Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2015-01-15

Court File No.: SUDBURY D 169-13

Between:

Robert Armand Bazinet Applicant

— And —

Tanya Lucille Bazinet Respondent

Before: Justice A.L. Guay

Heard on: December 2, 3 and 5, 2014

Reasons for Judgment released on: January 15, 2015

Counsel:

• Elizabeth Gray, for the applicant(s)
• Alan Arkilander, for the respondent(s)

GUAY J.:

[1] Application for Custody

[1] On April 22, 2013, Robert Bazinet applied for custody of his two children by the respondent. Both parties claim custody of the children. The applicant had originally also sought custody of his two stepchildren, Desire Lalande (D.O.B. June 26, 2002) and Taylor Lalande (D.O.B. June 29, 2004), but abandoned his claim to custody of them on June 9, 2013. These children had been in the respondent, Tanya Bazinet's care since February 2007. After spending a short time in the applicant's care following the parties' separation on April 11, 2013, they resumed cohabitation with their mother. They have remained in her care and custody since that time.

[2] Main Issue

[2] The main issue to be determined in this matter is which party is entitled to custody of the children. The facts make it clear that any consideration of awarding joint custody to the parties is not realistic. The dynamic which exists between the two parties precludes a consideration of a joint custody order.

[3] Legal Framework

[3] Section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act (RSO1990, c. C.12, as amended) makes it clear that the decision about who is to have custody of the children must be made on the basis of what is in the children's best interests. Subsection 24(2) of the Act sets out various criteria which the court must consider in determining what is in the children's best interest. Among these criteria are the following:

1. The affection and emotional ties between the children and those entitled to claim custody who are residing with the children or who are involved in the children's care and upbringing;

2. The views and preferences of the children if these can be reasonably ascertained;

3. The length of time the children have lived in a stable environment;

4. The ability and willingness of an applicant to provide guidance and education as well as the necessities of life and any special needs of the children;

5. The plan or plans for the children's care and upbringing;

6. The permanence and stability of the proposed residence for the children;

7. The ability of an applicant to act as a parent;

8. The relation by blood of the children with the applicant.

[4] In addition to the above criteria, subsection 24(3) of the Act directs that a person's past violent conduct, as well as conduct which the court is satisfied is relevant to an applicant's ability to act as a parent, is to be considered in deciding custody and access matters. Subsection 24(4) stipulates that in assessing a person's ability to act as a parent, the court shall consider whether the person applying for custody of or access to a child has at any time committed violence or abuse against either his or her spouse, a parent of the child or children to whom the application relates, a member of the person's household or any child.

Brief Background

[5] The parties began cohabiting in September 2009. They married in June 2010 and separated on or about April 11, 2013. The respondent's two older children, Desire and Taylor, and the parties' two biological children, Kenzy-Lee Bazinet (D.O.B. May 7, 2008) and Randy Bazinet (D.O.B. June 7, 2009) resided with them until shortly after the parties separated. In April 2013, the applicant sought custody of all four children. By order of this court dated May 3, 2013, the applicant was granted interim custody and primary residence of the 2 younger children, subject to the respondent having reasonable, unsupervised access to them. Before the year was out, the parties had agreed on a liberal access schedule for the respondent. Without elaborating on it, the schedule involved the children sometimes residing with the applicant and sometimes residing with the respondent during the week and on weekends. While the respondent consented to this arrangement, she testified that she did not like it, particularly since she had no car and had to transport the two children a considerable distance on the bus when she had care of them on school day mornings. While she testified that she had concerns about the applicant father's parenting style, she was not in a position to decide otherwise at that time.

Section 24 Criteria

[6] It would be useful to consider the evidence in light of the Act's criteria for determining what is in the best interests of the children. This will provide a useful context for assessing the evidence presented by the parties.

(a) Affection and Emotional Ties Between Those Residing with the Children and Those Claiming Custody of Them

[7] When the children reside with their father, they reside alone with him. His care of the children seems adequate, even if the respondent finds his parenting style too strict. His strictness frightens her as this is not the manner in which she approaches her care of the children when they are in her care. Not much evidence was available on this point, but it appears that each parent currently uses time out as their main disciplinary approach. This said, it should be noted that Kenzy-Lee related to the clinical investigator from the Office of the Children's Lawyer that her stepfather had on more than one occasion used physical discipline on her, slapping her on the bum. She told the clinical investigator that he had once physically abused her by grabbing her by the neck strongly enough to leave marks on it and that on another occasion he had grabbed her by the temples and squeezed her head because he was upset at something she had done. Randy, her younger brother, also told the clinical investigator that his father had used physical discipline on him.

