ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: January 12, 2021 COURT FILE No.: D80534/15
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL GEORGE RUSSELL Applicant
— AND —
TAMEIL THOMPSON Respondent
Before: Justice Melanie Sager
Heard on: December 8th and 24th, 2020 Reasons for Judgment released on: January 12, 2021
Counsel: Pamila Bhardwaj..................................................................................... counsel for the applicant Tameil Thompson.................................................................... the respondent on her own behalf
SAGER J.:
Introduction
[1] Mr. Russell (father) and Ms. Thompson (mother) have a daughter Faith, who was born on […], 2014. By order of Justice Roselyn Zisman dated May 31, 2018, the mother has custody of Faith and the father has regular week to week access.
[2] On February 3, 2020, Mr. Russell commenced an Application seeking an order revoking the legal change carried out by Ms. Thompson to Faith’s last name from “Russell” to “Thompson”, registered on May 22, 2019. The father seeks this relief on the basis that the mother failed to comply with the Change of Name Act (the Act) and provide him with the required notice of the proposed change at least 30 days before she filed the Application to change Faith’s surname with the Registrar General. He argues that the registration of the name change was obtained fraudulently and must be revoked as the mother misrepresented to the Registrar General that she had given the father proper notice by providing a false affidavit of service attesting to have sent him notice by registered mail.
[3] The mother, who as the custodial parent is entitled to change Faith’s last name, opposes the Application as she says she complied fully with all of the conditions required of her by the Act, did not swear a false affidavit of service of the requisite notice and therefore, there was no fraud.
[4] The Act provides at subparagraph 10(1) that this court may revoke a change to a child’s name that was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or for an improper purpose.
[5] The court must therefore decide if the mother knowingly obtained the change to Faith’s surname without providing the father notice of the proposed change as mandated by the Act and therefore obtaining the name change by fraud.
[6] The trial of this matter was heard over two days on December 9th and 24th, 2020. Both parties relied on affidavit evidence in chief and were cross examined.
The parties’ positions
The father’s position
[7] The father’s position is that the mother obtained the change to Faith’s last name by fraud as the mother falsely claims to have provided him with notice of the name change by registered mail when in fact she sent him an envelope by registered mail with no return address containing only blank paper.
[8] The father says he received an envelope in early March 2019 by registered mail containing several blank pieces of paper. The envelope did not have a return address or the sender’s name.
[9] The father only learned that the envelope was sent by the mother after she advised him of the name change and he obtained information from the Registrar General confirming that the tracking number on the envelope in his possession matched the tracking number provided by the mother as proof of service of the required notice and the Application. As the envelope did not contain the required notice and a copy of the Application, the father says the mother changed Faith’s name without complying with subsection 5(6) of the Act, which requires her to provide him with notice of the proposed change at least 30 days in advance of filing the Application with the Registrar General.
[10] Had he been notified as the Act requires, the father says that he would have come before the court within the 30 days the mother had to wait before registering the change pursuant to subsection 6(7) of the Act and seek relief that would prohibit the change.
[11] The father believes the mother changed Faith’s surname without notifying him as part of her overall campaign to minimize his role in Faith’s life.
The mother’s position
[12] The mother says that she did not obtain the name change by fraud or misrepresentation and to the contrary, she complied with the notice provision of the Act and sent the father notice of her intention to change’s Faith’s surname by registered mail 30 days before filing the Application with the Registrar General. She denies sending him an envelope with blank paper.
[13] The mother says there was no ill intention in changing Faith’s name and that she has made it known to the father for years that she planned to change Faith’s surname and he never raised an objection.
[14] Finally, the mother says that the father is extremely litigious, has taken her to court several times without good reason, and, that this is just another attempt by him to upset her life.
Brief background of the parties and the previous litigation
[15] The parties were involved in a relationship that resulted in the birth of their daughter on […], 2014. The parties never lived together. The mother has always been Faith’s primary caregiver and the father has always exercised access to Faith and demonstrated a desire to be involved in her life.
