Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Sault Ste. Marie 196/11 Date: 2013-05-29 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: E.G. and Janet McGonegal, Applicants

— AND —

B.J.G. and J.G., Respondents

Before: Justice Nathalie Gregson

Heard on: February 21, 25, 26 and April 16, 22, 23, 2013

Reasons for Judgment released on: May 29, 2013

Counsel:

• Shadrach McCooeye, for the applicant(s)
• Tracy Ross, for the respondent(s)

GREGSON J.:

Introduction

[1] The applicants in this matter are E.G. and Janet McGonegal. E.G. is 18 years of age and has been living with Ms. McGonegal since April 2011. E.G. was 16 years of age at that time.

[2] The applicants seek child support from the respondents, B.J.G. and J.G. who are E.G.'s parents.

[3] The applicants amended their claim and it is set out at Tab 11, volume 2. Essentially, the applicants wish to have each parent pay child support to E.G. based on their respective incomes in accordance with the table amount of the Child Support Guidelines retroactive to April 1, 2011 when E.G. was no longer in her parents' care and custody. The applicants are also seeking to have child support continue for E.G. on a go forward basis and wish to have the respondents jointly pay 100 % of all of E.G.'s extraordinary expenses incurred by her for her continued education.

[4] The respondents have filed an answer to oppose any and all claims against them, claiming that E.G. left their home voluntarily at the age of 16 and withdrew from parental control.

[5] Section 31 of the Family Law Act states the following:

OBLIGATION OF PARENT TO SUPPORT CHILD – (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support of his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so.

(2) IDEM – The obligation under subsection (1) does not extend to a child who is sixteen years of age or older and has withdrawn from parental control.

[6] As E.G. was 16 years of age when she found herself to no longer be in the care of her parents, I need to first determine whether or not E.G. had withdrawn from parental control and whether it was voluntary as it would dictate whether her parents have an obligation to provide child support to her.

[7] E.G. has claimed throughout these court proceedings that she was forced to leave her parents' home on April 1, 2011 and was not able to return to her family home. In contrast, the parents have always maintained E.G. was never forced to leave and could have returned at any time subject to conditions.

Summary of Evidence

Colette Gignac

[8] Ms. Gignac is a 45-year-old homemaker. She previously lived in S[…], Ontario for a number of years with her husband and children. E.G.'s family also lived in this community for a period of time. Accordingly, E.G. knew Ms. Gignac's sons Marc and Eric as they went to elementary school together and had been friends for a long time.

[9] Ms. Gignac testified that E.G. came to live with her family for a period of one month in or about February to March 2011. It was her belief that E.G. was kicked out of her home and had nowhere to live. She told her sons E.G. could stay with them until she found another residence.

[10] During this time, Ms. Gignac stated that E.G. went to school daily at the Adult Education Program, followed all house rules and did not go out at night. However, it was Ms. Gignac's observation that E.G. appeared unstable and had no morals when she initially came to live with them. Ms. Gignac believed E.G. did not do drugs or drink alcohol while she lived with them. She did acknowledge that at that time her son Eric would drink when he went out but never at their home. Eric was 19 at the time.

[11] Once E.G. began to live with her, Ms. Gignac recalled J.G. calling her house and he was yelling and screaming at her. Thereafter, J.G. appeared at her home once or twice and yelled and screamed at E.G. to get into his truck telling her that she was not staying there. E.G. reluctantly left but then returned a few days later. Ms. Gignac stated E.G. did not want to stay at her parents' home and told Ms. Gignac her parents were mean to her and had kicked her out for not abiding by their rules. E.G. further disclosed she did not want to go back home as her father hit her a lot when she was younger.

[12] After E.G. had been living with her for about three weeks, she drove E.G. to her home in Heyden, Ontario as E.G.'s parents had told her she could go home. She pulled into the driveway and as E.G. was getting out of the car, J.G. came out of the home. He was yelling and screaming and grabbed E.G. by the sleeve of her jacket and threw her out of the car. He called her derogatory names and told E.G. she could return with them. E.G. wanted to go inside the home to get her things and J.G. pushed E.G. against the house and kicked her with his steel toe boots in the back of her legs. J.G. then grabbed E.G. hard and threw her in the snow bank, picked her up by the hair and threw her into the house. She could hear E.G.'s parents yelling at her once she was inside the home. E.G. returned with a bag of clothes.

[13] Ms. Gignac recalled J.G. telling her "you can keep this fucking whore/bitch" and good luck to her. E.G. was in the car crying and her shirt was ripped.

[14] Ms. Gignac was aware that E.G. had been working at Burger King and was arriving at her parents' home late. She felt it odd that E.G.'s parents told her to come home only to have J.G. behave in the manner he did.

[15] In cross-examination, Ms. Gignac was questioned why she or her son Eric did not get out of the vehicle to help E.G. if she was being assaulted or why she never called police. Ms. Gignac responded that she was afraid of J.G. as he beat up his daughter and neither she nor her son wanted to get their "ass kicked". She did not call police as E.G. was scared her father would come after them if the authorities were contacted.

[16] Ms. Gignac testified that when E.G. lived with them she had no money and she herself never asked E.G. for money. She would buy E.G. cigarettes, pop or chips.

[17] Ms. Gignac stated she had no difficulties with E.G. while she lived with her. However, since Ms. Gignac was involved in an abusive relationship with her common-law partner she did not want E.G. exposed to the abuse. As a result, she contacted her sister Janet McGonegal and Ms. McGonegal agreed that E.G. could stay with her as of March 2011. A few days later E.G. was delivered to Ms. McGonegal's residence in Desbarats, Ontario.

[18] Ms. Gignac stated that when E.G. lived with her E.G. was stressed and cried often. However, since living with her sister, E.G. was more talkative and helped out. She has continued to have ongoing contact with E.G. and sees herself like an aunt.

[19] Ms. Gignac indicated that if it were not for her sister, E.G. would be living on the streets and would not be the girl she was today.

[20] Ms. Gignac stated at the time she lived in a five-bedroom home and her sons had rooms downstairs while E.G. had her own separate room upstairs. E.G. was romantically involved with her son Eric but not while E.G. lived with them.

Janet McGonegal

[21] Ms. McGonegal is a 50-year-old homemaker who supports herself on ODSP. She receives about $11,000.00 per year.

[22] In cross-examination, Ms. McGonegal was questioned how she could afford her monthly expenses when they exceeded her monthly income. Ms. McGonegal indicated that she received financial help from her mother.

[23] Ms. McGonegal rents a home in Desbarats, Ontario and lives close to her mother's farm. Ms. McGonegal attends the farm on a daily basis and indicated that E.G. attended daily to feed and brush the animals.

[24] Ms. McGonegal recalled meeting E.G. on March 21, 2011. She had heard about E.G. in January 2011 from her sister Colette as E.G. had been dating Colette's son Eric at that time. E.G. arrived at her home with a small shopping bag containing her clothes. She felt E.G. was quiet for the first month and often cried.

[25] When Ms. McGonegal was asked whether she sought out professional help for E.G., she stated she had not as she did not have the money to get E.G. to counselling appointments. Regardless, she felt she had helped E.G. emotionally.

[26] Ms. McGonegal stated she had house rules which included going to school and no drinking. She stated that E.G. was compliant. E.G. was often sick and throwing up. She took her to the hospital. As her condition persisted, E.G. had a number of tests and medically nothing was wrong. Apparently, this year, E.G.'s family doctor felt her sickness was as a result of her nerves and put her on anti-depressants. E.G. had been taking the medication for the past month and it seemed to have calmed her stomach.

[27] Ms. McGonegal stated that about one week after E.G. came to live with her she called her parents with the intention to speak to B.J.G. to see if they would be willing to take E.G. back and get her back on track. E.G. had told Ms. McGonegal that her dad had kicked her out because she did not show up at work one day and he had been abusive with her. E.G. also described a household of yelling and fighting. She felt her parents were never happy with anything she did and felt nothing was good enough for her mother. According to Ms. McGonegal, B.J.G. told her that E.G. did not wish to live by their rules and if E.G. was currently behaving it was because she was in a honeymoon phase and would be living somewhere else in two weeks. When Ms. McGonegal asked whether E.G. could get some of her things, B.J.G. told her that E.G. should get a job. E.G. has lived with her ever since.

[28] Ms. McGonegal was asked if she spoke to the mother again and she stated on only one further occasion. She had applied to the court for child support. The parents showed up at her home without notice and she was not happy with that as she has six or seven dogs. She called the police stating she did not want them showing up without giving her notice in advance.

[29] Ms. McGonegal stated police called her afterwards to state they relayed her message to B.J.G. who in turn said that if E.G. needed anything she could call them but Ms. McGonegal was not to call them.

[30] According to a police occurrence report dated November 6, 2011 with supporting notes from Marilyn Cameron an OPP officer with the Thessalon detachment, Ms. McGonegal called their station to report E.G.'s parents were harassing her. Ms. McGonegal stated that J.G. had attended her residence the night prior and both she and E.G. were afraid of J.G. and B.J.G.. Ms. McGonegal wanted police to call her back with advice.

[31] Upon further investigation, it was noted by Constable Cameron that E.G. was dating Mark St. Denis who lived with her at Ms. McGonegal's residence. J.G. had gone over to their residence to see and speak to his daughter but spoke to a Rick Pollard and left. Ms. Cameron noted that Ms. McGonegal wanted both parents warned not to attend her residence or to call her residence.

[32] Constable Cameron called B.J.G. who stated that her husband had gone over the previous evening as he wanted to see E.G. and they wanted her to come home. B.J.G. stated she did not want Ms. McGonegal calling their home. B.J.G., however, asked Constable Cameron to pass along two messages to her daughter. She wanted E.G. to know she could call home anytime and she could contact the dentist directly as she was still covered under their benefits. Constable Cameron indicated she had passed on the messages. Constable Cameron had also directed Ms. McGonegal and B.J.G. not to call each other and they both agreed.

[33] Ms. McGonegal recalled E.G. calling her parents a few times during the first few months. Her father would make her cry and she would tell E.G. to hang up. She believed Mr. and B.J.G. never asked E.G. to return.

[34] When Ms. McGonegal was asked in cross-examination whether she called the G.'s while she was intoxicated she disagreed and indicated that if she had slurred speech it was as a result of her pain medication.

[35] Ms. McGonegal treats E.G. as a daughter. She has been supporting E.G. both financially and emotionally for two years.

[36] Ms. McGonegal stated that if E.G. missed school it was not because she skipped class, it was due to illness. According to Ms. McGonegal E.G. has done well in school. She will be completing all of her Adult Education classes this year to graduate from high school.

[37] In cross-examination when Ms. McGonegal was questioned about the number of school absences, she claimed all absences were as a result of illness although the school attendance records did not record this fact.

[38] When Ms. McGonegal was asked about a letter dated October 7, 2011 stating E.G. had been truant and had been absent from school for 12 days, Ms. McGonegal replied she never received the letter from the school and regardless, she got E.G. back on track. It was noted however that on October 13, 2011, E.G. was suspended from school due to missed detentions and opposition to authority and again on October 24, 2011 for truancy and persistent opposition to authority.

[39] I also noted upon review of E.G.'s school records that a letter was sent from the school to Ms. McGonegal on November 2, 2011 stating E.G. had been suspended as she refused to attend her detention. A further letter was sent on November 8, 2011 stating E.G. was suspended for smoking in the smoking area during class time. On November 9, 2011 a letter was sent to Ms. McGonegal to advise E.G. was being suspended for ten days as a result of having "smoked up" at school.

[40] A further letter was sent to Ms. McGonegal on November 30, 2011 stating E.G. was being suspended for two days for persistent opposition to authority.

[41] By February 6, 2012, the principal at CASS approved E.G. to attend their Adult Learning Centre noting E.G.'s school attendance had been a concern so flexibility and ability for E.G. to do her work at her own pace was best for her.

[42] Although E.G. missed 40 days of school from September 2012 to February 13, 2013, Ms. McGonegal stated it was again all due to illness.

[43] Ms. McGonegal stated she spoke to J.G. on one occasion about one month prior to attending court. She asked J.G. if he had a dental plan for E.G.. Ms. McGonegal indicated he told her that E.G. could get a job. She apparently also asked him why he would hit his daughter and he told her he did not mean it and was sorry about it.

[44] According to Ms. McGonegal, E.G.'s parents were not willing to have E.G. return to live with them. B.J.G. told her they did not want E.G. back as she cannot abide by the rules. E.G.'s parents have not bothered to come over to her home and to ask E.G. to come home and work things out.

[45] Ms. McGonegal stated E.G. had a good relationship with her family including her daughter Rebecca Gignac and her seven year old grand-daughter Leah who reside in Echo Bay. Ms. McGonegal stated they visit with Rebecca daily and E.G. sometimes babysits Leah.

