WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,

(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.

(8) Prohibition re identifying child. — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged. — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142.— (3) Offences re publication. — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: June 19, 2018

Court File No.: 17-278

Parties

Between:

In the Matter of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990

Family and Children's Services of Renfrew County Applicant

— And —

J.L.

And

V.B.

Respondents

Children

In the Matter of the Children:

J.B., V.E.B. and H.B.

Court Details

Before: Justice M.G. March

Heard on: June 11, 2018

Decision released on: June 19, 2018

Counsel

Anais Lussier-Labelle ....................................... Counsel for the Applicant Society

Natasha Pappin ........................................................ Counsel for the Respondent J.L.

Alexei Durgali ......................................................... Counsel for the Respondent V.B.

Decision

M.G. March J. (orally):

[1] By way of an emergency motion filed today, June 11, 2018, Family and Children's Services of Renfrew County (hereinafter referred to as "FCS") seeks an Order that access between the subject children and the Respondent father, V.B., be in its discretion. FCS takes this position based on a fight which occurred between two of the three older children, J.B. (age 12) and V.E.B. (age 10).

[2] J.B. called V.E.B. a liar. He told V.E.B. he had seen the movie she had made – a videotaped statement in fact – which V.E.B. had given implicating her father in an instance of sexual touching of her person. Police and FCS investigated. No charges were laid.

[3] For inexplicable reasons, V.B. cannot let it go that the allegation was made by V.E.B.. Indeed, he told an FCS worker, Ms. Rolfe, that he ". . .cannot correct J.B. because V.E.B. is in fact a liar". V.B. is clearly blind to the devastating impact his misguided righteousness, if I can characterize as such, is having on his children.

[4] This child protection proceeding has a long and tortured history. The children understandably are fatigued by the litigation which has gone on far too long. The parents and children are in desperate need of counselling and guidance, which may permit them to move forward in their lives. J.L. and V.B. each have new partners. The children are caught in the middle. J.B. and his youngest sibling, H.B. (age 8), are content with living a 'week about' arrangement. V.E.B., not surprisingly, is a hold out and likely will remain so for some considerable time to come.

[5] As a result of the conflict engaged in between V.E.B. and J.B. on June 7th, and more significantly, the never-ending litigation, J.B. threatened to hang himself. V.E.B. too has told an FCS worker that she was thinking about killing herself.

[6] Accordingly, FCS seeks to have the access V.B. enjoys with his children to be in its discretion.

[7] I am not persuaded that J.B.'s mental health will improve if he is cut off from his father. In my view, J.B. has allied himself with his father. In turn, V.E.B. seems to be in her mother's camp. I cannot blame V.E.B. for her reluctance in not wanting contact with her father. He thinks she is a liar. He provides examples to the FCS on why this is so. I am at a loss to understand how V.B., an adult, cannot see V.E.B. for the 10 year old child she is – and work to restore the relationship with her – no matter what has occurred in the past.

[8] I cannot accede to FCS's request in so far as J.B. and H.B. are concerned. I fear to do so will more negatively impact the mental health of the oldest and youngest children of this broken family.

[9] I will allow FCS's Motion insofar as V.E.B. is concerned. V.B. shall only have access to her in FCS's discretion.

[10] V.B. must come to appreciate how his views on V.E.B., even if not directly shared with J.B. and H.B., are certainly absorbed by them in the unfolding of the family dynamic and result in the emotional devastation of all his children.

[11] I want to hear from the parties regarding the counselling sessions arranged for the family, when this matter returns before me on June 25, 2018. Concrete proposals for dealing with the children's sadness – to the point where they are now threatening self-harm – must be addressed. If the resources are available in this County for a child psychologist to see J.B. and V.E.B., I want that avenue explored. However, I am firmly of the belief that if contact between V.B., and his two children, namely, J.B. and H.B., is curtailed in any way at this point, only more harm than good can come of it. Further, I shall order V.B. never to speak of the issues – ongoing or historical – arising out of these proceedings with any of his children.

Released: June 19, 2018

The Honourable Justice M.G. March