ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 10-0267
DATE: 20120808

B E T W E E N:

Cheryl Pretty

Mr. Martin Kenny, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

Ronald Pretty

Mr. David Manuel, for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: June 19, 2012

RULING ON MOTION

Quigley, J.

[ 1 ] This is a motion by the applicant mother seeking:

1. to set aside the term of access agreed to in the Minutes of Settlement signed on

December 12, 2011;

2. to suspend the respondent father’s access until further order of this court or until

such time as supervised access with a third party professional can be arranged.

[ 2 ] The parties began cohabiting in 1992 and were married on July 21, 2001. They separated on November 19, 2009.

[ 3 ] The parties have one son, namely, T.R.P., born […], 2004.

[ 4 ] Following the separation, the applicant states that the respondent displayed an emotional instability which led to criminal charges and a confinement for a brief period of time in the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.

[ 5 ] The respondent father’s bail conditions required him to live with his mother in Stittsville and required her to supervise access visits with the child, T.R.P..

[ 6 ] The applicant mother deposes that she encouraged the respondent father’s access to the child, however, the respondent father’s behaviour with the child during the access visits made them difficult for her to continue with. These difficulties included his repeated questioning of T.R.P. of her comings and goings and being aggressive to the applicant in telephone conversations.

[ 7 ] A family assessment was agreed to and carried out by Ron Stewart, a professional assessor, who conducted interviews between January 5, 2011 and September 7, 2011. Mr. Stewart’s report is filed as Exhibit A to the applicant’s affidavit (Tab 10 of Continuing Record).

[ 8 ] Mr. Stewart’s written assessment was released on October 11, 2011. To describe the assessment as negative towards the respondent father would be an understatement. The assessment further recommends sole custody to the applicant mother with supervised access to the respondent father, with a cooling off period before commencing that.

[ 9 ] A settlement conference was conducted by The Honourable Mr. Robert Scott on December 12, 2011. As a result of that settlement conference, the parties agreed to access to the respondent father on the following terms:

(a) Every second weekend from Saturday to Sunday as has been the practice.

(b) T.R.P. shall be picked up at the exchange location at 9:00 a.m. and dropped off at the exchange location at 7:00 p.m.

(c) The access exchange location shall take place at Mr. J. Pantalone’s residence, 7380 Harnett Road, North Gower.

(d) The parties shall use Jim and Donna Pantalone as the exchange intermediaries for all access exchanges until the parties agree otherwise.

(e) The parties are free to change the intermediaries provided it is done on consent, in advance and in writing.

(f) Provided all is well with respect to matters pertaining to the exercise of access, starting in late March and no earlier than March 24, 2012, Ron shall have access every second weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m. untl Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

(g) The pick-up time shall then move to 5:00 p.m. on Friday at Mr. J. Pantalone’s residence and the drop-off time shall then move to 6:00 p.m. (Ron says he agreed to a drop-off time of 7:00 p.m.) on Sunday (or Monday if it is a statutory holiday) at Mr. J. Pantalone’s residence.

(h) For the period between T.R.P.’s last day of school in June and his first day of school in September, the drop-off time at the exchange location shall be 7:00 p.m.

(i) Should Ron be delayed he should email/text Cheryl and the driver to advise of his delay and estimated time of arrival.

(j) Should Ron’s access weekend occur on a weekend where the Monday is a statutory holiday then access can be extended to the Monday with the drop-off time being the same as it is on Sundays.

(k) All changes to the parties’ access arrangements are to be done on consent, in writing and in advance.

(l) For Christmas 2012 and subsequent Christmases, Ron shall have access from Christmas Day at 3:30 p.m. to December 29 th at 12:00 p.m.

(m) Ron may have one week of summer access in 2012 sometime between July 1 st and August 30 th .

(n) Ron shall provide Cheryl with 60 days notice of his preferred week and shall do so in writing or by email.

(o) Summer access shall increase to two weeks in 2015 and shall increase to three weeks in 2018.

(p) Ron Shall be free to call T.R.P. once a week between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.

(q) Cheryl shall be free to monitor these calls until December 30, 2013.

(r) Cheryl is free to call T.R.P. once per weekend at a reasonable time.

(s) During Ron’s summer access Cheryl is free to call T.R.P. at a reasonable time once per weekend and once during the week for each week that T.R.P. is with Ron.

[ 10 ] Following the settlement conference, the Minutes of Settlement, which were drawn up by the applicant mother’s counsel to give effect to the access arrangement, was not signed by the respondent father.

[ 11 ] The applicant mother’s position is that the respondent father’s behaviour has frustrated the actual terms and the spirit of the proposed Minutes of Settlement of December 12, 2011.

[ 12 ] The respondent father’s position is that the Minutes of Settlement of December 12, 2011, entered into freely by the parties, is binding on the parties and should be enforced by the court.

[ 13 ] The respondent father further submits that he has been the victim of the applicant mother’s malicious threats in the past and that she is attempting not only to set aside the access provisions of the Minutes of Settlement, but to suspend his time with his son entirely.

[ 14 ] The respondent father further states that the child is not happy living with the applicant mother and that he is being physically abused by the applicant and her spouse, Paul.

[ 15 ] The respondent father further states that he is being unfairly portrayed as a bad father notwithstanding the fact that he successfully raised two children from a previous marriage who both grew into exceptional adults.

[ 16 ] The respondent father further states that the applicant mother, throughout the separation, has acted in a high-handed manner, including the taping of private telephone conversations without his consent.

Analysis and Decision

[ 17 ] I indicated at the conclusion of the motion that I was reserving my decision and pending the release of the decision that access to the respondent father would be suspended.

[ 18 ] This matter was adjourned to the Assignment Court on September 10, 2012 to set a trial date. The guiding principle in any access motion has to be in the best interests of the child.

[ 19 ] I find that the best interests of the child require access between the respondent father and child to be in a supervised setting by a neutral third party. If the parties cannot agree on a supervisor, this motion will be returned before me at 2:00 p.m. on September 10 th , 2012, for further submissions.

[ 20 ] Therefore, an order shall go granting the applicant’s motion as outlined in paragraph [1] herein.

[ 21 ] If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make written submissions to me on or before September 30 th , 2012.

MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL J. QUIGLEY

Released: August 8, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: 10-0267
DATE: August 8, 2012

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Cheryl Pretty Applicant - and – Ronald Pretty Respondent RULING ON MOTION Quigley, J.

Released: August 8, 2012