WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.

Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order:

(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.

87.— (8) Prohibition re identifying child.

No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.

87.— (9) Prohibition re identifying person charged.

The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142.— (3) Offences re publication.

A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2020-03-30

Court File No.: Halton C 428/16

Between:

Children's Aid Society, Region of Halton Applicant

— AND —

TB – Mother

DS – Father

Respondents

Before: Justice Susan Sullivan

March 30, 2020

Counsel:

• Diane Skrow – Counsel for the Applicant Society
• TB – On her own behalf
• DS – On his own behalf
• Mark Demeda – Counsel for the Office of the Children's Lawyer, legal representative for the children

S. SULLIVAN J.:

Part 1 – General Overview

[1] Before me is TB's amended 14B Motion.

[2] Therein, she requests that a motion proceed, via teleconference.

[3] The following is the order she requests, as stated in her original 14B Motion:

(a) That she be able to swear her affidavit via video call.

(b) That she be able to file her materials via fax, due to medically recommended self-isolation.

(c) That DS's access with J and M cease immediately, on a temporary basis.

(d) That the supervised access between N, T, J and M cease immediately, on a temporary basis.

(e) That times and days be set for Skype / Facetime calling for the next 14 days to substitute for the children's missed physical access dates starting Thursday, March 19, 2020.

(f) That RS and/or DS [the paternal grandparents] be served by DS with a motion to request information documented within their passports to their recent international travel, including their return date.

(g) That DS's passport be examined by the court.

(h) That access cease until paragraph (d) and (e) above are complied with.

(i) That once physical access resumes, should the government revise the 'social distancing' recommendations/mandate to further restrict society via quarantine that this court order the children to be in the physical custody of the mother effective immediately.

(j) That if DS does not comply with paragraph (e) above, that a police enforcement clause be included to ensure the children are returned to their primary residence with their mother.

(k) That she be permitted to file one affidavit of service for documents served to all parties via email.

(l) Abridgement of the time for the issues to be heard outside mandated timelines.

(m) Costs from the Society and DS for not providing the requested consent for missing one weekend of access to enable her household to comply with the medically recommended isolation.

[4] In TB's amended 14B Motion, she further requests the following relief:

(a) That her motion not only be heard on an urgent basis, but as an ex-parte motion.

(b) That the children stay within her household until such time as school is back in session.

(c) That the court find that she has underlying health issues and need to isolate / quarantine and follow the directions of their family doctor.

[5] TB's original 14B Motion (dated March 19, 2020), amended 14B Motion (dated March 20, 2020) along with her March 19, 2020, March 20, 2020, and March 27, 2020 unsworn affidavits were provided to the other parties, via email, on the dates they were written.

[6] I am prepared, for the purposes of determining the preliminary issues identified herein, to treat the information contained within TB's unsworn affidavits as if it was sworn evidence. Arrangements will be made for TB (and any other party, if required) to swear her affidavits via telephone or videoconference hearing. At that time directions will be given for the originals of any such documents to be filed with the court once the pandemic is over.

Part 2 – Issue

[7] In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ontario Court of Justice has changed how it operates. Non-urgent family court matters scheduled up to May 29, 2020 are being adjourned. Urgent family court matters are proceeding on a prioritized basis, once a judge has determined that the matter is 'urgent'. For further details, see COVID-19 Pandemic Planning – Scheduling of Family Matters in the Ontario Court of Justice.

[8] Given the above, at this juncture, the court must determine if any of the issues raised by TB are urgent, and if so, how a hearing to address those issues will proceed.

Part 3 – Positions of the Parties

[9] By way of email to all the parties, copied to the court, Ms. Skrow, counsel for the Society, advises that the Society takes no position regarding TB's motion and therefore will not be filing materials.

[10] DS and the Office of the Children's Lawyer have not provided the court with their positions. As well, they have not filed any evidence.

Part 4 – TB's Information

4.1 March 19, 2020 Unsworn Affidavit

[11] The most relevant portions of TB's March 19, 2020 unsworn affidavit include the following:

(a) Dr. G wrote a note on March 17, 2020 which she became aware of on March 18, 2020 (as it landed in her spam folder). It states, '11 year old with recent contact with sick people. I am recommending that she self-quarantine for 14 days.'

(b) On March 11, 2020, after the last court attendance, she came down with a low-grade fever.

