ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025-06-19
COURT FILE No.: Woodstock FO-25-63-00
BETWEEN:
Nancy Lee Christina Karnes
Applicant
— AND —
Tristen Joseph Aurele Patenaude
Respondent
Before Justice S. E. J. Paull
In Chambers
Reasons on Motion Without Notice
Released June 19, 2025
Scott J. DeGroot ................................................................................... counsel for the applicant
Respondent ............................................................................................................ unrepresented
PAULL J.:
[1] The respondent brings a 14B motion without notice seeking a finding of urgency and for an order that the parties’ child, E., reside primarily with him, that any parenting time by the applicant be exercised in Brantford, and that the child not have contact with Denys or Deryk Lapointe.
[2] Alternatively, he seeks an order that the applicant return the child to Brantford, which he submits is the child’s habitual residence, and that the child have no contact with Denys or Deryk Lapointe.
[3] The affidavit in support deposes to the following. The parties are the parents of one child, E., born […], 2021. They were in a short-term relationship for approximately 1.5 years which ended in 2021. The parties and child lived in the Brantford area until recently when the applicant unilaterally relocated with the child without notice to Oxford County.
[4] The parties are the subject of the final order of Justice Edward dated January 12, 2024 which was made on consent. That order provides for, among other things, joint decision-making with the respondent having liberal and specific parenting time on a four-week rotating basis. He has three of four weekends from Friday to Sunday, and Thursday to Friday in the fourth week with additional parenting time specified. The order directs that there is to be a review of parenting time when the child starts school.
[5] The respondent alleges that the applicant relocated the child’s habitual residence in March 2025 from the Brantford area to Oxford County without proper notice or his consent. He acknowledged that the applicant had previously mentioned that she was considering a move to Oxford County and then told him she was moving three days prior to her move in mid-March 2025.
[6] The respondent does not consent to the relocation and he seeks the child’s return to Brant County.
[7] He also alleges that the applicant now resides with her current partner, Denys Lapointe, and his brother Deryk Lapointe, and that there are serious safety concerns with these individuals. He deposes that Denys Lapointe has a lengthy criminal record which includes violence, and that he is presently charged with sexual assault and child luring and exploitation.
[8] The respondent seeks this relief by way of a 14B motion. However, the relief he seeks is not procedural, uncomplicated or unopposed as required by Rule 14(10). He seeks substantive orders related to primary residence and parenting time.
[9] The applicant also alleges urgency so the motion may proceed in advance of a case conference under Rule 14(4.2). In the case of Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 O.J. No. 62 (Ont. SCJ) the court states:
“an urgent motion contemplates issues such as abduction, threat of harm, dire financial circumstances. Counsel must first make an inquiry to see if an early case conference date can be obtained. If there is a long delay, that could make the issue critical. Counsel should also first try to obtain a short-term agreement.”
[10] The applicant also brings this motion without notice. Rule 14(12) permits motions without notice when notice is unnecessary or not reasonably possible, where there is immediate danger of the child's removal from Ontario, immediate danger to the health and safety of the child, or when service would probably have serious consequences.
[11] The evidence with respect to the relocation does not establish any of these requirements, even if the court were to accept his evidence. This issue is not properly the subject of a motion without notice. He acknowledged that the applicant moved approximately four months ago, and he still appears to be exercising his parenting time.
[12] The allegations with respect to the applicant’s current partner are serious and could establish the need for urgency and that there is an immediate risk to the child’s health and safety. However, there is considerable additional information that would be required to support the change without notice of a status quo pursuant to a recent final order.
[13] In particular, there is no evidence that the respondent has attempted to address these concerns with the applicant, or that he has reported his concerns about the applicant’s partner to the police or the Oxford CAS. The CAS is tasked with investigating child protection concerns and taking necessary steps to mitigate verified concerns, which may include commencing a protection application.
[14] Given the nature of the allegations the court would have expected that a referral to the CAS would have been made so that these concerns could be properly investigated, and further that the respondent provide independent confirmation from the CAS of what, if any, position it takes in the circumstances.
[15] The respondent has not established urgency or the need to proceed without notice on the issue of changing the child’s primary residence or with respect to the relocation. However, given the seriousness of the outstanding charges he alleges that the applicant’s partner faces, which include offences related to children, urgency and immediate risk is established only with respect to the limited issue of the child’s contact with named individuals. Pending further order and on a without-prejudice basis the applicant shall not leave the child unattended with Denys or Deryk Lapointe, and she shall not permit them to be in a caregiving role to the child.
[16] The clerk of the court shall be directed to forthwith serve this endorsement and order on Oxford CAS and file an affidavit of service.
[17] The respondent shall be directed to forthwith serve his motion and affidavit on the Oxford CAS and file an affidavit of service.
[18] Further, the respondent is alleging that the habitual residence of the child is in Brant County. This matter ought to have been commenced in that jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 5(1)(b). However, Rule 5(2) permits another court to address issues if there is immediate risk to a child but requires the matter to be transferred to the proper jurisdiction after the motion is heard. I am satisfied that the evidence establishes sufficient immediate risk only on the issue of the child’s contact with named third parties and supports this court making an order. However, the issue of the proper jurisdiction will need to be addressed as a preliminary matter on the return date.
[19] Interim without-prejudice order:
Urgency is established only with respect to the applicant exposing the child to named third parties.
The applicant shall ensure that the child is not left unattended with either Denys or Deryk Lapointe, and that they are not involved in a caregiving role with the child pending further order of the court.
The respondent shall forthwith take out this order and serve it along with this endorsement and his pleadings on the applicant pursuant to the Rules.
The clerk of the court shall forthwith serve this endorsement and order on the Oxford CAS and file an affidavit of service.
The respondent shall forthwith serve his motion and affidavit in support on the Oxford CAS and file an affidavit of service.
The motion is adjourned to July 8, 2025 at 2:15 p.m., courtroom 1, to be scheduled.
Released: June 19, 2025
Signed: “Justice S. E. J. Paull”