Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FO 388-04 Date: August 28, 2014 Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

Catherine Anne Richardson Applicant

— AND —

Christi-Anne Marie Lafrance Respondent

Before: Justice A.H. Perron

Heard on: May 12, 13, 14, June 11, 18, 19 and July 14, 2014

Reasons for Judgment released on: August 28, 2014

Counsel:

• Shawn Hamilton, for the Applicant
• Christi-Anne Marie Lafrance (self-represented), for the Respondent
• Peter Rutland, for the Office of the Children's Lawyer

PERRON J.:

Introduction

[1] Christi-Anne Lafrance filed a motion to change in November 2013 seeking to vary the final order of Justice Duchesneau-McLachlan dated November 21, 2005. This order addresses issues concerning her son Liam Lafrance born May 25, 2001 and provides access to her ex-spouse Catherine Anne Richardson.

[2] Since the parties separated this matter has been highly litigious. Accordingly, the Office of the Children's Lawyers has appointed Mr. Peter Rutland to represent the interest of young Liam. Mr. Richardson is represented by Shawn Hamilton and Christi Lafrance, a licensed paralegal in the province of Ontario, is representing herself.

[3] This matter has been in court a number of times since the filing of the motion in November 2013. In order to clarify the situation and to expedite this trial Justice G. P. Rodgers issued an order on December 4, 2013 dispensing with a settlement conference, setting a trial management conference and setting a three day trial for May 12, 13 and 14 of 2014. He also clarified that the issues for trial were as follows:

• a) custody and access;
• b) whether the child's relocation to British Columbia is in his best interest;
• c) child support.

[4] Three further days of evidence were required (June 11 June 18 and 19th) with closing submissions being heard on July 14, 2014.

Background

[5] Christi-Anne Lafrance Weston adopted her son Liam from Vietnam shortly after his birth on May 25th 2001. She moved to North Bay in December 2001 with her son Liam. Shortly after her arrival in North Bay, she commenced a common law relationship with the respondent Catherine Anne Richardson. The applicant, the respondent and Liam all lived together as a family unit. This common law relationship lasted for two and one-half years. Following this breakdown a final order was made by her honour L. Duchesneau-McLachlan on November 21, 2005. This order basically provided for custody of Liam to Ms. Lafrance Weston and some generous access to Ms. Richardson. Since then, this matter has been regularly before the courts due to ongoing difficulties between the parties. These difficulties resulted in the Office of the Children's Lawyers involvement in this litigation on two occasions with the last order of June 5, 2012 resulting in Mr. Peter Rutland being appointed to represent the interest of Liam Lafrance.

[6] Ms. Lafrance Weston started dating Line Weston in 2006 and they were married on May 26, 2012. It is at that time that they started to live together with Liam. In the early to mid-summer of 2013, Ms. Lafrance Weston accepted a job offer in Smithers, British Columbia. Shortly after that, Ms. Lafrance Weston and Liam relocated to that area. On September 13, 2013, Justice Klein ordered that Liam be returned to Ontario and that custody be granted to Catherine Richardson. This decision was appealed on September 25, 2013 wherein Justice Nadeau ordered that Liam reside with Lynn Weston. This placement was short lived as Justice Rodgers ordered on October 17, 2013 that Liam reside with Kathryn Richardson. Access from Ms. Lafrance Weston was clarified on December 4, 2013 and March 13, 2014. Since then, Christi Lafrance Weston has been having access every Wednesday from 5:00 – 9:00 p.m. and every second Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Christi-Anne Lafrance Weston's Witnesses

Katrina Maxwell

[7] Katrina Maxwell was the first witness to testify at this trial. She is one of the Legal Assistants to Ms. Lafrance Weston who is a licensed paralegal in the province of Ontario and operates her own business in the city of North Bay. She testified that she observed a positive relationship between Ms. Lafrance Weston and Liam in the four or five occasions that she saw them together. She also briefly testified about an incident that Liam was not brought to the office in order to Skype with his mother who was in British Columbia.

Elizabeth Kelly

[8] We then heard from Elizabeth Kelly who was in a 12 year common-law relationship with Christi-Anne Lafrance Weston prior to the adoption of Liam. During this relationship they raised her two sons. She testified that they shared the parenting responsibility and together they did the best they could to meet the challenges of raising two boys. They eventually grew apart and the relationship became challenging. One of the issues was that Ms. Lafrance Weston wanted to adopt a child and she was not in agreement with this decision. There is 13 years difference in age between the two and she wanted to move on with the relationship with her own sons who were getting older. They therefore separated but she fully supported Ms. Lafrance Weston's decision in adopting Liam but was not a part of same. She did not make any direct observation of parenting in North Bay and has in fact not visited Liam since 2005.

[9] On cross-examination she did confirm that Ms. Lafrance Weston and her had very different parenting styles but both were based on love, security and nurturing. She describes that Ms. Lafrance Weston's parenting style was more structured and that her boys knew that they could not get away with too much with her and to this day they are still joking about that.

Mark Lafrance

[10] We next heard from Mark Lafrance who is the cousin of Ms. Lafrance Weston and the Godfather to Liam. At the time of Liam's adoption, he was a student in England. Since then, he has been teaching at Concordia University in Montréal. Due to these distances his contact with Liam has been difficult but regular. He sees Liam on major holidays, during the summer and tries to maintain regular contact with him by telephone or text messaging. It is clear from his evidence that he is a positive influence on Liam and most likely the only male influence on him. He maintains that he is not on Ms. Lafrance Weston's or Ms. Richardson's side but has always been on Liam's side.

[11] He admits that his contact with Liam has dropped off and has been more intricate since September 2013. He was able to spend a two-week stay at his parents' residence in North Bay in February 2014. During this time he was able to see Liam on three to four occasions which included one overnight visit.

[12] During this last visit he noticed a number of changes in his behavior. He appeared more hostile toward school, his eating habits had changed and his physical fitness had declined. He described him as being less dynamic than he was and that it appeared that his entire life seemed to revolve around him playing video games. He was of the view that he had too much unregulated access to the Internet.

[13] During one of these visits he was able to attend Ms. Richardson's apartment while dropping off Liam after his overnight visit. He describes same as being extremely small, very dark and in disarray. He describes this as being very different to the large and spacious home that Liam had in British Columbia and that this change in direction was very unfortunate. He fully supported the move to British Columbia as he believes that this would encourage Liam to be more involved in outdoor activities. He describes that he believes that this is what Liam needs rather than living in a small dark hole.

[14] He expressed some concerns during the overnight visit that he had with Liam at his parents' residence. Liam had not brought any pajamas or toothbrush. He appeared a little shocked that Liam appeared comfortable walking around his house in his underwear and a T-shirt. He described that he thought that Liam would've stayed that way if he hadn't asked him to go get dressed.

[15] He also expressed some concerns that he was never consulted by the OCL during their investigation. That is why he forwarded a letter in July 2013 expressing his views on this matter. He was really hoping to have some input to what he described as a special relationship with Liam. This letter was never responded to even though it appears it was received the day before the disclosure meeting was scheduled.

[16] It is clear from his testimony that he has not seen Cathy Richardson parent Liam since 2005. He did mention that she had not explicitly expressed any concerns with Liam spending any time with him. He does however mention that Liam becomes very guarded and private when it comes to any discussions concerning Ms. Richardson. In his view, there is something in that relationship that makes him nervous since he tightens up every time it comes up. He fully respects this and would in fact try to avoid any discussions concerning her. He is disappointed that he has not had as many telephone or text communications with Liam since he has been residing with Ms. Richardson. He seems to be of the view that she is not pushing for more communication however that she is not blocking same.

[17] When Liam returned to Ontario in the fall of 2013 he tried to communicate with him by telephone. When he did not succeed, he called Ms. Richardson directly and in fact had a pleasant discussion with her. It was clear that Liam did not want to talk to him during that difficult time and he was being described as still being raw and he needed a bit of private time. He also described that he was not in agreement with the fact that Liam returned to Ontario from British Columbia alone; he was not in agreement with the fact that his mother did not physically accompany him during this trip.

[18] As he had concerns about Liam's attitude toward school he asked and was able to review his most recent report card. He advised that Liam does not appear to have any problems in school. It reported a well-developed kid with overall average grades, some below and some above average. He agrees that Liam seems to be doing well in school and that there is a difference for what is doing to what he is saying.

Sharon Lafrance

[19] We next heard from Sharon Lafrance, Christi Lafrance Weston's mother and Liam's only grandmother. It is clear that she is very fond of Liam as he is her only grandchild.

[20] She describes that she was highly involved in Liam's life in his early childhood. She would often take care of him, went to school with him and attended a number of his activities. She also described him as being very helpful with her, mostly when he came shopping with her. Unfortunately, since Thanksgiving of 2013 this relationship has deteriorated.

[21] During that weekend, Liam was given the choice to either stay with her or with Catherine Richardson. This alternative was being presented to Liam by Lynn Weston. She was stunned with the question and the situation that Liam was being placed in. She advises that she was devastated when Liam chose to stay with Ms. Richardson. She in fact advised that she and Liam had not had any communications for a number of months. She would call and was simply advised that he did not wish to speak to her. Eventually she was advised by Ms. Richardson not to call any more. She now advises that the relationship has improved and confirms that it is just like old times. He appears very comfortable with her and in her apartment.

[22] She is of the view that it would be a benefit to Liam if he would be able to relocate to British Columbia. She advises that this small town has a lot of activities to offer and would be a good thing for him. She became very emotional when she was asked if she would be relocating to British Columbia also. She advised that she was saving money and would like one day to relocate to that area. She only has one older sibling remaining and appears unwilling to leave this area because of a close relationship with her. She appears content to be able to Skype with her grandson in the event that he relocates to British Columbia.