[16] The parties have been involved in an inordinate amount of litigation considering Faith is only 6 years old. It is safe to say they are involved in a fairly high conflict relationship. The chart set out below provides a timetable for the litigation and what orders were made.
| Year litigation commenced | Who commenced litigation | Relief requested in pleadings --- citation: "Russell v. Thompson, 2021 ONCJ 16" parties: "Michael George Russell v. Tameil Thompson" party_moving: "Michael George Russell" party_responding: "Tameil Thompson" court: "Ontario Court of Justice" court_abbreviation: "ONCJ" jurisdiction: "Ontario" case_type: "trial" date_judgement: "2021-01-12" date_heard: ["2020-12-08", "2020-12-24"] applicant:
- "Michael George Russell" applicant_counsel:
- "Pamila Bhardwaj" respondent:
- "Tameil Thompson" respondent_counsel: "Self-represented" judge:
- "Melanie Sager"
summary: >
The father applied to revoke the legal change of his daughter's surname from 'Russell' to 'Thompson', alleging the mother obtained the change fraudulently by failing to provide proper notice under the Change of Name Act. The court found the mother intentionally sent blank papers instead of the required notice and affidavit of service, thereby obtaining the name change by fraud. The court assessed the credibility of both parties based on their past litigation conduct and communication, finding the mother's actions to be hostile and vindictive, and the father's conduct reasonable. The application was granted, and the name change was revoked.
interesting_citations_summary: >
This decision provides a detailed application of the standard of proof for civil fraud in a family law context, emphasizing that while the standard is a balance of probabilities, more cogent evidence is required for serious allegations. It highlights the court's approach to assessing credibility by examining the totality of the parties' conduct, including their communication and history of litigation, rather than isolated incidents. The case also clarifies the requirements for notice under the Change of Name Act and the court's power to revoke name changes obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
final_judgement: "The change of Faith Alaysha Russell’s surname from “Russell” to “Thompson” by way of registration number 2019-05-006156 on May 22, 2019 is revoked."
winning_degree_applicant: 1
winning_degree_respondent: 5
judge_bias_applicant: 0
judge_bias_respondent: 0
year: 2021
decision_number: 16
file_number: "D80534/15"
source: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2021/2021oncj16/2021oncj16.html"
cited_cases:
legislation:
- title: "Change of Name Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.7" url: "https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c07" case_law:
- title: "C. (R) v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc53/2008scc53.html"
- title: "Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v Flesch, 2014 SCC 8" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc8/20214scc8.html"
- title: "Rosati v. Reggimenti" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii100/2008canlii100.html"
- title: "Anker v. Sattaur" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2007/2007canlii49000/2007canlii49000.html"
- title: "International Corona Resources Ltd v LAC Minerals Ltd" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1988/1988canlii4534/1988canlii4534.html" keywords:
- Family law
- Child's name change
- Fraud
- Misrepresentation
- Change of Name Act
- Credibility assessment
- High conflict litigation
- Parental conduct areas_of_law:
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: January 12, 2021 COURT FILE No.: D80534/15
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL GEORGE RUSSELL Applicant
— AND —
TAMEIL THOMPSON Respondent
Before: Justice Melanie Sager
Heard on: December 8th and 24th, 2020 Reasons for Judgment released on: January 12, 2021
Counsel: Pamila Bhardwaj..................................................................................... counsel for the applicant Tameil Thompson.................................................................... the respondent on her own behalf
SAGER J.:
Introduction
[1] Mr. Russell (father) and Ms. Thompson (mother) have a daughter Faith, who was born on […], 2014. By order of Justice Roselyn Zisman dated May 31, 2018, the mother has custody of Faith and the father has regular week to week access.