[46] Ms. McGonegal was aware E.G. wanted to pursue a career in nursing as her daughter Rebecca works in nursing for the Red Cross. Ms. McGonegal expected E.G. to graduate high school by June 2013 and to attend college this fall.

[47] Ms. McGonegal stated her nephew Marc Gignac had lived with her and E.G. for three to four months from May to August 2012. At that time, E.G. and Marc were romantically involved and they continue to be in a relationship. Ms. McGonegal indicated Marc and E.G. had their own bedrooms and that she would sleep in the hallway where she could watch the bedrooms. Both Marc and E.G. assisted her around the house and at the barn. Eventually, Marc left to assist his mother. Ms. McGonegal indicated she had rules for Marc and E.G. which included attending school, no drinking and a curfew, and they complied.

[48] Ms. McGonegal stated that in the past she had others who lived with her including Derek Morianti and Amanda and Tom Barber. She took Amanda and Tom Barber in to live with her as she claimed their father was abusive and mean to them as he was an alcoholic. The child Derek was charged and she bailed him out and had him work on the farm. Ms. McGonegal stated that she wants to help out teens and get them back on their feet.

[49] Ms. McGonegal provided E.G. with clothing, supplies and necessaries as well as emotional support since E.G. has lived with her. E.G. had no income and was unable to support herself. However, during cross-examination Ms. McGonegal confirmed that once E.G. received temporary court ordered support, E.G. began to provide Ms. McGonegal with $500 per month as of November, 2012 for room and board. E.G. keeps the balance of $900.00 per month to pay for her clothes and food.

[50] Ms. McGonegal also stated she had brought E.G. to apply for social assistance in October 2011 and E.G. received $500.00 per month. These funds were provided on the basis E.G. attended school. It is unknown whether E.G. provided any of these funds to Ms. McGonegal.

[51] Despite E.G. having received temporary court ordered monthly child support as of November 2012, Ms. McGonegal acknowledged that E.G. had not been able to send her college applications as E.G. could not afford the $95.00 application fee.

[52] Ms. McGonegal indicated that E.G. did not do drugs nor drank alcohol. She herself never drinks in her home and never has parties at her home. Ms. McGonegal stated that E.G. was always with either her or Rebecca. E.G. had friends at school but has none socially.

[53] According to Ms. McGonegal police were never involved except sometime in July through to October 2011 when an officer attended and gave E.G. paperwork stating that E.G. was not to go on her parents' property. She claimed police provided E.G. a document which stated that she was not allowed to call or harass her parents and was not allowed to go on their property. E.G. was so upset with this news that she threw the document into the fire.

E.G.

[54] E.G. was born on […], 1994 and is currently 18 years of age. She confirmed she has been residing with Janet McGonegal since March 2011.

[55] E.G. stated she did not have an income and has supported herself with Janet's financial assistance.

[56] E.G. stated in March 2011, when she went to live with Ms. McGonegal she applied to CASS to complete booklets from Bawating High School by way of correspondence. Since February 2012, she has been attending the Adult Learning Centre at CASS. She only had five courses to complete which were half done and expected to graduate high school this April 2013.

[57] E.G. stated that when she is not in school she spends time either at the barn, riding horses or with Rebecca Gignac.

[58] E.G. agreed that prior to living with Ms. McGonegal she had poor school attendance however she had nowhere to live and had no transportation to and from school, and had to support herself. For the past two years, she has undergone medical testing for her illness. Her family doctor believes she suffers from stress. The stress stems from the court proceedings, finishing school and applying to college on time.

[59] E.G. acknowledged that she was a good student in elementary school and she played sports. Her relationship was pretty good with her parents at that time although there were good and bad days.

[60] E.G. stated if she was 15 minutes late from curfew, her father would freak out and would not want to see her face and tell her to go to her room. He would yell within one foot of her face and this was upsetting to her. She believed this happened about once per month and increased rapidly once she became older.

[61] Once she was at W[…] High School in 2009, she played on the basketball team and did well academically. She attended school regularly.

[62] At that time she believed her relationship with her parents was on and off, both good and bad. When things went well, they all spent time together and when things were bad, she had to sit downstairs, was banned from the computer and from being on MSN. Her father did not like it when she hung out with any guys which made it difficult for her as they lived in a small community. She believed this strained her relationship with her father as he did not want her hanging out around these friends. Her absences from school caused some problems. E.G. admitted she would skip school to hang out with her friends.

[63] In regards to her mother, E.G. felt her mother always expected perfection and expected E.G. to be like her. If E.G. did not get 99 or 100 percent, her mother would get upset. When her mother was upset, she would not talk to her and this would make E.G. feel bad.

[64] In grade ten, E.G. stated she was barely passing math and asked her mother if she could change from the academic to the applied program however her mother would not agree and still expected the best marks.

[65] E.G. indicated her brother M. was now 14 and she had not seen him in two years which upset her. She indicated she had tried to contact M., however, her parents would not allow her to talk to him. E.G. felt her parents prevented contact as they believed she was a bad influence on him.

[66] E.G. did not do well academically in grade ten, stating she had missed too many classes as she was no longer living at home and did not have transportation. As a result, she was expelled from W[…] High School.

[67] E.G. recalled that in 2010 she left the home as she was afraid for her safety. She stated her father was really abusive towards her. He would hit her (cuff her at the back of the head) and pushed her frequently. He would often yell at her at the top of his lungs into her face.

[68] Her parents filed a missing persons report. She had stayed with a friend and went to school. Upon arrival the police and the principal were waiting for her at W[…] High School. The officer wanted to bring her to her parents but wanted to speak to her first. She was taken to an OPP interview room where she told the police officer about what her father had been doing. The Children's Aid Society was called. Eventually, she was escorted home by both the officer and the CAS worker. Once inside, her parents were asked about the abuse in front of her. Her parents denied the abuse which according to E.G. was false.

[69] She recalled the police officer conducted a search of her purse at the request of her parents. They found a pill bottle that contained dextral and Advil, all medication off the shelf as she suffered from headaches. She was 15 at the time. During cross-examination, E.G. denied that police found a pipe or a knife in her purse.

[70] The Society worker said she would return in two months to check on the family. The worker attended and nothing came of the investigation.

[71] E.G. stated she knew her father was not happy with her and felt her father hated her and treated her like a random stranger afterwards. She felt the abuse continued and she continued to have arguments with her parents.

[72] She had left her parents' home and moved in with her friend Kayla Gravelle and her parents who lived in Sault Ste. Marie. When E.G. was asked why she left her parents' home, she stated that she had been speaking to Kayla on MSN and asked her mother if Kayla could come over for the night. B.J.G. apparently yelled stating E.G. never wanted to do anything with them and that all she wanted to do was to be with her friends to drink and hang out with boys. According to E.G., this was not true. As a result, her mother told her to leave. E.G. grabbed some of her things and walked from Heyden to the Outpost in Sault Ste. Marie and had Kayla's mother pick her up. She stayed with them for three months from the end of October 2010 to December 2010.

[73] E.G. recalled calling her parents once while she lived with the Gravelle's. She asked them if she could get her things and asked if she could return to the home. She was 16 at the time. E.G. stated her parents told her she could not return home. Later in her evidence, she stated she had called her parents two to three times while living with the Gravelle's. When she asked to return home they said she could not as they did not want her around her brother; as she was a bad influence and had not been going to school which according to E.G. was not the case.

[74] She recalled meeting her parents, brother and grandmother for lunch at a restaurant. E.G. stated she asked to return home and they refused stating they did not like her behaviour.

[75] Pursuant to a recommendation made by her principal at W[…] High School, she began to attend P[…] School and continued to attend there until she moved in with Ms. McGonegal in March 2011.

[76] According to E.G. she was attending school regularly while living with the Gravelle's. She was subject to a curfew and she and Kayla followed it six out of seven times. She was never out overnight.

[77] E.G. denied being kicked out of the Gravelle's home stating she chose to go to her grandmother's home so she could show her parents she was doing well. She began to live with her grandmother in January 2011. Her grandmother had agreed she could stay with her for one month until her boyfriend returned from Florida. E.G. stated she attended school while in her grandmother's care and had no issues when she lived with her.

[78] According to E.G. she was usually home by curfew and never stayed out overnight. It was while she was living with her grandmother that she secured part-time employment with Burger King and began dating Eric Gignac.

[79] Thereafter, E.G. stated she and her grandmother sat down with her parents to see if she could return to live with them. They agreed she could return on the conditions of there being no drinking, no drugs, attend school and not hang out with certain friends. This would have been at the end of January - early February 2011.

[80] E.G. stated she moved back home and lived with her parents for two weeks. They tried to get along but would argue over everything and this would affect her self-confidence, integrity and her school performance. When she was asked what she and her parents would argue about she noted that if she asked to go to a friend's home, her parents would yell at her and tell her she did not need to go out. She was also called a little whore, slut and bitch. There words were used when her father was mad at her, which E.G. estimated was four to five times during the two week period.

[81] According to E.G. she followed all house rules (no drinking, no drugs, go to school) the entire time she was at her parents' home.

[82] E.G. recalled asking her parents if she could go to Colette Gignac's to hang out with her sons. While at Colette's, E.G. was to go work a shift at Burger King. However, E.G. was unable to get a ride to work so she falsely called in sick. She eventually returned home as Colette gave her a ride and Colette's son Eric was present in the car. Upon arrival, her father assaulted her outside. E.G. recalled receiving a backhand to the face and head by her father leaving a bruise on her face. She stated she had no pictures of her injuries and she did not want to call police as she did not want her brother to suffer. She recalled her father throwing her hard to the ground in the snow. Her father then picked her up by the hair and cuffed her at the back of the head throwing her up against the house. E.G. stated her mother was outside watching the whole thing and her mother had a smirk as though she felt it was funny, which disgusted her. Once she entered the home, her father pushed her inside the hall to her room. He had packed two boxes with her belongings which they brought to the car. Her father then told her not to come back, that she was a disgrace and never wanted to see her again.

[83] E.G. stated that at that point in time she had been dating Eric Gignac and their relationship ended a few weeks later. At some point she began a relationship with his brother Marc and they continue to be in a relationship. E.G. stated they lived together at Ms. McGonegal's home but then Marc went to live with his grandmother while she stayed to live with Ms. McGonegal. E.G. stated she did not go to live with Ms. McGonegal because of Marc but because she had nowhere else to go.

[84] In cross-examination when the assault was reviewed, E.G. stated she had called Burger King to state she was sick as she could not get a ride to town to work. Once she arrived home, her father who had been in the home ran out the door and assaulted her outside and then proceeded to continue inside the home. Contrary to what E.G. had previously stated about her mother she indicated her mother had been inside the house and not much of the assault took place inside the house. E.G. then stated Colette and Eric did not get out of the car to help her as they were afraid they would be assaulted.

[85] According to E.G. when she lived with Collette Gignac for one month, she had no issues. She attended P[…] School.

[86] E.G. wanted to attend college and go into the nursing program. She indicated she wanted to apply to Cambrian College in Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie College however she did not have the $95 to pay the application fee and was not sure when she would have the funds. E.G. stated she felt she had all necessary requirements for the nursing program save and except First Aid. She has not had the funds to pay for the course. She believed she could take the two day course through the Red Cross and it would need to be completed before attending college.

[87] E.G. stated her preference was to attend school in Sudbury. She believed tuition was $4,100 and books would be $2,000, not including living expenses. When she was asked how she would pay for those expenses, E.G. was not sure and stated she would get a job if she had to. She was aware she could apply for OSAP.

[88] In cross-examination, E.G. acknowledged that she only had ten hours of the required 40 hours of community service which is a requirement to graduate from high school. E.G. stated her teacher would be speaking to her about this once she completed her courses.

[89] E.G. indicated that she had been attending school four out of five days as is permitted with the Adult Education Program. When E.G. was asked if she had medical records to support she was sick for 40 days from September to February 2013, she stated she did not have the $150 to obtain the records.

[90] E.G. stated she had no income since being at Ms. McGonegal's, however, in July 2012 to October 2012 she did receive Ontario Works in the amount of $460 per month. She gave the entire amount to Ms. McGonegal. She was then cut off from public assistance as the court ordered temporary child support as of November 2012.

[91] E.G. stated that Ms. McGonegal has supplied her with clothes, necessities, boots, a winter jacket, school supplies and cigarettes.

[92] Since November, 2012, E.G. has received $1,337.00 per month in child support from her parents. With this money she has purchased a winter jacket, boots and groceries. She has provided Janet with money for rent and has no savings. E.G. admitted that she purchased a winter jacket worth $470 as it was the warmest jacket she could buy and she needed it. Also, the jacket can keep her warm if she went through ice and would float.

