Diane Vander Byl v. Rodney MacLeod, Rhonda and Donald MacLeod, 2012 ONSC 4857

Rodney MacLeod, Rhonda and Donald MacLeod

2012 ONSC 4857

COURT FILE NO.: 08-1087

DATE: 2012/09/27

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Diane Vander Byl, Applicant

AND:

Rodney MacLeod, Rhonda and Donald MacLeod, Respondents

BEFORE: Madam Justice Johanne Lafrance-Cardinal

COUNSEL: A. Lawrence Filion, counsel for the Applicant

Stephanie H. Gibson, counsel for Rodney MacLeod, Respondent

Elizabeth M. Osborne, counsel for Rhonda and Donald MacLeod, Respondents

Stephane Perrault, Ontario Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: August 23^rd, 2012

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The applicant mother brings a motion to vary the order of Leroy J. dated August 6^th, 2009, in order to permit her to relocate to Tamworth, Ontario. The respondent father, Rodney MacLeod, brings a cross-motion asking that the mother be prohibited from moving with the children, that he be given custody of the boys or, in the alternative, that there be a shared parenting arrangement between the applicant mother and himself. If he is not successful in obtaining either custody or shared parenting, he is requesting an increase in his access. The paternal grandparents are parties to this motion to vary and they are requesting that the mother not be permitted to move to Tamworth with the children and they are further requesting specific access to both boys.

ORDER OF AUGUST 6TH, 2009

[2] The final order of Justice Leroy dated August 6^th, 2009 provided that the parties have joint custody of the children, Jonathan MacLeod born January 15^th, 1999, and Tyler MacLeod born March 1^st, 2002. The children’s primary residence was to be with the mother. The father was to exercise access every second weekend from Saturday at 10:00 a.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. The order provided that the mother was to have final say in decision-making if the parties were unable to agree on a major decision with regards to the children. The order also specified that the parties could agree to other arrangements with regards to access to the children and the balance of the order dealt with financial issues.

PARTICULARS OF THE MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS

[3] The parties were married on September 5^th, 1998 and separated in February of 2007. The parties were divorced on May 31^st, 2011. The parties have two children, Jonathan and Tyler, who have been in the mother’s primary care since the date of separation. At the time of their marriage the parties resided on the MacLeod family farm, where Donald and Rhonda MacLeod reside. The paternal grandparents had their two sons reside on the farm property, on lots that were severed for each of them. The paternal grandparents have played an extensive role in the children’s care since the children were born. They were always there to help and assist the parents with the children and the children were free to come and go between households without any restrictions. After the parties separated in February of 2007, they lost the matrimonial home under bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. and Mrs. MacLeod purchased the property in order for their daughter-in-law to continue residing in the home with the children. At that time, the grandparents became even more involved in the children’s lives in order to assist the mother, who started by going back to school, and then obtained a position as a PSW. Her employment was shift work which included overnights, and at all times she relied on Mr. and Mrs. MacLeod and/or her parents to assist. It is uncontested that Mr. and Mrs. MacLeod played a very great role in assisting the mother, which involved preparing the children’s meals, washing their clothes, buying their clothes, and often other necessities, paying for extracurricular activities, attending their extracurricular activities, and ensuring that everything they needed for school was provided. The mother would often leave in the morning with the children either still in bed or with the children not yet ready to go to school, and the grandmother would make sure that they were fed breakfast, properly dressed for school, and in many cases she was the one who prepared their school lunches. She would see to it that the children were at the bus stop at the proper time and she was there when the children were dropped at the end of the day. It is uncontested that even though the grandparents had the children on a daily basis during the week, they would also spend time at the grandparents’ home on weekends, often staying overnight.