[8] When the children are residing with their mother, they do so with their two older siblings, Desire and Taylor. The children get along very well together. The two boys will pair up with each other and the two girls will do likewise, even though from time to time all the children play and interact together. This said, the evidence indicates that the children miss each other's company when they are not together. What does seem clear from the evidence, however, is that the children seem reasonably happy in the company of each of their parents. This cannot be said of the prior relationship between the mother's older children, Kenzy-Lee and Randy, and their stepfather.

(b) Children's Views and Preferences

[9] In addition to what is noted above, not much was said during the trial about the children's views and preferences, although clearly the two older children prefer to be solely in their mother's care. The older children do not seem to understand why their younger siblings spend as much time as they do in their step-father's care. The evidence suggests that if the children had a choice, they would prefer to reside together, enjoying as they do their time together and considering too that until the separation of the parties in 2013, the children had lived together as members of a family unit for almost 4 years.

(c) Length of Time the Children Have Been Residing in a Stable Environment

[10] As noted earlier, the children resided together until shortly after the parties separated in April 2013. Since that time, the two older children have resided solely with their mother, while care of the two younger children has been shared between the parties. It should be noted that neither party presently has final custody of the children. The children's access to their mother has been significant, notwithstanding that she holds down 2 part-time positions as a personal support worker.

[11] The applicant suffered a heart attack in 2008. While he returned to work shortly thereafter for a brief period, he has really not been employed since that date, preferring instead to be a stay-at-home parent. In the period between the father's heart attack and the parties' separation in April 2013, it was the respondent mother who was the family breadwinner. When she was not able to take maternity leave after Randy was born in 2009, the applicant father took the paternity leave available to him instead. He testified that he used the intervening period between that time and the present to complete his grade 12 education and to look after the daily needs of the children.

(d) Ability and Willingness to Provide Guidance, Education, the Necessities of Life and Meet the Children's Special Needs

[12] The evidence establishes that both parents mostly did what they could to meet the ongoing needs of the children. While there is some dispute as to the extent of their respective roles in dealing with professionals involved with the children and while one notes a certain competitiveness between them in providing for those needs, the evidence indicated that one or the other of them made sure that the children received the educational and medical care they needed, particularly Randy who is a special needs child. In her report (see Exhibit 2) the clinical investigator remarked that the father had delayed obtaining a psycho-educational assessment for Randy. She noted that Randy's school had urged him to have Randy assessed because of their concerns regarding his language and social development. While I agree that this criticism was not unfair, the evidence suggested that the applicant eventually came to realize that Randy did indeed require such an assessment. He seems to have initially confused the recommendations for services either as a slight on his parenting or a slight on the integrity of his son. Eventually, he seems to have accepted that the recommendations being made by the school and others were made with a view to obtaining for Randy those services which he needed. I note here that while it appears the applicant stymied the respondent's attempts to obtain counseling for Randy, the evidence suggests that the respondent was content to see the applicant unable to attend at the MRI assessment for Randy in Toronto. This, I suspect, led the applicant to respond more positively to a separate MRI assessment for Randy in Sudbury. Given the respondent mother's sense that the applicant father had "stolen" the children from her and that he had managed to unfairly gain interim custody of them, it is not surprising that there was competition between the parties with respect to who would organize and follow through with the professional services required by the children.

[13] The evidence suggested that Kenzy-Lee was doing well academically, although her teacher suspected that she was demonstrating some anxiety at the constant change of households during the school week. Randy, on the other hand, appeared to be academically challenged. It was the view of his teacher and his school that he was meeting the developmental targets set out in the independent learning plan developed for him by his school.

(e) Plans for the Children's Care and Upbringing

[14] Both parties outlined their plans for the future care of the children should they be placed with them. The respondent mother clearly outlined how she would continue working and yet provide for the care of the children when she was doing so. Her plan included the support of her sister, who testified in this proceeding, as well as the assistance of her mother and, if required, her former in-laws, the grandparents of her two older children. It is important to note that the mother still has the support of her former in-laws, having managed to separate from their son and yet allow her children to maintain their connection with their paternal grandparents. More than many other things, the fact that the respondent mother's former in-laws would come out in support of her custody of the children says a lot about her ability to parent and get along with other people who have a legitimate interest in relating to the children. In outlining her plan for the children, the respondent explained what school she would send the children to and how they would be cared for both before and after school, including what activities they would participate in.