[93] It was E.G.'s evidence that since being at Ms. McGonegal's home she had called her parents about three or four times at the beginning and spoke to her mother as her father did not wish to speak to her. E.G. stated she asked to come home and her mother refused. Her parents have never asked her to come home.

[94] E.G. recalled when two male officers came to Ms. McGonegal's home and gave her a Trespass Notice stating she could not go to her parents' property. She stated she threw it into the fire because she was angry and felt degraded. In cross-examination E.G. stated it was Constable Morin who read her a No Trespass Order telling her she was not to go to her parents' property or she would be charged.

[95] E.G. stated she loved her parents and somewhat missed them. She did miss her brother and wanted to speak with him however he will not communicate with her over the internet. E.G. believed her parents told him not to.

[96] E.G. stated she said some mean things to her parents but was never physically abusive towards them.

[97] E.G. stated when she lived with her parents her father would physically discipline her. He would make her sit at the supper table for hours and scream for her to finish her meal. This was a recurring event. If she was late, her room was not clean or if she made a mess, verbal comments were made. Her father would hit her by backhanding or cuffing the back of her head. She felt she was struck at least 20 times from the ages of 12 to 16. Sometimes, her father would kick her and he would scream at her, telling her degrading things like she was bad, a disgrace; would amount to nothing; was a little whore. She felt the abuse affected both her emotional and physical well-being.

[98] She recalled at one point in time she went to her brother's school to get his house key so she could get into the house and get her belongings. She used the key and began to pack her clothes. Her brother came home and he telephoned their mother who contacted police. As she was walking with her things back to Sault Ste. Marie, Police Officer Monique Baker picked her up and returned her to her home. She was told by Officer Baker to give the clothes back to her mother despite the fact they were hers and to not attend the residence again unless she had permission. Constable Baker then dropped her off at school.

[99] E.G. recalled last speaking to her father about two years ago when he spoke to her about going out west to Alberta with her mother and brother. She did not go. She has not called him to ask for money or about benefits. She believed she last spoke to her mother about two years ago.

[100] In cross-examination, E.G. indicated that a friend of her mother's (Sherri McGregor) called to advise that her mother was very sick. E.G. stated she did not call her mother as she felt this was a ploy by her parents to have her call. In fact she felt harassed by Ms. McGregor. E.G. went on to say that she had tried to call her parents but they simply yell at her and won't allow her to speak to M.

[101] E.G. stated she had tried to speak to her brother M. on Facebook but because of some comments he made about her attendance at school which she presumed was coming from her parents, he was no longer listed as one of her friends. However, M. could always call her at Ms. McGonegal's home. E.G. then stated she last tried to call her brother about eight months ago but her parents prevented her from doing so.

[102] E.G. acknowledged that she had not spoken to her half-sister M.A. or with her grandmother since being at Ms. McGonegal's. She had, however, spoken to an aunt and some cousins via Facebook. She had attempted to call her grandmother but her boyfriend was the one that answered the phone and he hangs up on her.

[103] When E.G. was asked whether she would return home if her parents asked her to, she stated she would decline as she was afraid of her father and felt her mother would not stand up for her.

[104] E.G. felt she was forced to leave her home and there was no choice in the matter. Her leaving was not of her own volition. In cross-examination when E.G. was asked whether it had been her plan to leave at the age of 16 she indicated it was because she did not like how she was being treated by her father.

[105] During cross-examination, E.G. denied having used drugs. When E.G. was asked about a suspension at school for smoking-up at school, E.G. stated she took the blame for a friend.

[106] E.G. denied doing drugs with her step-sister or ever being caught doing drugs by her parents. She denied being with her brother M. when she purchased drugs. She denied ever being physically violent with her brother.

Constable Jason Nickle

[107] Constable Nickle is the acting sergeant with the Sault Ste. Marie Ontario Provincial Police. He has been employed with the OPP for 19 years.

[108] On June 25, 2010, he was made aware that B.J.G. and J.G. had filed a missing person's report about their daughter. He attended at W[...] High School and when E.G. arrived at school a police investigation ensued.

[109] He brought E.G. to the police station and contacted the Children's Aid Society as E.G. had disclosed to him in the police cruiser that her father had assaulted her in their home. E.G. had told him that her father had grabbed her by the throat, picked her up, threw her back down in a chair and proceeded to punch her in the shoulder and kick her in the ribs.

[110] Constable Nickle asked E.G. to provide him with names of individuals with whom she would have disclosed the assault. While E.G. spoke to the CAS worker, he was able to contact Nicky Jefferson. Nicky stated she had spoken with E.G. in the past and had witnessed some bruising on her in the past but was unaware of how she received the bruises. Ms. Jefferson never came in to provide a police statement.

[111] It was his belief there were discrepancies in what E.G. had disclosed to him as compared to what she disclosed to the CAS worker, Claudia Lambert-Caputo. Ms. Lambert-Caputo advised him that E.G. told her that her father had grabbed her by the chin, not the throat, pushed her down by the shoulder, not punched her and kicked her in the thigh, not the ribs.

[112] As a result of these discrepancies, Constable Nickle contacted B.J.G. to advise her of the situation. B.J.G. explained there had been a family dispute and described her husband's actions. As a result of his investigation, Constable Nickle and Ms. Lambert-Caputo believed E.G. had exaggerated the circumstances of the alleged assault in the hopes of being removed from the home due to the rules and grounding that had been imposed as of late.

[113] Constable Nickle believed this was a discipline issue. He felt the unwanted contact was not an assault as it was reasonable force by J.G. for the purpose of discipline. Constable Nickle also spoke to J.G. and his statement was consistent with his wife's. Constable Nickle had determined he was not going to criminally charge J.G.

[114] Constable Nichol indicated E.G. presented as frustrated with the rules at her home. When E.G. did not get her way, she would simply fold up her camp.

[115] It became apparent to Constable Nickle that E.G. had exaggerated the situation with her father as she did not want to return home. She initially disclosed a violent event and during her interview with the CAS worker it became non-violent.

[116] The decision was made to return E.G. home. He told E.G. she would be driven home and no one was being charged. Once home, during their interaction, the father disclosed to him E.G. had stolen $130 from her mother a few days prior. E.G. admitted to taking the funds without permission to purchase some food at McDonalds and Wacky Wings. Constable Nickle arrested E.G. for theft, provided her rights to counsel and caution and proceeded to search her purse for the funds. Constable Nickle located drug paraphernalia. He found a large quantity and a variety of non-prescription cold medication. Some were identified as Tylenol and Benadryl. The officer felt from his experience these medications were often used on the street to fabricate other drugs, however, he could not discount they were used for a cold. He however remembered he was struck by the quantity. He also found a used hash pipe. The parents, however, did not wish to press charges.

[117] The parents advised Constable Nickle and the Society worker they were frustrated with E.G. as she would not follow the house rules. Constable Nickle stated he believed the parents over E.G.. Once he arrived at the residence and was able to observe the interaction it was apparent. E.G. was so disrespectful and inappropriate with her parents that he himself was losing patience with her. He felt compelled to speak to E.G. about how she was treating her parents.

[118] According to Officer Nickle, when he picked up E.G. at school she was obstinate and did not want to cooperate. She did not wish to return home stating she was fearful of her father and appeared upset. In fact, Officer Nickle felt E.G. was not the innocent victim she portrayed when he had picked her up at school.

[119] Once they arrived at the home, E.G.'s demeanour became worse and she was disrespectful towards her parents to the point that he had to address E.G.'s behaviour with her. He felt E.G. was very confrontational with her parents rather than fearful. He tried to counsel the family and spoke to them about various strategies they could try.

Constable Monique Baker

[120] Constable Baker has been a police officer for 24 years and a community service officer for the past five years.

[121] Constable Baker knows the G. family both personally and professionally. At one point in time, they were neighbours; however, any interaction between them was always in public.

[122] Constable Baker is the community service officer at Aweres Public School where B.J.G. teaches and where M. is a student. She recalled on November 1, 2010 when B.J.G. approached her stating she had received a call from M. and E.G. was in the house. E.G. had taken the house key out of M.'s backpack. She followed B.J.G. home and saw E.G. was in the driveway with her clothes. She transported E.G. to W[...] High School.

[123] Constable Baker has known E.G. since she was a little girl. They spoke about various issues while alone together in the police cruiser and Constable Baker provided her with her business card telling E.G. to call her anytime. She recalled telling E.G. that what she had done was wrong and inappropriate. She described E.G.'s appearance as dishevelled and unhealthy although she had not seen E.G. for quite some time. E.G. had taken a cordless phone and Constable Baker returned it to B.J.G.

[124] Constable Baker told E.G. that it was not acceptable for her to simply walk into her brother's school without permission.

[125] Constable Baker indicated that since this incident she had spoken to B.J.G. who had expressed concern for her daughter.

Constable Damian Morin

[126] Constable Morin is the Prevention Constable with the Sault Ste. Marie Detachment. He has been a police officer for 11 years. He performs general law enforcement.

[127] He was involved with this family on September 29, 2010, regarding an incident of break and enter into their residence. One of the ground level basement windows was broken. He saw that panes of glass were smashed and could see tool marks at the window frame. Nearby he found a garden hoe with scuff marks and the spade was bent. He also observed a fingerprint which he lifted.

[128] The parents reported that the only items missing belonged to E.G.. They included her Sony CD player, razor, birth control pills, clothing and electronic items such as her IPod. The parents had reported they had a falling out with E.G. a week prior and she had moved out. They had since changed the locks. E.G. was living on Highway 17 with Sharisse and Lisa Williams on Garden River First Nation. M. was the one who discovered the damage.

[129] In cross-examination Constable Morin was asked whether B.J.G. stated E.G. was not permitted to return home. It was his recollection that B.J.G. stated E.G. had a home but that she had to follow the rules and this was an argument between them.

[130] Constable Morin felt the parents appeared frustrated, stating they cannot continue to live like this. They wanted E.G. charged, indicating they have had problems with her in the past.

[131] Constable Morin went to look for E.G. however, she was not at the residence on Highway 17.

[132] Eventually, on August 13, 2011 at 3:15 p.m., he located E.G. on Government Road in Desbarats and served her with a youth criminal justice action caution to a young person for mischief to property. In brief conversation with E.G., she denied the mischief. Constable Morin told E.G. all items were hers and of a personal nature however E.G. had no comment. He was at the residence for no more than five minutes. E.G. was with another person who identified themselves as Barb Gignac. This person was present the entire time Constable Morin spoke to E.G.

[133] Constable Morin stated that he explained the caution document to E.G. and told her what it was and the meaning of it. Essentially, he advised E.G. that she was being served with the caution as police had grounds to believe she had committed a criminal offence. If there were further incidents of law being broken in the future, it could lead to criminal charges and she would have to go to court. E.G. was 16 at the time and Constable Morin believed she understood what he was telling her. E.G. appeared calm to him and only stated that she "did not do it".

[134] Constable Morin stated he never gave E.G. a trespass order. He never told E.G. she could not return to her parents' home.

[135] His only other contact with E.G. was on March 23, 2011 for a non-Criminal Code domestic dispute between E.G. and Eric Gignac in S[…], Ontario. This was the residence belonging to Colette Gignac and Luc St. Denis as well as Eric and Marc Gignac.

[136] Constable Morin recalled receiving a call for service. The complainant was Janet McGonegal of Desbarats, Ontario. The complaint was of a family dispute between Eric Gignac and his younger sibling Marc. The investigation revealed E.G. was dating Eric when she disclosed that she had a crush on Marc which triggered an altercation between the two brothers. Eric was arrested.

[137] Constable Morin indicated in cross-examination the delay from the time of the mischief offence to serving E.G. with the caution was because he had difficulties locating her. The fingerprint he lifted went missing during the course of his investigation.

Claudia Lambert-Caputo

[138] Ms. Lambert-Caputo has been employed with the Children's Aid Society of Algoma as a child protection worker since year 2000.

[139] She became involved with E.G. and her family when she had to investigate an allegation of child abuse on June 25, 2010. Constable Nickle had reported to her that E.G. (15 years) had stated to him that on Sunday, June 20, 2010, her father had punched her, held her up by the throat and kicked her. E.G. did not leave the family home until June 24, 2010. She was en route to write her exams on Thursday, however, she did not return home. E.G. indicated she did not wish to return home as she was afraid the assaults would continue.

[140] The Society completed a joint investigation with OPP. According to the Society's file summary, E.G. initially agreed to provide a statement to police regarding the assault, however, once she was made aware her father could be charged and arrested she refused to provide a statement. E.G. was however agreeable to speak to Ms. Lambert-Caputo.

[141] During the interview it became evident E.G. was having issues at home for not following rules and resisting consequences. The child admitted to alcohol and drug use, sneaking out of the home and disregarding the parents' directions. The child indicated that the assault had taken place on Father's Day, however, she did not report it until the following Friday at which point she reported being afraid of going home. E.G. had spent the entire week following the alleged assault at her home and reported not being fearful during that time. The child E.G. decided to run away apparently motivated by a desire to attend a weekend party.

