COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-45709 DATE: 2023 05 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: R.A., Applicant AND: D.A., Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: Ms. C. Haber, for the Applicant Mr. E. Vine, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 10, 2023

ENDORSEMENT on motion

I. The Nature of the Motion

[1] The Applicant father, R.A., moves for an order that he have parenting time with the two children, six and three years old, in accordance with this Court’s Order made on January 24, 2023, except without the need for supervision.

[2] The Respondent mother, D.A., opposes the motion. She wants it to be dismissed. Alternatively, if supervision is not to continue, she proposes that the father utilize Soberlink (a remote alcohol monitoring system).

II. The Exceptional Character of Supervised Parenting Time

[3] Both sides agree that supervised parenting time ought not to be ordered lightly. It should be ordered only in circumstances where the best interests of the child requires it. When it is ordered, it should not be viewed as a permanent or even a long-term solution. The supervision requirement should be reviewed, on a fairly regular basis, to ensure that it remains necessary in order to address a specific issue that poses a risk to the child, like (in this case) an unhealthy pattern of alcohol consumption on the part of the parent (that was, in essence, the finding of this Court back in January of this year). The objective should always be to move from supervised to unsupervised parenting time, provided that the said transition is in the best interests of the child. The reasons for that objective are obvious and do not require references to caselaw, psychology, or expert evidence. There is something artificial, something unnatural, a barrier of sorts between child and parent, that is inherent with supervised parenting time. We would like to avoid that.

III. Decision

[4] What has transpired in this case since I made the Order in January 2023 is very unfortunate. Each side blames the other, but blameworthiness cannot be this Court’s focus today. For whatever reason(s), whether because the father cannot get his affairs in order to exercise regular and consistent parenting time under supervision with a whack of approved supervisors already in place, or because the mother is obstinate and is being unreasonable in not permitting even more eligible supervisors, or both, the undisputed fact is that what the Court envisioned happening between January 24th and now has not happened; the father has missed a lot of scheduled parenting time with the children.

[5] In light of that undisputed fact, the Court cannot grant the father’s request to move to unsupervised parenting time, despite the affidavit evidence (which I accept) from two supervisors that discloses no issues, including but not limited to no alcohol consumption issues, on the part of the father during the times that those supervisors have been in the company of the father and the children over the last three and one-half months or so.

[6] There has simply been insufficient parenting time, not insufficient time but insufficient parenting time, to be satisfied that why this Court ordered supervision to begin with is no longer a reason to maintain it.

[7] It boils down to that.

[8] Something must be done, however. It has already been far too long since this man has had anything close to that resembling a father-child relationship with his son or his daughter. He is not a monster. We still have to get to the bottom of the alcohol issue, as I said back in January, but the supervision model is not working. It is time to move to something else.

[9] That something else, in my opinion, should be Soberlink. The father, though reluctantly, will consent to it under certain conditions. Some of his suggestions are reasonable, such as his request that he not pay 100% of the cost. Others are not.

[10] There are many instances, perhaps most, where the parent utilizing the Soberlink should pay for it exclusively. There are other instances, perhaps in the minority, where the parents should each contribute to the cost, however, on some shared basis.

[11] I think that this is one case where the parents should split the cost of Soberlink. Whether the father has an alcohol problem, and to what extent, remains hotly contested and is the subject of untested evidence. This Court erred on the side of caution in making the findings and the decision that it did in January, and those findings stand, but this is not a case where there is any current independent evidence that the father is consuming alcohol or is under the influence of alcohol when he is around the children. To account for that, and to account for the fact that, in my view, the mother needs further encouragement to help foster a more normal relationship between the father and the children, which encouragement could come in the form of her contributing to the cost of Soberlink, I make the following Temporary Order.

IV. New Temporary Order

[12] First, commencing on the date of this Endorsement, the Applicant shall no longer require supervision for his parenting time and instead shall complete alcohol testing using the Soberlink device at the following times: (a) between 1 hour and 30 minutes prior to the commencement of any parenting time with either or both children, (b) when he has either or both children overnight, between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. that evening and between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. the following morning, and (c) within 1 hour of the end of any parenting time with either or both children.

[13] Second, if the Applicant misses or fails a required Soberlink test as identified above, his parenting time on that day shall be cancelled/terminated immediately.

[14] Third, the cost of the Soberlink device, including the connection costs, cellular costs, and monthly fees for testing schedules, shall be divided equally between the parties.

[15] Fourth, the Soberlink testing shall remain in place until the within Order is varied, whether on consent or otherwise.

[16] Fifth and finally, if the costs of the motion cannot be resolved between the parties, then the Court will accept brief written submissions, each one limited to two pages in length excluding attachments, and each one to be filed within thirty (30) calendar days after the date of this Endorsement. One submission per side; no reply is permitted.

Conlan J. Date: May 12, 2023