[15] The applicant father's plan was similar to that of the respondent mother, except in one very important detail. He indicated that he would be returning to school in January 2015 to train as a parental support worker in the expectation that upon graduating in June 2015 he would obtain work as a parental support worker. What the applicant father failed to do, however, was to explain how he would take care of the children if he were employed on a full-time basis. His evidence failed to outline what support he would have to help him care for the children when he was forced to work.

[16] The children currently attend Holy Cross Catholic Elementary School, which is located not far from his residence. The children are bussed there from a stop located at the applicant's housing complex. Given the fact that the applicant has not to date had to make a great deal of sacrifice to get the children to school, it was not clear how he might handle any future complications in this regard. It is the respondent who has encountered and overcome great difficulty in getting the children to school when they have been residing with her on school-day mornings. It should not be forgotten that it was the applicant who placed on the respondent what was an unreasonable demand to pick up and deliver the children from his residence instead of picking them up at school when the situation required it. In her evidence, the respondent explained how it took her close to two hours on such occasions to get the children to school on time, their transportation from her residence to school or to their customary school bus pick-up stop occurring on the public transportation system.

[17] The applicant's demands on the respondent with respect to the transportation of the children show that he could be callous in imposing on her conditions which made her access difficult. In the process, what he seemed to ignore was the stress this also placed on the children. They were obliged to get up very early each morning when residing with their mother and attending school, autumn, winter and spring. We know too well that when a parent who has care of children is abused, abuse is not long in being visited on those children. Arguably, there are many kinds of abuse which a person can visit on another. In this particular instance, the applicant's harshness with the respondent had unnecessary and unpleasant repercussions on the children. This was certainly not in their best interests.

(f) Permanence and Stability of the Children's Proposed Residence

[18] When the parties separated, it was the respondent who ended up having to leave the public housing unit where she had been residing with the applicant and the children. Consequently, there followed a period of uncertainty in terms of her residence, the mother and the two older children being obliged to reside for a time with the mother's sister. By the fall of 2013, however, the mother was able to secure accommodations suitable for raising all four children.

[19] The mother's care of her older children seems to have been good. According to the clinical investigator, she showed herself capable of managing her four children, even when, as she witnessed during her observation visit, one of them was being unusually defiant. The clinical investigator believed that the respondent's parenting skills were beyond reproach, the reality being that she has proven her ability to successfully parent since the birth of her older children in 2002 and 2004. More so than the applicant, the respondent has shown herself capable of managing all four children, notwithstanding that they are of different ages and genders. She appeared to have the skill to unite them in common activity.

[20] The respondent mother believes that the younger children should live primarily with their older siblings. She commented on how close the children were to each other, this fact being confirmed by the clinical investigator. While not spacious, the respondent's current residence seems adequate and is located not far from community schools. Clearly, placing the younger children in her care would involve a lot less stress on them, the further benefit to them being the companionship and support they would receive from their older siblings. Such was the case until recently in their lives.

(g) Ability of the Parties to Parent the Children

[21] It is under this criterion that the applicant father's claim to custody is the weakest. This is because the Act governing custody and access proceedings tells us that we must look to any violence committed by a parent in ascertaining the quality of that parent's parenting. As noted earlier, when deciding questions of custody and access, the court must consider spousal abuse or child abuse in assessing a person's ability to have custody of or access to his or her children.

[22] While there was not much evidence about the applicant father's abuse of the children, there was a significant event which occurred between him and Desire when they lived together wherein he grabbed her by the neck in his frustration over her behaviour. She had apparently not worn her underpants on three successive days. Rather than looking at the problem rationally and deciding on a non-aggressive response, the applicant grabbed Desire by the neck so forcefully that he left marks on it. While the details of other physically abusive conduct by the father towards the children are sparse, both Desire and Taylor indicated to the clinical investigator that they had suffered physical abuse at his hands. Even the younger children who currently reside with him indicated that he disciplined them physically.

