COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-379374-00
DATE: 20121211
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY LAW
BETWEEN:
CAMILLE MARIE LEMIEUX,
Applicant
– and –
KEVIN GORDON MERCER,
Respondent
Cheryl Goldhart, Counsel for the Applicant
Barbara Puckering, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: NOVEMBER 6, 2012
endorsement: greer j.:
[1] The Applicant, Camille Marie Lemieux, (“the Mother”), moves on her Amended, Revised Notice of Motion for various heads of relief, which was followed by the Cross-Motion of the Respondent, Kevin Gordon Mercer, (“the Father”). Most of the relief sought revolves around custody and access with respect to the parties’ two children, namely:
(a) Eleanor Georgia Mercer, born April 17, 2008, now age 4
(b) Rufus Henry Mercer, born September 13, 2009, now age 3
The children’s primary residence is presently with the Mother and she asks that it remain the same.
[2] The parties first appeared before me on October 18, 2012 on a one hour Motion. Having read all the materials the evening before, I knew that it was a Long Motion, which could not be heard in one hour. The parties agreed to deal with the issue of the matrimonial home and its sale and the division of contents on the short Motion, and filed a Consent on those issues, leaving the balance to be heard by me on November 6, 2012.
[3] The Mother moves for interim sole custody of the children and an interim Order that the Father have supervised access with Access for Parents in Ontario at the Danforth site, on terms, whereby the Father sees the children there on alternate Saturdays from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. She says that the Father’s Tuesdays and Thursdays should now be from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., and that all the costs of supervision should be at his sole expense.
[4] The Mother asks also for an Order requiring the Father to produce the notes from his past supervised access and from supervisors, to the extent they have not already been provided.
[5] With respect to interim child support, the Mother asks the Father to pay $743 per month for 2 children based on an imputed income of $50,000.
[6] The Mother asks for an Order appointing Dr. Irwin Butkowsky to assess and report to the Court on the needs of the children and the ability and willingness of the parties of any of them to satisfy the needs of the children. She asks that the Court order the parties to split the cost of such assessment.
[7] She also asks that the Father produce the disclosure and information set out in her Request for Information served on him on October 18, 2012 and that the Affidavit sworn to by Christine Mercer on July 23, 2012, be struck as referring to without prejudice communications.
[8] In his Cross-Motion, the Father asks for an Order that the Consent without prejudice Order of Madam Justice Kiteley made July 23, 2012, be varied to provide for a supervised exchange such that the parties do not come in direct contact with each other. He asks for unsupervised access on every Tuesday and Thursday, so that he picks the children up from the Early Learning Centre at 4:00 p.m. and drops them off at the Mother’s home at 8:00 p.m. He also asks to have the Saturday access to be unsupervised and that he pick up the children from music lessons at 10:30 a.m. and drop them off at Mother’s residence at 5:00 p.m.
[9] The Father also asks that the past costs of supervised access be shared by the parties as a S.7 expense. Finally he asks that the Mother pay him both child support and spousal support pursuant to the Guidelines. He also asks for further financial disclosure from the Mother.
Some background information
[10] The parties met in June 2004 and began dating shortly thereafter. They married on May 21, 2005. The Mother, before the marriage, sold her home. When the parties married, the proceeds from both of their previous homes went into the purchase of 25 Hampton Avenue, which was jointly owned by them and became the matrimonial home. At the time the parties met, the Father was in a common-law relationship with another woman and the Mother says that relationship continued while he was also in a relationship with her. She says he begged to have children with her. After marrying the parties had two children, and separated on June 19, 2011.
[11] The Mother is a family physician, is licensed as a lawyer and is trained as a pharmacist. She is affiliated with two health teams at two different hospitals and her annual income in 2011was approximately $290,000.
[12] The Father is a trained sociologist and works as an urban environmentalist. He is self-employed through his own company entitled “The Hampton Group Water Strategies”. Most of his income, however, comes through another company, Riversides Stewardship Alliance. There is no disclosure of the Father’s current income but the Mother says that leading up to their separation, the Father was earning approximately $50,000 per year.