[142] During her testimony, Ms. Lambert-Caputo stated she interviewed E.G. for about 30 minutes and during this interview she felt some of the facts E.G. relayed to her started to change. E.G. then began to add things about not wanting to follow the house rules stating she did not care.

[143] Once she arrived with E.G. at her home, J.G. was present and B.J.G. was on her way. J.G. acknowledged that he and E.G. had an argument on the prior Sunday as she was not doing her chores and was out of control. It had begun in the afternoon and things escalated at dinner. E.G. was not coming up for dinner and J.G. directed her to sit at the table. There was arguing back and forth.

[144] J.G. explained they had been experiencing conflict with E.G. which included being disrespectful, drinking, stealing, sneaking out of the house and not following the rules. J.G. denied the allegation of assault but did state that he redirected E.G. by the shoulders to sit down at the dinner table and held her face in his hand to look at him and kicked her chair because he was angry. There was also yelling back and forth.

[145] Ms. Caputo-Lambert directed the parents not to have the father discipline E.G.. She believed he complied with her direction.

[146] Ms. Caputo-Lambert met the family in September 2010. She was aware the parents had changed the locks to the house. The parents advised her they had to do so as they could not trust E.G.. E.G. had to gain their trust before she would be permitted to have a key. E.G. had returned to live with her parents at that time and had a cell to call her parents or grandmother if she needed something. She was also aware E.G. could attend after school to meet her mother at M.'s school and then they could proceed home together.

[147] Ms. Caputo-Lambert was present when E.G. was arrested. B.J.G. had arrived home and they advised E.G. had stolen $130.00. As a result E.G. was arrested for theft. Upon the search of E.G.'s purse they found drug paraphernalia including a knife and pills. E.G. stated the pills belonged to a friend of hers but would not disclose who this friend was.

[148] The Society's file summary noted that the parents appeared genuinely worried and mortified over the actions of their child. The parents acted at all times appropriately and understood that their duty was to provide closer supervision to the child, establish and enforce house rules and follow through with consequences.

[149] At the conclusion of the investigation, there was no evidence of physical abuse by the father.

[150] Ms. Caputo-Lambert testified she felt there was no credence to E.G.'s claim of physical abuse. She felt the parents were appropriate regarding their parenting. The parents were prepared to have E.G. home. The rules were no drugs; no alcohol; to be respectful; not to be mean to M.; go to school and do chores.

[151] On September 26, 2010, the mother contacted the Society and reported that E.G. had left the home on the 23rd and was staying at her boyfriend's house. Since that time, E.G. had informed her mother she had broken up with her boyfriend and E.G. had called stating she was coming back home. The mother indicated E.G. had not been going to school, had not been following the rules, went out without permission and did not tell them where she was, had been stealing, drinking and likely using drugs and was mean to her younger brother. The mother stated she and her husband agreed they would not permit E.G. to return home until she showed them she was going to make some changes starting with attending school. The mother had informed E.G. of their decision and had changed the locks on the house. The mother was aware E.G. would not be on the street and was not concerned about her safety.

[152] On September 30, 2010, Lisa Williams contacted the Society to report E.G. was staying at her home temporarily and was scared to go home, believing her father would hit her.

[153] The Society began an investigation. E.G. eventually returned home and marginally agreed to follow her parents' rules and return to school. Just prior to her return home, the family home was broken into and E.G.'s belongings were taken. The mother confronted E.G. who denied breaking into the home but admitted knowing who had, however would not reveal that person's identity.

[154] The Society met with E.G. and she did not indicate concerns of fear regarding her father. E.G. had indicated that she intended to leave the family home once she was 16.

[155] Ms. Caputo-Lambert testified she believed E.G. would continue to do as she pleased as she made that clear. It was obvious to Ms. Caputo-Lambert the parents were trying hard to parent E.G. but she was not willing to follow the rules.

[156] There was no risk of harm to E.G. as a result of the function of the parents. If there was risk of harm it was because of E.G.'s own choices and her high risk behaviour. E.G. was going to run away, sneak out of the home in the middle of the night and not tell her parents where she was going which could jeopardize her safety. As E.G. turned 16 years old and was no longer under the mandate of the Society, the file was closed on November 8, 2010.

[157] E.G. had also admitted to Ms. Caputo-Lambert that she had used drugs and alcohol.

B.J.G.

[158] B.J.G. and her husband have been married for 22 years. They have a good marital relationship. They have two children, E.G. and M. who is 14 years of age.

[159] B.J.G. is employed as a teacher at Aweres Public School and teaches grades 7 and 8. She has been teaching for 22 years. B.J.G. earns approximately $92,000.00 gross annually.

[160] B.J.G. recalled the first serious issue with E.G. occurred in April 2009. E.G. had a friend over and they took rye from them and put it in some water bottles and drank. She received a call from a third party at another residence telling her she should come and pick up E.G. as the police were coming and E.G.'s friend was vomiting and an ambulance had been called.

[161] When B.J.G. arrived, E.G. refused to get into the vehicle and was belligerent. E.G.'s friend had to have her stomach pumped.

[162] E.G. was in grade nine at the time. She was attending school regularly and was a B student. E.G. would want to go and come as she pleased and she would be told they needed to know where she was at all times.

[163] They wanted E.G. at home by 8:30 on school nights but allowed a later curfew on weekends. They did not want her involved with drugs and alcohol and wanted to ensure she attended school. She was attending W[...] High School.

[164] In grade ten, E.G. played high school basketball and they volunteered to drive her to a tournament in Ottawa where the team did well. E.G. also played volleyball and despite playing sports her grades were still good. E.G. did struggle in math but her teacher indicated to B.J.G. that E.G. would not go to him for help. She herself tried to help her with some of her assignments.

[165] E.G. went to Quebec City in April 2010 and then things began to change. She began to no longer hang out with girls from the sports team. E.G.'s demeanour changed. She would yell one moment and then suddenly be nice. She was irritable and they never knew what would set her off.

[166] W[...] High School had an automated system to advise a parent if their child was not present at school but their system was down for quite some time. In May 2010, they learned E.G. had missed over 30 classes. E.G. was grounded as she had put her semester at risk but she still passed her classes. B.J.G. had to go and speak with all of E.G.'s teachers to obtain extensions to permit E.G. to hand in her assignments and had to argue with her principal.

[167] In June 2010, they had to file a missing person's report. E.G. was upset as she had been grounded from the computer. She also had to come home each day as punishment for skipping school. B.J.G. saw two duffel bags packed with E.G.'s belongings which E.G. had stored outside presumably to take over to a friend's house. She took the bags and gave them to her husband and told him to keep them in his logging truck. E.G. never mentioned the bags.

[168] E.G. had advised her parents that one of these days she would not be coming home. B.J.G. told her if that happened they would call police. She did so when E.G. did not come home and they filed a missing person's report.

[169] She recalled Constable Nickle calling her to state he had located E.G. at W[...] High School and receiving a second call stating the CAS was being called and he was taking E.G. to the police station.

[170] Once home, Constable Nickle reviewed with them what they had spoken about with E.G.. B.J.G. testified E.G. was rude to both the officer and the child protection worker by talking back and interrupting.

[171] B.J.G. explained to Officer Nickle and Ms. Caputo-Lambert what had transpired at the dinner table with E.G.. They told her that she should discipline E.G., and J.G. should be hands off although he could still implement groundings and taking away of privileges.

[172] In regard to the incident itself, B.J.G. testified E.G. had been hiding out downstairs all day. She had arrived home the night prior at a very late hour. They had not known where she had been. It was about 1 a.m. and E.G. looked like she was going to be sick.

[173] At dinner time, she was told to come to the table and eat. E.G. ignored them. When she did come up she refused to sit at the table and sat at the computer desk and went on MSN. They asked her again to sit at the dinner table. Once at the table, E.G. was told they were concerned about her skipping classes and going to parties. E.G. was unresponsive, not engaging and simply staring down at the table. B.J.G. stated this lasted for about ten minutes. When E.G. did respond, her tone was not very nice. Eventually, she could see her husband becoming frustrated as he had raised his voice and E.G. was not responding. E.G. pushed her plate back and pushed herself from the table and got up. Her husband then got up and pushed E.G. back down into her chair using open hands and pushing down on E.G.'s shoulders. E.G. was again seated facing everyone. She was not eating and they continued to try and engage her. Her husband kicked the chair E.G. was sitting on as E.G. was not speaking to them. E.G.'s chair did move slightly while she was on it and B.J.G. stated her husband hit E.G.'s buttock/hip area when he made contact with the chair. She recalled her husband grabbing E.G. by the chin so she would look at him and have her make eye contact. E.G. went downstairs thereafter. She continued to reside with them until Thursday morning and never came home after school. As a result, they filed a missing person's report. Constable Nickle returned E.G. to their home the following day.

[174] When they met with Constable Nickle and Ms. Caputo-Lambert they told them sometimes E.G. was kind and generous and other times they did not recognize her. She would snap at her brother, scream and yell at them. Her eyes were often glazed. They told them how E.G.'s social group had changed and how she would go on MSN and learn about parties. B.J.G. stated E.G. did not like the fact the computer was in the kitchen and if she came by while E.G. was at the computer, E.G. would often hide what she was doing.

[175] They advised them that E.G. stole their alcohol so they had to lock their alcohol away. E.G. also stole their money. When E.G.'s purse was searched she saw E.G. had a prescription bottle that she had herself thrown away. She recalled some Gravol and Tylenol and some unknown pills. She estimated there were about 30 pills. There was also a pipe and a knife. B.J.G. stated she was scared when she saw the pills.

[176] They knew E.G.'s behaviour was erratic and suspected she was using drugs but had no proof until they saw the pills.

[177] E.G. was not charged for the theft as they did not want her charged. Ms. Caputo-Lambert was to check up on them in July 2010. E.G. stayed home and spent close to three days lying on the couch. She was sweating and shaking. B.J.G. felt her daughter was coming down from something. B.J.G. stated they had suspected E.G. had been doing drugs as she would often go down the road to see two boys. She and her husband had smelled both alcohol and drugs on E.G.

[178] In cross-examination, B.J.G. stated she and her husband drink socially. She was asked why she and her husband would have locked the alcohol in the home rather than simply dispose of the alcohol. B.J.G. replied that it was her home and she wanted to be able to offer a social drink to any guests that came over. They also locked their bedroom as she did not want any of her jewellery or other items to go missing.

[179] After the June 2010 incident the summer was uneventful. By mid-August 2010, things changed again. E.G. was back on the computer, in contact with other girls and boys. E.G. tried out for the basketball team once school started.

[180] B.J.G. recalled that E.G. was to be at a friend's home and arrangements were made for E.G.'s grandmother to pick her up. When the paternal grand-mother arrived to pick up E.G., the friend had no idea where E.G. was. E.G. eventually called her grandmother who picked her up. E.G. had scrape marks and bruises as a result of a fight with another girl over a boy.

[181] In September 2010, E.G. had called her and asked that she bring her school uniform to her at school. When she arrived, E.G. was not there. She never called them thereafter and was gone for two nights. They had no idea where E.G. was. Eventually E.G. called them and stated she wanted her things as she was not returning home. B.J.G. said she could not take her things as she could come home. They changed the locks so E.G. could not simply arrive at the home and take her things. They wanted to make sure they were home if she was going to retrieve any belongings. They learned E.G. was staying with Sharisse Williams' grandmother on the Garden River First Nations Reserve.

[182] There was a break and enter at their house in late September 2010 which was reported to police. Only E.G.'s things were missing and she did not have the new house key.

[183] In early October 2010, E.G. called and asked to come home and they agreed. She came home on the school bus and told them she had been staying in one of the low rental income units on Second Line. E.G. did not look good. They told her they could not give her a house key when they did not know when she was coming and going. B.J.G. also stated during cross-examination that E.G. would also invite people into their home without their prior knowledge. Regardless, E.G. did not need a key as E.G. had left the home before them in the morning and her brother was there when she arrived at the end of the day.

[184] E.G. continued to visit with friends as she pleased and B.J.G. asked E.G. to be home for Thanksgiving as they were expecting company. E.G. came home on Friday after school then stated she wanted to go back into town to stay at her friend Kayla's. B.J.G. stated she learned afterwards that E.G. had wanted to attend a party. They allowed E.G. to go to Kayla's and picked her up the following day. Not an hour after E.G. arrived home she was calling Kayla making arrangements to have Kayla's mother pick her up. B.J.G. believed E.G. was only living with them when it was convenient to her. E.G. stayed home for two to three weeks.

