COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-20 DATE: 2020/06/19
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
O.M. Applicant
– and –
S.K. Respondent
Counsel: Erin Lepine, for the Applicant Areesha Zubair, as agent for Tanya Davies, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 11, 2020 by videoconference (and associated motions heard February 11, 2020)
REASONS FOR DECISION
RYAN BELL J.
Overview
[1] O.M. and S.K. are the parents of A.M. who is four and a half years old. O.M. moved to confirm certain provisions of minutes of settlement signed by the parties and to replace other provisions, including those relating to custody and access. O.M. claims that S.K. has engaged in parental alienation. He has not had parenting time with A.M. since May 15, notwithstanding that the minutes of settlement provide for joint custody and equal parenting time. S.K. makes allegations that O.M. has physically, psychologically, and emotionally abused her, and that he has physically and sexually abused A.M. S.K. requested primary custody of A.M., with supervised access to O.M., pending the conclusion of investigations by the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) and Ottawa Police.
[2] Because of the urgency of the motion, I made orders on June 12, 2020 and provided the parties with brief oral reasons for my decision. I granted O.M. temporary sole custody of A.M., and ordered that on a temporary basis, A.M. is to reside in O.M.’s primary care with limited access to S.K. I advised that more detailed written reasons would be provided in due course. These are my written reasons.
Background
[3] O.M. and S.K. married on June 6, 2014 and separated on November 30, 2019. From November 30, 2019 until about May 1, 2020, O.M. and S.K. continued to live separate and apart in the matrimonial home. A.M. is the only child of the marriage.
[4] O.M.’s application was issued on January 7, 2020, prompted by S.K.’s unilateral removal of A.M. from the matrimonial home on December 31, 2019. O.M. was granted permission to proceed to an early case conference. At the case conference on January 15, 2020, Master Fortier described this as a “high conflict matter” and scheduled a motion for temporary relief, to be heard on an expedited basis.
[5] I heard the parties’ motions for interim relief on February 11, 2020. The issues included custody and access, child support, spousal support, and temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.
[6] While the February motions were under reserve, counsel for O.M. advised that O.M. wished to introduce fresh evidence. S.K. objected. Before a procedural motion could be scheduled to address this issue, in-person court proceedings were suspended because of the COVID-19 pandemic, with only urgent matters being heard virtually.
[7] The availability of virtual hearings was expanded as of May 19, 2020. This motion was scheduled, with the focus now changed to the implementation of the minutes of settlement.
Minutes of Settlement
[8] O.M. and S.K. signed minutes of settlement on May 8 and May 13, 2020, respectively. The minutes of settlement were negotiated over several weeks. The first offer to settle was sent by counsel for S.K. [1] to counsel for O.M. at the end of March 2020. The first offer proposed that the parenting issues be resolved on a final basis with provisions for joint custody and equal parenting time, following a 2-2-3 parenting schedule. Both parties were represented throughout the negotiation process by the same counsel who had appeared on the February motions.
[9] The minutes of settlement are detailed and comprehensive. Paragraph 5 provides that the minutes of settlement are a domestic contract within the meaning of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, and that the minutes are to be filed as part of the continuing record and incorporated into a court order, a copy of which is attached as a schedule to the minutes.
[10] The minutes of settlement resolve all parenting issues on a final basis. They provide for the parties to share joint custody of their daughter and to follow a 2-2-3 parenting schedule until June 2022 when the parties would begin a week-on/week-off parenting schedule.
[11] The minutes of settlement resolve exclusive possession of the matrimonial home on a final basis. They resolve all spousal support obligations between the parties on a final basis. The minutes of settlement resolve the parties’ child support obligations and the proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses on an interim and without prejudice basis.
The Alleged Incident on May 10, 2020
[12] S.K. alleges that on May 10, 2020, while O.M. was giving A.M. a bath, she saw O.M. touching their daughter’s genitals while he was masturbating. She claims that she rushed into the bathroom and saw the incident after hearing the child scream “no daddy.” She alleges that when she first saw O.M., “he panicked, pushed me to the wall and later he threaten [sic] to kill me. The next night he broke into my room at night with a knife and reminded me I have to finalize the documents (MOS) and leave.” S.K. claims that “he threatened to kill me with a chef knife [sic], left a scar on me, wanted to sign, pack, leave if I value my life and my daughter’s safety if he doesn’t get what he wants.”