[23] During cross-examination she did finally admit that she became aware in the spring of 2013 of her daughter's move to British Columbia. At that time, the details of the move were not clear to her but she was fully aware of that her daughter and Liam were to relocate to British Columbia.

Christi Lafrance Weston

[24] Christi Lafrance Weston obviously testified herself at this trial. She mentioned that she worked in Toronto as a police officer until 911. She then traveled to Vietnam with her mother in order to complete Liam's adoption. She had been working on this for the last 18 months. They spent one month in Vietnam with Liam before returning to Canada. She relocated to the North Bay area in December 2001.

[25] Her wife Lynn Weston and she commenced dating in 2006. There was a period of time between 2008 and 2009 where they were separated. They were married on May 26, 2012 at which time they started living together with Liam. She confirmed that Ms. Richardson was always a part of Liam's life during her relationship with Ms. Weston.

[26] She alleges that Ms. Weston is unable to attend this trial as she is taking care of her dying father. She advised that his health started to fail in November 2012 and between January 2012 to November 2012 Lynn had to make two emergency flights to British Columbia because of her father's health. It appears also that Lynn Weston has at least two other siblings who live in Ontario and no indication was presented to the court as to whether these siblings can also take care of their ailing father.

[27] Ms. Lafrance Weston advised the court that there was nothing preventing her from moving and all that she needed to do was to work out access. She advised that her honour L. Duchesneau-McLachlan had advised her of this in October 2006. She in fact refers to a very brief endorsement of that date. No formal order was ever made.

[28] She was also under the impression that she had to advise the Office of the Children's Lawyers of her intention to move. Accordingly, her wife forwarded a letter to Mr. Peter Rutland on November 30, 2012 wherein, in the fourth bullet of this letter, it is mentioned that "We are planning to move in the spring. Out of Ontario. For family reasons. My parents are on the West Coast, elderly and are in need of someone there for medical reasons. I flew to Vancouver and back recently, to be there for his heart surgery. I have a standing job offer and will be taking it in June. This decision may end my marriage, especially if my Family cannot come with me because of Cathi's access".

[29] She advised that she commenced looking for work in Smithers, British Columbia in late 2012. By April 2013, she had received two job offers. She finally accepted the legal office manager's position with the Ministry of the Attorney General as outlined in an e-mail she received on April 29, 2013. This letter contemplated a start date of July 1, 2013. She did clarify in her testimony that the final arrangements for this job were not done till June 2013. She mentioned that this job offer was conditional on her attending Smithers, British Columbia in order to familiarize herself with the area and find proper living accommodations. She personally moved on a full-time basis on June 28, 2013.

[30] She advised the court that she told her son, Liam, in June that they were moving and that he would need to change schools and make new friends. She advised that he seemed so stressed at the time that she did not tell him where they were moving. It also appears that she told him not to tell anyone of this upcoming move as this could have some adverse effect on her paralegal business.

[31] Liam spent the month of July 2013 as scheduled with Catherine Richardson. During that time, Ms. Lafrance Weston commenced her employment in British Columbia. When Liam returned from his month long visit with Ms. Richardson, he was advised of the move to British Columbia. She advised that he, at first, expressed some concerns about his friends and also asked about his access with Ms. Richardson. He was reassured that access would not be an issue; however, it would be different.

[32] Ms. Lafrance advised that she was under the impression that Liam had called Ms. Richardson on August 21, 2013. She advised the court that on that date, Liam told Ms. Richardson that he was moving to British Columbia. A telephone invoice was filed indicating that a call was made to Thunder Bay, Ontario on August 21 at 8:40 a.m. Of interest, the same bill also indicates that this telephone call lasted one minute or less, therefore resulting in minimal charges.

[33] Ms. Lafrance Weston forwarded a letter by regular mail to Cathy Richardson on July 31, 2013. The first sentence of this letter reads as follows: "I need to advise you that we have moved out of North Bay. I moved in June but wanted to wait until the OCL made the recommendations prior to approaching you". The letter goes on to read that she wishes to make some type of arrangements with Ms. Richardson and does not wish to bring the matter to court any further. Surprisingly, the letter never mentioned where they had moved to. She admits that it is possible that this letter was never received by Ms. Richardson as she might have sent it to the wrong address. She also thinks it was possible that she did not receive any of her text messages as her telephone number might have been blocked. She, however, did not seem that concerned about the fact that she had never received a reply to any of her communications to Ms. Richardson.

[34] She was also under the impression that her lawyer had advised her that she had to go to court in British Columbia. She therefore made an appointment to see a lawyer in British Columbia in September 2013. By that time, she advised that she was getting nervous about her relocation without any further legal requirements.

[35] Justice L.J. Klein made a temporary order on September 13, 2013, ordering that Liam be returned to Ontario and Liam's temporary residence be with Ms. Richardson. This order was immediately appealed and Justice D. Nadeau of the Superior Court of Justice issued an order on September 25, 2013 still ordering that Liam be returned to Ontario however ordering that the primary residence of Liam be with Ms. Lafrance Weston's wife Lynn Weston. She mentioned that this was a consent order and she had agreed to have Liam returned to Ontario on or before October 8, 2013. Liam in fact made the return trip alone on October 5, 2013.

[36] She then expressed some grave concern about a letter that Mr. Hamilton, counsel for Cathy Richardson, forwarded to the British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General on September 26, 2013, advising them of the situation involving the move to Smithers, British Columbia. Ms. Lafrance Weston mentioned that this letter had originally been received by fax by her staff and same was shared with other lawyers from the Crown Attorney's office in Smithers. This letter, which she describes as being misleading, led to her being terminated from her employment. She mentioned that she was first advised of difficulties with her employment in December 2013. At first, she was suspended with pay and eventually terminated in February 2014.

[37] She advised that she was not purposely trying to hide where she was now living with Liam. She testified that she could have disappeared easily and would have been better at hiding if she would have tried to do so. She referred to the point that Ms. Richardson easily discovered their location as she was able to contact Liam's school and that they openly shared information with her since it was indicated in the school records that she was a parent.

[38] She did confirm that Liam is doing average in school. She is concerned about this as he is an above average student and should be doing better. Part of the issue is that he is stressed out and that is why she has insisted on him going to counseling. She filed a number of pictures claiming that Liam had lost a significant amount of weight. She is also concerned about some facial acne and issues with his feet which are not being taken care of properly. She mentioned that the stress is preventing him from sleeping.

[39] She explained that prior to July 2012 Cathy Richardson would only exercise proper access approximately 60% of the time. The rest of the visits were canceled. Since then she has been exercising her access in accordance with the actual order.

[40] She explained that there were many summers when the month long July access was problematic for her and Liam. A lot of these visits interfered with his baseball schedule which started in May and ended in late July.

[41] The disclosure meeting with the OCL was held in July 2013. Unfortunately due to work commitments, she was unable to attend. Her wife Lynn Weston attended on her behalf. She advised that she was not expecting an increase in access but now seems to have accepted this recommendation. She agreed that it would not be in Liam's best interest to change his residency. She then explained how things ran different from one household to the other. She is concerned that there is no structure in Ms. Richardson's home and since Liam has been residing with her, he has basically been raising himself. She is not comfortable with him being alone at the apartment as long as he is now. She also seems concerned about the fact that Liam does not have his own bedroom in Ms. Richardson's North Bay apartment.

[42] She clearly recognizes that Ms. Richardson and herself or unable to communicate. She mentioned that going to the police or the Children's Aid Society for unfounded reasons was not good for the relationship. She believes that they need group counseling in order to figure out Liam's best interests. She does admit that Liam has become very good at playing one mother against the other and she is hopeful that counseling could address this issue.

[43] She recognizes that Liam now wishes to live with Cathy Richardson. She admits that he is very smart, however, in her mind; he is not mature enough to make this kind of decision.

[44] During her testimony, she elaborated on her plan of care. She clarified that the preferred option is being able to relocate to British Columbia. If allowed, she would prefer to live in Smithers, British Columbia with Liam. Ms. Lafrance Weston and her wife Lynn Weston have issues that need to be resolved. She acknowledged it would be better for Liam if she did not live with Lynn Weston. In any event, Ms. Weston is presently busy taking care of her elderly father.

[45] She confirmed that Liam would be going to high school in Smithers, British Columbia and that she would be home before and after school. Even though she is presently unemployment, she is confident that she will be able to get a job and will be able to be home no later than 4 p.m.

[46] She is prepared to register Liam and herself for counseling much like she is now receiving in North Bay. She is also open to counseling with Cathy Richardson and Lynn Weston. She confirmed that she has some family in British Columbia and remains hopeful that her mother would eventually relocate to that area. She mentioned that she in fact has more friends in British Columbia than in North Bay. She also pointed out that her wife's family also comes from the general area of Smithers, British Columbia.

[47] Financially, she fully expects to get a good-paying job in a law firm if she is unable to return to the Attorney General's office. She would also have rental income from her house in North Bay. All of this would allow her to work less for more income which would inevitably be in Liam's best interest.

[48] Being in British Columbia would also facilitate any future trips to Vietnam. Liam has a brother, Nathan, who lives with his adoptive parents in Toronto. Both his parents and Ms. Lafrance are committed to allowing a continued relationship between the two boys and she is willing to arrange flights between the two communities to allow this.