[185] By the end of October 2010, E.G. was suspended for fighting. E.G. had also skipped school and had been receiving detentions. E.G. was living about half time with her family and half time with Kayla Gravelle and her family.

[186] B.J.G. recalled that sometime at the end of October while she was teaching, M. told her that his friends saw E.G. at the school and she had asked them where her brother's back pack was located. E.G. would have retrieved her brother's house key. M. had called his mother afraid as when he entered his room, E.G. screamed and jumped out of his closet. As a result, B.J.G. spoke to Constable Monique Baker who was at the school to come and speak with E.G. at their home.

[187] During the first week of November 2010, E.G. took her belongings and moved to the Gravelle's. B.J.G. stated they never asked E.G. to leave and she continued to be welcomed in their home. According to B.J.G. E.G. had been telling them since early fall 2010 that as soon as she turned 16 years of age she would be leaving. E.G. told her parents she did not want to be subject to their rules, did not want to be accountable to tell them where she was going. B.J.G. testified that she advised E.G. it was her job as a parent to set guidelines.

[188] E.G. left the home on or about her 16th birthday. According to B.J.G., she continued to maintain some contact with E.G. while E.G. was at the Gravelle's and E.G. seemed happy. B.J.G. stated she spoke to Robin Gravelle in December 2010, who reported that E.G. initially did everything that was asked of her but then things began to change. E.G. was not coming home by curfew, not stating where she was going, not going to school regularly and not coming home overnight.

[189] B.J.G. recalled receiving a call from her daughter at the end of November 2010, at about 3 a.m. stating that she had been locked out by the Gravelle's as she had missed her curfew, she was cold and had nowhere to go. B.J.G. drove into town to pick up E.G. and brought her home. The next day, E.G. called Kayla to get a ride back into town not wanting to reside at home.

[190] B.J.G. was aware the Gravelle's had asked E.G. to leave. She was advised by Robin Gravelle that E.G. had offered to buy the Gravelle's son some pot. Tanner Gravelle was only 12. It was agreed E.G. could live with her maternal grandmother for a few weeks. The maternal grandmother agreed to drive E.G. each day to P[…] School. B.J.G. learned from the maternal grand-mother that initially E.G. was compliant and shortly thereafter she was not advising her grandmother as to her whereabouts and was not attending school regularly.

[191] E.G. returned to reside with her parents during the second week of February 2011. E.G. was again told about the house rules and expectations. Things initially were good. The maternal grandmother was continuing to pick up E.G. each morning and driving her to school. E.G. had also been hired by Burger King and transportation arrangements were made for her to get to her shifts. B.J.G. stated that if E.G. had a midnight shift, they would drive her there and pick her up at 4:00 a.m. They were pleased she had part-time employment as they wanted to teach her responsibility.

[192] B.J.G. stated she found it strange that E.G. never knew her work hours in advance. E.G. was also beginning to spend a lot of time at Colette Gignac's home to spend time with Ms. Gignac's sons. Ms. Gignac would sometimes call and say she did not have gas to return E.G. back to their residence when they wanted her home. The parents felt undermined by Ms. Gignac. When they would call to speak to E.G. they would often get an answering machine or the number was not in service.

[193] In February 2011, B.J.G. stated she was washing a coat of E.G.'s and found a drug pipe in the coat. She confronted E.G. about this and E.G. stated she was simply holding it for a friend of hers. E.G. continued to spend more time at the Gignac's home and B.J.G. suspected E.G. was in a romantic relationship with Eric.

[194] E.G. stayed with her parents until the first week of March 2011, then everything, according to B.J.G., fell apart. E.G. had not come home overnight when she was supposed to and had stayed at the Gignac's home. She was to work at Burger King the following day. When she called Burger King she was advised the E.G. had not shown up for her shift and this was not the first time. As a result of her not being reliable she was let go. B.J.G. called her husband to tell him he did not need to pick up E.G. at work and told him of the circumstances and advised him to come home.

[195] At about 8:30 p.m., E.G. arrived home. She herself was not outside. She heard E.G. come into the house and her husband telling E.G. to get her things. She went down to see E.G. in her bedroom. She had heard her husband yelling at E.G. stating he was frustrated with the people she was hanging out with. E.G. gathered some belongings and left the home. She never told E.G. to leave. She was never present outside. She does not believe E.G.'s claim that her father physically assaulted her outside.

[196] E.G. returned to Collette Gignac's home and they did not have contact with E.G. until they received a call from Janet McGonegal telling them E.G. was living with her. In cross-examination when B.J.G. was asked why they never called E.G. to tell her to come home, she indicated they felt it was best to let things calm down for a while and E.G. had not contacted them either.

[197] B.J.G. recalled E.G. calling her on Mother's Day in 2011 to wish her a Happy Mother's Day and proceeded to ask her for $200. E.G. told her she needed riding boots. B.J.G. stated she would not give her the money but would meet her in town to purchase them. She had no problem buying things E.G. might need but did not want to give her cash for alcohol, drugs or cigarettes. E.G. refused to meet her mother.

[198] E.G. next called on Canada Day but only wanted to speak to her father. In the meantime, Ms. McGonegal had called them a few times. The first time Ms. McGonegal called, B.J.G. believed this person to be reasonable and polite. It was B.J.G.'s recollection that Ms. McGonegal never asked her if E.G. could come home but rather questioned why E.G. was not living with them. She told Ms. McGonegal that E.G. could come home as long as she followed their rules.

[198] Thereafter, the conversations were negative as Ms. McGonegal would attack her by stating that she was not a good mother and if this was the case, how could she be a good teacher. B.J.G. felt she was being judged by a person who did not know her personally.

[200] B.J.G. recalled one telephone call when she spoke to E.G. and she could hear Ms. McGonegal ask "What is she telling you?" When B.J.G. called Ms. McGonegal's home to speak to E.G., she had to speak to Ms. McGonegal first. B.J.G. stated she never advised their son M. not to speak to his sister and that it was him who was upset with E.G. when she chose to block him from communicating with her on Facebook. In fact, B.J.G. stated E.G. could have called her brother at home anytime since she left as she would know when he was home alone.

[201] B.J.G. stated that back in September 2011, when E.G. was living with them she spoke to Child Protection Worker Claudia Caputo about counselling. When this subject was broached, E.G. stated that if she was made to attend counselling, she would simply sit there and say nothing. E.G. felt there was nothing wrong with the choices she was making. During this time, B.J.G. arranged for counselling for their son M. as they felt he was being caught in the middle and they wanted to ensure he had someone else to talk to.

[202] According to B.J.G. she believed that she had never done anything to make E.G. think that she was kicked out of the home. She was always told she was welcomed to live with them subject to her following the rules. They believed it was their job to be a parent to their daughter and not her friend. It was difficult as E.G. lied to them. B.J.G. recalled E.G. telling her that if she told them where she was or who she was with, they would not be happy with her.

[203] B.J.G. stated she never requested a trespass order against E.G.. During cross-examination B.J.G. stated emphatically she had never told E.G. she had to leave their home and had never told her daughter she was unwanted. She did however confirm that when E.G. told her she could not wait to leave their house and have no rules she told her daughter "if you think life is better than at our home, you can go." But she never told her to leave.

[204] In cross-examination, B.J.G. stated they had never physically disciplined E.G.. She had never heard her husband call E.G. derogatory names and E.G. had never reported to her that her father had done so. B.J.G. stated she never saw her husband hit E.G. on the back of the head as she claimed and the only physical contact was some horseplay. In fact, it was B.J.G.'s opinion that E.G. had had a great relationship with her father until the difficulties began. E.G. was "daddy's little girl". Her husband was protective of E.G. especially regarding boys. They did not approve of the boys E.G. was hanging around with. She had been with one boy from Garden River who was not a positive influence and his name was recently in the paper. E.G. had also disclosed to her mother she had been beaten up by this boy one month later after it had happened. E.G. was not forthcoming with her personal life.

[205] B.J.G. stated that E.G. was sometimes rough with her younger brother and she would sometimes hit him with her fists. She would come home from work and find E.G. with a group of friends. M. would come and report that E.G. hit him. B.J.G. believed E.G. was trying to show her friends how tough she was and that she was in control.

[206] B.J.G. recalled an occasion when M. reported to her that he had been with his stepsister M.A. and E.G. when they purchased and smoked marijuana. B.J.G. confronted E.G. and she denied the allegations as did M.A. initially. However, M.A.'s mother found a pipe and M.A. eventually admitted she and E.G. had smoked marijuana. E.G. eventually admitted to it as well.

[207] B.J.G. stated she wanted E.G. back into her life. She believed E.G. looked thinner, paler and unhealthy. E.G. was hardly ever sick when she lived with her parents and now E.G. reported always being sick. B.J.G. has thought to herself "what has happened to you – you could have stayed with us" referring to her daughter. B.J.G. reported she was frustrated and sad. She loves her daughter and she is sad it has come to this point. J.G. stated E.G. has never asked them to come home when she has communicated with them since being at Ms. McGonegal's.

[208] In cross-examination, B.J.G. stated E.G. appeared to lose interest in their family. Prior to being at Ms. McGonegal's, E.G. was still having communication with her stepsister M.A. and her brother. The contact essentially ceased once she began residing with Ms. McGonegal.

[209] B.J.G. indicated that as a parent you do the best you can. Raising teenagers today was difficult and as a parent you attempt to steer them away from bad choices. However, when there was someone else undermining your decisions, it was frustrating. She felt it was difficult to watch someone make bad choices and have them not listen to your experience and advice.

[210] During cross-examination, B.J.G. confirmed her income and some of their assets and debts. In regards to post-secondary education costs for E.G., she indicated she would be willing to assist her daughter with some post-secondary education costs once she was aware of all the details. She was worried about E.G.'s commitment and whether she would be successful. B.J.G. would like to see E.G. independent of Ms. McGonegal. B.J.G. did not believe she should be court ordered to pay towards E.G.'s expenses.

Eric Gignac

[211] Mr. Gignac testified he knew E.G. from school and at some point in time they were in a romantic relationship.

[212] He was residing in S[…], Ontario with his parents and his brothers Marc and Kevin when E.G. lived with them for one month in 2011.

[213] He recalled an incident when they attended at E.G.'s residence in February 2011. He indicated he was in the car with his mother, E.G., Kevin and Marc. He indicated that E.G. got out of the vehicle, went inside the home and returned with either a box or bag of her belongings from inside the house and they returned to their home.

[214] He acknowledged observing E.G. and her father arguing. He stated J.G. was yelling and swearing at E.G. however, he denied observing a physical altercation between them. He did not get out of the car as E.G. and her father were simply arguing. He did recall E.G.'s father coming to their car and being upset with his mother because she was not making E.G. attend school. Mr. Gignac never saw B.J.G. hit E.G. or throw anything at her.

[215] Mr. Gignac stated he dated E.G. for about one month. While she lived with them, E.G. was not attending school regularly. E.G. then began to date his brother Marc. Mr. Gignac testified that he and E.G. did drugs consisting of weed. They also drank alcohol and would do so in his bedroom.

[216] According to Mr. Gignac when E.G. lived with them she did not have her own bedroom and slept in various areas of the home.

[217] Mr. Gignac acknowledged that he does not speak to his brother Marc or to his mother. He currently resides with his father in Sault Ste. Marie.

[218] According to Mr. Gignac, he saw his mother, Ms. McGonegal and E.G. at the courthouse while he was waiting to give testimony on the last court date and Ms. McGonegal told him to "leave or he would fuck her up".

J.G.

[219] J.G. owns and operates J. G[…] Trucking. His line 150 from his 2011 income tax return reflected a gross annual income of $103,000.00 per year from his business. J.G. described an excellent relationship with E.G. until the difficulties began in high school.

[220] J.G. testified he was aware that once in her teens, his daughter did drugs while living with them. He and his wife had found drug paraphernalia on E.G. and in their home. His wife had found the marijuana pipe in E.G.'s coat, the police had found a drug pipe in E.G.'s purse and they found a can of pot in the basement where E.G.'s bedroom was located.

[221] J.G. was also aware his daughter drank alcohol while she was in their care. He believed E.G. would drink alcohol in their home and at parties as alcohol went missing. Eventually, they had to lock up the alcohol in their home.

[222] J.G. recalled in June 2010, that E.G. had wanted to go to a party and had in fact packed some of her things the night before which he and his wife found. They were not agreeable to her attending the party and his wife told E.G. that if she did not come home, they would be calling police. E.G. told them she did not care, she was going to go to the party. E.G. was doing high school exams at that time and did not come home overnight on the Thursday so they contacted police. He then recalled receiving a call from police on Friday to advise E.G. had made allegations against him and the Children's Aid Society was being called. Eventually, E.G. was returned home to their care.