[13] S.K.’s evidence is that she was forced to sign the minutes of settlement three days later, on May 13, 2020, out of fear for her own safety and that of the child. I do not believe S.K; her claim is simply not credible. Her behaviour in the days following May 10, including signing minutes of settlement that provide for equal parenting time, is wholly inconsistent with her allegation that O.M. sexually abused A.M. on May 10. I review S.K.’s behaviour in detail in my discussion of the parenting issues.
[14] In addition, throughout the negotiations, in the execution of the minutes of settlement, and in the days following, S.K. was represented by the same experienced counsel who had represented her at the February motions. S.K.’s counsel said nothing about the alleged sexual assault by O.M. on the child before her client signed the minutes of settlement on May 13. Even after S.K. had signed the minutes, S.K.’s counsel said nothing about the alleged sexual abuse; counsel did, however, communicate on nearly every other issue. Initially, S.K.’s counsel confirmed that the equal parenting schedule in the minutes of settlement would commence immediately. Later, S.K.’s counsel merely stated that a response on the parenting issues was forthcoming. None was provided. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from this evidence is that S.K.’s counsel did not raise the allegation of sexual abuse because the incident did not occur. S.K.’s assertion that she continued to “negotiate access” based on the advice of her previous lawyer is nothing more than a bald allegation and is not supported by the evidence in the record.
The Issues on this Motion
[15] In her most recent affidavit sworn June 8, 2020, S.K. states “I am agreeable to the terms [in the minutes of settlement] of child support and spousal support and exclusive possession.” However, at the outset of the June 11 hearing, in response to my question whether any matters raised on the motion could be dealt with on consent, counsel for S.K. advised that she had had insufficient time to canvas the issues of child support, spousal support, and exclusive possession fully with her client and requested that these issues be dealt with at a later date. Based on the unequivocal statement in S.K.’s affidavit, prepared with the assistance of counsel presently retained, I denied the request and heard submissions on all issues.
Exclusive Possession of the Matrimonial Home
[16] The minutes of settlement provide for S.K. to move out of the matrimonial home within 15 days of signing the minutes and for O.M. to have exclusive possession from that date, with sole responsibility for the utilities, mortgage payments, property taxes and insurance, and significant repairs associated with the property.
[17] There was nothing in the record before me that would warrant “opening up” the minutes of settlement on this issue. S.K. signed the minutes of settlement on May 13. She has vacated the matrimonial home. S.K. raises the fact that a dispute has arisen regarding the ownership of certain belongings and household items. The parties, represented by counsel, specifically contemplated and addressed this possibility in paragraph 97 of the minutes of settlement. This is not a reason to revisit the provisions of the minutes of settlement dealing with exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.
[18] In accordance with the minutes of settlement, O.M. is entitled to exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, effective as of May 28, 2020.
Spousal Support
[19] The minutes of settlement resolve the issue of spousal support on a final basis. They provide for a onetime lump sum payment of $115,000 from O.M. to S.K. in full and final satisfaction of all spousal support claims. There is no evidence that would justify setting aside the minutes of settlement in relation to the lump sum spousal support payment. The evidence is that O.M. paid S.K. $115,000 on May 22, 2020. S.K., through counsel, confirmed receipt of this amount the same day.
[20] The lump sum payment is in full and final satisfaction of all spousal support claims. O.M. is entitled to an order confirming that there are no further spousal support obligations owing between the parties.
Child Support Payments
[21] In the minutes of settlement, the parties agree to resolve child support and s. 7 expenses on an interim basis and without prejudice to their respective positions on income. On this motion, O.M. requested an interim order for child support based on the affidavit evidence, financial statements, and submissions presented at the hearing of the February motions, to replace the interim arrangements set out in the minutes of settlement. In February, O.M. advanced the position that S.K. has been intentionally under-employed since late 2019 when she reduced her work hours to 2 to 3 days per week. S.K.’s position in February was that she reduced her hours of work on the recommendation of her family doctor and as a result of O.M.’s abusive behaviour.
[22] The resolution in the minutes of settlement on child support and s. 7 expenses is on an interim and without prejudice basis. The calculation of child support payable by both parties is based on estimated annual incomes that are expressly described as “a compromise position” to the positions advanced by both parties in February.
[23] In these circumstances and at this stage of the proceedings, I see no reason to depart from the detailed child support provisions in the minutes of settlement. Accordingly, an interim and without prejudice order shall go requiring the parties to pay child support in accordance with paragraph 100 of the minutes of settlement. Section 7 expenses are to be addressed in accordance with paragraph 104 of the minutes of settlement.