(c) On March 16, 2020 she e-mailed all parties, notifying them of her fever, P's fever, and that M had woken overnight with both chills and a fever.

(d) Directly following the aforementioned e-mail, she texted DS from J's phone, simply to advise him that she had sent him an e-mail.

(e) DS did not reply to her e-mail.

(f) DS has not inquired as to M's and J's well-being or offered assistance with any medication/food/water/toilet paper, knowing full well that he hasn't been submitting the court ordered payments that were to start in October, 2019.

(g) M has been diagnosed with anxiety which is being addressed through counselling. M is highly concerned about the COVID-19 issue. She has had meltdowns and has cried about how she 'doesn't want to die'. This was addressed with her counsellor at ROCK on March 18, 2020 during a phone session.

(h) On March 18, 2020 at around noon, DS started texting M, asked her if she had seen a doctor, and told her that 'Nana and Papa got checked by a doctor and they don't have Covid-19.' He further stated that he was going to be picking her up for access as per the normal schedule. At this point, she (TB) was not aware of Dr. G's note. Also, M asked her for help.

(i) After reading DS' texts to M, she has made inquiries of DS as to the ports his parents had visited on their recent cruise and when they arrived back. He did not reply.

(j) DS did not have access on March 8th, so unless he, too, is concerned about his parents not self-isolating, there would be no reason for him to quarantine himself and miss work, since M's fever did not begin until March 16th.

(k) She is concerned that DS refuses to disclose the dates his parents returned from international travel and the ports they visited while away; she doesn't believe that the grandparents self-isolated when they came back from their cruise, which she thinks was the end of February, 2020.

(l) She is concerned that the paternal grandparents provided transportation for the children on March 5th and March 8th, when it is less than a 20 minute walk.

(m) She is further concerned about DS's disregard for Dr. G's medical recommendations.

(n) She believes that it is of utmost importance that the children are with the parent that is 'more bonded and attuned' to the children's needs, which she says is her.

(o) M needs extra emotional support during this time, which DS is not in a position to provide to her.

4.2 March 20, 2020 Unsworn Affidavit

[12] TB notes that DS lives with two roommates. She has no information as to their 'Travel/work/actions taken to comply with the past or current recommendations issued.'

[13] TB states that her fever is 100.1 on this date, and that her household quarantine will be extended until 14 days past when her fever breaks, it worsens, or she is advised to be tested.

[14] She asks that the court err on the side of caution, and for the children's preferences to remain in her care be heard and recognized.

4.3 March 27, 2020 Unsworn Affidavit

[15] The most relevant portions of TB's March 27, 2020 unsworn affidavit include the following:

(a) She has provided DS and the Society with a specific and detailed email that outlines 'our' (which I presume to be her and the children) interactions with community members and the locations where they have been since March 11, 2020.

(b) She has outlined specific, detailed measures as to what she is doing to keep the children safe (I assume she has provided this to DS and the Society, as there are no details regarding this in her affidavit).

(c) DS is still active in the community, as he has stated that he is still working, although off sick to his stomach and with a migraine since Tuesday, with plans to return to work.

(d) DS refuses to provide the departure and return dates of his parents international travel and refuses to provide the ports the ships docked at, despite her numerous requests.

(e) During at least the last two access visits that took place in February (13-16 and 20-23), DS used alternate transportation for the children; his parents did not drive for either of these two visits.

(f) The paternal grandmother picked the children up March 5, 2020 and returned them March 8, 2020. TB's fever started March 11, 2020.

(g) Initially, DS stated that his parents had been back 'for almost three weeks' before anyone in her house was sick. In a different email, he said that his parents had been home for 'almost a month' before anyone got sick.

(h) DS's 'total lack of transparency' related to his parents' travel is 'absolutely terrifying'.

(i) DS's unwillingness to be transparent about any additional steps he and his household have put into place to provide the spread of COVID-19 is also 'hugely concerning'.

(j) Part of her underlying health condition is related to blood issues. She thinks there is reference to her having a blood clot back in 2008 in the parenting capacity assessment.

(k) Not only did she have a fever in January and March, she had one in February for 4-6 days. She is in telephone or text contact with her doctor almost daily. She has progressive symptoms of COVID. Being under stress of worrying about being in contempt of a court order is a 'fully unnecessary stress' for her to be experiencing during this already stressful time.