[23] While the applicant acknowledged having acted inappropriately on the occasion when he grabbed Desire by the neck, suggesting that this was not reflective of his response towards those around him, the respondent testified that she too had been grabbed by the throat on more than one occasion by the applicant in his attempt to address comments or actions on her part which had displeased or irritated him. While the respondent did not report these events to the authorities because she was afraid of the applicant and believed that no one would listen to her, this behaviour gave her cause to fear for her daughter and, indeed, for both of her younger children while they were in his care.

[24] The respondent's allegations are believable and fit with what is known about the applicant's past behaviour and his strict manner of dealing with children in his care. The respondent testified how controlling and abusive the applicant had been towards her during the course of their relationship. He had, it should be noted, been convicted of assaulting his previous wife a number of years earlier. His evidence on this matter indicated that this past conviction was not reflective of his behaviour. He did not seem to believe that it had been all that serious an episode. As a result of the extensive information she reviewed as well as her interview and observation of the applicant, the clinical investigator concluded that the applicant father was an abusive and controlling spouse. This, in large part, led her to conclude that joint custody was not workable in this case.

[25] The evidence with respect to the events surrounding the separation of the parties on April 13, 2013 and the altercation occurring near the father's residence on June 23, 2014 strongly illustrates the applicant father's harshness and manipulation when dealing with the respondent. It is clear that on those occasions the applicant manipulated the respondent's emotions so as to engineer the loss of her children and her immediate removal, detention and, in the case of the June 23, 2014 incident, her temporary incarceration. I reject the applicant's version of both of these events and find that the respondent's version of what happened fits with the whole of the evidence provided to this court. The applicant is certainly an intelligent person. He can also be quite personable when he wishes to be. It is clear, however, that he will do what he needs to do to get what he wants. His abusive and controlling behaviour towards the respondent clearly explains why she will no longer have anything to do with him and why she absolutely refuses to be involved in any counseling with him or participate in any meetings between him and professionals involved with their children. She cannot be faulted for having arrived at this position, given the years of abuse which she suffered at the hands of the applicant and the applicant's penchant for controlling her and those living with him through the use of force and threatening behaviour.

[26] Is there a risk to the children if they are placed in the permanent care and custody of the applicant father? Having heard and considered the evidence in this matter, I believe that there is. Having said this, however, I believe that the applicant father is himself aware of the flaws in his character which have led him to act aggressively when thwarted or challenged. The children, Kenzy-Lee and Randy, are still young children. As such, they are still very likely to comply with their father's strict parenting approach. It is commonly accepted, however, that as children develop, particularly when they reach adolescence, they are no longer as amenable to their parents' directions and wishes. At that time, parenting generally becomes a major challenge. Where parental control and direction has in the past been secured by force or the threat of force, this approach to children who are seeking independence and control of their lives will likely prove unworkable. The continuing use of force and threat of force by the applicant to secure compliance with his wishes and his perception of what is appropriate does not augur well for those who defy him.

The Report of the Clinical Investigator, Office of the Children's Lawyer

[27] On July 24, 2013, an order was made directing the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer in this matter. To that end, the Office of the Children's Lawyer appointed a clinical investigator, Joey Michelle Doherty, to prepare a report for this court. This report was filed as Exhibit 2 in this matter, the author of the report being cross-examined by both the applicant and the respondent at trial.

[28] The clinical investigator met with both parents and the children. She reviewed a number of documents and reports and contacted a number of parties, including the Children's Aid Society, the children's teachers and principal and a counselor at the Sudbury Counseling Service. While she noted that the children were basically happy and physically well, her investigation left her with serious concerns about the applicant's character and its impact on the upbringing of the children. Kenzy-Lee and Randy informed her that their father was mean to their mother and that he talked badly about her when she was not present. She observed that the applicant seemed to favor Randy over Kenzy-Lee and that he did not give Kenzy-Lee the same kind of praise he gave to Randy. Having noted this, she nevertheless acknowledged that there was a bond and affection between the applicant and the children.

[29] The clinical investigator had a more favourable response to the parenting abilities of the respondent, reporting that she had raised her older two children, Desire and Taylor, "without incident". During her meeting with the respondent and the children, she was able to witness at first-hand how the respondent dealt with the out-of-character and challenging behaviour of Kenzy-Lee without losing self-control and without alienating her daughter. She was impressed by the respondent's home and how it was furnished.