[49] Ms. Lafrance candidly admitted that she does not enjoy living in North Bay. She believes that she would personally be much happier and would enjoy life much more if she was allowed to live in British Columbia. Accordingly, since she would be happier, this in her mind, would also make Liam happier, which would be in his best interest.

[50] If she is not allowed to live in Smithers, British Columbia, the second option of her plan of care is that she remains in North Bay. Her house on Copeland Avenue is leased until the end of July. At that time, she would take over the house and live there with Liam. At first, Lynn Weston would not even be in the province, as she has obligations to take care of her father in British Columbia. Once the matter is settled, she fully expects Lynn to move in with them in North Bay.

[51] Liam would continue attending Chippewa High School and hopefully he can participate in more activities such as cadets, baseball and soccer. He would continue getting counseling and it is hoped that joint counseling could also be arranged involving Lynn Weston and Cathy Richardson.

[52] She acknowledges that she has family in the area including her mom and that her wife Lynn Weston has a brother here and her sister lives in Barrie. Living in this area would also make it easier for Liam's godfather to continue having regular contact with him.

[53] During cross-examination, she admitted that she has not yet decided if she would live in British Columbia or North Bay in the event the Cathy Richardson was allowed to move to Thunder Bay with Liam. If she remained in North Bay, she would expect to exercise a similar type of access that Ms. Richardson was exercising until recently. If she lived in British Columbia she would hope to have extended Christmas access, March break, the month of July with two extra weeks every second year and extra-long visits at Thanksgiving as well as regular Skype visits with her son.

[54] She also admitted that Liam's relationship with Lynn Weston has been very conflictual for the last two years. For this reason, Lynn Weston would not be living with Liam until counseling was completed should this option be adopted.

[55] The incident in October 2013 where Ms. Weston gave an ultimatum to Liam about either living with Cathy Richardson or his grandmother has caused some serious harm to Liam's relationship with Lynn Weston. Ms. Lafrance Weston advised that she was very upset about this incident and believed that it was inappropriate to put a 12-year-old in that type of situation. She does not support Lynn Weston's action of that day but was still of the view that living with Lynn Weston was the best option at that time.

[56] In cross-examination by the OCL lawyer, Ms. Lafrance Weston acknowledged that communication issues between herself and Ms. Richardson have been an ongoing concern. This was outlined in the report of the children's lawyer dated June 10, 2005 authored by Judy Howitt, the clinical investigator for the OCL, for the 2005 trial.

[57] The issue of requiring court approval before moving and how this has a direct impact on access has been addressed at least twice before in this matter. Ms. Lafrance Richardson acknowledged that in September 11, 2006 an order was issued wherein the residence of Liam was changed to Ms. Richardson. It was also ordered, at that time, that the matter should be transferred to Thunder Bay. It appears that, at that time, Ms. Lafrance Weston had recently moved with Liam to the Burlington area. This order was eventually overturned on appeal on September 28, 2006.

[58] She also confirmed that the issue came up once again in June 2007. At that time, she was contemplating a move to Sudbury and accordingly Justice Keast issued an order on June 5, 2007 indicating that Liam's residence shall either be in the City of Sudbury or the City of North Bay.

[59] She then explained that after the order of the fall of 2013 and in the appeal by Justice Nadeau ordering that Liam reside with Lynn Weston, she personally continued working in British Columbia. She came back in November and December in order to have a visit with Liam. At that time Liam, was living with Ms. Richardson and in her view, it would not have changed anything if she had lived in this area.

[60] She was in British Columbia during Christmas and Liam only came to visit after Christmas. It appears that her wife Lynn Weston was not with them at Christmas as she claims there were some issues paying for her flight.

[61] After losing her job in British Columbia, she returned to North Bay on a full-time basis on February 12, 2014. She is still maintaining a residence in British Columbia and is still hopeful to return there with Liam. She explained that the move to British Columbia was for the benefit of her son, as there are unlimited opportunities for them in that area.

[62] When being pressured by the OCL lawyer, she did finally admit that she was wrong by not going to court prior to moving to British Columbia. Her instinct told her that this was not right but she liked the idea so much that she moved. She also mentioned that what she understood from the legal advice that she received, was that she was able to move without a specific order and she would only need to deal with it when she was in British Columbia. All she thought she needed to do is to advise the parties which she did. She admitted that the way she did it was wrong and she apologizes for that.

[63] She is of the view that everyone directly involved in this matter needs counseling and some of this counseling should begin here in North Bay. If she is allowed to move to Smithers, British Columbia, she will make sure that similar counseling is available for Liam and her.

[64] She explained to the court that Liam had a counseling session a few weeks ago with his personal counselor wherein there were some very heated discussions. This was an intense session. She denies that she was asked to leave the session; however, the counselor did ask to speak to Liam alone at the end. After the session was over, Liam left with Ms. Richardson which upset Ms. Lafrance. She therefore attempted to stop Cathy Richardson's motor vehicle and in fact was following her in her own motor vehicle. She was trying to get her to pull over and since she would not, Ms. Lafrance started to use the horn on her motor vehicle. She alleges that the horn malfunctioned and in fact remained on for a long period of time. She described Cathy Richardson's driving in this incident as being very dangerous. When she observed Ms. Richardson going through a stop sign, she discontinued following them as she believed this was too dangerous a situation.

[65] The Children's Aid Society has been involved with this family on a number of occasions. It appears from reviewing the number of incidents reported, that none have resulted in the Society taking any actions. Accordingly, Ms. Lafrance admitted that she stopped making any reports to the Children's Aid Society as it only tended to show that she was harassing Ms. Richardson. On most occasions, she thought that the Society's investigations were incomplete. She also is of the view that many of the CAS documents are not reliable.

Catherine Richardson's Witnesses

Catherine Richardson

[66] Catherine Richardson personally testified first. She advised that she has been living in North Bay full-time since October 2013. Her son Liam has been living with her since the beginning of Thanksgiving weekend 2013. He is attending Chippewa high school and is doing very well. She admits that his demeanor toward schools and other things has changed in the last six months. At first when he started to live with her, there were some problems in getting up to go to school. These issues have now been rectified as he now has an early morning paper route. Liam seems happy in having this small source of income which he can use as he deems fit. She advises that on some occasions he spends the money right away and at other times he saves for a bigger purchase.

[67] Unfortunately he has missed many days a school between October and Christmas 2013. Most of these absences were due to lack of sleep. There was a lot going on around Liam at that time and both Liam in Ms. Richardson would often be up late and unable to sleep. This anxiety in her view was due to the fact that he was upset about what was going on in his life. He also generally seemed upset about having to spend time with Ms. LaFrance Weston or with Ms. Weston.

[68] She then recalled the incidence of October 2013. She had access with Liam during the Thanksgiving weekend and on Tuesday morning she returned Liam to school as required. That evening she was alone at home as Liam was to be with Lynn Weston. Liam showed up at her door at approximately 6:45 p.m. He was out of breath and agitated. In fact he was so agitated that he was unable to tell her what was going on.

[69] Eventually Liam calmed down and explained to Ms. Richardson what had happened during dinner at his nannies home and the argument that he had with Lynn Weston. He seemed also extremely upset that his nanny had allegedly called him "an ungrateful little shit". When he was speaking to Ms. LaFrance Weston on the telephone, she told him to have a nice life and hung up on him. After these exchanges, he described that he had packed his bags but nobody tried to stop him. Once outside he turned back to look at the window and nobody was looking out for him. She described Liam as being a very sensitive little guy and this entire incident deeply hurt him.

[70] That same evening, she witnessed Liam unpacking and getting rid of a lot of his things. For example, the only thing that he kept was his name tag from his cadet uniform. He also took his phone apart and deleted most of its content.

[71] Liam did not spend any extended amount of time with Ms. Lafrance Weston until Christmas. There were some short visits during some of the court attendance, but on many occasions Liam did not want to go. He seemed to need a break from the whole situation. He would normally not share exactly why he did not want to have any access with Ms. Lafrance Weston or Ms. Weston. She describes him as a very shy kid and that he really needs his own privacy and his own space.

[72] Ms. Richardson advised that she relocated her primary residence to Thunder Bay, Ontario in March 2006. The main reason for this move was to distance herself from the harassment from Ms. Lafrance Weston. It was her hope that with some distance, the harassment would stop and that she would then be able to continue or have a meaningful relationship with someone else. At that time, Ms. Lafrance Weston had custody and she exercised access. She only missed two access visits since that time. The first was in February 2011 and this was due to financial reasons. Then in February 2012 she did not have a motor vehicle to drive for the access visit as she had been in a serious motor vehicle collision while returning from the January access visit. Ms. Lafrance Weston was advised ahead of time of these non-attendances.

[73] She testified that Ms. Lafrance interfered on many occasions during these access visits. She had made numerous requests to the court to change these access visits and on one occasion, when she knew that Ms. Richardson Weston was to be out of town with Liam, she brought a motion for costs returnable in North Bay during that visit, knowing that she would need to change her access plans.

[74] She then describes an incident wherein she had called Liam's school on September 8, 2006 in order to make arrangements to pick him up for her access visit. She was informed that Liam was no longer registered at that school. Inquiries were made through her lawyer and she was eventually advised that Liam had been taken to Burlington by Ms. Lafrance Weston. She was refusing to disclose exactly where she was. It was clear that Ms. Lafrance's intention was to frustrate her access for that weekend. That is when she started making false accusations about sexual abuse. She was very concerned during this period of time as she was unable to see Liam and in fact was not aware as to what Liam was being told as to why she was not able to see her. She was worried that Liam might think that she had abandoned him and concerned that these false allegations would interfere with the excellent relationship she had with Liam.