(l) She requests that the court order a 24 hour, one email only, to be sent by each parent to the other as she is finding DS's 'deflections, distractions, lack of information and lies extremely distressing on top of everything else going on I am dealing with.'

(m) She further requests that should both she and P end up being hospitalized, that the children are placed with DS, along with a caveat that should DS himself end up going to the hospital for treatment, that the children are then to be in the care of her parents and sister.

Part 5 – Analysis

[16] In terms of procedural issues:

(a) TB (and any other party, if required) may swear or affirm her affidavits via telephone or videoconference hearing; this is provided for in COVID-19 Pandemic Planning – Scheduling of Family Matters in the Ontario Court of Justice.

(b) TB may file one affidavit of service for documents served on all parties via email. Rule 6(19) of the Family Law Rules and Form 6B Affidavit of Service do not require that separate affidavits of service be provided for each person served.

(c) TB (and any other party) may file their court documents by fax. Permission to do so is stated in the Notice to the Bar and Public Regarding Family Matters at the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton (March 23, 2020) (see https://haltoncountylaw.ca/covid-19/).

(d) I am uncertain as to what TB is requesting when she requests that the matter proceed on an ex-parte basis. She has provided notice to all parties. All will be given the opportunity to provide evidence in relation to this 14B motion (regarding urgency) and any hearing that may occur to address issues identified as urgent. The hearing will be via teleconference.

Given the foregoing, none of these issues are urgent and require a hearing at this time.

[17] In terms of substantive issues, I find that the following are not urgent and therefore do not need to be the subject of a hearing at this time:

(a) The suspension of supervised access between N, T, J and M. In terms of sibling access, it is my understanding that this access is supervised by the Society. The Society is not providing in-person supervised access at this time. There is a process in place, as per the Notice to the Bar and Public Regarding Family Matters at the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton (March 23, 2020), that is to be followed should a parent not consent to the suspension of their access during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, it is the Society's obligation to bring a 14B Motion to address this issue. Given that the sibling access is already suspended, and no 14B Motion (brought by the Society) is before the court to address same, this issue is not urgent.

(b) The compelling of DS to bring a motion in which he requests that the paternal grandparents produce information documented within their passports regarding their recent international travel, including the return date. The court should not have to force DS to collect and share relevant information regarding his parents travel. Particulars associated with their travel, including whether they were tested for COVID-19 on their return and the results thereof, is relevant to the determination of what access arrangements are in the children's best interests. It is information DS should readily provide. If he does not do so, it is very likely that his access will be negatively impacted.

(c) The court's examination of DS's passport. I have not been provided with any information that suggests DS has or may have travelled outside of Canada during relevant time-periods.

(d) The court's finding that TB has underlying health issues and need to isolate / quarantine and follow the directions of their family doctor. This is a bald assertion with no medical or expert evidence to support it. In any event, it is not an urgent issue.

(e) A police enforcement clause. TB has not provided the court with information to suggest DS's past conduct warrants such an order be made, at this time, on an urgent basis. Also, I question the court's authority to make this order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

(f) The determination of DS's future access with the children, after physical access resumes, in the event that the government issues further directions, etc. regarding quarantine, etc. The determination of an access regime, at some unknown time in the future, does not constitute 'urgency' as per the Family Law Rules and COVID-19 Pandemic Planning – Scheduling of Family Matters in the Ontario Court of Justice.

(g) The children stay within her household until such time as school is back in session. This is not a realistic claim to make. A motion, at this time in this matter, is to deal with the immediate implications of COVID-19 on DS's court ordered access. Concerns surrounding COVID-19 may subside, and access may be able to resume as court ordered, at a different time than when school resumes. This claim is not 'urgent' as per the Family Law Rules and COVID-19 Pandemic Planning – Scheduling of Family Matters in the Ontario Court of Justice.

[18] The only issues that may be urgent and might need to be addressed by the court at this time are:

(a) Whether DS's access with J and M should be temporarily suspended;

(b) If so, how long should access be suspended; and

(c) If access is suspended, what alternative contact via Skype, Face Time, other forms of social media, and telephone should occur.

[19] I am mindful that DS is self-represented. I appreciate that it is not possible for him to speak to a Legal Aid Ontario lawyer at the court house at this time to receive legal advice, should he want to do so.

