ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025-04-09
COURT FILE No.: Sault Ste Marie 115/24
BETWEEN:
ROXANNE ROBINSON and RICHARD ALTON
Applicants
— AND —
NICOLE LAFORTUNE, JARRET KRAUTER-MAKI, CRYSTAL KRAUTER and WAYNE MAKI
Respondents
Before Justice Heather-Ann Mendes
Motion Heard on April 4, 2025
Decision on Motion released on April 9, 2025
Mathieu Perron — counsel for the applicants Roxanne Robinson and Richard Alton
Nicole Lafortune — self-represented and not present
Alysha-Rae Weekes — counsel for the respondent Jarret Krauter-Maki
Jenna Beaton — counsel for the respondents Crystal Krauter and Wayne Maki
MENDES J.:
[1] The motion for the paternal grandparents’ contact with the child Asher Krauter-Maki born […], 2024 was argued on April 4, 2025.
[2] The paternal grandparents seek an order that they have contact with the child on a week-about basis with the exchange of the child to be on Sundays and that the father, Jarret Krauter-Maki be permitted to be present.
[3] The father, Mr. Krauter-Maki presently has parenting-time with the child Asher supervised through Algoma Family Services and previously through Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, with only him present. Mr. Krauter-Maki supports the paternal grandparents’ position regarding their contact with Asher.
[4] The maternal great-grandparents, with whom the child resides, oppose the motion. They propose that the paternal grandparents have contact with the child on alternate weekends and that there be a specific provision that Mr. Krauter-Maki not be present during this time.
[5] By way of background, this application was commenced by the maternal great-grandparents, of Asher, Roxanne Robinson and Richard Alton, seeking decision-making responsibility for him.
[6] The parents of Asher are the respondents Nicole LaFortune and Jarret Krauter-Maki. The respondents Crystal Krauter and Wayne Maki are the paternal grandparents of Asher and the parents of Jarret Krauter-Maki.
[7] Asher was placed in the care of the maternal great-grandparents pursuant to a Voluntary Service Agreement (“VSA”) effective March 27, 2024. The agreement expired on September 27, 2024. Nogdawindamin attempted to extend the VSA with amendments so that the maternal great-grandparents and paternal grandparents share time with the child, however this was not agreed upon.
[8] Despite the VSA no longer being agreed upon by the parties, and the child not being returned to either parent, Nogdawindamin took no steps to extend the VSA or commence a child protection application, as they were obligated to do, pursuant to section 76(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
[9] Rather, Nogdawindamin directed the maternal great-grandparents to commence a Children’s Law Reform Act application seeking decision-making responsibility for the child, which they did on October 24, 2024. The application only seeks decision-making responsibility for the child, Asher, and no other claims such as parenting-time for either the mother or the father.
[10] A case conference was held on January 30, 2025. The parties agreed that the paternal grandparents were permitted to attend and participate at the conference given the background of the matter.
[11] On consent of Ms. Robinson and Mr. Alton, as well as Mr. Krauter-Maki, the paternal grandparents were added as parties to the proceeding. Ms. Lafortune has not participated in any of the court attendances to date nor filed an answer, however she has yet to be noted in default.
[12] Also, at the case conference, an order was made requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer in the usual form to complete a section 112 report. As of the date of the argument of the motion for contact by the paternal grandparents on April 4, 2025, no reply was received from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
[13] Further at the case conference, on consent of the parties, an interim and without prejudice order was agreed upon that the paternal grandparents would have contact with Asher on Saturdays and Sundays from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. with the condition that Mr. Krauter-Maki would not be present.
[14] While the maternal great-grandparents are of the view that contact for the paternal grandparents with Asher is in the child’s best interests, the terms of how that access should occur could not be agreed upon which necessitated this motion.
[15] During the course of the VSA from March 27, 2024 to September 27, 2024, the paternal grandparents had contact with Asher each weekend from Friday to Sunday. This contact was terminated as of November 2024, after an incident occurred between Mr. Krauter-Maki and the maternal great-grandmother, which resulted in criminal charges against Mr. Krauter-Maki.
[16] After the incident, Nogdawindamin, despite not being involved with the family pursuant to a VSA and no active child protection application, commenced supervising Mr. Krauter-Maki’s parenting-time with Asher at their facility and did not permit the paternal grandparents to attend the visits or make any arrangements for them to have contact with the child.
[17] The initial six-month VSA from March to September 2024 sets out protection concerns regarding “mental health and coping skills; parenting skills; capacity and developmental disability”. This VSA was signed by only the mother, father and maternal great-grandmother.
[18] The subsequent VSA that was not entered into when the initial VSA expired on September 27, 2024 sets out protection concerns regarding mental health of the biological parents; parenting skills of the biological parents; intimate partner violence and parenting capacity of biological parents. Further, this VSA envisioned having both parents; both maternal great-grandparents and both paternal grandparents signing the agreement.[1]
[19] After the application was commenced by the maternal great-grandparents and the incident occurred in November 2024 which resulted in Mr. Krauter-Maki’s parenting-time being supervised by Nogdawindamin at their facilities, Nogdawindamin worker Jessica Bernhardt emailed the paternal grandmother on December 16, 2024 setting out that the maternal great-grandparents were of the belief that Mr. Krauter-Maki’s access needs to be fully supervised by Nogdawindamin.[2]
[20] Notably, this email from Nogdawindamin does not set out that it is Nogdawindamin’s position that Mr. Krauter-Maki’s access must be supervised. Furthermore, an email from Ms. Bernhardt dated December 9, 2024, to the paternal grandmother and the father confirmed that the parenting-time was only for Mr. Krauter-Maki.[3]
[21] The paternal grandparents submit that they have a close and loving relationship with Asher and have been involved in his care and upbringing since his birth as they were supervising Mr. Krauter-Maki’s parenting-time with the child each weekend, in their home, where Mr. Krauter resides.