[13] The Father says in his most recent sworn Financial Statement of November 2, 2012, that he earns $30,200 per year. Other than this Statement, the Father has not produced any corporate or business financial statements or copies of any Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment. He does say, in his recent Affidavit, that at one time he did earn $50,000, and when he went to work for the Ontario Clean Water Fund for a year in 2006, he did earn $75,000, later earned $50,000 and then was let go 4 months after the birth of Rufus. He then went back to Riversides to help rejuvenate the company and says he does not expect to earn much over $30,000 for the next few years. He says he is trying to put his unfiled Income Tax Returns together and hopes to them ready to be sent to CRA and produced to the Mother’s counsel.
[14] On July 23, 2012, the parties appeared before Madam Justice Kiteley at a Case Conference where they entered into a Consent Temporary Order, respecting access of the Father with the children. The access was to be supervised, firstly by a friend, Charlene Sadler, and then through the Access for Parents and Children in Ontario Centre and Visitations without Borders. The Mother agreed to pay the supervisor fees, subject to a future credit to her towards any funds she may owe in the future to the Father. The terms on a without prejudice basis of the access are:
Tuesdays and Thursdays, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., with pick-ups at the daycare with University of Toronto Early Learning Centre and drop-offs at 25 Hampton Avenue, Toronto; and
Saturdays, from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., with pick-ups at music lessons (at the Royal Conservatory of Music, on Bloor Street West, Toronto) and drop- offs at 25 Hampton Avenue, Toronto. The Mother will drop-off the children at their music lessons and leave by 9:40 a.m.
The pick-ups and drop-offs were scheduled so that the parties would not be in breach of the Father’s Bail terms. The Father is now asking for variations to this access schedule, which was made on a “without prejudice” basis.
The Mother’s position
[15] The Mother says that she should be given sole interim custody, awaiting the report of Dr. Butkowsky who has agreed to begin his assessment in January 2013, if appointed to do so. The Mother says that she has been subjected to verbal, emotional and physical abuse at the hands of the Father throughout their short marriage. She says that she learned, early in their relationship, that the Father had been charged with assault against his former common-law partner. The Father refuses to acknowledge that the encounter with the former common-law partner was more than an argument.
[16] Shortly before the parties’ wedding, the Mother says she received a phone call and letter from Mary Marcon, the person with whom the Father was involved with when he and the Mother began their relationship. The Mother annexes to her Affidavit that original letter. She says she confronted the Father with the contents and he passed it off as labelling Ms. Marcon as “a liar.” However, on their wedding day, the Mother says that they had an argument, which led to the Father physically restraining her to the point of causing bruising on her arms. Despite this knowledge, the Mother went through with the marriage.
[17] The Mother says that the Father cannot control his temper, even with the children, who are still very young. She says during their marriage the Father regularly verbally abused her, insulted her and called her names, sometimes restraining her during arguments, as well as sexually assaulting her when she did not agree to have sex with him. She says the Father constantly threatened her, saying that she would lose everything if she left him. She says the abuse escalated with each of her miscarriages and pregnancies.
[18] All of this resulted in the Father being arrested on June 19, 2011, when a neighbour called the police, when she became concerned about the safety of the Mother and children. The Father was charged and granted bail. He entered into a Peace Bond requiring him to refrain from contact with her, which was eventually varied so that they could communicate about the children. The Mother sets out in paragraphs 17 and 18 of her Counsel’s Factum, the various angry statements and names the Father has often called her and the children.
[19] One particular incident, on May 13, 2012 after the parties separated, at the Metro Zoo in the company of friends, is an example of the Father’s continuing abusive behaviour. Esther Tang and the Mother, arranged to have a play-date with their children at the Zoo. They were to meet there at 1:00 p.m. The Father found out about it and somehow turned up at the Zoo, where he took off with the children. Ms. Tang sets out the encounter in detail after they finally all met at the entrance. She witnessed the Father yelling at the Mother, grabbing Rufus’ bike, referred to the Mother as “psychotic” in front of her and the children, and being aggressive and frightening in his behaviour during the day there, as well as at lunch and later at dinner at the Burger Cellar. She says she found the Father’s behaviour that day to be “shocking and truly frightening.” She says he also used the “F” word in loud and abusive diatribes directed at the Mother and children that day.
[20] The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“CAS”) has been involved with the family. They became involved on March 30, 2011, after the Mother reported the abuse to her therapist. The CAS became involved again when it was called by the Police Service on December 28, 2011, because the police were called to the home where the issue of parental conflict in front of the children was raised. The CAS notes are attached to the Mother’s October 10, 2012 Affidavit.