[4] This relationship continued until the summer of 2011. By then the mother was in a new relationship with Mr. Steven Jenkins and she decided to move from the farmhouse to a place in Alexandria. She gives two reasons for the move, one in order to be closer to her place of work and two, because there was mould in the home and it was not being taken care of by Mr. and Mrs. MacLeod. Mr. Filion adds that Mrs. MacLeod was also undermining her role as a parent, and their relationship was strained which also encouraged the move. What we do know and what is uncontested is that the children went from seeing their grandparents on a daily basis to rarely seeing them. The mother was trying to maintain some distance between her and the boys and the paternal grandparents. The mother demanded that any relationship between the grandparents and the children only occur when Rodney, their son, was having access to the children. There were difficulties with telephone calls and the children resorted to calling their grandparents when their mother was not at home. They would also leave messages on Facebook, asking for their grandparents to come and get them so that they could go visit on the farm. During those calls and messaging, the grandparents did not undermine the mother’s position but rather indicated to the children that they would have to ask their mom’s permission and that they were most welcome to come if that was acceptable with her. The grandparents admit that they went and saw Tyler at his school when mother would not allow any access for his birthday and they did take him to shop for a helmet after school without the mother’s consent. When the grandparents realized that the relationship between them and their daughter-in-law was not improving, and when they learned that she was planning on moving to Tamworth, they decided to bring a motion in order to be added as parties to these proceedings. The motion was granted and they are now represented by counsel.

[5] There is no doubt that since the date of separation, being February of 2007, the father has taken on the role of an access parent who sees his children every second weekend. He was not involved in their extracurricular activities, nor was he involved with school. He would, however, see his children every second weekend from Saturday at 10:00 to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. The mother alleges in her documents that the father was often late to pick up the children and early to return them, but the father denies such allegations. On the contrary, the father indicates that pursuant to the order, he was trying to get access to the children at other times as the parties may agree, however, the mother would never agree to his request for more time with the boys.

[6] The relationship between Rodney MacLeod and Donald and Rhonda MacLeod was not always a rosy one. They were estranged for a period of four years which ended in August of 2010. In August of 2010, he reconciled with his parents with another dispute being held at Christmas of 2011. However, it would seem that they have now reconciled their differences and it is the father’s evidence that he has now moved back to the farm property as it has been renovated and that the mould issue has been taken care of. Since separation, dad has had his share of relationships including a relationship with Doris Conway that lasted for approximately four years, a relationship with a lady in Maxville which was short-lived. He was also engaged to Wendy Proulx and that relationship ended in November of 2011. He is now again residing with Doris Conway and Ms. Conway has moved into the farm home with him. She has one son who is 20 years old and he too will be residing with the parties in the farm home. Mr. MacLeod is a trucker with Splendron Trucking. He usually is a long distance truck driver and travels extensively. However, during the hearing of the motion his lawyer indicated that Mr. MacLeod has spoken to his employer who is now prepared to give him only short hauls to Montreal, which would mean that he would be home every night for the children. We have no independent evidence of this new work schedule.

[7] As for the mother, she is a personal support worker earning approximately $19,600. She is in a new long distance relationship with Mr. Steven Jenkins whom she has been dating for two years, and she is hoping to be able to move with him in Tamworth in order to pursue this relationship. There are no immediate plans to marry, Mr. Jenkins has never been married before nor does he have children. He lives alone in a four-bedroom home which he owns. He has had the same employer for close to 14 years and he earns approximately $44,000 per year. The parties indicate that they have a meaningful and a quality relationship, that they spend every second weekend together and that he has a strong positive relationship with the children. The mother indicates that the same PSW work she is doing in Alexandria would be available to her at the Tamworth retirement home and that she would be making a similar income. This potential employer has indicated that she could have flexible hours so that she or Mr. Jenkins could be home for the children at all times. That would therefore mean that she would not need a third party caregiver. There is nothing filed by the potential employer. She indicates that the same IEP presently in force for Jonathan could be applied in Tamworth and that there is a program there that is not available at the Glengarry District High School that would permit one-on-one help for Jonathan. Again, I have no independent evidence of that statement or if the IEP plan would be implemented immediately. She is prepared to share the transportation by bringing the children here every second weekend and the father would be responsible to drive them back on Sunday, a distance of 293 km each way,

a 3 ½ hour drive each way.