[223] J.G. felt his daughter had made false allegations against him which would permit her to go to the party. He believed E.G. was under the impression she would not be returned home and could then do as she pleased. J.G. stated his daughter had lied to police and the CAS worker about what had transpired between them earlier in the week.

[224] Once home, E.G. was mouthing off at both himself and Constable Nickle. During their meeting, E.G. was arrested for theft. The officer found a hash pipe, a knife and various pills in E.G.'s purse. E.G. claimed she was holding the pipe for someone else. The knife she had belonged to her brother and obviously, E.G. had taken it out of his room. He asked Constable Nickle not to charge E.G. criminally.

[225] He recalled the Children's Aid Worker stating she would be doing a follow-up visit and in the meantime he should refrain from doing any of the disciplining, and he complied with her directives.

[226] J.G. stated thereafter they had a good summer and the family went on vacation. They also purchased clothing for E.G. and she was paid for her chores. When school began in the fall, E.G. made the basketball team and unfortunately about one and a half months later, things went south.

[227] According to J.G., E.G. would often pack up some of her things and would stay at a friend's home for one night or up to one week. E.G. would not always call them to tell them of her whereabouts. E.G. was suspended from school for fighting and in the fall 2010, she began to live with the Gravelle's as E.G. did not like their rules. Their rules were to attend school, follow a curfew and no drugs/alcohol. However, these rules were not followed by their daughter.

[228] J.G. stated E.G. was never kicked out of their home, she chose to leave. After the Gravelle's, E.G. went to live with her grandmother. She then called to say she had nowhere else to go and asked if she could return home. E.G. was told she could return home but of course had to follow the rules. He organized to have his mother drive E.G. each day to the Adult Learning Centre. E.G.'s compliance according to J.G. lasted one week after returning home. They learned E.G. was not always attending at school and she was not following her curfew.

[229] On the night E.G. left to live with Ms. Gignac, he recalled he had finished work at 5:30 p.m. and called his wife to see if E.G. needed a ride home from Burger King. He was told E.G. was let go from her work and the circumstances. He proceeded home. On his way home he saw E.G. in a car going towards town.

[230] E.G. arrived later that night in a car driven by Colette Gignac. All of her boys were in the car. He went outside when they arrived. He was angry and told E.G. how unhappy he was. He admitted to yelling and swearing. E.G. did not seem concerned stating she was home early prior to her curfew until J.G. reminded her she was supposed to have been home the day prior. He told E.G. that if she wanted to be at the Gignac's so bad, she should live with them. Prior to this incident, they had been permitting E.G. to go over to the Gignac's but she would often come home a day past her curfew.

[231] E.G. went into the house to get her belongings. He went over to the car and sarcastically told Ms. Gignac "thank you for having E.G. follow the rules, having her home on time, having her attend school". He admitted he did have a few choice words for Ms. Gignac. He felt her family was working against them in regards to E.G.

[232] J.G. stated there was no physical altercation, and his wife was inside the home when he argued with E.G. outside. He did go into the home and helped E.G. pack her belongings and he and E.G. returned outside with some of her things. He did throw a backpack at E.G. but he did not whip it as she claimed.

[233] E.G. left her parents' residence and she went to live with Colette Gignac. E.G. had told her parents that she loved Eric Gignac prior to this altercation.

[234] Eventually, Ms. McGonegal called their home and advised them that E.G. wanted her belongings. According to J.G., E.G. had little left at their home as she had been taking her things slowly out of the home every time she left to go to other people's homes. They did agree to deliver further personal items but they would not agree to items like E.G.'s bed.

[235] He did speak to E.G. a few times by telephone as she usually called to ask for money. He did meet her on one occasion and gave her money. Last year he attempted to persuade E.G. to come on a family vacation with them out West so they could try and smooth things over and perhaps work things out but E.G. told him Ms. McGonegal would not let her go.

[236] J.G. stated there were occasions when Ms. McGonegal called them and they believed her to be drunk. She called him an asshole and told him that E.G. had not done anything wrong and could not believe they had treated E.G. so badly. J.G. acknowledged he never asked Ms. McGonegal if E.G. could come home.

[237] J.G. indicated he had gone over to Ms. McGonegal's home to leave a message for E.G. about the dentist as Ms. McGonegal had changed her telephone number. He spoke to the owner of the home who told him that E.G. was over at Ms. McGonegal's mother's home. The police contacted him the next day and asked that he not attend at Ms. McGonegal's home again without calling there first.

[238] J.G. recalled Ms. McGonegal had called him while under the influence stating E.G. needed $300 to go to the dentist. J.G. refused to provide the funds not knowing where the funds would be going and told her that E.G. could attend the dentist for free as she was covered under his benefits.

[239] In discussing a sexual assault against his daughter, J.G. stated he had told E.G. that boys would not give her drugs and alcohol without expecting something from her in return. His worst fear occurred when E.G. was in fact sexually assaulted by a man who he felt supplied E.G. with both substances.

[240] J.G. indicated he would love to have E.G. return home but he did not believe that was her wish. If she returned home, she again would have to comply with their rules but he was mindful the rules would be different as she was now 18.

[241] He believed his daughter to be intelligent and wanted her to continue with her education. He did not agree that he should be forced to pay for her post-secondary education costs when she was living with her boyfriend and she did what she wanted. He also believed E.G. should be working and looking into OSAP.

[242] J.G. believed Ms. McGonegal had been the driving force behind this litigation.

[243] J.G. stated he loved E.G. but she had to respect and follow their rules. E.G. wanted to be free and hang out with her friends and boyfriends. They had to lock their bedroom and their alcohol. E.G. would often bring a number of boys over to their house when they were not there. They worried as E.G. would be gone for three to five days at a time. He did not think it was much to ask to know where she was.

[244] In cross-examination, J.G. stated he did not yell at his daughter until the end when things became worse. He yelled a few times and said things in the heat of the moment which he regretted. He indicated for example that E.G. would disrespect her mother and call her mother names (i.e. "you are such a fucking bitch"), and he would not tolerate this behaviour. He may have said to E.G. "you are being a bitch, we are the parents". J.G. denied ever raising his hands at E.G. and denied trying to intimidate her.

[245] When J.G. was asked how often he told E.G. to leave the home and not come back, he replied "never". He only recalls one occasion when he stated "if you are happier and want to live at Colette's, go ahead and pack your bags". J.G. stated he had not packed a bag for E.G. but did go down to her room to help her. He recalled telling E.G. "you want to be at the Gignac's so bad, go live there".

[246] When J.G. was asked whether E.G. had any other choice but to leave he replied that E.G. could have returned and apologized for her actions. They would have allowed her to return. E.G. never asked to come home.

[247] J.G. denied ever telling police that E.G. could not come over to their home without his permission.

[248] It was J.G.'s impression that Ms. McGonegal allowed E.G. to do what she wanted and had been detrimental for their daughter.

[249] According to J.G., he attempted to call E.G. on three occasions last Christmas over a period of two days and Ms. McGonegal refused the call. He was aware his son had also called over at Ms. McGonegal's and she refused the call. From March 2011 to April 2013, he attempted to contact E.G. about six times.

[250] J.G. indicated he had never asked E.G. to return home since she had left to go to Colette Gignac's. He believed E.G. knew she was welcomed home as long as she followed their rules. E.G. never asked to come back home save and except after she had to leave his mother's home and they had permitted her to do so.

D.G.

[251] B.J.G. is E.G.'s paternal grandmother. E.G. lived with her for the month of January 2011 and for the first week of February 2011.

[252] It was B.J.G.'s belief that E.G. had chosen to leave her parents' home and she decided to help her out. She had rules for E.G. including having her home at night. It was never her intention to have E.G. live with her for more than a few weeks as her boyfriend, who was the owner of the home, was in Florida at the time and was returning in February 2011. He did not want E.G. staying with them once he returned.

[253] According to B.J.G., E.G. went out often and it was upsetting to her as she would sometimes not know of E.G.'s whereabouts.

[254] B.J.G. was also bringing E.G. to school each morning and there were occasions when she would attend the school to pick up E.G. and she was not there and presumably she had not attended school. There was one occasion when she did ask the school about E.G. and was told E.G. had not attended.

[255] There were nights where E.G. came in late. One night at 12:30 a.m. E.G. was so hungry she decided to fry herself some bacon. B.J.G. felt E.G.'s eyes were dilated and she did not look like herself. She recalled that a case of beer went missing from the home and she suspected E.G. took it.

[256] While E.G. was with her, they applied for Ontario Works. B.J.G. kept the funds to pay for expenses and E.G. was apparently upset thinking she would get to keep the funds.

[257] B.J.G. felt her son and his wife were good parents. She described her son's relationship to E.G. as close. She had never witnessed either parent being abusive towards their children.

[258] B.J.G. acknowledged she had not called E.G. since her granddaughter left her residence. She was aware E.G. tried to call her on one occasion and that her boyfriend hung up on E.G.. However, she felt E.G. could have come to see and visit her.

[259] She had not seen E.G. much since she turned the age of 16. She had not seen her in two years until she came to court to testify. She felt E.G. looked sick. When they saw each other they hugged and cried.

M.A.

[260] Her father is J.G. and her mother is B.S.. Accordingly, E.G. and M. are her half-siblings. M.A. is 22 years of age and was recently married.

[261] M.A. stated she had a good relationship with her father. She has never lived with him however, he has exercised access to her since she was a young child.

[262] As she grew older, she would see E.G. more frequently and they became closer.

[263] M.A. admitted to doing drugs with E.G.. She estimated about five occasions. She never forced E.G. to do drugs with her. They smoked marijuana together. They got the drugs from people they knew. M.A. stated that she would have been 18 or 19 and was the driver of the vehicle while E.G. would have been 13 or 14 years of age. She indicated that E.G. would contribute money for the drugs and indicated E.G. had taken the money from her parents.

[264] M.A. stated that M. had been with them when she and E.G. did drugs. She recalled an occasion when they went to W[...] High School to get drugs. They smoked the drugs in the car even though M. was with them. They returned together to E.G.'s home and she spent the night.

[265] However, M. apparently told on them. Her mother found the drug pipe they had used. The pipe had been purchased by M.A.. B.S. brought M.A. and the pipe to the G.'s to speak to them about this. They were all at the kitchen table. M. and M.A. both admitted the truth however, E.G. continued to deny any involvement. They were both punished and E.G. was grounded.

[266] Since E.G. left the home, M.A. has continued to have a close relationship with M. and sees him a few times per month and on Facebook.

[267] According to M.A. she had not spoken much with E.G.. She stated a few years back, E.G. called her and asked if they could meet at the mall. She went and waited for one and a half hours and E.G. never showed. She messaged E.G. on Facebook but E.G. did not respond. E.G. did send her a happy birthday message last year via Facebook. However, as of a few months ago, E.G. deleted her as a Facebook friend.

Robin Gravelle

[268] Ms. Gravelle testified that E.G. and her daughter Kayla were friends in high school. E.G. came to live with them as she stated she had no place to live, although she never stated why other than to state that she and her parents did not get along. E.G. never indicated that she had been abused by either of her parents. Her daughter Kayla asked if E.G. could live with them for a few weeks and they agreed. E.G. lived with them for three months in the late fall/winter of 2010.

[269] Ms. Gravelle indicated she did speak with the G.'s once E.G. came to live with them and she was told E.G. was not following the rules and E.G. had decided to leave and not stay at their home.

[270] They brought E.G. to Ontario Works, however, they kept the funds to pay for expenses. When E.G. arrived she had been expelled from W[...] High School because of fighting and her lack of school attendance. E.G. bragged to her about the fighting. Ms. Gravelle took her and enrolled her at P[…] School. E.G. initially attended regularly and slowly with time, her attendance deteriorated. She found out about the missed school through the principal.

[271] Ms. Gravelle caught E.G. and Kayla drinking. On one occasion, her daughter called her to pick them up and E.G. was very intoxicated.

[272] Ms. Gravelle stated she never saw E.G. do drugs but she could tell she did so from various indicia and she could smell it on her. She also found drug paraphernalia in the yard and in her daughter's bedroom. Both E.G. and Kayla denied the paraphernalia belonged to them.

[273] Ms. Gravelle agreed that initially for the first few weeks, E.G. was willing to help and was following house rules but then deteriorated in her behaviour. Ms. Gravelle would come home and find E.G. at home when she was to be at school. E.G. was also not coming home

[274] Ms. Gravelle recalled one occasion when she brought E.G. to her parents' home. It was her impression E.G. wanted to get some personal belongings and to speak to her parents about returning home. However, once they arrived, E.G. came back out of the house and stated she could not stay there.

[275] Over time, E.G. was simply doing her own thing. E.G.'s behaviour caused some tension between Ms. Gravelle and her husband. He kept insisting she had to go and Ms. Gravelle kept insisting they give her another chance. Eventually, Ms. Gravelle told her she had to leave their home. Thereafter, she could continue to have contact with E.G. on Facebook but she has since been blocked from her Facebook page.