[24] Because I have ordered that A.M. shall, on a temporary basis, be in O.M.’s primary care, while the minutes of settlement provide for equal parenting time, O.M. shall be entitled to seek a reconciliation for any overpayments made during the period in which A.M. remains in her father’s primary care.
Parenting Issues
[25] The central issue on the motion was custody and access. Neither party requested an order confirming the joint custody and equal parenting arrangements set out in the minutes of settlement.
(i) Credibility of the Parties
[26] I was presented with two diametrically opposed versions of events. No cross-examinations on affidavits were conducted. Limited third party evidence was presented to the court. There was no expert evidence filed.
[27] I am mindful of the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Ierullo v. Ierullo, where the Court held that because of the need to make credibility findings on a significant matter in dispute and because the record contained only the competing affidavits of the two parties, the motion could not be decided properly without a trial (, [2006] O.J. No. 3912 (C.A.), at para. 18). However, Ierullo was an appeal of an order varying spousal support; the matter before me is an interim motion with respect to custody and access and raises matters of an urgent nature. The issue of credibility may be properly resolved by the motion judge where it is clear that statements made in the affidavits are inaccurate or unreliable and that examination or cross-examination on the assertions would be a waste of time and money (Kline v. Kline and Kline, 2007 ONCJ 575, at para. 37).
[28] I agree with counsel for O.M. that in this case, I do not have the luxury of declining to make an interim decision because of the need to make findings of credibility. Indeed, the desired outcome advanced by each party requires that I make findings of credibility. O.M.’s position is that S.K. has engaged in parental alienation behaviour; he denies all allegations of physical, psychological, emotional and sexual abuse. S.K. argued that O.M. should be limited to supervised access with A.M., based on her “evidence in support of a finding that [A.M.] may have been subjected to sexual abuse by the Applicant Father, and may require protection.”
[29] It is in A.M.’s best interests that the parenting issues be addressed at this early stage and that there be certainty in relation to the parenting schedule and decision-making for the child.
[30] I do not find S.K.’s evidence to be credible or reliable. I make this finding based on the internal inconsistencies in S.K.’s evidence.
[31] First, the totality of S.K.’s behaviour in the days following the alleged incident on May 10 is wholly inconsistent with S.K.’s allegation that O.M. sexually assaulted A.M. on that date:
- S.K. alleges that on May 11, O.M. threatened her with a knife and stabbed her in the stomach.
- However, on May 12, S.K. left A.M. in the care of O.M.
- On May 13, three days after the alleged sexual assault on A.M., S.K. proceeded to sign the minutes of settlement that provide for joint custody and equal parenting time.
- The same day, S.K. confirmed with O.M. that the parenting schedule as set out in the minutes of settlement would begin immediately.
- On May 14, S.K. went to the police. When the police came to the matrimonial home on May 14 to speak with O.M., the child was in his care. Based on O.M.’s evidence that the police spoke only of “battery” and made no mention of sexual assault or abuse, and the fact that the police did not take any steps to remove A.M. from O.M.’s care, I infer that S.K. did not report the alleged sexual abuse on A.M. to the police. No charges have been laid against O.M. arising from this incident or indeed, any incident reported by S.K. to the police.
- The same day, after going to the police, S.K. left A.M. with O.M. overnight.
- On May 15, S.K. instructed her lawyer to confirm that the parenting schedule in the minutes of settlement would commence immediately, and that A.M. would be returned to O.M. on May 18.
- S.K. showed up for the parenting exchange on May 18 at the agreed upon location, although the exchange did not happen based on the advice of O.M.’s criminal counsel.
- S.K.’s lawyer then proposed a parenting exchange on May 19. S.K. cancelled that exchange at the last minute.
[32] It is simply impossible to reconcile S.K.’s behaviour – particularly leaving the child alone with O.M. after the alleged incident is said to have occurred – with the serious abuse allegations she now makes against O.M.
[33] Second, S.K. has recently expanded and elaborated on her allegations of abuse. The evolving nature of S.K.’s evidence reflects adversely on both her credibility and reliability. For example, in her June 4, 2020 affidavit, S.K. claims that O.M. was “outraged since 2019 to the fact that he will be paying any amounts in form of equity and support…and he wished he owed me nothing…He threatened to make me disappear (and my daughter as well), and promised me that he will get me bankrupt.” S.K. now claims that she reported this behaviour to the police in December 2019. At the February motions, S.K.’s evidence regarding this incident was that she was forced to call the police “out of concerns for my safety.” She did not refer to O.M.’s alleged threats to make her and the child “disappear.” In February, S.K. expected that there would be “a shared parenting arrangement over time.” This expectation and her February proposal of overnight and weekend access to O.M. cannot be reconciled with her present allegation that O.M. made death threats against both mother and daughter in December 2019.