[22] The paternal grandparents attempted to arrange contact with Asher directly through the maternal great-grandparents via email on December 10, 2024. Contact was not agreed upon as the maternal great-grandparents’ reply sent on December 11, 2024 stated that they would only grant them “access through the courts” and they would not allow anyone but Mr. Krauter-Maki at the visits and to make sure “he wears his body camera at all times” so that they “have evidence”.[4]
[23] The paternal grandparents again contacted the maternal great-grandparents to arrange contact with Asher for the holidays via email dated December 22, 2024. A response denying this request was sent by the maternal great-grandmother on December 26, 2024 and she offered no alternate proposal for the paternal grandparents to have contact with the child.
[24] The maternal great-grandparents are of the view that the relationship between the paternal grandparents and the child is important, however they do not have confidence that the paternal grandparent will appropriately supervise Mr. Krauter-Maki with the child if he is present during this contact.
[25] The evidence filed by the maternal great-grandparents does not sufficiently establish that the paternal grandparents have not appropriately supervised Mr. Krauter-Maki with the child nor that there are concerns regarding the paternal grandparent’s ability to care for the child.
[26] The maternal great-grandparents allege that Mr. Krauter-Maki and Ms. Lafortune’s relationship was fraught with domestic violence, however these issues were raised when Nogdawindamin was involved, and the paternal grandparents were approved to supervise Mr. Krauter-Maki with the child.
[27] Further, while Mr. Krauter-Maki may have criminal charges before the court, which included breaches, there is not sufficient evidence to establish that the paternal grandparents were in any way a part of, or complicit in these breaches. The maternal great-grandmother suggests otherwise; however her evidence does not establish that she witnessed this first hand or how she is aware of this information or from whom.
[28] Broad sweeping statements were also made by the maternal great-grandmother in her affidavit that the paternal grandparents were investigated by child protection agencies regarding Mr. Krauter-Maki and his upbringing. This claim is not borne out in the evidence provided in the filed affidavit 35.1 and even if this were the case, Nogdawindamin approved the paternal grandparents to supervise Mr. Krauter-Maki with the child.
[29] The requirement for supervision by Mr. Krauter-Maki through Nogdawindamin came at the request of the maternal great-grandparents, not through a review or position taken by Nogdawindamin.
[30] Claims were made by the maternal great-grandparents that there were occasions that the paternal grandparents did not fully supervise Mr. Krauter-Maki with Asher. Again, it is unknown when these events allegedly occurred, where this information is obtained from, how the maternal grandparents were made aware of it, nor any steps taken by the maternal great-grandparents to report this to Nogdawindamin.
[31] The court has the same concerns regarding the statements alleged by the maternal great-grandparents with respect to the pictures and posts obtained from Facebook regarding the child strapped on a four-wheeler in the car seat.
[32] In an email dated February 28, 2025 from Ms. Bernhardt of Nogdawindamin sent to the maternal great-grandmother, she confirmed that Nogdawindamin does not have any concerns with the child Asher in the maternal great-grandparents’ care.[5]
[33] Ms. Barry, legal counsel for Nogdawindamin also provided correspondence to counsel for Ms. Krauter and Mr. Maki dated April 1, 2025 advising that there were no protections concerns related to the care of Asher provided by them and that they are approved to supervise parenting-time for Mr. Krauter-Maki.[6]
[34] In considering the best interests of the child as set out in section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the bond and relationship he has developed with the paternal grandparents, the lack of evidence that the paternal grandparents have failed to appropriately supervise Mr. Krauter-Maki in the child’s presence and Nogdawindamin’s lack of engagement in this matter, despite their previous involvement and the parties reliance on their previous assistance, the status quo should be restored.
[35] As such, an order shall issue on a temporary basis as follows:
Commencing April 11, 2025, the paternal grandparents, Krystal Krauter and Wayne Maki shall have contact with the child Asher Krauter-Maki born […], 2024, each weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m. through to Sunday at 5:00 p.m.
The maternal great-grandparents and paternal grandparents shall exchange the child each Friday and Sunday at the Tim Horton’s located at Great Northern Road and Second Line, unless mutually agreed otherwise.
The paternal grandparents shall ensure that the respondent, Jarret Krauter-Maki shall be fully supervised in the presence of the child Asher Krauter-Maki.
The parties shall discuss and resolve the issue of costs given that the maternal great-grandparents were not successful in opposing the motion and the paternal grandparents were only partially successful in their claims. If the issue of costs is not resolved, a date for argument regarding the issue of costs shall be scheduled for 30 minutes before Mendes J. via Zoom.
The application is adjourned to the date for the argument of the motion for Nogdawindamin records and the Batchewana First Nation Band Representative’s notes scheduled for argument for 1 hour on April 22, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. before Mendes J. via Zoom.
Released: April 9, 2025
Signed: Justice H. A. Mendes
Ontario Court of Justice
Footnotes
[1] Exhibit B of the affidavit of Crystal Krauter sworn February 11, 2025.
[2] Exhibit D of the affidavit of Crystal Krauter sworn February 11, 2025.
[3] Exhibit E of the affidavit of Crystal Krauter sworn February 11, 2025.
[4] Exhibit F of the affidavit of Crystal Krauter sworn February 11, 2025.
[5] Exhibit G of the affidavit of Rosanne Robinson sworn March 14, 2025.
[6] Exhibit A of the affidavit of Chelsea Grigg (administrative assistant) sworn April 1, 2025.