THE CHILDREN

a) JONATHAN: Jonathan is a young 13 year old with special needs. He is in grade seven but is reading and doing math at a grade four level. He has difficulty making friends and has difficulty in social settings. He is being bullied at school including physical assaults from other students. He was going to the Laggan Public School but he is now going to be entering the Glengarry District High School for grade seven. He is on an IEP. Jonathan is a very sensitive young man who becomes easily emotional. These court proceedings have been especially difficult for him and the children’s lawyer describes meetings that often finish in tears when faced with the possibility and the repercussions of him having to move to Tamworth or of his mother moving to Tamworth without him. At the last meeting with the social worker in Tamworth, he stated he was resigned to living there but was emotional when he made the statement. Jonathan describes himself as a farmer and is the happiest when he is at the farm. He is involved in 4H, he is involved in everything having to do with farming, including riding his four-wheeler and other equipment that one would ordinarily find on a farm.

b) TYLER: Tyler is much more resilient. He is a very energetic child, fairly outgoing, he seems to be doing very well. He too is torn between pleasing his mother and wanting to stay on the farm. Tyler is better able to cope in social settings and would be able to make new friends in Tamworth. It would be much more difficult for Jonathan to be able to do the same. However, both boys are described as being very obedient, as being very polite, and as being well behaved and well raised. The parents and the paternal grandparents have to be commended for having raised such good boys.

[8] The boys had the privilege of being represented by Me Perreault from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer who was assisted by Carmela Savoia, a clinical investigator engaged by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to provide a clinical assist in these proceedings. The children’s lawyer is not in favour of the move and believes that it is in the children’s best interest to be able to continue residing in this area, close to their extended family of both sides, the farm, their school and the little social life they presently have.

MOTHER’S PLAN

[9] The mother wishes to move to Tamworth in time for the boys to start school in that area. She would be moving into Mr. Jenkins’ home, a four-bedroom home which would permit the boys to have their own bedroom. She hopes to be able to organize her work as a personal support worker at a Tamworth retirement home so that either she or Mr. Jenkins are at home at all times for the boys. She has enquired with the school and Jonathan’s IEP would be maintained. She acknowledges that it is important for the relationship between the boys, their dad and the grandparents to be maintained. She is prepared to share the transportation by driving the boys on the Friday, every second weekend at 7 p.m. to Dalkeith with the father being responsible to return them in Tamworth on the Sunday by 8 p.m. This is an extension of the existing access. The mother also proposes to give the grandparents special access in Kingston when they are visiting their daughter who resides in that area. She is also prepared to give the grandparents designated access times as long as there is some balance between the competing interests considering the access can only take place on weekends. She is amenable to special access during holidays and a significant period of time during the summer. She would encourage contact via telephone and e-mails.

FATHER’S PLAN

[10] It is the father’s position that the mother should not be permitted to move to Tamworth with the boys as that would not be in the boys’ best interests. The statements in the factum and representations of his counsel are to the effect that he has now moved back to the home where he and the Applicant resided while they were married. The home has had significant renovations in order to rectify the mould issue. He is residing there with his common-law spouse, Doris Conway, and her 20 year old son. It is a recent relationship although they were a couple for approximately three years after the separation of the parties. It is a four bedroom home and the boys would all have their own bedroom. It is the father’s statement, although not sworn, that his employer will now be assigning him day trips only permitting him to be home every night rather than the long haul trucking route of Toronto-Quebec which he was previously assigned to. His plan is three-fold depending on whether or not Ms. Vander Byl is permitted to move, or whether she remains in this area. He proposes:

a) Shared custody with the children rotating between homes on a week about basis. This would permit the boys to maintain their bond with their mother while fulfilling their expressed preference to live and spend time on the farm and to maintain their close relationship with the paternal grandparents;

b) In the alternative, every second weekend from Thursday after school to Monday morning with an overnight during the week on the off week, plus a sharing of all school holidays. He is prepared to permit his parents special access on his time which would be one overnight per month during his weekend, and two days of access;

c) If the Applicant is permitted to move, then he is requesting access every second weekend from the Friday at 7 p.m. to the Sunday at 9 p.m.; 6 weeks during the summer holidays; all of the March break from the Friday at the beginning of the break to the Sunday at the end of the break; an equal sharing of all other school holidays;

d) If the mother moves the father is prepared to share some of the access he is requesting with his parents, including an equal sharing of the summer holidays, March break and Christmas holiday.