[75] She then described the incident that happened with Liam's counselor in April 2014. Liam was picked up by Ms. Lafrance Weston at approximately 4:30 p.m. for the regular access visit. Around 6:30 p.m. that same evening, she received a text from Ms. Lafrance Weston stating "stop texting my son, this is not appropriate". She responded to her by saying that she had not sent any text. Approximately an hour later, she received another text that said "you are not Liam's mother, you are not irreplaceable". All of this was of concern to her as Liam was with Ms. Lafrance Weston at that time. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Liam sent a text that said "mom… come and get me". He then told her where he was and she replied that she was on her way. As she approached his nannie's apartment, she noticed that he was outside. He ran in front of the motor vehicle and directed her to pull over. He jumped in the car and said "go go go". She then noticed that Ms. Lafrance Weston was directly behind her in her own motor vehicle. She was following her and was leaning on the horn nonstop. She then drove a few blocks with Ms. Lafrance Weston continuing to follow her closely and continuing honking the horn. She eventually pulled off when they were on McIntyre Street.

[76] Liam was sitting in the front passenger seat; he was obviously agitated and scared. All he wanted to do is to get away. She started heading home at which time Liam advise that he was afraid the police would be there as well as Ms. Lafrance Weston. He clearly did not want any more confrontation and they went for a walk to the mall in order for him to calm down. It appears that Liam's concerns were legitimate. The following day the police did attend his school and questioned him concerning the incident. For some odd reason, Ms. Lafrance Weston had called the police and she failed to understand the nature of her complaint. She confirmed that Liam was a very irritated about the police once again being involved. On the way to the mall, Liam described to her what had happened. He mentioned that Corey Boyer had invited Ms. Lafrance Weston into their session. At some point, she allegedly took some exception to Liam calling Ms. Richardson "mom" as he used to call her "mama" and now he was calling her "mom".

[77] Ms. Richardson described that this was not the first time that she had been followed by Ms. Lafrance Weston. In the summer of 2006, Ms. Lafrance Weston had moved to Burlington with Liam and after the matter had been argued in court, it was ordered that Liam would be handed over to Ms. Richardson in order that he could live with her in Thunder Bay. Ms. Richardson attended the police station to pick Liam up and immediately felt some hostility. She explained that she was worried about how Ms. Lafrance Weston would react and she was advised not to worry. While she was driving on Highway 400 just north of Barrie, she noticed Ms. Lafrance Weston following her. She in fact drove up right beside her and clearly made her presence known. She accelerated and was able to get a bit ahead of her and was able to get off the highway in Orillia and hide at a car dealership. She then contacted Burlington police and the O.P.P. attended her area. She was then provided with a police escort to North Bay and advised that the O.P.P. stayed in her driveway sometime after her arrival.

[78] Ms. Richardson explained there have often been difficulties in her exercising her month-long summer access. For example, there were many concerns in July 2012 about Liam attending the Tim Horton's Camp and issues about Liam missing too much baseball games if he was able to attend his access in Thunder Bay. What was of concern to her was that Liam was clearly being put in the middle of this dispute and was clearly aware of the conflict. He was insisting that Ms. Richardson had to provide a letter of permission and it was Liam's duty to obtain same. Liam clearly seemed concerned about missing his July access and did not even want to play baseball. He in fact told her that he would run away if he could not see her in July. In any event, she clearly explained in a registered letter that she did not want to give up her access visit in July. She attended at the regular exchange location on July 1 at 11 a.m., she waited for over 30 minutes, looked around and never saw any of them. She brought a contempt motion on July 5 at which time access was ordered. This was the same order in which she also requested the involvement of the Ontario Office of the Children's Lawyer.

[79] The OCL's investigation commenced a short time thereafter and a disclosure meeting was held on July 18th, 2013. This was scheduled during her regular summer access with Liam in Thunder Bay. She traveled back to North Bay in order to attend this meeting. She had found it odd that Ms. Lafrance Weston was not personally in attendance during this meeting. Rather, Lynn Weston, her wife, was in attendance. Her lawyer had mentioned that Ms. Lafrance Weston was out of town and no one was made aware of any plans to move to British Columbia.

[80] She next heard from Ms. Lafrance Weston on August 18 when she received a text asking if she had any concerns with the OCL's recommendation. She did not think it was appropriate to reply to such a request. About one week later, she received another text which seemed a bit more urgent. She once again was asking if Ms. Richardson was going to challenge the OCL's recommendation. At the time, both of these texts seemed very unusual to her. Ms. Richardson also clearly denied receiving any letter dated July 31, 2013 from Ms. Lafrance Weston concerning the move to British Columbia. She also denied ever seeing the letter of November 1, 2012 addressed to Mr. Rutland concerning going to British Columbia, among other things. She confirmed that the first time she found out about the move to British Columbia was when Liam called her on either September 9 or 10. She was able to confirm his location by googling some of the information he was providing to her.

[81] Ms. Richardson advised that her parenting style is very different than that of Ms. Lafrance Weston. For her, it is important to be consistent and she is careful in picking her battles. She is working very hard with Liam to build trust, as he had issues concerning this with both parents. Therefore, she is careful to do what she says she will do. She explained that Liam is a very private individual and he does not say much. She tries to respect his space which includes not entering his bedroom while he is there without first knocking and careful not to touch any of his electronic devices. As the apartment they live in is very small, when he is on the phone, mostly with Ms. Lafrance Weston, she makes an attempt to leave the apartment in order to afford them some privacy.

[82] She has been working with Liam about not holding a grudge and to forgive more. She has notice that he often gets angry for no apparent reason and she is trying not to respond and get sucked into his problems. Sometimes, these issues come out of nowhere and she has found that it is better to simply let him calm down before she intervenes. Much of his anger is inappropriate for the circumstances and she finds it is better to let him vent and eventually the issue simply blows over. She confirmed that some adjustments had to be made when Liam first started living with her on a full-time basis. Adjustments were made concerning bedtime and more structure was needed for school. She also confirmed that he had a lot of anger at that time and that there were a lot of testing and pushing being done by Liam. All of these issues have diminished greatly and now they have an appropriate parent-child relationship.

[83] Liam has been attending Chippewa Secondary School. His grades are excellent and he is doing very well. She explained that he has appropriate peer relationships, seems to have many friends which he communicates with both in and out of school. These friends include both boys and girls. She also sees no issues with his attendance. She does concede that he has most likely missed more classes than the previous year however, these absences mostly occurred when he moved in with her under extreme stress and turmoil. This resulted in many sleepless nights and required more time to simply settle down. To her understanding, the school has no issues with Liam's performance, behavior or attendance.

[84] She mentioned that Liam stays in regular contact with his biological brother Nathan who resides in Toronto. He was happy to receive a text from Nathan on his birthday and mentioned that most communication is either by text or Instagram. Liam seems to look up to his brother. It is her view that this relationship remains intact despite the ongoing disputes with Ms. Lafrance Weston the change of residency for Liam. Liam's last visit with his brother was for the Vietnamese New Year on January 31. The arrangements for this visit were made directly between Ms. Richardson and Nathan's parents. She explained that she has a good relationship with them. There is another traditional celebration scheduled for August, plans are being made for Liam to attend.

[85] Miss Richardson explained that her plan of care would include her living with Liam in Thunder Bay. It is hoped that Liam could register in a French immersion school starting next September. Ms. Richardson knows the principal of the school as well as several teachers. Both she and Liam are familiar with many of the kids who attend the school as she has lived on the same street for several years. In fact Liam has already attended the school once before for a short time while he had a residency with her in Thunder Bay. After Liam has completed grade 8, it is her intention to register him in a French immersion high school. She mentioned that the school has an excellent reputation and she also knows several teachers from that school. In her view it has an outstanding sports and music program.

[86] She mentioned that she prefers living on the Port Arthur's side of Thunder Bay. If she obtains custody of Liam, she would look for a small three bedroom rental house until her finances are re-established. She is hopeful to find something between $1,000 - $1,200 per month for rent, she is confident that she would be able to get a nice accommodation for this amount. She has already been in contact with Corey Boyer in North Bay who is able to assist her in finding a suitable counselor or therapist for Liam in Thunder Bay. These contacts have been made and she is simply waiting to hear back from them. Ms. Richardson confirmed that she is presently single and plans on remaining single in order to provide Liam with her undivided attention.

[87] After she is able to relocate to Thunder Bay, she has the intention of continuing to operate her own painting business. Being self-employed, her hours are completely flexible. Unfortunately she has been unable to operate this business since she has been living in North Bay with Liam but remains confident that she can re-establish same once she returns to Thunder Bay. She confirmed since living in North Bay, her income has been drastically less. She estimates that she is presently making 1/8 of the income that she would be able to generate with her painting business.

[88] She confirmed that over the years, Liam has met several friends in Thunder Bay. When he spends the month of July in Thunder Bay, he would normally spend his time with the same kids whom he has either met through school or church gatherings. As for access visits for Ms. Lafrance Weston, if she is able to move to Thunder Bay with Liam, she is simply prepared to go along with the OCL's recommendation on this issue while keeping Liam's best interest in mind.