[20] I also note that DS has been involved in the litigation process for years and through this experience, he knows (or ought to know) of the need to respond to motions in a timely manner. Also, both the COVID-19 Pandemic Planning – Scheduling of Family Matters in the Ontario Court of Justice and the Notice to the Bar and Public Regarding Family Matters at the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton (March 23, 2020) (both available online) provide information as to how individuals can receive advice from Legal Aid Ontario over the phone; about the Law Society of Ontario's emergency family referral line during COVID; and about the Law Society of Ontario referral service. As well, it has been over six business days since DS was served with TB's original 14B Motion and affidavit and he has not filed any materials.

[21] To provide certainty, I will provide specific direction as to when materials are to be served and filed, should this motion continue to be necessary, after both parents have reviewed what is written herein. To clarify, the next legal step in this case, after this ruling, is a determination of whether the issues identified in paragraph 18 herein are urgent (which will be determined on written evidence only, unless I order otherwise) and if so, how the hearing to address those issues will proceed.

[22] It is my expectation that after the parents have reviewed this endorsement, which provides information as to (a) the court's expectations as to how parents are to conduct themselves when determining access arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (b) how the court will review this issue in the face of a global health crisis, they will make sincere efforts to act responsibly and try to attempt some problem-solving before returning to court.

[23] It may be helpful for parties to know that if they agree, in writing, to suspend or vary access to ensure their children's well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic (a) a variation order is not required; (b) a future finding of contempt (or a Rule 1(8) ruling) is extremely unlikely; and (c) the court will not automatically consider that a new status quo has been established.

[24] In Ribeiro v. Wright, 2020 ONSC 1829 (Ont. S.C.J.), (this case is also on haltoncountylaw.ca), Justice Pazaratz considered whether a parent's emergency motion should proceed during the COVID-19 pandemic. I encourage the parents to carefully consider what he wrote:

[6] The health, safety and well-being of children and families remains the court's foremost consideration during COVID-19. This is an extremely difficult and stressful period for everyone.

[7] On the one hand, in this case there is an existing parenting order. There is a presumption that all orders should be respected and complied with. More to the point, there is a presumption that the existing order reflects a determination that meaningful personal contact with both parents is in the best interests of the child.

[8] On the other hand, the well-publicized directives from government and public health officials make it clear that we are in extraordinary times; and that our daily routines and activities will for the most part have to be suspended, in favour of a strict policy of social distancing and limiting community interactions as much as possible.

[9] Parents are understandably confused and worried about what to do. Similarly, this is uncharted territory for our court system. We all have to work together to show flexibility, creativity and common sense – to promote both the physical and emotional well-being of children.

[10] None of us know how long this crisis is going to last. In many respects we are going to have to put our lives "on hold" until COVID-19 is resolved. But children's lives – and vitally important family relationships – cannot be placed "on hold" indefinitely without risking serious emotional harm and upset. A blanket policy that children should not leave their primary residence – even to visit their other parent – is inconsistent with a comprehensive analysis of the best interests of the child. In troubling and disorienting times, children need the love, guidance and emotional support of both parents, now more than ever.

[11] In most situations there should be a presumption that existing parenting arrangements and schedules should continue, subject to whatever modifications may be necessary to ensure that all COVID-19 precautions are adhered to – including strict social distancing.

[12] In some cases, custodial or access parents may have to forego their times with a child, if the parent is subject to some specific personal restriction (for example, under self-isolation for a 14 day period as a result of recent travel; personal illness; or exposure to illness).

[13] In some cases, a parent's personal risk factors (through employment or associations, for example) may require controls with respect to their direct contact with a child.

[14] And sadly, in some cases a parent's lifestyle or behaviour in the face of COVID-19 (for example, failing to comply with social distancing; or failing to take reasonable health-precautions) may raise sufficient concerns about parental judgment that direct parent-child contact will have to be reconsidered. There will be zero tolerance for any parent who recklessly exposes a child (or members of the child's household) to any COVID-19 risk.

[15] Transitional arrangements at exchange times may create their own issues. At every stage, the social distancing imperative will have to be safeguarded. This may result in changes to transportation, exchange locations, or any terms of supervision.

[16] And in blended family situations, parents will need assurance that COVID-19 precautions are being maintained in relation to each person who spends any amount of time in a household – including children of former relationships.

[17] Each family will have its own unique issues and complications. There will be no easy answers.