GRANDPARENTS’ PLAN

[11] The grandparents would like to resume the important role they had in the boys’ lives by spending quality time with them. They are not claiming custody but they are requesting specific access. If the Applicant is not permitted to move and continues to reside in the area, they are requesting:

a) On one of the father’s weekends one overnight and two days of access once per month;

b) One overnight every second week, mid-week;

c) Two weeks in July or August;

d) Whatever other times the parties may agree.

[12] If the move is granted and the children move to Tamworth, they are requesting:

a) They understand that it would not be in the children’s best interests to travel three weekends per month. Consequently, they will settle with seeing the boys when they are spending the weekend with their dad;

b) One-half of the summer holidays requested by the dad, which would mean three weeks with the father and three weeks with the grandparents;

c) They would equally share the March break and the Christmas holiday with the father;

d) Liberal communication via telephone and e-mails;

e) Any other time as the parties may agree.

[13] If primary residence is with dad, they would be satisfied with reasonable access on reasonable notice.

[14] If shared parenting is ordered, they would be content to see the boys when the boys are with their father.

[15] They are prepared to exchange and to partially share the transportation by meeting the mother at the York Centre in Cornwall.

THE LAW

[16] The leading case in the law relating to mobility is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 (S.C.C.) In paragraph 49 of the decision, the law is summarized:

1.

The parent applying for a change in the custody or access order must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in the circumstances affecting the child; [page 342]

2. If the threshold is met, the judge on the application must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child’s needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them;

3. This inquiry is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and evidence of the new circumstances;

4. The inquiry does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent, although the custodial parent’s views are entitled to great respect;

5. Each case turns on its own unique circumstances. The only issue is the best interest of the child in the particular circumstances of the case;

6. The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests and rights of the parents;

7. More particularly the judge should consider, inter alia:

a. the existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent;

b. the existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent;

c. the desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents;

d. the views of the child;

e. the custodial parent’s reason for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child;

f. disruption to the child of a change in custody;

g. disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community he or she has come to know.”

[17] One must review the decision of Gordon and Goertz 1996 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27 (S.C.C.) with section 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act and with Section 16(8) and (10) and Section 17(9) of the Divorce Act which reads:

“24(2) BEST INTERESTS OF CHILD – The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

i. each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

ii. other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and

iii. persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application.”

Section 16(8) of the Divorce Act states:

“FACTORS – In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of the child.”

Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act states:

“MAXIMUM CONTACT – In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.”

Section 17(9) of the Divorce Act states:

“MAXIMUM CONTACT – In making a variation order varying a custody order, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each former spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, where the variation order would grant custody of the child to a person who does not currently have custody, the court shall take into consideration the willingness of that person to facilitate such contact.”

[18] In applying the Gordon and Goertz, and the legislation to the facts of this particular case, I come to the following findings:

1. All parties acknowledge that the mother’s proposed move to Tamworth constitutes a material change in circumstances.

2. There must be a fresh inquiry as to what is in the best interests of the children. In this case, the inquiry cannot be based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order as the order was made pursuant to Minutes of Settlement filed.