[21] On April 3, 2012, an unknown employee contacted the CAS because one of the children was heard saying to another parent that the Father said he was going to “set the Mother on fire”, and when asked about it said “no, he wasn’t joking.” The Mother feels that the CAS closed their file because they knew the children were safe with her and that there was supervised access in place and closing the file would allow the Access Centre to open their file. Although the parties tried counselling, that was not successful. The Mother remains concerned about the Father’s on-going abusive behaviour.
[22] The Mother has attached to her Affidavit, the Affidavits of two of the parties’ neighbours who overheard and observed the parties’ arguments. One such incident occurred on May 13, 2012, on Mother’s Day, the evening after the Zoo day, where the Mother was observed to be crying and the Father told her to go ahead and call the police. The other is the neighbour who called the police on June 19, 2011, because of what she heard and saw. She says on June 12, 2011, the Father was “extremely critical of her and sarcastic to the point of being disparaging” and that his verbal abuse continued. On June 19, 2011, she observed the same behaviour, where the Father was shouting at the Mother from the bottom of the steps, in what she saw was a “very unhealthy, very public interaction that seemed to be escalating in severity.” She therefore called the police and asked them for advice.
The Father’s position
[23] The Father sets out the history of how the supervised access Order came into being. He says that he had not seen his children for 2½ months and accepted the terms so “I could demonstrate that there was no concern.” Thus, the Order was made “without prejudice”. He says the visit with the children at Charlene’s home went well but he could not afford to pay for supervised access at $50 per hour. He says he expended over $5,000 and cashed in an RRSP to pay for the supervision so he could see the children, given the delay in obtaining a long Motion date.
[24] The Father admits that he made some “serious errors” with respect to his communication with the Mother. He agrees that early in the proceeding he answered questions in an inappropriate way when posed by the children to him. He also agrees he is not a “perfect parent” but is trying to improve matters with the children.
[25] While the Father supports having an assessment done, he does not think that it is appropriate to have it done while he has supervised access since that is an artificial setting. He believes the best thing for the parties to do to have no contact with one another, using neutral parties or other methods of exchange when access visits take place. He wants to have unsupervised access visits.
[26] The Father denies ever physically abusing the Mother. He says that the e-mail exchanges between the parties show that there is no fear on the part of the Mother, which is shown by what the Mother says in her e-mails to him. He says one time she thanked him for being positive about their dealings with the house. He says on March 22, 2012, the Mother sent an e-mail to him that he could come by and give them a bath and put them to bed because he had missed them in the morning.
[27] The Father points to the supervisory notes from the Access Centre, which show that he has improved in his ability to provide the children with nutritious meals at appropriate times, and which show that the children seemed happy to be with him. The notes do say, however, that there remains some room for improvements in ensuring timely return of the children to the Mother.
[28] The Father also filed some supportive affidavits from friends and family, including Paul Yee, a children’s author, who had a very pleasant neighbourly relationship with the Father. It was at his home that the Father was arrested after an altercation with the Mother on August 26, 2010, Mr. Yee was the supervisor on one of the access visits. The Father says that the Mother fabricated the altercation and that the Mother had made reference to an earlier incident from May 18, 2012, to have the Father arrested.
[29] The Father says that there is no reason for the Mother to fear him. He points to the fact that he went with the family to Disney World in the U.S.A. during the Christmas vacation in December 2011. He says that now a strict schedule is in place respecting access, the level of communication between the parties is at a minimum and that he should be allowed unsupervised access.
[30] The Father acknowledges that eventually a Peace Bond was entered into by him whereby the parties could not communicate with one another. They admit that there were mutual breaches of that Bond until it was altered so that they could communicate about the children. He worries that if the Mother is given interim/temporary custody of the children at this point, it will prejudice his rights at Trial.
The Affidavit of Christine Mercer sworn July 23, 2012
[31] The Father swore an Affidavit of November 4, 2012. He opposes the striking out of his sister, Christine Mercer’s Affidavit sworn in this proceeding.
[32] Christine Mercer swore an Affidavit in support of the position of the Father, who is her brother. There are difficulties with the Affidavit because much is hearsay evidence. For example, in para.2, Ms. Mercer discusses things like the household tasks that the Father performed during the marriage. There is no reference to when she observed him performing these tasks or how often he did them.
