“The leading case in Ontario concerning grandparent access is Chapman v. Chapman and Chapman (2001), 141 O.A.C. 389, 201 D.L.R. (4th) 443, 15 R.F.L. (5th) 46, 2001 CanLII 24015 (ON CA), 2001 CanLII 24015, [2001] O.J. No. 705, 2001 CarswellOnt 537 (Ont. C.A.), which established the importance of deferring to parental autonomy unless all three of the following questions are answered in the affirmative:
(1) Does a positive grandparent-and-grandchild relationship already exist?
(2) Has the parent’s decision imperilled the positive grandparent-and-grandchild relationship?
(3) Has the parent acted arbitrarily?
See also Giansante et al. v. Di Chiara, 2005 CanLII 26446 (ON SC), 2005 CanLII 26446, 141 A.C.W.S. (3d) 71, [2005] W.D.F.L. 4015, [2005] O.J. No. 3184, 2005 CarswellOnt 3290 (Ont. Fam. Ct.).
In answering the first question, the case law clearly establishes that a “positive” grandparent-and-grandchild relationship means something more than an occasional pleasant experience for the child. In order to displace the principle of parental autonomy, the grandparent-and-grandchild relationship must consist of a close bond with strong emotional ties deserving of preservation. In the majority of cases in which the court imposed an access order in favour of a grandparent against an unwilling parent, the child had either lived with or spent significant time with the grandparent over a significant period prior to the litigation: Tucker v. Lester and Lester, 2002 SKQB 225 (CanLII), 220 Sask. R. 309, [2002] 9 W.W.R. 585, 29 R.F.L. (5th) 238, [2002] S.J. No. 322, 2002 CarswellSask 331 (Sask. Q.B.); Jones (Collins) v. Scheltgen, 2003 CanLII 2389 (ON SC), 2003 CanLII 2389, 127 A.C.W.S. (3d) 93, 127 A.C.W.S. (3d) 478, [2003] O.J. No. 4417, 2003 CarswellOnt 4605 (Ont. Fam. Ct.); Foster, Foster and Foster v. Allison, 2003 CanLII 2369 (ON SC), 2003 CanLII 2369, 44 R.F.L. (5th) 78, [2003] O.J. No. 3681, 2003 CarswellOnt 3528 (Ont. Fam. Ct.); Rodgers v. Rodgers, Rodgers and Campbell, 2003 SKQB 485 (CanLII), 240 Sask. R. 77, 49 R.F.L. (5th) 183, [2003] S.J. No. 737, 2003 CarswellSask 761 (Sask. Q.B.); Bellamy and Bellamy v. Wendzina, 2004 SKQB 78 (CanLII), 246 Sask. R. 287, 49 R.F.L. (5th) 239, [2004] S.J. No. 163, 2004 CarswellSask 175 (Sask. Q.B.); C.W. and M.W. v. D.T. and C.T., 2004 ABPC 109 (CanLII), 4 R.F.L. (6th) 239, [2004] A.J. No. 704, 2004 CarswellAlta 801 (Alta. Prov. Ct., Fam. Div.); Kobow v. Kobow (Nielsen), 2007 ONCJ 514 (CanLII), 46 R.F.L. (6th) 455, [2007] O.J. No. 4317, 2007 CarswellOnt 7238 (Ont. C.J.); Ekvall v. Cooper, 2007 SKQB 440 (CanLII), 305 Sask. R. 243, 47 R.F.L. (6th) 426, [2007] S.J. No. 640, 2007 CarswellSask 691 (Sask. Q.B.); Dhillon v. Dhillon Estate, 2008 CanLII 66140 (ON SC), 2008 CanLII 66140, 63 R.F.L. (6th) 317, [2008] O.J. No. 5093, 2008 CarswellOnt 7703 (Ont. S.C.).”