[30] The clinical investigator's inquiries did, however, bring to light the abusive nature of the applicant's relationship with the respondent and, to a lesser degree, the children, particularly Desire and Taylor. At page 12 of her report, the clinical investigator noted:

Mr. Bazinet displays a history of controlling, abusive behaviour right back to his marriage with his first wife. It was found that Mr. Bazinet has a pattern of placing blame on his intimate female partners and not taking responsibility for the negative outcomes in his life. This is supported in the Society's finding as well as police reports. Ms. Bazinet has sought help from the time of separation. She continues to use services available to better herself.

[31] Of the opinion that the parties were not able to have shared custody, the investigator stated that there would have to be a "decision-maker" regarding the children's needs. On this point, she remarked:

Ms. Bazinet should not be subjected to having to negotiate with someone who has demonstrated a desire to use intimidation and threatening behaviours as the preferred method of communication. She has raised Desire and Taylor without incident on her part and is committed to getting the children the help they need.

[32] According to the clinical investigator, the current situation amounted to Ms. Bazinet having to ask Mr. Bazinet for information, with Mr. Bazinet posing himself as the "boss" and telling the children that it was their mother who often called him for help. The children, she observed, had picked up on this "dynamic" which, she maintained, was unhealthy for them. (see page 13) Ms. Bazinet, the clinical investigator concluded, would need to start independently making decisions for the children, with communications between her and the applicant being limited to issues directly affecting the children.

[33] In her supplementary recommendations, the investigator suggested that Mr. Bazinet enroll in counseling to "address his issues of anger, power and control, specifically regarding women." (see page 14) To this end, she suggested that he take the PAR program (a program which addresses spousal abuse) as well as individual counseling.

[34] While the applicant testified that he had used marijuana on a regular basis in the past, he denied that he was still using it. His use of marijuana at a time when he had care and control of the children did not impress the clinical investigator, her conclusion being that his use of marijuana could leave him unable to deal with emergencies affecting the children. While it would not be unreasonable to believe that Mr. Bazinet is no longer using marijuana, (as he claimed), there is no doubt that he used scarce, financial resources in the past to indulge in the use of this drug. As he had no arguable right to use this drug for health reasons, it is reasonable to conclude that his use was for recreational purposes. This being so, I agree with the clinical investigator that the applicant's prior use of marijuana does raise questions about his good judgment and his parenting priorities.

Custody

[35] During the course of the events surrounding the June 23, 2014 altercation in proximity of the applicant father's residence at the Rumball Terrace Housing Complex in Sudbury, the respondent, according to the applicant, yelled at him: "Get off your welfare ass!" and "You have stolen my children!" While I accept that the respondent said these things to the applicant, I find that they were said in her complete frustration at his manipulative, controlling and abusive behaviour. I find that it was the applicant who was in a bad mood on that occasion because the respondent had not previously returned to him the children's clothing and two plastic sandwich containers and that, having put his face angrily into hers, she lost her emotional composure and pushed him away from herself. I find that the applicant used this situation to his advantage, choosing the next day to report this incident of "assault" to the police and notifying the Children's Aid Society about the respondent's conduct. It was clear that the applicant did so for his advantage in pressing his claim for the custody of their children. He wanted the respondent mother found guilty of committing a criminal offence and he wanted the Children's Aid Society to weigh in on the matter in his favour.

[36] The applicant's conduct towards the respondent and his stepdaughter, Desire, and her brother, Taylor, is not that of a good father or parent. I find this conduct predictive of the way he will treat Kenzy-Lee and Randy if they are left in his sole care and custody. A good father and parent does not intimidate his spouse and his children. He certainly does not grab them by the throat or the neck or inflict physical discipline on them when he disagrees or is frustrated about what they are saying, doing or failing to do.

[37] While at the outset of this matter, I wondered whether the respondent mother was more interested in work than in parenting, the evidence leaves me with no doubt about her commitment to her children and her desire to provide for them on both an emotional and material level. I find that the applicant used the events of April 11, 2013 and June 23, 2014 to gain the upper hand in his custody battle with the respondent and that his conduct on both occasions was not in the best interests of the children. On both occasions the children were witnesses or became indirectly implicated in the applicant's negative conduct. The clinical investigator's conclusion that the applicant's conduct was meant to send the message that he was in charge and that the respondent had no status as a parent is borne out by these events.