[276] It was Ms. Gravelle's impression that Kayla was no longer friends with E.G.. Her daughter had told her the last contact between them was when E.G. moved in with her boyfriend.

[277] Ms. Gravelle indicated that Kayla has addressed her issue with drugs as she attended a treatment facility. She never felt alcohol was an issue for Kayla although she had seen her intoxicated in the past.

[278] Ms. Gravelle indicated during cross-examination that Kayla and E.G. did not act in a similar fashion. Kayla attended school, came home as required and was sober. E.G. would not attend school regularly, would not say where she was going or lied about her whereabouts, was often passed curfew and on three occasions did not come home overnight. Ms. Gravelle stated that when E.G. did not come home overnight, she never called to advise them. In fact there was one occasion where E.G. was gone for two days. Kayla was not with E.G. during those times. Ms. Gravelle also felt E.G. was doing pot regularly. She did speak to E.G. about her drug use which E.G. denied.

[279] Ms. Gravelle believed E.G. was a good kid who made bad choices. On the third and last occasion when E.G. arrived at their home with a friend after not being there overnight, she told E.G. she had to leave. E.G. told her she understood and stated she would call her grandmother.

[280] Ms. Gravelle also explained how E.G. was friends with a male who she introduced to Kayla. On one occasion E.G. went over to this male's home on her own where she was sexually assaulted. This individual was criminally charged and pled guilty.

Rebuttal Evidence of E.G.

[281] E.G. agreed she had a relationship with Eric Gignac in January to February 2011, once she had left her parents' home and moved in with Colette Gignac.

[282] E.G. believed Eric was not truthful about the incident involving her father and believed he lied as he was upset that she had been dating his brother. Furthermore, Mr. Gignac's mother was taking his father to court and Ms. McGonegal will be testifying. As a result, E.G. believed Mr. Gignac was dishonest. She recalled Mr. Gignac was afraid of her father and this is why he had not called police.

[283] E.G. stated that she smoked marijuana with Mr. Gignac but only once.

[284] She disagreed she was not attending school. She was attending regularly and if she was not, she was working on the booklets from school at home.

[285] E.G. stated she had her own bedroom at Colette Gignac's home contrary to what Mr. Gignac claimed.

[286] In regards to M.A., E.G. admitted that she smoked marijuana with M.A. but it was only once. It had been M.A. who went inside of a friend's home to purchase the marijuana. When she returned to the car it was M.A. who insisted that she smoke a joint.

[287] E.G. stated it was M.A. who was caught with the marijuana pipe. It was not hers. There was discussion at her home about drug use and she got into trouble with her parents.

[288] However, in cross-examination, E.G. acknowledged that she and M.A. had both picked out the pipe together but it was M.A. who kept the pipe.

[289] E.G. stated she recalled she and M.A. were to meet at the mall, however, she could not get in touch with M.A.. She has tried to message M.A. up until one month ago. M.A. does not return her messages, which is similar to her grandmother and brother.

[290] In cross-examination, E.G. acknowledged that she deleted M.A. from her Facebook account one month ago. When she was asked why E.G. stated it was because M.A. had stopped messaging her.

[291] In regards to her grandmother's evidence, E.G. denied stealing a case of beer from her. E.G. believed she thoroughly followed all of her grandmother's rules including telling her where she was, contrary to what her grandmother had claimed.

[292] With respect to Ms. Gravelle's evidence, E.G. stated she only stayed out overnight on two occasions and one of those times included Kayla. It was her position that she had prior permission from Ms. Gravelle.

[293] It was E.G.'s position that she had followed Ms. Gravelle's rules, contrary to what Ms. Gravelle had stated.

Law

[294] As E.G. falls within the requirements of subsection 31(1) of the Family Law Act, child support is presumed to be payable by her parents.

[295] The onus is on the parents to prove that E.G. meets the criteria of subsection 31(2). They must establish that E.G. has withdrawn from their parental control for her to be disentitled to child support.

[296] In the event that I find E.G. has withdrawn from parental control, the onus then shifts on E.G. to establish on a balance of probabilities the withdrawal was not voluntary.

[297] The issue of whether a child has voluntarily withdrawn from parental control has been reviewed by the courts. In reviewing Ball v. Broger, 2010 ONCJ 557, Justice S. B. Sherr provided an excellent overview on this issue as follows. He noted at page 8 of his decision:

A child is entitled to support, unless he or she voluntarily withdraws from parental authority. The defence of withdrawal from parental authority is limited to clear cases of free and voluntary withdrawal from reasonable parental control. See Edwards v. Edwards, [1998] O.J. No. 492, 1998 CarswellOnt 555 (Ont. Prov. Div); and Haskell v. Haskell and Letourneau (1979), 25 O.R. (2d) 139, 100 D.L.R. (3d) 329, 1 F.L.R.A.C. 306, [1979] O.J. No. 4278, 1979 CarswellOnt 101 (Ont. Co. Ct.).

Once it has been established that a child has withdrawn from parental control, the onus shifts on the child to establish that the withdrawal was not voluntary; that he or she had little choice in the matter. See Belanger v. Belanger and Capin, 17 R.F.L. (6th) 325, [2005] O.J. No. 3033, 2005 CarswellOnt 3076 (Ont. Fam. Ct.); and Fitzpatrick v. Karlein, supra.

Courts have noted that family dynamics are complex and have often been cautions in finding that a child has voluntarily withdrawn from parental control. See Jamieson v. Bolton and Bolton, 52 A.C.W.S. (3d) 845, [1995] W.D.F.L. 097, [1995] W.D.F.L. 745, [1994] O.J. No. 3228, 1994 CarswellOnt 2081 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) which sets out at paragraph [19] a line of cases taking this approach.

[298] Justice Sherr went on to review at page 9 of his decision portions of Fitzpatrick v. Karlein, supra which stated the following at paragraph [12]:

[12] This distraction from the business of sorting out financial obligations is a digression into conduct that the legislature has, at times, tried to separate from support obligations. To minimize that distraction, we should recognize "normal" difficulties between parent and youth, especially if they are struggling with a reconstituted family. We should look to see whether a child has withdrawn from the control of a relevant parent and, if so, whether this was the youth's free choice. Unless the youth was evicted by a custodial parent (not a free choice) or was subjected to unbearable conditions when viewed objectively (also not a free choice), the more subtle and subjective questions about parent-and-youth relationships should be left for a question more pressing than who, as between the youth and the parent and the state is going to pay the youth's bills. In other words, routine comparisons of fault as between parent and child should be discouraged and only obvious cases should prevail.

[299] Justice Sherr went on to further state at page 9 of his decision:

Courts have noted that the exception is even narrower when the child suffers from emotional difficulties. See Jamieson v. Bolton and Bolton, supra, at paragraph [35], citing L.G. v. F.G. and V.G., 20 R.F.L. (3d) 157, [1989] O.J. No. 818, 1989 CarswellOnt 241 (Ont. Prov Ct., Family Division).

This does not mean that parents are not entitled to exercise reasonable controls over a child who chooses to remain at home. See Distefano v. Haroutnunian and Haroutunian, 41 R.F.L. (2d) 201, [1984] O.J. No. 2312, 1984 CarswellOnt 272 (Ont. Prov. Ct., Fam. Div.); and Figueiredo v. Figueiredo, 33 R.F.L. (3d) 72, [1991] O.J. No. 953, 1991 CarswellOnt 278 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

[300] The issue of whether a child has voluntarily withdrawn from parental control has been reviewed by the courts. In reviewing Jamieson v. Bolton and Bolton, supra, Justice Sherr noted at paragraph [36] of his decision the following:

Courts should examine a young person's behaviour after leaving the home when assessing whether the young person left the home voluntarily or rather, whether she was just seeking independence. Did the young person move to a life of independence or did she move into another parent-child relationship? Upon leaving the home, did she abandon school? Has the young person experienced conflict in relation with other adults or other persons in authority? Or on the other hand, has the young person appeared to comply with reasonable expectations? How has the young person ordered their life after separation?

[301] In reviewing the facts in Ball v. Broger, supra, Justice Sherr noted the fact that the child moved in with her boyfriend was evidence in support of her mother's position. See Vandervort v. Brettler (1989), 70 O.R. (2d) 277, 22 R.F.L. (3d) 160, [1989] O.J. No. 1579, 1989 CarswellOnt 284 (Ont. H.C.) and Bailey v. Bailey, 15 R.F.L. (6th) 38, [2005] O.J. No. 2027, 2005 CarswellOnt 1992 (Ont. Fam Ct). So is the fact that the child withdrew from most of her school courses after she left home. See Figueiredo v. Figuereido, supra. However, there was some evidence which supported the child's position that she left her mother's home because of an intolerable breakdown in communication and not just because she wanted to do whatever she wanted, whenever she wanted, as alleged by her mother.

[302] In fact, in Ball v. Broger, supra, the child suffered from increased panic and anxiety attacks while living with her parents which culminated in the child cutting herself. The child was referred to cognitive behavioural therapy and was seeing a registered therapist and psychiatrist. There was medical evidence that the child suffered from anxiety disorder, panic attacks and major depression and the professionals concluded the mother had a lack of insight into her daughter's emotional issues which contributed negatively on her mental health.

[303] The concept of voluntarily withdrawing from parental control was also reviewed in Haskell v. Letourneau (1970), 25 O.R. (2d) 139. Justice Clements defined the concept as follows:

In the view of this Court, the concept of the "withdrawal from parental control" at age 16 means a "voluntary withdrawal"; the free choice, indeed of the child to cut the family bonds and strike out on a life of his own. On taking on this personal freedom, the child assumes a responsibility of maintaining or supporting himself. It is his choice, freely made, to cut himself away from the family unit. Once this choice is freely made and the responsibility accepted by the child, the family unit has, in effect, been severed and the responsibility of the parents to support he child thus ceases.

Analysis

[304] After reviewing the totality of the evidence at trial and the law, I have come to the conclusion that the respondents have abundantly proven that E.G. withdrew from their parental control as of the age of 16.

[305] Further, after careful consideration of the evidence, the applicants (and in particular E.G.) have not established that E.G.'s withdrawal from parental control was involuntary or that she had little choice in the matter.

[306] I felt the evidence of both B.J.G. and J.G. to be both credible and reliable considering the supportive evidence adduced during this trial especially as compared to E.G. and Ms. McGonegal.

[307] It was clear from the respondents' perspective they had a great relationship with their daughter until she began high school. Once in high school, their relationship became marred by conflict as E.G. would not comply with house rules. In fact, E.G. often did as she pleased. Although her parents attempted to impose rules for her own safety, E.G. felt these restricted her freedom.

[308] The respondents described that their daughter did drugs, drank alcohol, went missing for periods of time, did not follow her curfew and did not attend school regularly.

[309] Although E.G. denied these behaviours during her testimony (save and except being a little late with her curfew and skipping some school) the evidence at trial suggested otherwise. For example, E.G. admitted to using alcohol and drugs to child protection worker Claudia Lambert-Caputo. There was also evidence that E.G. smoked drugs at school which caused her to be suspended. Moreover, officer Nickle located a drug pipe in E.G.'s purse. There was also evidence from D.G. and Robin Gravelle who stated they had observed E.G. to be under the influence of drugs. Eric Gignac and M.A. both testified they observed E.G. using drugs.

[310] Although Mr. Gignac's testimony was suspect, considering there were a number of other individuals who felt E.G. abused drugs, I believe she did so.

[311] I also noted that despite the fact E.G. vehemently denied during her testimony that she used drugs, she later admitted during her rebuttal evidence that she had only consumed drugs once with Mr. Gignac and once with M.A.. She attempted to minimize her use with M.A. by suggesting M.A. had coerced her. I do not accept E.G.'s evidence as honest and sincere in this regard.

[312] During E.G.'s testimony she denied that police and the child protection worker found a drug pipe or a knife in her purse indicating they only found pills which she used for headaches. This was completely contrary to Constable Nickle and Claudia Caputo-Lambert's testimony who confirmed the existence of these items in E.G.'s purse including an extremely large quantity of various pills/cold medication.

[313] E.G. had also been stealing money from her parents which she denied until she got caught. E.G.'s theft of funds from her parents was also supported in M.A.'s testimony when she stated E.G. told her she took the funds from her parents to pay for drugs. E.G. had also admitted to Constable Nickle she had stolen money from her parents. E.G.'s actions and admission of the theft clearly demonstrated that she was not under her parents' control as she was stealing from them within her own home.