[33] Ms. Mercer says in para. 4 of her Affidavit, that she has “witnessed Camille increasingly isolate herself and the children.” How could she have made these observations when she lives in a totally different city than Toronto? How often is she observing this and where and under what circumstances? It sounds to me that she is simply repeating what she has been told by her brother. It is therefore hearsay.
[34] Ms. Mercer’s so-called observations become worse, throughout the affidavit, about the Mother’s frame of mind. There are more references to what her brother told her and not what she observed. While in a few places in her Affidavit Ms. Mercer makes direct observations of Camille and the children, this is not, in my view, sufficient to save the Affidavit from being struck in its entirety.
[35] As is noted in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. AM, 2002 CarswellOnt 1051 (Ont. S.C.J.), para.65, “Just dealing requires attention to the criteria in the Family Law Rules that themselves control quality,” in the drawing and swearing with respect to the contents of Affidavits. “They should contain only information within the personal knowledge of the person signing the Affidavit, not just any information.” See: Subrules 14 (17) (18) and (19).
[36] An Order shall therefore go striking out the whole Affidavit of Christine Mercer at Tab 19 of the Continuing Record and the Registrar is ordered and directed to remove it from the Record and return it to the Father’s counsel.
Interim/Temporary child and spousal support
[37] I gave the parties three hours to present their cases on the Motions, and we sat until 5:30 p.m. At the end of the day, the parties agreed that the issue of interim/temporary child support would have to be put over to another time. While there was some evidence in the parties’ Affidavits about child support, there was no time to present the issue to the Court. An Order shall go adjourning that issue to another Motion date to be agreed upon by the parties.
[38] In addition, there was insufficient financial information provided by the Father to allow the parties to properly present the issue of interim/temporary spousal support claimed by the Father for that issue to be argued. Order to go adjourning the interim/temporary spousal support issue to be heard at the same time as the child support issue is presented to the Court on the continuation of the Motion. I do not remain seized of that continuing Motion.
Analysis
(a) The Assessment by Dr. Butkowsky
[39] It is imperative that an Assessment take place of all the child related issues respecting custody and access in this proceeding. The parties both agree this should take place given their inability to communicate with one another and their disagreements on these issues. The parties agree that Dr. Butkowsky should commence such an Assessment in January 2013.
[40] The Father, however, has two reservations about this. Firstly, he says he cannot afford to pay his share of such an Assessment, given his income, which he claims is about $32,000 in 2011. The Mother says that each party should pay half the cost of the Assessment. Dr. Butkowsky will want payments from both parties before he begins the Assessment. In the circumstances, in my view the Mother should advance the funds to have the Assessment done, subject to this Order that the Father’s half shall be charged against any equalization payment or other payment that the Mother may have to pay to him in the proceeding.
[41] The Father’s second reservation is that he says to be observed with the children by Dr. Butkowsky in a setting that his access with the children is supervised, is an artificial setting. He has asked the Court to give him unsupervised access, thereby varying the Order of Madam Justice Kiteley.
[42] An Order shall go that the parties sign the contract/Agreement with Dr. Butkowsky to commence the assessment at the beginning of January 2013. I order the Mother to pay for each party’s half of the cost, with the Father’s portion to be charged against any equalization or other payment that the Mother may owe to the Father either under the terms of a Settlement Agreement between them or as may be set in final terms by a Court, or from the Father’s share of net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.
(b) Interim/Temporary Custody
[43] I conclude that the Mother shall have interim/temporary sole custody of the two children for the reasons which follow. In my view, it is in the children’s best interests to make such an Order at this time, even though the Assessment will take place in 2013. The children’s primary residence shall continue to be with the Mother.
[44] The children are very young and have been exposed to a great deal of verbal abuse as well as some altercations regarding the shoving by one parent against the other in the presence of the children. This is noted in the Report of the CAS dated December 28, 2011, as set out in paragraph 36 of the Mother’s Affidavit sworn October 10, 2012:
Kevin is keenly aware that he cannot control his behaviours at times which causes the conflict however he regularly places blame on Camille and her characteristics. He appears to want to see change in those characteristics however, he needs to understand that he cannot control Camille or her reactions he does not converse with her but rather he chooses to verbally attack her and pathologize her. It seemed evident that Camille had good reason to not engage with Kevin and to be concerned about his behaviours and reactions.
It is the Mother’s evidence that they cannot communicate at all, even on the pick-up and drop-off of the children at access visit times with the Father. In order for parties to co-parent, they have to be able to work together through some manner of communication. The Mother has always been the children’s primary parent.