3. The inquiry must be focused on best needs of the children only, not that of the parents however the custodial parents’ views are entitled to great respect. Bjornson v. Creighton, 2002 45125 (ON CA), 62 O.R. (3d) 236, [2002] O.J. No. 4364 (Ont. C.A.). The mother has been the primary caregiver to the children since the separation. Her desire to move must be given the most respect as a happy custodial parent often makes for happy secure children. MacGyver v. Richards, 1995 8886 (ON CA), [1995] O.J. No. 770 (Ont. C.A.). Even though the order is one of joint custody, the father up until August of 2012, played the role of an access parent. The paternal grandparents were much more involved in the children’s lives on a daily basis than the father ever was. The mother’s wish to move to Tamworth is solely to be able to reside with Mr. Jenkins. She will have the same job, with the same salary. She is not moving to be closer to family or closer to her support network as all of her own family reside in the Dalkeith area. The move would be simply to satisfy her personal need to be close to Mr. Jenkins. However, the move would be highly disruptive to the children especially at their age and when taking into consideration Jonathan’s special needs and both boys’ strong attachment to the farm. The mother’s relationship, although it has lasted two years, is a long distance relationship where the couple has seen each other on weekends and often only every second weekend. The relationship is still in the honeymoon stage, with the day-to-day reality of work, school, homework, two children full-time, travelling every second weekend, full-time parenting by Mr. Jenkins having not been tested. The risk is high that a long term relationship may fail.

4. Since the inquiry is focused on best interests of the children, on their relationships, on maximizing the contact, on their views and on the disruption that will be caused if they do move then I find it is in their best interests to remain in the area for the following reasons:

a) This inquiry is fact driven and the facts of this particular case are unique. These children have four parents. The reality is that both boys love their parents and their paternal grandparents equally. This was shared by the children to the OCL and it is reflected in the evidence. The mother is and was the primary caregiver and the father was the access parent. However, before the mother’s move in August of 2011, the real life day-to-day arrangements of the boys was a shared responsibility between the mother and the paternal grandparents. Because of the nature of their work, the grandparents were always there, available, picking up the pieces both before and after school and even on weekends when the mother could not juggle all the responsibilities of her new role as a single parent. She depended heavily on the grandparents and the children were parented by them on a daily basis. The mother unilaterally decided to sever that bond once she moved to Alexandria. She failed to realize the psychological damage caused to the children when they no longer were permitted to see their grandparents other than during the father’s access. The children had to resort to calling their grandparents and messaging them on Facebook when the mother was not at home. All through the children’s young life, the parents have permitted the grandparents to take on a great role in the children’s upbringing and parenting. The mother cannot now unilaterally terminate that relationship because it is no longer convenient to her.

b) Jonathan is a special needs child. He has difficulty in social settings, difficulty in making friends, difficulty in fitting in. He is often bullied. He is having difficulties academically. He is on an IEP. He is a very sensitive 13 year old who is brought to tears when the move to Tamworth is being discussed. Jonathan is the happiest on the farm. He describes himself as a farmer. He loves his mother and father dearly but he loves his grandparents just as much. For him and for Tyler the farm represents everything that makes them happy, the animals, 4H Club, the farm equipment, the four wheelers, the extended family, the cousins, their father and their grandparents. They were born and raised on the farm and they wish to continue to do so. Both parents are able to meet the needs of the child, the mother more so than the father as she has been the one meeting all of those needs since the date of separation. However, the father’s plan is elevated and enhanced by the fact that he is living within 30 meters of the grandparents and they occupy such a great role in the children’s lives.

c) The children’s views are clear, they want what every child wants, their mom, their dad, their grandparents and the farm. They have indicated throughout that they want to spend more time with their father and grandparents. The OCL reports:

“The children stated they understood that their access with grandparents was limited due to the fact that their mother did not want them attending their home, however they were unclear as to the rationale.”

The children, at the second meeting with the social worker, have resigned themselves to a potential move to Tamworth but it is with a heavy heart.

d) The question of access is also a cause for concern. There is a risk that the mother’s undertaking to provide one-way transportation every second weekend may be short lived. The OCL reports:

“A review of police records show Ms. MacLeod has contacted them on several occasions, with complaints related to access by the father to the children. It would appear at times that she may have been excessive in her attempts to curtail access.”

There are CAS reports, the OCL states:

“While the Society did not remain involved, Ms. MacLeod was cautioned about her conflict with the grandparents and father and she was encouraged to allow contact between the boys and the grandparents.”