[314] Furthermore, it was clear from E.G.'s school attendance records that she was not attending school on a regular basis. I thought it was interesting that E.G. suggested that her lack of school attendance prior to living with Ms. McGonegal was because she had nowhere to live, had no transportation and had to support herself. E.G. had missed 30 classes in 2010 despite the fact she was living with her parents most of that time and had transportation available to her. Even once she was living with her grand-mother and returned to her parents' residence, transportation arrangements were made on her behalf, however, she continued to miss classes. E.G. has taken no responsibility for her actions whatsoever and simply places blame on others for her own personal decisions.

[315] E.G. testified that once in high school, if she did not follow curfew she would be banned from the computer or being on MSN. She did not like the fact her father would not allow her to hang out with certain boys which was frustrating for her as there were not many people around in their area. When E.G. recounted the discipline by her parents, she appeared perturbed that she was subjected to such measures.

[316] Although E.G. suggested her father would yell in her face when he was angry, cuff her at the back of the head or that her mother was angry with her if she did not get 99% or 100% at school, I believe that E.G. has exaggerated her circumstances. E.G. provided absolutely no insight as to why her parents might have certain expectations of her or their right to control her behaviour in a reasonable manner.

[317] It appeared from the evidence that these frustrated parents always took E.G. back into their care even after she would be gone for weeks at a time. It was always, however, on the condition that E.G. abide by house rules.

[318] Despite the fact E.G.'s counsel suggested E.G. was locked out of her home because she did not have a house key, this occurrence took place months before she left to live with the Gignac's. In fact, E.G. lived at home with her parents after her parents had changed the locks. Her parents felt they had no choice but to change the locks because E.G. was bringing people home without their consent endangering the other occupants in the home. Moreover, when E.G. lived elsewhere she was requesting some of her belongings and her parents wanted to control the items being removed from the home. The Respondents were quite candid that E.G. had access to the house when she was living with them.

[319] When E.G. left to go live with the Gravelle's, there was no evidence to suggest her parents had kicked her out of their home. It appeared E.G. was already spending an inordinate amount of time at the Gravelle's home and when she was unhappy with her parents' decision about going out, she left of her own accord.

[320] Ms. D.G. also recounted how E.G. did as she pleased when she lived with her. E.G. was not attending school, sometimes appeared under the influence of substances and was out past her curfew. Even if I believed that B.J.G.'s testimony may have been influenced by the Respondents, her evidence is highly supported by Ms. Robin Gravelle who has no personal or vested interest in this case.

[321] Ms. Gravelle reported during her evidence that E.G. drank alcohol and did drugs while living in her residence. She also recalled how E.G. would not come home overnight on occasion and lied about her whereabouts. Ms. Gravelle's evidence was in sharp contrast to E.G.'s evidence.

[322] Ms. Gravelle's testimony was candid and forthright. Her observations of E.G.'s behaviours were congruent with the behaviours being reported by E.G.'s school, her grand-mother and in particular, her parents.

[323] Ms. Gravelle was clear that she kept hoping with further guidance E.G. would change her behaviours. Ultimately, Ms. Gravelle had no choice to ask E.G. to leave their home. This was completely contrary to what E.G. stated during her evidence. Again, I believe Ms. Gravelle's version of events over that of E.G.'s.

[324] Although J.G. told E.G. she should go live with Ms. Gignac if that was what she wanted, I have determined that this squarely gave E.G. a choice as to where she wanted to be. She had made it very clear to her parents and also acknowledged to Ms. Lambert-Caputo prior to this incident that she was planning on leaving the home at the age of 16. E.G. was already out of her parents' control prior to leaving with Colette Gignac. Out of desperation, E.G.'s parents asked her to make a choice hoping she would choose to stay of her own volition. E.G. chose not to.

[325] Ms. Lambert-Caputo clearly believed that E.G. did not want to follow her parents' rules and she did not care. It was Ms. Lambert-Caputo's belief that E.G. would simply continue to do as she pleased despite the fact her parents wanted her home and were parenting her in an appropriate manner.

[326] In fact, E.G. left her parents care at the age of 16 to live with her 19 year old boyfriend Eric Gignac and his family. Although Ms. Gignac suggested E.G. was not in a relationship with Eric at the time they lived together, this was completely contradictory to E.G.'s own evidence. Furthermore, Constable Morin testified that on March 23, 2011 there was a domestic dispute called in by Janet McGonegal. Eric had assaulted his brother Marc when he learned E.G. had a crush on Marc.

[327] The evidence then suggested that E.G. moved in with their aunt, Janet McGonegal and Marc also lived with them for several months. E.G. continues to be romantically involved with Marc who lives nearby.

[328] Both Ms. Gignac and Ms. McGonegal testified they provided E.G. with necessities which also included cigarettes despite the fact she was 16 years of age. These items could be viewed as enticements especially considering the fact E.G. could now do as she pleased. The nature of E.G.'s relationship with both Ms. Gignac and Ms. McGonegal is puzzling and appears dysfunctional.

[329] It was unclear whether E.G. was sexually involved with either Eric or Marc while she lived with Colette Gignac or Janet McGonegal. However, I found Ms. McGonegal's evidence that she slept in the hallway for a number of months to ensure E.G. was not sleeping with Marc, hard to believe.

[330] Furthermore, despite the fact Ms. McGonegal attempted to claim she received no compensation for taking care of E.G., she did indicate that E.G. was attending at her mother's farm to do various chores. Financially, it appeared Ms. McGonegal did receive the child tax credit for E.G. until she reached the age of 18. Once E.G. received $460.00 per month from Ontario Works from July to October, 2012, E.G. reported the funds were provided to Ms. McGonegal. From November, 2012 to present, once temporary court ordered child support was awarded, E.G. stated she has been providing $500.00 per month to Ms. McGonegal and paying some of her food. Ms. McGonegal could certainly benefit financially if E.G. was awarded retroactive or even ongoing child support.

[331] Although E.G. has attempted to portray that she has been physically abused by her father, I do not believe there is any credence to her allegations. A joint police and CAS investigation did not substantiate her claims of being physically harmed at the dinner table. In fact, Constable Nickle and Ms. Lambert-Caputo believed E.G. had changed her story and exaggerated the events hoping she would not be returned home so she could attend a party as she had been grounded for skipping school. Constable Nickle was very emphatic in his testimony that he felt E.G. was belligerent and disrespectful towards her parents and even towards him. He appeared shocked that E.G. would behave in such a manner. Constable Nickle did not believe E.G.'s story and felt she was attempting to portray that she was the victim which he did not believe. E.G.'s school records also noted that she had been disrespectful to other individuals in authority.

[332] E.G. and Ms. Gignac attempted to suggest J.G. had been physically abusive to E.G. on the night where he told E.G. she should go live with the Gignac's if that is where she wanted to be. There were some discrepancies in their testimony regarding this event. In particular, I noted that E.G. initially suggested her mother was outside during the entire event sneering at her while she was being abused by her father. During cross-examination she stated her mother had been inside the home. Ms. Gignac herself suggested only J.G. was outside.

[333] Regardless, I prefer to accept the evidence of J.G. when he admitted that he was yelling and shouting profanities at his daughter and Ms. Gignac out of frustration and anger but that he did not physically assault his daughter. His claim is also supported by the fact E.G. nor anyone else in the car reported the abuse to the authorities considering at least E.G. and Ms. Gignac claimed the incident to be quite violent.

[334] When Ms. Gignac was asked why she did not call the police, she stated she was afraid of J.G. and E.G. had told her not to call police as she was afraid her father would come after them. Yet, when E.G. was asked why she did not call police, she stated she did not want her brother to suffer despite the fact E.G. never once suggested her brother was ever harmed by either of their parents.

[335] Once E.G. was gone to live with the Gignac's and later with Ms. McGonegal it appears neither party suggested to the other E.G. should return home.

[336] However, I accept the G.'s evidence that contact with E.G. was made difficult as a result of Ms. McGonegal. Although Ms. McGonegal denied being abusive to the Respondents over the telephone, I noted that after J.G. had attended at her home, she immediately contacted police stating that both she and E.G. were fearful and wanted advice. Eventually, both parties were told not to contact each other. Despite this warning, B.J.G. made sure to advise the police officer to let E.G. know she could call them at any time.

[337] E.G. has always purported throughout these court proceedings that she was served with a trespass notice which would not have allowed her to return to her parents' home. Ms. McGonegal has also made this same claim which appeared to be completely false. Constable Morin testified that he attended at Ms. McGonegal's address and spoke to E.G. and Barbara Gignac (although Ms. McGonegal claims she was the one present). He recalled advising E.G. that she was being served with a youth criminal justice caution to a young person for mischief to her parents' property and advised her of the significance of the document. Constable Morin clearly recalled he never provided a trespass document to E.G. nor did he tell her she could not attend at her parents' home.

[338] There was no witness who claimed they had told E.G. she could not return or attend at her parents' home after she left to live with the Gignac's.

[339] I felt Ms. McGonegal also attempted to minimize various issues. For example, Ms. McGonegal suggested E.G. had no difficulties attending school once she was in her care. However, I noted that from September to October, 2011, E.G. was truant for 12 days. From September, 2012 to February, 2013, E.G. missed over 40 days of school. Ms. McGonegal claimed she had not been notified by the school in 2011 of E.G.'s absences despite the fact letters from the school were addressed to her and her residence. For 2012, Ms. McGonegal claimed all of E.G.'s absences were as a result of illness despite the fact no evidence was tendered in this regard. Considering E.G.'s past history, I would not be surprised that a number of the absences were not only as a result of illness.

[340] Ms. McGonegal testified she was adamant that a police officer had attended at her residence to give E.G. a no trespass order and had advised E.G. she could not call or harass her parents. Yet, her testimony was completely contradictory to that of Constable Morin.

[341] It was the Respondents' evidence that E.G. knew she could return home despite having left, if she was prepared to follow the rules imposed upon her.

[342] Despite time lapsing, J.G. did attempt to invite E.G. to join the family to go out West for a holiday during the summer of 2011 with the view that this step may smooth the waters. However, E.G. chose to decline this offer.

[343] In fact, E.G. has not been open to the idea of returning home to her parents' care. For example, a friend of her mother's attempted to contact her to let her know her mother was ill. E.G. indicated she did not call her mother as she felt this was a ploy by her parents to have her call them. In fact, E.G. stated she felt harassed.

[344] Both the Respondents stated they would love to have E.G. at home; however, she would still have to follow certain rules appropriate to her age. E.G. made it clear she had no intention of returning home on the premise that she feared her father.

[345] E.G. is expecting to graduate high school. Although she expected to be completed by April, 2013, she will still need to complete her community service hours. If she wishes to pursue a nursing career she will still need to do her first aid course. Despite the fact E.G. was eager to suggest she would be attending college in the fall of 2013, she had not applied to college as she did not have the $95.00 application fee despite having received temporary child support. Certainly, prior to the determination of any post-secondary costs, E.G. would have had to provide concrete evidence as to her acceptance at college and the costs thereof. Regardless of this fact, since I have come to the conclusion that E.G. has withdrawn voluntarily from parental control since the age of 16 to present, the respondents are not obligated to provide E.G. with any retroactive and ongoing child support including any post-secondary education costs.

[346] E.G. did not convince me that the conditions of her parents' home were intolerable. I do not believe her claims of abuse.

[347] It was clear to me that E.G. demonstrated a pattern of behaviour which included making poor choices. When she was presented with a choice, she would most often make the wrong choice. She also appeared to consistently make two critical thinking errors. These included lying and self-righteous indignation. E.G. consistently attempted to justify her behaviours like it was someone else's problem, always believing she was entitled to these rights. E.G. consistently attempts to contradict others, including professionals, purporting they were the ones who had been dishonest. E.G. regularly used these methods of thinking to shirk all responsibility for her actions.

[348] E.G. wanted to do what she wanted. As some say, she believed the grass was greener on the other side. I believe she wanted freedom and no rules and she was able to do as she pleased once she left her parents' home. She moved in with her boyfriends' families in an effort to seek her independence.

[349] I believe the respondents would have taken E.G. back into their care on the condition that she complied with reasonable conditions and expectations for her age. The conditions were not unbearable or impossible. E.G. had a choice to return to her parents' care and simply chose not to. Accordingly, she herself assumed the responsibility to support herself.

[350] Despite the fact the respondents do not have an obligation to provide child support to their daughter, I trust that if she is accepted into a post-secondary educational program they will voluntarily consider assisting her financially with some of her expenses to support her goals and dreams for the future.

Disposition

[351] The application brought by the applicants is hereby dismissed in its entirety. Any and all prior temporary court orders of child support are terminated effective immediately.

[352] If any party seeks costs, they shall make written submissions no later than June 28, 2013. The other party will have until July 19, 2013 thereafter to respond in writing. Submissions should not exceed 10 pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs.

[353] I want to thank counsel for their ongoing professionalism throughout this trial.

Released: May 29, 2013

Signed: "Justice Nathalie Gregson"