[34] In describing the impact of O.M.’s alleged abusive behaviour on A.M., S.K. now claims that A.M. cries and screams “every single night” and has done so for the last year and a half. In her affidavit evidence for the February motions, S.K. claimed that the child was experiencing night terrors and nightmares “every single night” over the course of the fall.
[35] S.K. now claims that O.M. was financially abusive towards her during the course of their marriage: “when I asked for a joint account, he would slap or punch me, claiming that he was the man of the house and owned everything, including me.” In her February motion materials, S.K. did not allege that O.M. had been financially abusive to her in this manner. Significantly, she did not allege that O.M. had punched her.
[36] Third, in relation to A.M., S.K. now claims that as A.M. grew older, O.M. was unable to control his anger and he “became more abusive to her.” S.K. now alleges that O.M. used to spank A.M. so hard “that his handprints were left on her skin” and would then give her candy so that she would not tell anyone. S.K. now claims that O.M. began to lock himself and the child in the bathroom every night.
[37] I am certain that if S.K. had these concerns about O.M.’s behaviour she would have raised them at the February motions. I have no doubt that if she had any serious issue with O.M.’s ability to parent, she would not have proposed in February that O.M. have overnight and weekend access. These inconsistencies cannot be reconciled; they compel me to find that S.K.’s evidence is simply not credible.
[38] Fourth, although S.K. asked that I defer my decision until such time as the CAS and the police have completed their investigations, the evidence in the record is that the CAS has spoken with O.M. and has taken no position with respect to O.M.’s parenting time. The evidence is that although O.M.’s counsel requested that S.K. sign an authorization and direction to the CAS to release a copy of their file, S.K. has not done so. S.K.’s failure to cooperate in securing the available third party information – however limited – to put before this court reflects adversely on her credibility.
[39] O.M. has denied each and every allegation made against him. There are no internal inconsistences in his evidence. His evidence is detailed and his explanations are reasonable. I find his evidence to be credible and reliable and I accept his version of events.
(ii) The Audio Recordings
[40] In her most recent affidavit, S.K. states that since the alleged incident of sexual abuse on May 10, A.M. has been saying “penis”, talking about a “penis dance” that she does with her “daddy”, and saying that O.M. “used his penis to pee on my body.” S.K. attached five audio tapes to her affidavit as exhibits.
[41] There is no question that the audio tapes are very disturbing. S.K.’s position was that I should admit A.M.’s out-of-court statements as evidence of her state of mind, “namely her obsessions of a sexualized nature in respect to the Applicant.” S.K. relied on ss. 93(1)(a) and (b) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sch. 1 and R. v. Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57. S.K. submitted that A.M.’s out-of-court statements are both necessary, as they are the only evidence of A.M.’s state of mind in respect of the allegations made, and reliable because there is no evidence that S.K. coached the child or suggested words to her.
[42] I have listened carefully to the audio recordings. In the recordings, A.M. can be heard telling the same story repeatedly, using the same words in the same order. A.M. can be heard laughing as she repeats the story. There is an absence of real concern conveyed by S.K. in response. I do not agree that these out-of-court statements are reliable; I find that there is a rehearsed nature to the recordings that renders the statements unreliable.
[43] In any event, A.M.’s responses in the audio recordings do not support S.K.’s position. For example, when S.K. asked A.M. if her father had touched her anywhere, A.M. responded “no.” When S.K. asked A.M. who showed her how to do the “penis dance” A.M. said that she was silly, she learned how to do it and that she showed herself.
[44] As I will discuss, the audio recordings are evidence that S.K. has engaged in alienating strategies.
(iii) Parental Alienation
[45] A finding of parental alienation can be made at the interim stage and on a written record, particularly when the evidence overwhelmingly points to this conclusion. The urgency raised by parental alienation necessitates early and decisive intervention by the court:
If there is anything everyone agrees on, whether it be lawyers, experts or judges, it is essential that a parental alienation case be dealt with quickly. As a practical matter, if it is to be dealt with quickly it must be resolved by way of a motion, long before trial (Hazelton v. Forchuk, 2017 ONSC 2282, at para. 2).