[2] On February 3, 2020, Mr. Russell commenced an Application seeking an order revoking the legal change carried out by Ms. Thompson to Faith’s last name from “Russell” to “Thompson”, registered on May 22, 2019. The father seeks this relief on the basis that the mother failed to comply with the Change of Name Act (the Act) and provide him with the required notice of the proposed change at least 30 days before she filed the Application to change Faith’s surname with the Registrar General. He argues that the registration of the name change was obtained fraudulently and must be revoked as the mother misrepresented to the Registrar General that she had given the father proper notice by providing a false affidavit of service attesting to have sent him notice by registered mail.
[3] The mother, who as the custodial parent is entitled to change Faith’s last name, opposes the Application as she says she complied fully with all of the conditions required of her by the Act, did not swear a false affidavit of service of the requisite notice and therefore, there was no fraud.
[4] The Act provides at subparagraph 10(1) that this court may revoke a change to a child’s name that was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or for an improper purpose.
[5] The court must therefore decide if the mother knowingly obtained the change to Faith’s surname without providing the father notice of the proposed change as mandated by the Act and therefore obtaining the name change by fraud.
[6] The trial of this matter was heard over two days on December 9th and 24th, 2020. Both parties relied on affidavit evidence in chief and were cross examined.
The parties’ positions
The father’s position
[7] The father’s position is that the mother obtained the change to Faith’s last name by fraud as the mother falsely claims to have provided him with notice of the name change by registered mail when in fact she sent him an envelope by registered mail with no return address containing only blank paper.
[8] The father says he received an envelope in early March 2019 by registered mail containing several blank pieces of paper. The envelope did not have a return address or the sender’s name.
[9] The father only learned that the envelope was sent by the mother after she advised him of the name change and he obtained information from the Registrar General confirming that the tracking number on the envelope in his possession matched the tracking number provided by the mother as proof of service of the required notice and the Application. As the envelope did not contain the required notice and a copy of the Application, the father says the mother changed Faith’s name without complying with subsection 5(6) of the Act, which requires her to provide him with notice of the proposed change at least 30 days in advance of filing the Application with the Registrar General.
[10] Had he been notified as the Act requires, the father says that he would have come before the court within the 30 days the mother had to wait before registering the change pursuant to subsection 6(7) of the Act and seek relief that would prohibit the change.
[11] The father believes the mother changed Faith’s surname without notifying him as part of her overall campaign to minimize his role in Faith’s life.
The mother’s position
[12] The mother says that she did not obtain the name change by fraud or misrepresentation and to the contrary, she complied with the notice provision of the Act and sent the father notice of her intention to change’s Faith’s surname by registered mail 30 days before filing the Application with the Registrar General. She denies sending him an envelope with blank paper.
[13] The mother says there was no ill intention in changing Faith’s name and that she has made it known to the father for years that she planned to change Faith’s surname and he never raised an objection.
[14] Finally, the mother says that the father is extremely litigious, has taken her to court several times without good reason, and, that this is just another attempt by him to upset her life.
Brief background of the parties and the previous litigation
[15] The parties were involved in a relationship that resulted in the birth of their daughter on […], 2014. The parties never lived together. The mother has always been Faith’s primary caregiver and the father has always exercised access to Faith and demonstrated a desire to be involved in her life.
[16] The parties have been involved in an inordinate amount of litigation considering Faith is only 6 years old. It is safe to say they are involved in a fairly high conflict relationship. The chart set out below provides a timetable for the litigation and what orders were made.
| Year litigation commenced | Who commenced litigation | Relief requested in pleadings --- COURT FILE NO.: D80534/15
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: January 12, 2021
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL GEORGE RUSSELL
Applicant
— AND —
TAMEIL THOMPSON
Respondent
Before Justice Melanie Sager
Heard on December 8th and 24th, 2020
Reasons for Judgment released on January 12, 2021
Pamila Bhardwaj..................................................................................... counsel for the applicant
Tameil Thompson.................................................................... the respondent on her own behalf
SAGER J.:
Introduction
[1] Mr. Russell (father) and Ms. Thompson (mother) have a daughter Faith, who was born on […], 2014. By order of Justice Roselyn Zisman dated May 31, 2018, the mother has custody of Faith and the father has regular week to week access.