[18] But no matter how difficult the challenge, for the sake of the child we have to find ways to maintain important parental relationships – and above all, we have to find ways to do it safely.

[19] Most of our social, government and employment institutions are struggling to cope with COVID-19. That includes our court system. Despite extremely limited resources, we will always prioritize cases involving children. But parents and lawyers should be mindful of the practical limitations we are facing.

[20] If a parent has a concern that COVID-19 creates an urgent issue in relation to a parenting arrangement, they may initiate an emergency motion – but they should not presume that the existence of the COVID-19 crisis will automatically result in a suspension of in-person parenting time. They should not even presume that raising COVID-19 considerations will necessarily result in an urgent hearing.

[21] We will deal with COVID-19 parenting issues on a case-by-case basis.

a. The parent initiating an urgent motion on this topic will be required to provide specific evidence or examples of behavior or plans by the other parent which are inconsistent with COVID-19 protocols.

b. The parent responding to such an urgent motion will be required to provide specific and absolute reassurance that COVID-19 safety measures will be meticulously adhered to – including social distancing; use of disinfectants; compliance with public safety directives; etc.

c. Both parents will be required to provide very specific and realistic time-sharing proposals which fully address all COVID-19 considerations, in a child-focused manner.

d. Judges will likely take judicial notice of the fact that social distancing is now becoming both commonplace and accepted, given the number of public facilities which have now been closed. This is a very good time for both custodial and access parents to spend time with their child at home.

[22] Everyone should be clear about expectations during this crisis. Parents want judges to protect their children. But with limited judicial resources and a rapidly changing landscape, we need parents to act responsibly and try to attempt some simple problem-solving before they initiate urgent court proceedings.

[23] Judges won't need convincing that COVID-19 is extremely serious, and that meaningful precautions are required to protect children and families. We know there's a problem. What we're looking for is realistic solutions. We will be looking to see if parents have made good faith efforts to communicate; to show mutual respect; and to come up with creative and realistic proposals which demonstrate both parental insight and COVID-19 awareness.

[24] In family court we are used to dealing with parenting disputes. But right now it's not "business as usual" for any of us. The court system will always be here to deal with truly urgent matters, especially involving children. But that means there will be little time or tolerance for people who don't take parenting responsibilities or COVID-19 seriously.

[25] While I provide the parents with time to reflect on the above, and with time to provide each other (and the court, if this motion continues to proceed) with further information, I must consider what temporary arrangements are best for the children.

[26] Based on the information provided by TB outlined above (which includes Dr. G's March 17, 2020 note; information that TB, P and M have exhibited COVID-19 symptoms; and the exacerbation of M's anxiety resulting from the uncertainty and chaos that surrounds the COVID-19 pandemic), and DS's seemingly failure to provide TB with answers to her fair and reasonable inquiries regarding his plan to implement COVID-19 safety measures, I find that it is in the children's best interests that on a temporary, without prejudice basis, in-person access between M and J and their father be suspended and that regular contact occur via Skype, Face Time, other forms of social media, and telephone.

[27] In reaching this decision, I have also placed particular emphasis on certain aspects of DS's circumstances which present as personal risk factors about which information must be provided (to TB and the court, if judicial intervention is required). These include:

(a) His parents have recently returned from a cruise and they participate, at a minimum, in the exchanges of the children;

(b) He lives with two roommates; and

(c) He may continue to work outside the home and there is no evidence as to contact he may have with others and what workplace health and safety precautions are in place to protect him and the spread of COVID-19.

[28] I would expect the information DS provides to TB (and, if necessary the court) include (but not be limited to) the following:

(a) Details of his plan to address M's anxiety, particularly as it relates to the COVID-19 pandemic;

(b) Details of his plans with the children during access visits, and what and how COVID-19 safety measures will be adhered to while these plans are being carried out;

(c) Details of the COVID-19 safety measures that are being implemented in his home, and how is compliance being monitored;

(d) Details of his parents' travel (including ports of entry and dates of travel);

(e) Information as to whether his parents self-isolated upon their return from their travel and if so, the particulars thereof;

(f) Information as to whether his parents exhibited any symptoms of COVID-19 upon return from their cruise and if so, the particulars thereof;

(g) Details of his contact with his parents upon their return from their cruise;

(h) The results of any medical testing his parents have undergone to determine whether they have COVID-19, including documentary evidence of same if it was provided to them or can be obtained by them;