[89] Miss Richardson expressed concern about Ms. Lafrance Weston's continued access with Liam. This concern is mostly due to inappropriate conversation taking place. There appear to be many discussions about the court proceedings which seem to irritate Liam. Liam would return from visits and he would sometimes say that "all she wants to talk about is court". She did confirm that on some occasions he returns from an access visits in a bad mood but on other occasions he is fine and animated. Currently Ms. Lafrance Weston sees Liam every Wednesday night from 5 to 9 p.m. and every other Saturday from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. She mentions that she has no issues with him spending more time with her and other family members but this should be at Liam's discretion. She estimates that there has been 10 to 11 extra visits since the March break. She mentioned that she has never said no to any of Liam's requests to spend more time with Ms. Lafrance. She does have a problem when these access visits simply happen without her knowledge. On occasion, she would get home and Liam would not be there and she would later find out that he was with Ms. Lafrance Weston. There needs to be better communication regarding these extra visits. She explained that on one day, Liam stayed home from school; he was complaining he was sick. She was under the impression that he was home in bed but later found out that he was in fact with Ms. Lafrance Weston. No one had consulted her concerning this and she was of the view that if he was well enough to be with Ms. Lafrance Weston he was well enough to be in school.

[90] She explained that Ms. Lafrance Weston had missed some of her access visits as ordered. In June she missed two of these visits. On one occasion, Ms. Lafrance Weston's assistant picked Liam up. She had never been told that Ms. Lafrance Weston was in fact at that time in British Columbia. On a second visit, he was picked up by his nanny and again she had not been informed that Ms. Lafrance Weston was not in attendance until later.

[91] Ms. Richardson confirmed that she has been seeing a therapist, Tara Nevercan, for several years. She has provided her support with the ongoing issues with respect to access to Liam and has helped her with parenting considering Liam's changing in age. As it appeared that the issues involving Ms. Lafrance Weston were escalating over the years, they also talked about a safety plan in case of violence. She explained that violence has always been a concern to her and mentioned that the recent escalation of tension is a danger sign. She was clear however to confirm that there has never been any violence in her relationship with Ms. Lafrance Weston. This counseling also helped her to understand that a lot of Liam's behavior was age-appropriate. As he was becoming a teenager he had some anger issues that needed to be vented in a safe way.

[92] Miss Richardson was cross examined concerning possible bald spots on Liam's head. Pictures were presented to her. She disagreed that she saw any bald spots. She clearly testified that the pictures depicted the crown of his head and that all was normal. At no time did she notice that Liam was losing any hair and in fact the pictures do not seem to indicate any loss of hair. Generally speaking, Ms. Richardson believes that Liam is healthy and is presently attempting to keep his vaccinations up-to-date through our local health unit. He has also recently seen an eye doctor and now requires glasses.

[93] She clarified that Liam has never indicated to her that he wanted to go back to British Columbia. He had made some new friends there and was very excited about attending the cadets in British Columbia but has never expressed a desire of wanting to live in British Columbia. He has also never expressed a desire to live with Ms. Lafrance Weston. Ms. Richardson sees no benefit for Liam in moving to British Columbia. She confirmed that up-rooting Liam from North Bay in August 2013 and moving him to British Columbia caused him a great amount of turmoil and anger. As a result of this, she believes that Liam is now emotionally unsafe with Ms. Lafrance Weston.

[94] As a result of some of the emotional issues that Liam was going through, he discontinued communicating with many people in the fall of 2013. In Ms. Richardson's view, Liam required some time to work through his emotions and she was not prepared to intervene by pushing him to communicate with Ms. Lafrance Weston or any other members of her family. In her view, Liam had to work through these emotions on his own and he would eventually come around. To her knowledge, his communications and relationships with the Lafrance family are slowly being re-established. It is clear to her that Liam has some serious issues with Lynn Weston and to her knowledge this relationship still remains problematic.

Stephen Tanner

[95] The next witness we heard from was Stephen Tanner who is the Vice Principal at Chippewa Secondary School; the school Liam has been attending for the last year. He confirmed that the school has no issues concerning Liam's attendance or academic progress and have not had any discipline issues. He mentions that he has not noted anything remarkable about Liam and that he basically is a "regular kid". Many of his teachers have described Liam as a pleasure to have in the school. In fact, his math teacher recently commented that if he could clone Liam he would take 20 of them.

Tara Nevercan

[96] Tara Nerercan has been Catherine Richardson's therapist off and on since 1999. Her major purpose was to assist her in developing healthy ways in dealing with the stresses in her life. Much of the stress was caused by the custody and access issues concerning Liam and the ongoing difficult relationship with Christi Lafrance Weston. She described Ms. Richardson as being very receptive and trying to do what is best for her son. This has been done despite some serious financial stresses and on many occasions to her own demise. She mentioned that she was always impressed on how together she presented herself despite the difficult situations that she found herself in and that she would always try to do what was best for Liam and not for her. She was also impressed with the amount of insight that she had and that she was always willing to learn and grow from any bad situation.

[97] On cross examination, she did confirm that at one time she was a supervisor with the Children's Aid Society for the District of Nipissing and Parry Sound. Her name does appear on some of the CAS records that have been produced during this trial. She confirmed that she does not have any direct recollection of any of the reports made to the Children's Aid Society while she was in their employ. It is normal to have the consulting supervisor's name appears on reports but that does not necessarily mean that that they were directly involved in any direct decision-making concerning ongoing matters.

OCL – Carole Vaillancourt

[98] Carole Vaillancourt is one of the clinical investigators with the Ontario Office of the Children's Lawyers who worked on this matter. Another investigator first started to work on this matter but was unable to complete her work. Ms. Vaillancourt was first involved in October 2013. She confirmed that her role in this matter was as a clinical assistant for Mr. Peter Rutland, the lawyer retained to represent Liam's best interest in these proceedings.

[99] When she took this matter over, she had the opportunity to review the information that had been gathered by Mr. Rutland and the previous clinical assistant. She explained that there was a disclosure meeting in July 2013 wherein the OCL's position was that custody should remain with Ms. Lafrance Weston but should provide for more access for Ms. Richardson. The OCL's view at that time was that it was in Liam's best interest to remain in the present custody arrangement and that his desire to live with Ms. Richardson could be met by increasing the amount of access that he had with her. She clearly noted that when this position was taken by the Children's Lawyer in July 2013, it was with the assumption that Ms. Richardson was living in Thunder Bay and that Ms. Lafrance Weston and Ms. Weston were living together in North Bay.

[100] She confirmed that she was able to interview Ms. Richardson in November, December 2013 and in March 2014. She was able to interview Ms. Lafrance Weston during one of her trips from British Columbia in December 2013. She had requested more interviews with Ms. Lafrance Weston but same was denied. She confirmed that she personally met with Liam on 11 occasions with most of these visits were at school during school hours. Her experience is that the children are more comfortable when they are not bound by loyalty to one parent or another and the school offers a neutral safe environment. It was clear that Liam was comfortable with this arrangement. She was also able to review the numerous police reports and Children's Aid Reports and directly spoke to Sharon Chayka and Corey Boyer, both of whom have provided counseling to various parties in this dispute. Her investigation also included speaking to the school authorities.

[101] She explained in detail her visit with Liam of April 17, 2014. This was the time when she discussed with him the incident where Liam had called Ms. Richardson to come and pick him up from an access visit with Ms. Lafrance Weston. Liam had described that Ms. Lafrance Weston was extremely upset about him calling Ms. Richardson "mom". This resulted in inappropriate behavior by Ms. Lafrance Weston and some screaming on her behalf. After they left the counselor's office, he and Ms. Lafrance Weston drove around and ended up at the North Bay waterfront. He mentioned that the screaming match continued and he eventually was able to leave the situation by exiting the motor vehicle. Ms. Lafrance Weston convinced him to return to the motor vehicle which had greatly upset him. He was in fact looking for an opportunity to run away from the situation. He eventually managed to text Ms. Richardson and asked her to come and pick him up. He described that once he was in Ms. Richardson's vehicle, Ms. Lafrance Weston started following them. She was honking the horn and was demonstrating some road rage. It was clear to Ms. Vallaincourt that he was frightened by the whole situation. He also appeared very distraught at the fact that on the following day the police attended his school to verify if he was okay. As part of her investigative duties for the OCL, Ms. Vaillanvourt contacted Corey Boyer, the counselor involved in this matter. From her discussions, she came to the conclusion that Liam accurately described what had happened that evening.

[102] She described that when she first met Liam, she was struck at the unhealthy anger he had towards Ms. Lafrance Weston. Since then, the anger has diminished. She described him as being very mature for his age but remains very distraught about the court process. Despite that, he remains a bright pleasant young boy who is very reserved. She describes Liam as a good communicator and can easily express his views which do not seem to be influenced by any other parties. His views are not based on frivolous desires but are based on his own life experience. She clearly confirmed that throughout all of the meetings with Liam, he was consistent in his wish to live with Ms. Richardson. Not once did he waver on this desire. He understands that he will need to change schools and relocate to Thunder Bay if he is to live Ms. Richardson full time. Ideally, he would not want to change schools or move away from North Bay, however, he is willing to do as it is much more important to him as to whom he lives with rather than where he lives. He is also clear that at the present time he does not wish any overnight access with Ms. Lafrance Weston and that telephone and text communications are okay. He does not seem to be interested in any Skype access as is being requested by Ms. Lafrance Weston. He has also requested a cool down for the summer months and does not wish to have any extended summer access. He believes that this would be difficult. He is fearful of the emotional stress that extended access would have on him. Once a final decision is made on this matter, he would be content to have extended visits with Ms. Lafrance Weston at Christmas and March break and during the summer. However it is clear that he does not wish these visits to be too long. Liam seems to also be very clear that he does not want anything to do with Lynn Weston at this point in his life.