On two occasions, the father’s access was denied, once when the mother was in Toronto with the children and on another occasion the father was advised that they were in Tamworth for the weekend and the father had to drive there on the Saturday in order to exercise access. The mother has been curtailing access to the father and the grandparents since she moved to Alexandria, it is hard to believe that she would now have a change of heart and foster and encourage that relationship. The best way to predict the future is to look at the past.

5. The contact will be maximized between the children and their parents and grandparents if they remain in the area.

6. There is no doubt, from all the evidence, that the boys’ lives would be disrupted if they moved to Tamworth. They were born and raised in Dalkeith, they have been surrounded throughout by the extended family, their paternal grandparents lived 30 meters from their home, their maternal grandparents lived on the adjoining farm, their dad’s brother and family lived on the adjoining parcel of land. This has offered them stability throughout their young lives. 1) Young v. Young, 2003 3320 (ON CA), 2003 CarswellOnt 63 (C.A.). 2) Elliott v. Elliott, 2009 CarswellOnt 1388, (C.A.). 3) Belisle v. Belisle, 2000 22470 (ON SC), 2000 CarswellOnt 4735 (S.C.J.). They would leave this nurturing “village mentality” to live in Tamworth, in a single family dwelling, adjacent to a highway with no peers, no friends, new schools, knowing no one but Mr. Jenkins and their mom. It would also be difficult for them to make friends if they are out of the area every second weekend and a great part of the summer holidays. For children who are accustomed to strong extended family care arrangements this move would be devastating.

[19] For the above-mentioned reasons, the mother’s request to relocate with the children to Tamworth is denied. It is in their best interests to remain in Glengarry County.

[20] I must now consider the father’s claim for shared parenting or, in the alternative, for extended access. I agree with the children’s lawyer that there is no material change in circumstances that would warrant a shared parenting regime. Assuming the mother decides to remain in Alexandria, the parties are to continue having joint custody with primary residence and final decision making with the mother. The children are very clear in their views however, that they want to spend more time with their dad and their grandparents. The proposal made by Me Perrault, solicitor for the children, is a good one and one that is now ordered and that is that access be every second weekend from Thursday evening after school to Monday morning when the children will be dropped off at school. On the off week, there will also be access for one evening per week, pick up at school and return of the children at school the next morning. I leave it to the mother to determine which is the preferable night and it will remain that night throughout, unless the parties agree otherwise. The parents are to share school holidays equally between them including summer holidays.

[21] With regards to the grandparents’ access and taking into consideration the fact that both parents are consenting to specific access being awarded to the grandparents, and the great role the grandparents have and continue to play in the children’s lives, the order will state as follows:

1. Once per month, during the father’s every second weekend access, grandparents to have one overnight and two days of access with the boys;

2. On the same day as the father but on the alternate week when the father has no week day access, the grandparents will have one overnight access from after school, returning the boys to school the next morning. To clarify, the children will have one mid week access per week alternating weekly between the father and the grandparents;

3. There will be no special access during the summer holidays and during the school holidays considering the father will have the boys half of the time, and they all live on the same property.

[22] Either parties can address the issue of costs including providing me with offers to settle and bill of costs. All costs submissions should be received no later than November 2^nd, 2012.

[23] The order takes effect on today’s date and the 30 day appeal period under Section 21(3) of the Divorce Act commences not from August 23^rd, 2012 but from today’s date.

Madam Justice Lafrance-Cardinal

RELEASED: September 27^th, 2012

Rodney MacLeod, Rhonda and Donald MacLeod

2012 ONSC 4857

COURT FILE NO.: 08-1087

DATE : 2012/09/27

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Diane Vander Byl, Applicant

AND:

Rodney MacLeod, Rhonda

and Donald MacLeod,

Respondents

BEFORE: Madam Justice Johanne

Lafrance-Cardinal

COUNSEL: A. Lawrence Filion, counsel for the Applicant

Stephanie Gibson, counsel for Rodney MacLeod, Respondent

Elizabeth Osborne, counsel for Rhonda and Donald MacLeod, Respondents

Stephane Perrault, Ontario Children’s Lawyer

ENDORSEMENT

Madam Justice Johanne Lafrance-Cardinal

RELEASED: September 27^th, 2012