[45] There are totally independent observations set out in Ms. Tang’s Affidavit at some length about the Father’s abhorrent behaviour at the Zoo and his attempts to control not only the Mother but her interaction with the children, speaking disparagingly about her in the presence of the children. Even though he was not invited on the Zoo trip, the Father chose to interfere in such an uncalled for aggressive manner, that it exemplifies why there should be an interim/temporary Order given to the Mother for custody of the children.
[46] The Mother has said that their daughter, Eleanor, at 4 years of age has repeated to her the Father’s concern about money and his financial position by saying to her, “You have to share money from the house with daddy,” and “You are supposed to divide assets with daddy”, and “You have to help get money to daddy.” My further concern is that the Father has been saying completely inappropriate things to the children, as though he were discussing the parties’ legal issues with someone other than his children.
[47] The Mother describes her relationship with the Father as one of an “abusive-controlling violent nature.” The Father denies having been physically abusive towards the Mother. There are sufficient examples of verbal abuse leading to pushing, shoving, bruising, grabbing, to show that there is some physical violence that the Father has not learned to control. In addition, the shouting in front of the children and the denigrating of the Mother by the Father by saying things like “Mommy hates daddy,” is an attempt to control both the Mother and the children.
[48] The case is a high conflict case, which requires special considerations, as noted in the article, “Custody Disputes Involving allegation of Domestic Violence Toward a Differentiated Approach to Parenting Plans”, by Peter G. Jaffe, Janet R. Johnston, Claire V. Crooks, Nicholas Bala , family Court review, Vol. 46, No. 3, July 2008 500-522, at p.510.
[49] In my view, the children require the stability of the Mother having sole interim/temporary custody at this stage in the litigation. She shall keep the Father informed of all aspects of the children’s education and daycare including the names of each institution, the names of the teachers or caregivers, the names of the children’s doctors, dentist and other health professionals. The Father shall be entitled to attend parent/teacher meetings and activities in which the children participate organized by the school/daycare and the Mother shall immediately inform the Father if a child takes ill requiring hospitalization or on-going medical care.
[50] In Hill v. Hill, 2000 CarswellOnt 1582 (Ont. S.C.J.), the Judge refused to grant interim/temporary custody to either party, saying in para.10 that it is in the best interests of the parties that this be left until after cross-examinations are conducted.
[51] The Father relies on the decision of Mr. Justice Wood, in Wiedrick v. LeMesurier, 2006 CarswellOnt 281 (Ont. S.C.J.). The Court notes in para. 15 that a decision granting custody or determining access will frequently establish a status quo, which is almost impossible to alter at trial. In my view the words “almost impossible” are strong words, when examining the facts of this case. The past history and the Father’s early behaviour at the Access Centre, make it clear, in my view, that he has a lot left to learn about parenting. The children are of tender age and need some certainty in their schedule.
[52] Keeping in mind the children’s best interest, I have taken into account the nature of the violence, which is mainly directed to the Mother and not the children. The Father, however, has allowed his anger to spill over into verbal altercations in front of the children and his controlling behaviour continued in their presence. The Family Law Act, S.38 directs the Court to consider all of the child’s needs and circumstances.
[53] Consideration also has to be given to the Bail conditions imposed on the Father. Communication has to be limited between the parties to the children’s access. In Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 1625 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 275 (C.A.) the Court pointed out in para. 11 that there must be some evidence before the Court that, despite the parties’ differences, that the parties can communicate effectively with one another if there is to be shared custody or shared parenting. In this case, it appears that such communication is, at this point, not possible.
[54] The status quo is that the Mother has always been the Children’s primary caregiver. She has provided the stability in the children’s lives that the Father, at this point in time, seems unable to do. In Button v. Konieczny, 2012 CarswellOnt 12353, 2012 ONSC 5613 (Ont. S.C.J.), also a case of a short-term marriage, Mr. Justice Minnema examines the issue of the status quo in paras. 16 to 18 of that decision. He says that the fact that the first order, like this case, was granted on a “without prejudice basis” means that it established no precedent as to custody and access between the parties. He then looks to see what the status quo was before the Father was asked by the police to leave the home. In that case, however, the Judge found that the status quo had been one of co-parenting. I do not see that as the case before me. Here, it appears that the intensity and lethality of domestic violence did not abate after the Father left the home.