[103] It appears that the bond between Liam in Ms. Richardson is very close. Ms. Vaillancourt stated that living with Ms. Richardson was at first just an idea but now that he has actually tried it, he is still of the same view. Liam mentions that Ms. Richardson listens to him and is caring. There is less argument and she is not always over the top or carried away. He feels safe with her. As for Ms. Lafrance Weston, the arguing is an ongoing issue and she seems to always want to discuss the court proceedings. He describes her emotions going from one extreme to the other; either she is crying or screaming angry. He finally mentioned to Ms. Vaillancourt that he cannot trust Ms. Lafrance Weston because he has been lied to many times. Liam seems to understand that Ms. Lafrance Weston definitely loves him but it simply comes down to a matter of trust and respect. Ms. Vaillancourt concludes that Liam's decisions are not based on anger but based on his own experience with both of his parents. She is also of the view that Liam has an awareness of what is happening in court and was told much more than he should have. This has left Liam feeling that these disputes will never end. Ms. Vaillancourt mentioned that Liam expressed fear concerning the dispute with Lynn Weston in the fall of 2013 and the incident with Ms. Lafrance Weston in April of 2014. Of concern to her is the fact that Liam mentioned to her he is fearful that Ms. Richardson would be killed by Ms. Lafrance Weston if she is able to move with him to Thunder Bay.

[104] During her cross examination she did comment on the letter to Mr. Rutland from Lynn Lafrance Weston dated November 30, 2012. They did not think that this letter was relevant. The letter was written by Lynn Weston who is not a party in these proceedings and same would have been more significant if it had come directly from Ms. Lafrance Weston. It also advised of an impending move in the spring. She described the letter as very vague; it had no date for the move or any indication as to exactly where they were moving. At best, she described this as a warning that they would be receiving a letter later giving details of the move. She also noted that this was in the fourth bullet in this letter. It appears that Liam's shoe size, his involvement with the cadets and how Liam felt after access visits with Ms. Richardson were more important than this move to BC, as was discussed in bullet 1 to 3 of the letter.

[105] She also confirmed that she did not normally do collateral interviews with families as they have an emotional attachment and that these interviews are usually biased. She confirmed that for these purposes she did not interview Liam's grandmother or godfather.

The Law

Material Change in Circumstance – The Threshold Test

[106] This proceeding is a motion to change the terms of the 2005 order in relation to custody, residency, access and the issue of mobility. Section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act (referred to as "the Act") sets out the threshold test on a motion to change. The provision reads as follows:

"A court shall not make an order under this part that varies an order in respect of custody or access made by a court in Ontario unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child."

If this threshold is met, the issue in the proceedings are to be determined on the basis of the best interest of the child.

[107] In a variation proceeding such as a motion to change, it is assumed that the initial order, in this case the 2005 order, was correct at the date it was granted. Thus it is assumed that the initial order accurately addressed the best interest of the child at the time it was granted. The fact that there has been some measure of change pertaining to a child is not sufficient to meet the threshold set out in the legislation. The change in circumstance must materially affect or be likely to affect the child's best interest. A material change in circumstance is a change, such that if it had been known at the time of the initial custody order, would likely have resulted in different terms. The corollary to this is that if the matter that is relied upon as constituting the change was known at the date of initial order, it cannot be relied upon as the basis for variation.

[108] In considering a motion to change, the court is to engage in a two-stage process. The first step is to determine whether the threshold has been met. At this initial stage, the burden of establishing material change in circumstance rest of the parent seeking the change. If the burden has been met, the second stage is to consider the appropriate order in the child's best interest. At this point, the court is to embark on a fresh inquiry in light of the change and to consider all relevant factors to determine what is in the child's best interest at the time of the motion to change. The evidentiary burden is on both parents at this stage.

[109] In the case at bar, both the applicant and respondent are seeking some material changes to the final order made in 2005. Accordingly, they are both in agreement that there has been a material change in circumstance since 2005. It appears that this material change was triggered by Ms. Lafrance Weston unilateral move to British Columbia with Liam and the change in primary residency and temporary custody to Ms. Richardson upon Liam's return to the North Bay area. Since that time, Liam, who is now 13 years of age, has also clearly expressed his wishes and desires concerning his primary residence and future access provisions for the non-custodial parent.

[110] The court therefore finds that Christi Ann Marie Lafrance, the moving party on this motion, has established a material change in circumstance since the date of the final order in 2005. This is a change in circumstance that materially affects Liam's needs and circumstances. This change in circumstance was not reasonably foreseeable when the original order was made.

Best Interest of the Child

[111] The Supreme Court of Canada in the decision of Gordon vs Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 sets out principles and criteria for determining what is in the child's best interests as follows:

[49] The law can be summarized as follows:

1. The parent applying for a change in the custody or access order must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances affecting the child.

2. If the threshold is met, the judge on the application must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child's needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.

3. This inquiry is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and evidence of the new circumstances.

4. The inquiry does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent, although the custodial parent's views are entitled to great respect.

5. Each case turns on its own unique circumstances. The only issue is the best interest of the child in the particular circumstances of the case.

6. The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests and rights of the parents.

7. More particularly the judge should consider, inter alia:

a) the existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent;

b) the existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent;

c) the desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents;

d) the view of the child;

e) the custodial parent's reason for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent's ability to meet the needs of the child;

f) disruption to the child of a change in custody;

g) disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community he or she has come to know.

[50] In the end, the importance of the child's remaining with the parent to whose custody it has become accustomed in the new location must be weighed against the continuance of full contact with the child's access parent, its extended family and its community. The ultimate question in every case is this: what is in the best interests of the child in all the circumstances, old as well as new?

[112] Gordon vs Goertz was decided under the divorce act. However the case law is clear that the legal principles also apply to cases brought under the Children's Law Reform Act. Section 24(2) of that act sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors that should be considered by the courts pertaining to the child.

(2) Best interests of child. – The court shall consider all the child's needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child's family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the care and upbringing of the child;

(b) the views and preferences of the child, where such views and preferences can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child's care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application.

Analysis

[113] Catherine Richardson testified the longest in this matter. The bulk of her time on the stand was taken up by the cross-examination by Ms. Lafrance Weston. It is clear from the evidence heard and the history of this matter that the applicant and respondent are unable to communicate with each other. We have heard that Christi Lafrance Weston has been charge in the past with criminal harassment on Ms. Richardson and that the police have been involved a number of times. Despite this high level of tension between the parties, Catherine Richardson remained calm and collected throughout her testimony. It was clear that on many occasions during the cross examination, Ms. Lafrance Weston was trying to get her upset or angry. This never worked and Ms. Richardson remained focused and calm throughout.

[114] The evidence presented by Ms. Richardson was logical and was corroborated by either documentary evidence or by other witness. It is clear that she has put Liam first in many of her decisions in the past, even to her own personal detriment. Her actions show that she is trying to do what is in Liam's best interest. The personal sacrifice that she has endured since the last final order in 2005 clearly confirms her dedication, love and affection for Liam. Her determination has never faltered throughout the long litigious battle or by the many hurdles presented to her over the years. What makes this even more impressive is the fact that she is not Liam's natural or adoptive parent.

[115] Christi Lafrance Weston, who is a licence paralegal for the province of Ontario, opted to represent herself in this matter. She has obviously had a great deal of court room experience but not in family law. It was clear that she was struggling on some occasions with the dual role of being the advocate and the litigant in the matter. Her emotions got the best of her on a few occasions. Is it clear that she deeply loves Liam and the fact that her relationship with him has deteriorated lately is breaking her heart. It appears however that these emotions have clouded her judgement as many of her actions seem to be against Liam's best interest. She clearly says that we must do what is in Liam's best interest, but many of her recent decisions seem to be what is her best interest rather than Liam's. As we all know, action speak louder than words.

[116] The way that she uprooted Liam and unilaterally moved to BC in the summer of 2013 is a clear example of a bad decision. Ms. Lafrance Weston is an intelligent woman and the court does not accept that she did not know she could not move without the court permission. She claims that her Honour L. Duchesneau-McLachlan's endorsement of October 12, 2006, granted her permission to move. This dated endorsement was never taken out as a formal order. The matter has been in court numerous times since then. The issue of mobility and residency has been addressed many other times. As a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and an officer of the court, she clearly knew that this was not sufficient to clandestinely move to the other end of the country. This endorsement also stipulated that access needed to be made available. It is clear that she completely ignored this part of the endorsement as no arrangements or even discussions were held concerning access prior to her leaving for BC.

[117] The move to Smithers British Columbia is not the first time that she took advantage of the fact that Ms. Richardson has no access in August to uproot Liam and move him without notice to anyone. This happened in the summer of 2006 when she moved to Burlington. Ms. Richardson was clearly not aware of this first unilateral move and it resulted in the court making an order for the return of Liam and what turned out to him temporarily residing with Ms. Richardson in Thunder Bay.

[118] The issue of residency was once again addressed by Justice Keast in his order of June 5th 2007. This order clearly stated that "Liam's residence be either in North Bay or Sudbury and that access shall remain as per the final order of November 2005". This order also stipulated that "Ms. Lafrance Weston must advise Ms Richardson of any change of school in which Liam is enrolled". No notice was ever given that Liam was going to be registered in a BC school. This order was clear and precise. Ms. Lafrance Weston chose to simply ignore it. For some odd reason, Ms. Lafrance Weston was under the impression that all she needed to do was give the Children's Lawyer notice of her move. She claimed that the letter from her wife Lynn Weston to Mr Rutland on November 30, 2012 complied with this requirement. It is clear that her understanding of this requirement was wrong and that this letter was in no way an appropriate notice. First, the letter was not even from a party in these proceedings. It is clear that the purpose of the letter was not to provide notice of the move as this topic was only addressed in the fourth bullet of the letter. The notice failed to provide any important details as to the exact location of the move; it simply said British Columbia. It also was not specific as to the timing of the move. More importantly, it did not in any way address the issue of access for Ms. Richardson. This court fails to see how this was in any way a proper notice.