[2] On February 3, 2020, Mr. Russell commenced an Application seeking an order revoking the legal change carried out by Ms. Thompson to Faith’s last name from “Russell” to “Thompson”, registered on May 22, 2019. The father seeks this relief on the basis that the mother failed to comply with the Change of Name Act (the Act) and provide him with the required notice of the proposed change at least 30 days before she filed the Application to change Faith’s surname with the Registrar General. He argues that the registration of the name change was obtained fraudulently and must be revoked as the mother misrepresented to the Registrar General that she had given the father proper notice by providing a false affidavit of service attesting to have sent him notice by registered mail.
[3] The mother, who as the custodial parent is entitled to change Faith’s last name, opposes the Application as she says she complied fully with all of the conditions required of her by the Act, did not swear a false affidavit of service of the requisite notice and therefore, there was no fraud.
[4] The Act provides at subparagraph 10(1) that this court may revoke a change to a child’s name that was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or for an improper purpose.
[5] The court must therefore decide if the mother knowingly obtained the change to Faith’s surname without providing the father notice of the proposed change as mandated by the Act and therefore obtaining the name change by fraud.
[6] The trial of this matter was heard over two days on December 9th and 24th, 2020. Both parties relied on affidavit evidence in chief and were cross examined.
The parties’ positions
The father’s position
[7] The father’s position is that the mother obtained the change to Faith’s last name by fraud as the mother falsely claims to have provided him with notice of the name change by registered mail when in fact she sent him an envelope by registered mail with no return address containing only blank paper.
[8] The father says he received an envelope in early March 2019 by registered mail containing several blank pieces of paper. The envelope did not have a return address or the sender’s name.
[9] The father only learned that the envelope was sent by the mother after she advised him of the name change and he obtained information from the Registrar General confirming that the tracking number on the envelope in his possession matched the tracking number provided by the mother as proof of service of the required notice and the Application. As the envelope did not contain the required notice and a copy of the Application, the father says the mother changed Faith’s name without complying with subsection 5(6) of the Act, which requires her to provide him with notice of the proposed change at least 30 days in advance of filing the Application with the Registrar General.
[10] Had he been notified as the Act requires, the father says that he would have come before the court within the 30 days the mother had to wait before registering the change pursuant to subsection 6(7) of the Act and seek relief that would prohibit the change.
[11] The father believes the mother changed Faith’s surname without notifying him as part of her overall campaign to minimize his role in Faith’s life.
The mother’s position
[12] The mother says that she did not obtain the name change by fraud or misrepresentation and to the contrary, she complied with the notice provision of the Act and sent the father notice of her intention to change’s Faith’s surname by registered mail 30 days before filing the Application with the Registrar General. She denies sending him an envelope with blank paper.
[13] The mother says there was no ill intention in changing Faith’s name and that she has made it known to the father for years that she planned to change Faith’s surname and he never raised an objection.
[14] Finally, the mother says that the father is extremely litigious, has taken her to court several times without good reason, and, that this is just another attempt by him to upset her life.
Brief background of the parties and the previous litigation
[15] The parties were involved in a relationship that resulted in the birth of their daughter on […], 2014. The parties never lived together. The mother has always been Faith’s primary caregiver and the father has always exercised access to Faith and demonstrated a desire to be involved in her life.
[16] The parties have been involved in an inordinate amount of litigation considering Faith is only 6 years old. It is safe to say they are involved in a fairly high conflict relationship. The chart set out below provides a timetable for the litigation and what orders were made.
| Year litigation commenced | Who commenced litigation | Relief requested in pleadings --- COURCOURT FILE NO.: D80534/15
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: January 2021
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL GEORGE RUSSELL
Applicant
— AND —
TAMEIL THOMPSON
Respondent
Before Justice Melanie Sager
Heard on December 8th and 24th, 2020
Reasons for Judgment released on January 12, 2021
Pamila Bhardwaj..................................................................................... counsel for the applicant
Tameil Thompson.................................................................... the respondent on her own behalf
SAGER J.:
Introduction
[1] Mr. Russell (father) and Ms. Thompson (mother) have a daughter Faith, who was born on […], 2014. By order of Justice Roselyn Zisman dated May 31, 2018, the mother has custody of Faith and the father has regular week to week access.