[55] The Father was the primary perpetrator of violence in the home, and in my view, the children require an atmosphere free of conflict in their home.
[56] In Baetens v. Arthurs, [2010] O.J. No. 1318 (Ont. S.C.J.), Mr. Justice Hackland in deciding temporary custody in that case, examined the best interests of a child as set out in Section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (the “CLRA”). In my view the Mother, in the case before me, can best meet the children’s needs. Past conduct of the Father can be examined under subsection 24(4) of the CLRA.
[57] An Order shall go granting the Mother interim/temporary custody of the children on a without prejudice basis.
(c) Access Schedule
[58] I am satisfied that the supervised access set out in Madam Justice Kiteley’s Order must be partly varied to provide the Father with time where the Father can show that the children are not at risk being with him unsupervised. I see no reason to extend the Tuesday and Thursday evening visits past the current time schedule, given the ages of the children at 4 and 3 years. These evenings shall be unsupervised, with same arrangements for pick-up and drop-off as set out in Madam Justice Kiteley’s Order.
[59] The Saturday access shall continue to be at the Access Centre for the month of January 2013 only, with the parties sharing equally the Costs of each visit. That access should continue to be with the morning pick up at 10:30 a.m. at the Royal Conservatory of Music and the return to the Mother’s home by 5:00 p.m. In the meantime, the Father shall take a course in an Anger Management Course, to prove that he is serious about changing his behaviour that was seen by the children prior to the parties’ separation.
[60] Father’s counsel shall provide the Mother’s counsel with documentation to show that the Father is enrolled in the programme and the expected duration of the programme. Counsel shall provide Mother’s Counsel with a copy of the Father’s certification showing that the course has been completed.
[61] I make such an Order, given the background of these parties’ marriage breakdown. I am cognizant of the Table on “Supervised Exchange” set out in the Jaffe article, supra, at p. 513, which notes that in supervised access situations, usually sole legal custody is appropriate. I have fashioned the unsupervised access to be phased out after a short period of time. It will be important for Dr. Butkowsky to see the children in an unsupervised setting at some point during the assessment. I have also read the notes of some of the supervisors about the past access visits and note that the Father has made good progress with the children.
Conclusions
[62] The following Orders, as outlined in this Endorsement, shall issue for the reasons set out therein:
Both parties shall provide full financial and all other disclosure not made to one another by January 31, 2013.
The Affidavit of Christine Mercer at Tab 19 of the Record is hereby struck out. The Registrar shall remove it from the Record, leaving a note that it is removed under my Court Order.
The issues of interim/temporary child and spousal support and S.7 expenses is adjourned to a new Motion date to be arranged by the parties. I do not remain seized of that part of the Notice of Motion.
An assessment shall be prepared by Dr. Butkowsky commencing in January 2013, with the cost to be borne equally by the parties. Notwithstanding this, the Mother shall advance the full cost of the assessment to Dr. Butkowsky on his terms, with the Father’s half to be deducted from any payment the Mother may owe to the Father for equalization or any other reason. If the matrimonial home is sold and proceeds remain in trust for both parties, the Father’s half of the cost of the assessment shall be paid out of his share of the net proceeds.
The Mother is granted interim/temporary custody of the children on a without prejudice basis.
The Father shall have unsupervised access on Tuesdays and Thursdays; thereby varying para. 4 of Madam Justice Kiteley’s Order dated July 23, 2012. Supervised access on Saturdays under the Order shall remain for the month of January 2013 only, with each party paying half the costs.
The Father shall immediately enroll in an Anger Management Course and provide the Mother’s counsel with the location, dates and a copy of the certificate of completion provided by the Course.
Costs
[63] If the parties cannot otherwise agree on Costs, I shall receive brief written submissions no longer than 3 pages in length plus time dockets and case law within 30 days of this Order. Mother’s counsel shall send her submissions to Father’s counsel within 3 weeks of this Order and Father’s counsel shall respond within 5 days. If Mother’s counsel needs to serve and file a Reply, it shall be done within 5 days thereafter.
Greer J.
Released: December 11, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-379374-00
DATE: 20121211
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY LAW
BETWEEN:
CAMILLE MARIE LEMIEUX,
Applicant
– and –
KEVIN GORDON MERCER,
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Greer J.
Released: December 11, 2012