[38] While the applicant is not a bad person or even a bad father, he is clearly not the best person to have custody of the children. This is not to say though that he should not play a role in their lives, but simply that this role should not be a controlling one. Only in this way, I find, will the children be protected from abusive behaviour in the future, particularly when they enter adolescence. In her testimony, the respondent related how she had tried on many occasions to reason with the applicant when they were living together. She testified that he would not listen to her. Bearing in mind the above findings of fact as well as the conclusions of the clinical investigator, custody of the children must be awarded to the respondent mother. I am confident, given the available information about the respondent, that she has the maturity and ability to make the custodial decisions which must be made in the best interests of the children. When dealing with the applicant in the future, even though she does not wish to have anything to do with him today, I am confident that the respondent will exercise the maturity and wisdom required by the situation and act in the children's best interests in her dealings with the applicant.

[39] While the clinical investigator recommended against an order for joint custody, she did recommend that the parties share the care of the children. I disagree strongly with this recommendation. I am persuaded by the evidence that the child care arrangement suggested by the clinical investigator would prolong a situation which is upsetting to the children, whose preference is, I believe, to spend more time living together. As far as can be ascertained, the children are not really pleased with the current situation and the constant moving around that it necessitates in their daily lives. These children, like most children, need stability in their lives. I believe it is in their best interests to provide them with more stability in terms of their residence. In addition, I find that replacing their current living arrangement with the scheme proposed by the clinical investigator would perpetuate the struggle which presently exists between the parties for control of the children's care. The clinical investigator's proposal would have the effect of entangling the parties with each other on a recurring basis as a result of the frequent movement of the children between the two parental homes and their attendance at school. If joint custody is not an option in this case because of issues of power and control, then, by the same token, neither is the proposed care sharing arrangement outlined in the clinical investigator's report. The applicant's control and manipulation of the present situation, including the message being received by the children on an almost daily basis that he is the "boss" and that he controls the situation would definitely make such an arrangement unworkable. In the best interests of the children, there must be less movement back and forth between their parents' households and the children must spend more of their time outside of school hours in the home frequented by their mother and by their older brother and sister.

Access

[40] Considerations governing custody and access are similar but not, I submit, identical. This is because access generally involves significantly less contact between an access parent and his or her children. While, then, a parent's shortcomings might contraindicate substantial contact between him or her and their children, as would be the case if he or she were awarded custody or joint custody of them, it is reasonable to infer that a parenting weakness would not have the same impact on the children or, alternately, that this weakness or inability could be successfully managed if contact were limited to briefer access periods. Given the applicant's willingness to commit to his children and, to a degree, restrain his penchant for physical discipline, I will grant him access to the children. The applicant's regular access shall therefore take place from Thursday after school until Sunday evening at 7:00 p.m. every second week commencing January 22, 2015. On those occasions, and likewise during the summer months when school is not in session, the applicant will be responsible for picking up the children on Thursday and returning them to their mother's home on Sunday evening.

[41] Should the respondent change the children's school at the end of the school term in January 2015, the applicant shall continue to be responsible for pickup and delivery of the children to the respondent mother's home. In addition to regular bi-weekly access, the applicant shall enjoy access to the children for one week during the two-week Christmas school break, and during alternate Easter and March school breaks commencing in 2016. On both of the latter occasions, the applicant shall be responsible for the pickup and delivery of the children to their mother's home.

[42] The respondent shall keep the applicant advised of the children's medical, school and other appointments. If, however, the applicant does attend such appointments and the respondent deems his behaviour on such occasions to be argumentative, upsetting or confrontational, she shall advise the applicant that he is not to attend such appointments and he shall, absent a court order, cease to do so. The physical and emotional abuse which respondent has suffered at the hands of the applicant is to cease. Should there be evidence that such behaviour is continuing, the respondent is invited to return this matter before this court for a review of the applicant's access.

Child Support and Costs

[43] I have not dealt with the matter of child support. That matter can be dealt with at a later date when presumably the applicant will have completed his anticipated course of study and secured employment in the field of his choice.

[44] Given the applicant's current financial status, there will be no order for costs in this matter. In so ordering, I would remind the applicant that costs are usually awarded to the successful party in these matters, particularly in cases where the unsuccessful party's conduct has been determined to be at fault and the source of the litigation before the court.

Released: January 15, 2015

Signed: "Justice A.L. Guay"