2024, the father filed an application to increase his parenting time. Matters came to a head in July 2024 after B.M.’s soccer game, when a confrontation between the parents, extended family members, and the father’s new partner turned physical. The incident occurred in B.M.’s presence and led to assault charges against the father. A peace bond prohibited direct contact between the parents except for limited purposes.
Following the incident, court orders attempted to maintain parenting time through exchanges facilitated by the father’s uncle at neutral locations. However, logistical issues ended those arrangements by September 2024, and the father has not seen his son since. By January 2025, despite a consent order for school-based exchanges, B.M. was missing school on exchange days and refusing contact.
At trial, the father alleged the mother engaged in parental alienation by withholding information, failing to facilitate communication, and sharing inappropriate details of adult conflicts with B.M. The court found that before the July 2024 incident, there was no evidence of alienating behaviour by B.M., but the mother had occasionally undermined the father’s role and failed to follow the agreement’s consultation requirements. The court also found that the July 2024 altercation was a form of family violence that justified some of B.M.’s estrangement from his father.
Justice L.E. Standryk concluded that both parents bore responsibility for the breakdown in co-parenting. While the mother would retain sole decision-making authority, the father would have the right to be informed of, and provide input on, major decisions. A strict communication protocol through parenting apps and the father’s uncle was ordered to limit conflict.
The court rejected the father’s request for a week-about schedule and the mother’s request to suspend his parenting time entirely. Instead, parenting time will be reintroduced gradually under the uncle’s supervision, starting with short visits and potentially expanding to overnights, guided by a reconciliation counsellor.
In reaching the decision, Justice Standryk applied the “best interests of the child” test set out in section 24 of Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act. That provision requires the court to give primary consideration to a child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. The law also directs judges to weigh a series of specific factors, including the child’s needs, their relationships with parents and extended family, the history of care, and each parent’s ability to communicate and cooperate on parenting matters.
On financial matters, the court ordered the father to pay $1,271 per month in child support based on his 2023 income of $146,211, plus $6,250 in arrears for the first half of 2025. He was also ordered to pay $3,801.52 toward outstanding extraordinary expenses, with ongoing costs for activities and uniforms shared equally.
The court applied the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, including the table amounts and section 7. That section recognizes certain costs, such as before and after-school care, school uniforms, and organized sports, as “special or extraordinary expenses” that can be shared between parents in addition to base child support. The judge confirmed that these expenses were already contemplated in the parents’ agreement and ordered them to continue sharing them equally despite differences in income.
Both parents must participate in individual counselling, and B.M. will continue therapy for his diagnosed anxiety. The court declined to issue a restraining order, finding insufficient grounds for the mother to fear for her safety, but warned that non-compliance with conduct orders could lead to such an order in the future.
Under section 46 of the Family Law Act, a continuing protection order can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to fear for one’s safety or the safety of a child. Applying this test, the court declined to grant the order, finding no ongoing pattern of harassment or violence that met the legal threshold.
The ruling leaves the door open for a review of parenting arrangements after one year of regular contact and completion of counselling, with the goal of potentially expanding the father’s parenting time if progress is made.
Read about other family law cases here.
