Court File and Parties
DATE: 2023 08 04 Court File: Brampton 724-20 Ontario Court of Justice 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton, ON L6W 4T6
Applicant: E.C.L. Respondent: A.L.
Endorsement
Justice P. Clay In Chambers
Endorsement
[1] I read the Motion Form of the A. at Tab 9 of Vol. 2 of the C.R. and the affidavit in support at Tab 10. The Motion form was filed on July 20/23 and I regret that I could not address it before today.
[2] I completed a trial in this matter and released my reasons for judgment on May 30/23, E.C.L. v. A.L., 2023 ONCJ 465. I set out in the final order that;
(20) The undersigned is seized with any contempt motions or motions to change in this matter for so long as he is a full-time justice of the Ontario Court of Justice. It is expected that there may be challenges in the implementation of this order and no motions shall be brought until after the re-unification therapy has been fully completed.
[3] The A.’s Motion Form attached the final report of Dr. J. Seidel of July 6, and a letter to the R. from Dr. Vincent Murphy dated July 17.
[4] The A. sought to be able to bring a M to C the final order before 6 months have expired from the final order. I note that the final order was made on May 19 and the parties received a copy in court and the reasons were provided on May 30.
[5] The A.’s request is not a mere procedural one. She is required to serve the R. with her Motion Form. Usually after a final order no 14B motions may be brought unless there is an underlying proceeding and a proceeding ends when a final order is issued and there is no appeal. Mr. Rubin is the R. father’s counsel only until the final order is issued. There is no record in the file that a draft order has been submitted.
[6] Mr. Rubin was the only counsel on this trial. The Brampton OCJ family direction is that in matters where there is only one counsel that counsel is required to take out the final order even if that counsel does not represent the Applicant.
[7] Apart from preparing the final order Mr. Rubin is no longer on the record for the R. For that reason I have sent this endorsement to Mr. A.L. directly at the only email address in the court file for him. If that address is not active I trust that Mr. Rubin will forward this to him.
[8] Even though there is no underlying proceeding in this matter I will permit the A. to serve the R. with the Motion Form and supporting affidavit by email and then to re-submit her motion with proof of service if she wishes to do so. I will give the R. time to respond.
[9] I seized myself of any contempt motions or M to C because this is a very high conflict case and I am very concerned that the child N.L. is at risk of emotional harm unless he receives the appropriate therapy. I set out in my reasons that;
(10) The parties shall attend for all counselling sessions arranged by Ms. J. Seidel and follow all recommendations that she makes.
[10] The A. alleges that the father and the PGF “sabotaged” the family reunification therapy such that it had to be cancelled by Ms. Seidel for the reasons set out in her July 6 letter. The R. needs an opportunity to respond to this motion before any decisions as to next steps can be made.
[11] I find that the R. should carefully consider the letter from Dr. Murphy. The R. had said that N.L. had a therapeutic alliance with Dr. Murphy and that both the R. and his son trusted him. He wanted Dr. Murphy to do any counselling. In his letter to the R. Dr. Murphy said;
…I am not a reunification therapist and would not undertake this role and that I feel reunification therapy is essential not just to help N. connect with his mother but for him to start being less anxiously attached to you so that there would not be a repeat of what happened on the school trip to Camp Kilcoo. And while I am very happy that N. feels comfortable with me, I think it beneficial that he discover that he can establish trust with other therapists.
Dr. Murphy went on to say;
I do not believe that expanding contact between N. and his mother will, in any way, impair his relationship with you and his grandfather. It is critical that all of the adults involve recognize how triggered N. has become with regard to contact with his mother. Re-unification therapy needs to be understood as a means to getting him past this anxiety, rather than something that he cannot handle. As such, he needs to see that we all support him getting this help.
[12] I will deal with any contempt motions or M to C that may be filed after proper service.
[13] I simply note that by the terms of the final order the A. has sole DMR for N.L. Every professional that has been engaged by the parties has expressed serious concern about N.L.’s mental and emotional wellbeing, even Dr. Murphy the one professional the father trusted.
[14] The parties need to seriously consider whether this matter needs to return to court. The A. has sole DMR. There is a roughly equal time sharing arrangement. There was a family re-integration therapist in place. The PGF should not have had any role in that therapy. The parties should try to see if Dr. Seidel will reconsider her decision to not continue. Perhaps now that the R. knows that Dr. Murphy considers therapy essential and the R. has seen how N.L.’s separation anxiety meant he could not even stay at a summer camp, he will be able to contact Dr. Seidel, copied to the mother, and request that the therapy begin again without any involvement of the PGF and without any negative comments being directed to Dr. Seidel or her team.
[15] If therapy begins again motions may not be required. If it does not there are a number of options open to the court.
[16] The A. should obtain some legal advise before submitting any motions to this court
Order
- This motion is dismissed due to lack of service upon the R.
- The A. may serve any further motions upon the R. by email service to him directly.
- Mr. Rubin shall submit a draft order dated May 19/23 to the court. Approval of the A. is waived.
Justice Philip J. Clay Released: August 4, 2023