[119] Ms. Lafrance Weston claimed that she also sent a letter dated July 31, 2013 to Ms. Richardson concerning this move. Same was never received. In view of the clandestine nature of this move and the fabrication of explanation to justify the move, this court has some serious difficulty in believing that this letter was in fact ever sent. Even if had been sent and received, same is extremely vague and is after the fact. It does not mention exactly where they had moved to and no detail is provided on arrangements for Liam's education, extra-curricular activities or how access will occur.

[120] Ms. Lafrance Weston claims that she was under the impression that Liam had advised Ms. Richardson in a telephone conversation on August 21st, 2013. A telephone bill has been filled showing a long distance call from Ms. Lafrance Weston's mother's residence to Ms. Richardson's home. The bill also shows that the call lasted 1 minute. The court has heard no evidence that Liam was in fact with his grandmother at that time. If he is the one who made the call and he did advise Ms. Richardson of the move, the duration of same would have been much longer than one minute. The history of this matter clearly shows that when Ms. Richardson's access is being tampered with, she immediately takes action and commences court proceedings. Her ex-parte motion was adjudicated Sept 13, 2013. It is clear in the court's mind that this call was not for the purpose of giving Ms. Richardson notice of the move. We have heard by many that Ms. Lafrance Weston had discussions with and involved Liam in this court dispute. Even if the call was made by Liam, why would he be personally responsible to advise Ms. Richardson of the move? Why would Ms. Lafrance Weston put such a large responsibility on her son? Clearly, if the call would have been made, it would have been totally inappropriate to put Liam in this situation.

[121] The OCL got re-involved in this matter in the summer of 2012. The disclosure meeting was held on July 18th, 2013. Ms. Lafrance Weston was not in attendance, she was working in British Columbia. Accordingly, her wife Line Weston attended the meeting. It is clear that Ms. Weston knew that her wife had a new job in British Columbia. Why did she not mention same in the meeting? Everyone that is of any importance in this matter was in attendance. The fact that this opportunity was not taken to disclose the move and to lie about same is a clear indication that Ms. Lafrance Weston was self-centered and that everything about this move was to clearly frustrate any relationship that Ms. Richardson has with Liam. It is clear that she is more concerned about her own emotional well-being and that this move was clearly designed to better her own life.

[122] The court has heard that Ms. Lafrance Weston is on at least her third serious relationship. The court has some serious doubt as to stability of her marriage with Ms. Lynn Weston. The court is left with the impression that they are deliberately trying to hide the true status of the relationship. From the evidence we have heard about the short duration of time that Ms. Lafrance Weston and Liam lived in British Columbia, it appears that Ms. Weston was not living there with them. The reasons given for the move was to take care of her aging parents. We also heard that Ms. Lafrance Weston brought Liam to British Columbia for Christmas and that Ms. Weston was not in attendance. One would expect that a happily married couple would at least make an attempt to be together for Christmas. Both Ms. Lafrance Weston's plans of care provided that all three of them will not be residing together. The plans seem to indicate that the reason for this was difficulty between Liam and Ms. Weston's relationship. However, the court is left with the impression that Ms. Lafrance Weston and her wife Ms. Weston are at this time maintaining separated residences in North Bay. From Ms. Richardson's point of view, she was surprised to learn during the trial, that it was being suggested that they were still together as she was under the impression they had been separated for some time.

[123] At the beginning of the trial, Ms. Lafrance advised that Ms. Weston would not be able to testify at this trial as she had to be with her ill parents in British Columbia. The option of an adjournment was presented and not taken. The court heard that Ms. Weston has a number of siblings. Alternate arrangements could not have been made to allow her to attend and provide evidence during Ms. Lafrance Weston's case. Surprisingly, Ms. Weston was personally in attendance for the last day of evidence and for the day of the submissions. Even more surprising to the court, Ms. Weston was called by Ms. Lafrance Weston to provide reply evidence. The court had suggested that she might wish to re-open her case in order to call her, out of order, to provide direct evidence. As she is the spouse of one of the parties, the court would have expected that such an opportunity would have been taken. Ms. Lafrance Weston opted to simply provide her with reply evidence. Accordingly, questioning and evidence was limited to 5 very specific topics. This decision made by Ms. Lafrance Weston resulted in the court advising her that an adverse finding would be made by the court from not hearing any direct evidence from the spouse of one of the parties. In fact, from the evidence this court has heard, it remains unclear whether there is a breakdown in the relationship between Ms. Lafrance Weston and Ms. Weston and the court fails to see why this is being presented to the court in such a mysterious way.

[124] The major reason for the move to Smithers British Columbia was for employment purpose. The Court heard that Ms. Lafrance Weston was terminated from her job with the Ministry of the Attorney General (AG) in British Columbia. She advised that this termination is being grieved with the union and in any event she will have no difficulty in obtaining another job with a law firm. Nothing has been presented to the court to confirm any of this. This court was left with the impression that her job with the AG was a management position. If that is so, how can she be part of a union? As for finding another job, why has she not found one yet as she claim it will be easy to find one? Considering Ms. Lafrance Weston's habit of presenting half-truths to the court and deliberately misleading it, the court is not prepared to accept that there is no real prospect of employment in Smithers British Columbia without clear corroborating evidence. In her affidavit dated September 12, 2013, found at tab 59 of the white binder, she mentions in paragraph #3 that:

"I have been wanting to move to Smithers for a number of years with my wife Lynn Lafrance Weston. Lynne's aging parents live near Smithers. Plus, as recorded in the multiple court files I have been involved in, living in North Bay has been very hard on me emotionally, socially and professionally. I have intended to move so that I could have a better life".

It is clear in the court's mind that the decision by Ms. Lafrance Weston to move to Smithers was solely made taking in consideration her own best interest. Now that there is no job for her there, the court fails to see how it is even in her best interest to proceed with the move. In any event, it is clear that this type of move would be against Liam's best interest and that is what this court must be concerned about. Accordingly, the move to British Columbia with Liam is not in any way a viable option.

[125] The two other options are; that the regime established in the 2005 order continues and that Liam resides in North Bay with Ms. Lafrance Weston or, that we accept the plan as presented by Ms. Richardson where Liam would reside in Thunder Bay. Ms. Lafrance Weston argued that this court cannot consider the Thunder Bay option because this court does not have jurisdiction to award custody to a non-parent unless there is some protection issue and that no proper Form 35 has been filled.

[126] This court fails to understand Ms. Lafrance Weston's argument that it does not have jurisdiction to award custody to a non-parent. The Ontario Court of Justice does this on a regular basis. Many of the cases cited in their reasons deal with this situation. Finally, the Children's Law Reform Act clearly provides jurisdiction to this court to proceed with matters in the same way it did in the 2005 trial.

[127] As for the Form 35; one has been filled by Ms. Richardson but same does not have the necessary supporting material. No formal Form 35 has been filled by Ms. Lafrance Weston. It therefore appears that neither party has completely complied with Rule 35 of the Family Law Rules. However, one must remember that this matter has already proceeded to one trial in 2005 and has been in court on a regular basis since then. The Police and the Children's Aid Society have been involved in this matter on many occasions. In fact, many of their records form part of the Trial Record. Rule 2.2 of Family Law Rules provides that the primary objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly. In view of the history of this case and the fact that this trial has lasted 7 days, it would be against the spirit of Rule 2.2 to not deal with the matter as proper Form 35s have not been filed. Accordingly, I will order that the requirement to file a completed Form 35 by both parties is dispensed with on this matter.

[128] Sec 24 (2) (6) of the CLRA states that the child's wish is a factor to consider. Liam has clearly stated that he wishes to live with Ms. Richardson. Carole Vaillancourt, the clinician assist to the OCL on this matter, mentioned that his desire has not changed since her involvement in this matter. The court agrees with her conclusion that his desire is clearly based on his life experience with both the applicant and the respondent. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in the decision of Alexander v. Alexander, [1988] B.C.J. 1570 (B.C.C.A.), mentions that "there does come a point when near adult years, a child capable of responsible thought, must now be deemed to be able to settle his own future in this important matter". Ten years later, this same court says in O'Connell vs McIndoe, [1998] B.C.J. 2392 (B.C.C.A.) that "in order for custody orders relating to children in their teens to be practical, they must reasonably conform to the wishes of the child". It is clear from all account that Liam is a mature intelligent 13 year old. Unfortunately, he is also well informed about these court proceedings. By all accounts, he is capable of responsible thought and not to reasonably conform to his justifiable wishes would be against his best interest.

[129] Justice Spence of the Ontario Superior Court noted in Goodman vs. Brown, (2003) 123 A.C.W.S. (3d) 312, that, "it is often said that children vote with their feet…. An order forcing them to attend against their will would not be enforceable if the children simply refused to attend." One must remember that Liam has voted with his feet twice since October 2013. First, on October 2013, he was given an ultimatum by Lynn Weston about where to live. Liam's decision was clear; he packed his bags and moved to Ms. Richardson's. He was rightfully distraught that no one attempted to prevent him from doing so. He simply packed up his stuff and left and was obviously well received by Ms. Richardson, who was at first confused about what was going on.