(i) Whether he has experienced any symptoms associated with COVID-19;

(j) Whether he has been tested for COVID-19 and the results thereof (to be confirmed by documentary evidence, if available);

(k) Whether his roommates have experienced any symptoms associated with COVID-19;

(l) Whether his roommates have been tested for COVID-19 and the results thereof (to be confirmed by documentary evidence if available);

(m) Whether he is working outside the home, and if so, details as to what COVID-19 safety measures are being enacted at his place of employment and whether they are being complied with;

(n) Whether his roommates work outside the home, and if so, details as to what COVID-19 safety measures are being enacted at their places of employment and whether they are being complied with; and

(o) Whether other individuals are attending at his home (i.e. his friends and family members, and the friends and family members of his roommates) and if so, what COVID-19 precautions are being maintained in relation to each person who spends any amount of time in the home.

[29] DS will find relevant and helpful information at www.ontario.ca/page/2019-novel-coronavirus, should he require it.

[30] It is also necessary for TB to provide further updated, detailed evidence with respect to the children's need to self-isolate / quarantine (and that partaking in general COVID-19 safety measures is insufficient). The note she provided is brief; relates only to M; and provides recommendations up to March 31, 2020. Ideally, this further information should be in the form of a report (but a medical note or letter will do in the circumstances) from the family's physician that explains why in-person access cannot occur between M, J and their father right now; for how long this restriction must be in place; and an explanation as to why and how these recommendations relate to the COVID-19 virus. Given TB's almost daily contact with the family doctor (by phone and text) and that the family doctor has already provided her with a note (via email) this should not be an onerous request.

[31] As well, DS should be able to access medical / professional information about his children, by speaking directly to the family doctor and M's ROCK counsellor, to confirm the accuracy and reliability of TB's representations. I do not know whether a court order exists to permit this, so I will make one herein. It is imperative that DS take steps to satisfy himself as to the children's physical and emotional well-being and what is required to meet those needs. Inevitably, this will assist him in making informed, child-focused decisions for M and J.

[32] In closing, the question of whether TB's requests (that have not been dismissed herein) meet the urgency threshold is adjourned and as directed below will only proceed, via 14B motion, if need be. I urge both parents in this case to renew their efforts to address vitally important health and safety issues for their children in a more conciliatory and productive manner. Right now, families need more cooperation. And less litigation. See: Ribeiro v. Wright, supra.

Part 6 – Order

Based on the foregoing, a temporary without prejudice order to go as follows:

1. Pending determination of TB's amended 14B Motion, if this is required, in-person access between the children, J and M and their father, DS shall be suspended. Generous and liberal access between the children and their father shall occur via Skype, Face Time, other forms of social media, and telephone. The particulars shall be as arranged between the parents, but shall be a minimum of three times per week. All interactions shall be child focused.

2. DS shall be permitted to obtain information about M and J directly from their family physician. He shall also be able to obtain information about M from her counsellor at ROCK. If TB's consent to the release of this information is required by the professionals, she shall provide it, and may do so via email, text, or telephone.

3. TB's claims, as outlined in her March 19, 2020 14B motion and March 27, 2020 amended 14B motion shall be dismissed, except as ordered herein.

4. TB shall not be permitted to bring any further 14B motions or amend the 14B Motion which is before the court, without leave of the court.

5. The sole issue before the court at this time is whether the following issues are urgent, and if so, how a hearing to address these issues will proceed: (i) Whether DS's access with J and M should be temporary suspended; (ii) If so, how long should access be suspended; and (iii) If access is suspended, what alternative contact, via Skype, Face Time, other forms of social media, and telephone should occur.

6. By April 3, 2020 TB shall have made arrangements with the court to swear or affirm the content of her March 19, 20 and 27 affidavits and any further evidence she wishes to submit in support of the determination of urgency.

7. By April 17, 2020 all other parties who wish to participate in this 14B motion shall serve and file their responding materials.

8. By April 23, 2020 TB shall serve and file her reply materials.

9. Should the parties resolve the remaining issues that are subject to this 14B motion, they shall advise the court of same by filing a 17F Confirmation, which is to be served on all parties. The Confirmation, and proof of service may be provided to the court via email to halton.trialcoordinator@ontario.ca or fax to 905-693-3038.

Justice Susan Sullivan