[46] Parental alienation is a legal concept as opposed to a mental health diagnosis; therefore, the court may make a finding of alienation on an analysis of the facts alone without expert evidence (Malhotra v. Henhoeffer, 2018 ONSC 6472, at para. 107).
[47] In Fielding v. Fielding, Mackinnon J. heard and accepted expert evidence that parental alienation is established if,
i. there was a prior positive relationship with the targeted parent; ii. there is an absence of abuse by the targeted parent; iii. the alienating parent uses many of the alienating strategies; and iv. the child exhibits most of the alienated child behaviours (2013 ONSC 5102, at para. 135).
[48] The evidence in the record for the February motions describes a positive relationship between A.M. and her father and establishes that O.M. is a loving, caring, and engaged parent. In February, S.K. appeared to acknowledge O.M.’s abilities as a parent with her proposal for O.M. to have overnight and weekend access and her clear expectation that, over time, there would be a shared parenting arrangement.
[49] With respect to the second factor, as I have explained, I do not believe S.K.’s version of events. In particular, I do not believe that O.M. abused A.M. on May 10 or on any other occasion.
[50] The third factor in the Fielding framework is that the alienating parent uses many of the alienating strategies. The expert in that case provided a list of 17 alienating strategies used by alienating parents to impair a child’s relationship with the other parent. I find that S.K. has used at least nine of these alienating strategies.
[51] First, S.K. has engaged in “badmouthing” behaviour: she has made negative comments to A.M. about O.M. in the latter’s presence. For example, in January 2020, S.K. remarked in front of A.M. that “I don’t like the way daddy is behaving, he is not being nice to me” and “daddy is being mean to me.”
[52] Second, S.K. has limited O.M.’s contact with A.M. On November 30, 2019, S.K. called the police and asked them to attend at the matrimonial home as she felt unsafe at the home in O.M.’s presence. After calling the police, S.K. left the home with A.M. and they stayed in a hotel until December 2. No charges were laid as a result of this incident. On the evening of December 31, S.K. again left the matrimonial home with A.M.; on this occasion, S.K. did not return A.M. to the matrimonial home until January 9, 2020. Most recently, S.K. has been withholding the child from O.M. since May 15, contrary to the minutes of settlement.
[53] S.K. has also limited O.M.’s FaceTime contact with A.M. S.K. has proposed that O.M. have FaceTime access with their daughter on alternate days. Her proposal contravenes the minutes of settlement which provide that the parent who does not have the child in their care shall have a phone call with her each evening. O.M. has not had any FaceTime or telephone contact with A.M. since May 23, 2020.
[54] Third, S.K. has interfered with the limited FaceTime communication O.M. has had with the child since May 15. S.K. ended the call on May 22 because she was anxious to give the child a bath. S.K. ended O.M.’s call to A.M. on May 23 almost immediately after the child had answered the phone.
[55] Fourth, S.K. has exhibited no concern for O.M.’s missed visits with the child. Since May 18, O.M. has tried to resume his parenting time with A.M. S.K. has responded with evasion. Her counsel advised that a response on the parenting issues would be forthcoming. I find that S.K. has shown a disregard for O.M.’s lost parenting time with his daughter.
[56] Fifth, S.K. has attempted to create the impression that O.M. is dangerous, a person to be feared. S.K. has said to the child “daddy is being mean to me.” While S.K. was staying with A.M. at an undisclosed location in January and the parties and their daughter met for breakfast, S.K. told the child not to “let daddy leave with you.” Several times, S.K. has called the police to the matrimonial home when A.M. was present.
[57] Sixth, I find that S.K. has over-involved A.M. in adult and litigation matters. The audio recordings are the prime example of this alienating behaviour. The recordings clearly reflect that S.K. is questioning A.M. about what occurs while A.M. is in her father’s care.
[58] Seventh, S.K. has fabricated allegations of physical and sexual abuse. I do not believe her claim that O.M. sexually abused A.M. on May 10. I am suspicious of the audio recordings because of the repeated, rehearsed nature of the story that A.M. recounts. S.K. has only recently alleged that O.M. physically abused A.M. over the course of several years. Given her position in February that O.M. should be entitled to overnight and weekend access, her expectation at that time regarding shared parenting, her initial offer to settle that contemplated joint custody and equal parenting time, and her execution of the minutes of settlement that include these terms, the only possible explanation is that S.K. has fabricated these allegations.