[2] On February 3, 2020, Mr. Russell commenced an Application seeking an order revoking the legal change carried out by Ms. Thompson to Faith’s last name from “Russell” to “Thompson”, registered on May 22, 2019. The father seeks this relief on the basis that the mother failed to comply with the Change of Name Act (the Act) and provide him with the required notice of the proposed change at least 30 days before she filed the Application to change Faith’s surname with the Registrar General. He argues that the registration of the name change was obtained fraudulently and must be revoked as the mother misrepresented to the Registrar General that she had given the father proper notice by providing a false affidavit of service attesting to have sent him notice by registered mail.
[3] The mother, who as the custodial parent is entitled to change Faith’s last name, opposes the Application as she says she complied fully with all of the conditions required of her by the Act, did not swear a false affidavit of service of the requisite notice and therefore, there was no fraud.
[4] The Act provides at subparagraph 10(1) that this court may revoke a change to a child’s name that was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or for an improper purpose.
[5] The court must therefore decide if the mother knowingly obtained the change to Faith’s surname without providing the father notice of the proposed change as mandated by the Act and therefore obtaining the name change by fraud.
[6] The trial of this matter was heard over two days on December 9th and 24th, 2020. Both parties relied on affidavit evidence in chief and were cross examined.
The parties’ positions
The father’s position
[7] The father’s position is that the mother obtained the change to Faith’s last name by fraud as the mother falsely claims to have provided him with notice of the name change by registered mail when in fact she sent him an envelope by registered mail with no return address containing only blank paper.
[8] The father says he received an envelope in early March 2019 by registered mail containing several blank pieces of paper. The envelope did not have a return address or the sender’s name.
[9] The father only learned that the envelope was sent by the mother after she advised him of the name change and he obtained information from the Registrar General confirming that the tracking number on the envelope in his possession matched the tracking number provided by the mother as proof of service of the required notice and the Application. As the envelope did not contain the required notice and a copy of the Application, the father says the mother changed Faith’s name without complying with subsection 5(6) of the Act, which requires her to provide him with notice of the proposed change at least 30 days in advance of filing the Application with the Registrar General.
[10] Had he been notified as the Act requires, the father says that he would have come before the court within the 30 days the mother had to wait before registering the change pursuant to subsection 6(7) of the Act and seek relief that would prohibit the change.
[11] The father believes the mother changed Faith’s surname without notifying him as part of her overall campaign to minimize his role in Faith’s life.
The mother’s position
[12] The mother says that she did not obtain the name change by fraud or misrepresentation and to the contrary, she complied with the notice provision of the Act and sent the father notice of her intention to change’s Faith’s surname by registered mail 30 days before filing the Application with the Registrar General. She denies sending him an envelope with blank paper.
[13] The mother says there was no ill intention in changing Faith’s name and that she has made it known to the father for years that she planned to change Faith’s surname and he never raised an objection.
[14] Finally, the mother says that the father is extremely litigious, has taken her to court several times without good reason, and, that this is just another attempt by him to upset her life.
Brief background of the parties and the previous litigation
[15] The parties were involved in a relationship that resulted in the birth of their daughter on […], 2014. The parties never lived together. The mother has always been Faith’s primary caregiver and the father has always exercised access to Faith and demonstrated a desire to be involved in her life.
[16] The parties have been involved in an inordinate amount of litigation considering Faith is only 6 years old. It is safe to say they are involved in a fairly high conflict relationship. The chart set out below provides a timetable for the litigation and what orders were made.
| Year litigation commenced | Who commenced litigation | Relief requested in pleadings ---