[130] The incident during Ms. Lafrance Weston's access visit on April 2014 where they both attended for counselling is very troublesome on many fronts. The end result is that Liam literally ran away from Ms. Lafrance Weston. The fact that she then physically chased both Liam and Ms. Richarsdon with her motor vehicle, while continually honking her horn, must have been terrifying for him. Liam then expressed some concern about the police once again being involved. Why Ms. Lafrance Weston thought that this incident required the involvement of the police defies logic. By calling them, she simply made things even worse for Liam. This incident will have a long lasting negative effect on Liam, which will most likely tarnish the already strained relationship between Liam and Ms. Lafrance Weston. What is the most troublesome is that this is all over the fact the Liam called Ms. Richardson "mom" rather than "mama". This incident is a clear example that Ms. Lafrance Weston has no concept as to what battle to pick with Liam and how to appropriately react when there is a conflict with him. This incident has alienated Liam from her even more, to her detriment. I fail to see how Liam can be emotionally safe with Ms. Lafrance Weston when she is subject to such outburst over minor things.

[131] Justice Ian Gordon of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice provides a good overview of the variety of case law on the issues of the child's wishes in the decision of JLM vs, IHM, [2004] 47774 Ont. Sup. Crt. In that decision, he concludes that one must use logic and common sense and, as the child's age progresses, his influence and preference must surely weigh very heavily and his wish must be given serious consideration.

[132] Her Honour, L. Duchesneau-McLachlan mentioned at paragraph 30 of her reasons for judgment of November 21, 2005 on this matter that;

"when one considers the factors referred in section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act RSO, 1990 C c-12, as amended, these mothers are pretty well equal. Ms. Lafrance only has the additional adoption factor in her favor."

The additional adoption factor in favor of Ms. Lafrance Weston will always exist in this matter. However we are unable to conclude now that both these mothers are pretty well equal. Many things have changed since in the original trial in 2005. In balancing all of the principles and criteria as is outlined in the decision of Gordon vs Goertz and the factors referred to in section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the only logical conclusion in maintaining Liam's best interest is to allow him to move to Thunder Bay with Ms. Richardson.

Custody and Access

[133] Her Honour, L. Duchesneau-McLachlan mentioned in paragraph 24 of her reasons for judgment of November 21, 2005 on this matter, that "it is absolutely clear to me from the evidence that joint custody is simply not possible in this case". This situation has not changed since then and if anything, the situation has worsened. It is clear that the parties are unable to communicate with each other in any format. However, it is hoped that somehow they will find a way to be able to communicate with each other as same is necessary to see to Liam's best interests. In view of this inability to cooperate with each other, a joint custody arrangement would not work. Sole custody denotes that one parent shall be responsible for the child's day-to-day decisions as well as major decisions on behalf of the child. This person has sole care and control of the child. Accordingly, Kathryn Richardson will be awarded sole custody of Liam. Obviously, Ms. Lafrance Weston will maintain the right to be kept informed of Liam's health, educational and social problems and progress. This right to be kept informed does not include the right to decide or interfere with Ms. Richardson's decisions concerning Liam.

[134] Generally, a parent who does not obtain custody usually obtains access to the child. However, one must remember that access is the child's right to see the noncustodial parent rather than the parent's right to insist on access to the child. The duration and quality of the access should be determined according to what is best for the child and access arrangement should be structured to take into account both parents and the child's schedules. Obviously, this court is also required to consider the views and preference of a child in access matters involving older children.

[135] One must remember that Ms. Lafrance Weston has not had any overnight access with Liam since March 2014. Normally, Liam would spend the full month of July with Ms. Richardson and the full month of August with Ms. Lafrance Weston. This extended summer access did not occur this past summer as Liam requested a cooling off and was not comfortable in proceeding with such a long and extended visit with Ms. Lafrance Weston. He has however, expressed his wish to continue having extended access with Ms. Lafrance Weston, including overnight access, once all court proceedings have concluded. He did express some concerns that any access visits should not be for extended periods of time. Accordingly, Ms. Lafrance Weston will be provided some minimal overnight access during Thanksgiving, Christmas, March Break and during the summer. Additional access will be encouraged; however, same would be at Liam's discretion.

[136] It is clear that everyone involved in this family is comfortable using various forms of electronics to communicate with each other. This type of communication between Liam in Ms. Lafrance Weston is in fact encouraged. However, there appears to have been some issues in the past about Liam's desire to Skype with Ms. Lafrance Weston. This form of communication should only be used if same is specifically initiated by Liam personally. Texting and emailing between Liam in Ms. Lafrance Weston is encouraged with the clear understanding that Ms. Lafrance Weston will respect Liam's privacy and will discontinue using this form of communication if Liam request same. Ms. Richardson shall continue to not interfere with Liam's communication with Ms. Lafrance Weston and shall encourage same when possible. This communication by electronic format will obviously also continue between Liam in Ms. Richardson while Ms. Lafrance Weston is exercising her access.

Child Support

[137] Miss Richardson is seeking child support for Liam pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines as well as 50% of the section 7 special or extraordinary expenses. Ms. Lafrance Weston's 2013 tax return shows an annual income of $67,833.30 Accordingly, guideline support will be made payable based on this amount. There will be no order for special or extraordinary expenses as Ms. Lafrance Weston will have the additional cost of paying for Liam's travel for access.

Conclusion of Order

[138] This court order is as follows:

a) The applicant, Catherine Anne Richardson shall have sole custody of the child Liam Thanh Nicholson Lafrance born, May 25, 2001.

b) The applicant Catherine Anne Richardson shall be permitted to move immediately with the child, Liam Thanh Nicholson Lafrance born, May 25, 2001, to Thunder Bay, Ontario.

c) The respondent Christi-Anne Marie Lafrance Weston shall have access to the child as follows:

• i) every Thanksgiving weekend to include a minimum of three overnights
• ii) every December 26 to December 30
• iii) every march break to include a minimum of three overnights
• iv) summer access to be held during the first week of July to include a minimum of three overnights
• v) the above noted specific access can be increased or other access visits scheduled at the sole discretion of Liam Lafrance
• vi) Lynne Weston shall not be present during the access visit unless explicitly consented to by Liam Lafrance
• vii) Christi Lafrance Weston must personally be in attendance for every access visit.

d) The respondent Christi-Anne Lafrance shall bear the expense of all access visits.

e) The child's health card shall travel with him to and from access visits.

f) The child shall always have his own cell phone available to him. The respondent, Christi Anne Lafrance may text or call the child at any time on his phone unless he specifically advises her to cease this type of communication.

g) Skype or similar video communication shall not be used by Ms Lafrance Weston to communicate with Liam Lafrance unless same is initiated by him personally.

h) Catherine Richardson shall not interfere in any communication between Liam Lafrance and Christi Lafrance Weston and in fact shall encourage same.

i) Catherine Richardson shall be able to communicate with Liam Lafrance electronically while he is on an access visit with Christi Lafrance Weston.

j) The child shall attend counselling to help him cope with the ongoing conflicts between the parties. If no health benefits are available by either party to cover the cost of this counselling, then the applicant, Catherine Anne Richardson shall bear this expense.

k) The applicant Catherine Anne Richardson shall send copies of all school report cards of the child to the respondent and shall also advise her promptly of any change in the health and welfare of the child.

l) The respondent, Christi Anne Marie Lafrance shall have the right to obtain information directly from the child's school, health care and service providers. The respondent shall provide any contact information and execute whatever directions, consents or authorizations that may be required to facilitate this.

m) Christi Lafrance Weston shall not initiate any discussion with Liam Lafrance about this court or any ongoing court proceedings.

n) Christi-Anne Lafrance shall pay child support as per the Child Support Guidelines based on her 2013 annual income of $67,833.30 in the amount of $621.00 per month commencing September 1, 2014 and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter.

o) A support deduction order shall issue with the standard clauses.

p) Christi-Anne Lafrance shall provide her annual tax return and notice of assessments to Catherine Anne Richardson no later than June 1st of every year with the child support payments adjusted accordingly as of that date.

q) This order shall bear interest at the rate of 3 % per annum.

r) The requirement to file a completed Form 35 by both parties is dispensed with in this matter.

s) The applicant may directly submit the final order to the court with the respondent's approval of the order dispensed with in order to expedite the issuance of same.

Costs

[139] If either party wishes to seek costs, they are to serve and file written submission by September 15, 2014. The other party will have until October 1, 2014 to serve and file a written response. The submissions are not to exceed three pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs. They are to be delivered to the trial coordinator's office on the third floor of the courthouse.

Final Comment

Family breakdown is one of the most stressful and painful experiences anyone can go through. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of emotional carnage that results from high-conflict parental separations.

This matter has been before our court since 2004. The first final order was granted in November 2005. The matter has continued to come back to court on a regular basis since then. This long bitter legal dispute has clearly caused a great deal of stress to everyone involved. This stress has unfortunately strained the relationship between the parties and especially the relationship between Liam and Ms. Lafrance Weston.

The court has heard that Liam is an intelligent and mature young man who seems to be liked by all and that easily adapts to new situations. From all accounts, it seems that he has a bright future in front of him. The court was extremely perplexed to hear the clinical assist from the OCL mention that Liam told her that "he had lost his childhood to this court proceeding and that he does not wish to lose his adolescence to it". These are very strong and powerful words. I would encourage both parties to remember Liam's wish before they decide to commence any further court proceedings, launch an appeal or involve the Police or the Children's Aid Society. All of these have had serious emotional consequences for Liam and he is clearly crying out to both his mothers saying that "enough is enough".

Released: August 28, 2014

Signed: Justice A.H. Perron