[59] Eighth, S.K. has withheld medical and social information from O.M. pertaining to A.M. I accept O.M.’s evidence that S.K. has repeatedly made medical appointments and enrolled A.M. in extracurricular activities without prior discussion or consultation with him. S.K. has, in the past, enrolled A.M. in gymnastics and ballet without first discussing the matter with O.M. She registered A.M. in language classes without prior discussion with O.M.
[60] Ninth, S.K. has cultivated dependency on herself by encouraging A.M. to share a bed with her at night since the parties’ separation.
[61] The fourth factor in the Fielding framework is that the child exhibits most of the alienated child behaviours. A finding of parental alienation may, however, be made where although the child is not yet exhibiting behaviours of an alienated child, the alienating parent is engaged in a campaign to deprive the child from having a relationship with the targeted parent (Khan v. Kong, affirmed 2009 ONCA 21).
[62] The evidence before me does not establish that A.M. is, at this time, exhibiting the behaviours of an alienated child. However, by not providing O.M. with any parenting time, S.K. is depriving A.M. of her relationship with her father. I find that parental alienation by S.K. has been established.
(iv) Appropriate Remedy
[63] In Hazelton, the court stated at para. 75:
…where parental alienation exists, it is manifestly important that steps be taken immediately. If they are not, the situation will only get worse. If the alienating parent continues to have unfettered access to the children, there is little doubt that the poisoning of the children’s minds will continue. At some point, the restoration of a relationship with the other parent becomes much more difficult, if not impossible.
[64] S.K.’s behaviour evidences a disregard for the importance of A.M. maintaining a healthy relationship with both of her parents. S.K. has falsely accused O.M. of physically and sexually abusing their daughter. She has unilaterally withheld A.M. from her father. She has refused to adhere to the minutes of settlement from the moment she signed them. I am satisfied that it is in A.M.’s best interests that O.M. have sole custody and primary parenting of A.M. on an interim basis, with access to S.K. In my view, this order is necessary in the short term to limit S.K.’s access to A.M., to stop S.K. from pursuing her campaign to deprive A.M. of her relationship with her father, and to permit A.M. and her father to rebuild their bond.
Conclusion
[65] For these reasons, on June 12, 2020, I made the following orders:
(i) a final order that effective at 5 p.m. on May 28, 2020, O.M. shall have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home located at 2261 Hillary Avenue, Ottawa and that effective the same date, O.M. shall be solely responsible for the home’s utilities, mortgage payments, property taxes, property insurance, and any significant repairs, maintenance, and renovations which would not other be considered regular wear and tear, and shall save S.K. harmless from such expenses; (ii) a final order that as a result of the onetime, lump sum spousal support payment of $115,000 delivered by O.M. to S.K. on May 22, 2020, and in accordance with the minutes of settlement, there shall be no further spousal support obligations owing between the parties; (iii) an interim and without prejudice order that the parties shall pay child support in accordance with para. 100 of the minutes of settlement and s. 7 expenses in accordance para. 104 of the minutes of settlement, and that O.M. shall be entitled to seek a reconciliation for any overpayments made during the period in which A.M. remains in her father’s primary care; (iv) a temporary order that O.M. shall have sole custody of A.M.; (v) a temporary order that A.M. shall reside in O.M.’s primary care until further order of this court, with A.M. to be returned to O.M.’s care by no later than 4 p.m. on June 12, 2020; (vi) a temporary order that S.K. shall have access to A.M. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays each week from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., and on Saturdays each week from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m., with all exchanges occurring at the Alta Vista library; (vii) an order that the Ottawa Police and any other police force shall be authorized to act and to do all things reasonably necessary to enforce the terms of these orders; (viii) an order that the temporary parenting orders shall be reviewed by the court no later than August 15, 2020; and (ix) an order that enforcement issues arising as a result of these orders may be returned before the court on short notice.
[66] In the event the parties are unable to agree on the costs of this motion and the motions heard February 11, 2020, they may make written submissions limited to a maximum of three pages. O.M. shall deliver his costs submissions by July 3, 2020. S.K. shall deliver her responding costs submissions by July 17, 2020. If no submissions are received within this timeframe, the parties will be deemed to have settled the issue of costs as between themselves.
Madam Justice Robyn M. Ryan Bell
Released: June 19, 2020
[1] Present counsel for S.K. was retained on June 1, 2020.