ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 07-1039

DATE: 2013/11/15

BETWEEN:

VINCENCO CICCONE

Applicant
(Respondent by counter-application)

– and –

YOLANDE CÔTÉ

Respondent
(Applicant by counter-application)

ISABELLA MARIA CICCONE

Respondent

THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN AND TRUSTEE

Respondent

Edward C. Castle, for the Applicant

Yolande Côté, unrepresented

Jocelyne Paquette-Landry, for Isabella Maria Ciccone

Elaine F. Rufiange, for the Public Guardian and Trustee

HEARD at Cornwall: June 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, and October 22, 2013

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

kane j.

[1] Mr. Ciccone and Ms. Côté are the parents of three children. The subject of this litigation is their daughter, Isabella, who was born on December 5, 1970 and is now some 42 years old.

[2] These parents married one another in 1966 and separated in 1982. Upon separation, the father for the first year had sole custody of the three children of the marriage. The court ordered joint custody on consent in 1984 however the three children thereafter had their primary residence with their mother. No child support was sought or paid to the mother.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT

[3] These cross-applications are brought by each parent under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30, (the “SDA”). Pursuant thereto, the parties each seek to be appointed as the Guardian of Isabella’s property and Guardian of her person.

[4] Due to their respective age and the health condition of Isabella, each parent acknowledges that this daughter ideally should now live in a group home for mentally challenged individuals if such facility was available.

[5] Isabella has been on a wait list for group home placement dating back to 2008. Inadequate funding by the government of Ontario has created insufficient capacity of this form of community support across the province resulting in wait times of between 5 and 15 years. The evidence is that there are currently 19,000 people waiting for such group home accommodation across Ontario.

[6] This court on June 28, 2013, made a four month interim order to conduct a focused examination of available group home opportunities in Eastern Ontario given the age of these parents and their agreement that this is the environment their daughter needs. That attempt was unsuccessful.

[7] Until group home placement becomes available, this father seeks an order that he be appointed sole guardian regarding the property and personal care of Isabella.

[8] Ms. Côté seeks an order that she be appointed sole guardian as to the personal care of her daughter and of her personal property subject to the review of the office of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

[9] The office of the Public Guardian and Trustee is unwilling to be appointed as Guardian of this person on either an interim or permanent basis. That is the specific relief requested by counsel for Isabella.

ISABELLA’S STATE OF HEALTH

[10] A psychologist, Dr. Raymond Proulx, performed two evaluations of Isabella in 2001 and 2006. His conclusion in 2001 was that Isabella functioned at a mild development disability level. His evaluation result in 2006 was that Isabella was then functioning at a moderate development disability level thus showing a deterioration overtime.

[11] It is the position of the parties that Isabella currently is intellectually developed to a stage equivalent to a 5 or 6-year-old child.

[12] Mr. Ciccone believes that his daughter’s level of development, independence and life skills are deteriorating due to lack of stimulation and support and that the deterioration is and will result in a long-term disadvantage and increased dependency for Isabella. For this reason, he seeks an order that his daughter’s principal residence be with him and not with the mother.

[13] The parties agree that Isabella is mentally handicapped and has epilepsy and Turner syndrome.

[14] Dr. Sarazin, a psychologist, performed an evaluation of Isabella under the above legislation in March, 2007. The author confirmed the above conclusions contained in the 2001 and 2006 evaluation by Dr. Raymond Proulx which highlighted a mental development disability of moderate severity due to a diagnosis of global development delay.

[15] Dr. Sarazin in 2007 concluded that Isabella was incapable of managing property and was incapable of personal care regarding health care, nutrition, shelter, clothing, hygiene and safety.

[16] Dr. Sarazin concluded that Isabella had limited intellectual resources, limited practical and functioning skills, deficiencies in her ability to judge and make decisions which, due to her epileptic fits, results in an ongoing requirement for guidance and supervision to ensure her safety, well-being and the management of her property. These conditional limitations are considered irreversible.

[17] The author considered Isabella as being at a higher risk of harm, danger or malice by others.

[18] In preparing the above report, Dr. Sarazin interviewed the parents and a number of service providers.

[19] Ms. Josée Gagnon is employed with Development Service Ontario and was directly involved with these parents and their daughter between 2003 until 2007 in determining need and providing community support services for Isabella. She provided background information to Dr. Sarazin and expressed the opinion that Isabella did not have the necessary skills to manage life activities independently, respond to routine or unexpected late circumstances and cannot live alone. Ms. Côté reported to Ms. Gagnon at the time that her daughter had lost several acquired abilities such as going to the corner store, using a telephone and operating some household appliances. She said her daughter was becoming more dependent on others.

[20] Ms. Gagnon told the author that Isabella was dependent upon her for meal preparation, does not know how to operate some appliances but was able to wash dishes, dress herself, comb her hair, brush her teeth and perform most of her personal hygiene.

[21] Ms. Côté told Dr. Sarazin that she manages her daughter’s medication and that Isabella has frequent small attacks related to epilepsy with major convulsions occurring approximately once every two or three months. She reported her daughter refuses to wear hearing aids or corrective lenses. The mother stated she chose her daughter’s clothing as Isabella might choose something inappropriate for the season or which were dirty. She stated her daughter often burns toast, selects food from the refrigerator on her own but does not always remember to rewrap them prior to returning them to the refrigerator, uses a microwave and can run a bath at an adequate temperature. The mother stated her daughter brushes her teeth in the morning without prompting but must be reminded to do so in evening, is independent with body elimination, is able to wash and dry her hair however the mother helps with that task as her daughter loses interest and does not fully dry her hair.

RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

[22] The relevant provisions under the SDA include the following:

Incapacity to manage property

6. A person is incapable of managing property if the person is not able to understand information that is relevant to making a decision in the management of his or her property, or is not able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.

Appointment criteria

Non-residents

24.(3) A person who does not reside in Ontario shall not be appointed as a guardian of property unless the person provides security, in a manner approved by the court, for the value of the property.

Same

(4) The court may order that the requirement for security under subsection (3) does not apply to a person or that the amount required be reduced, and may make its order subject to conditions.

Criteria

(5) Except in the case of an application that is being dealt with under section 77 (summary disposition), the court shall consider,

(a) whether the proposed guardian is the attorney under a continuing power of attorney;

(b) the incapable person’s current wishes, if they can be ascertained; and

(c) the closeness of the relationship of the applicant to the incapable person and, if the applicant is not the proposed guardian, the closeness of the relationship of the proposed guardian to the incapable person.

Two or more guardians

(6) The court may, with their consent, appoint two or more persons as joint guardians of property or may appoint each of them as guardian for a specified part of the property.

Finding of incapacity

25.(1) An order appointing a guardian of property for a person shall include a finding that the person is incapable of managing property and that, as a result, it is necessary for decisions to be made on his or her behalf by a person who is authorized to do so.

Contents of order

(2) An order appointing a guardian of property may,

(a) require that the guardian post security in the manner and amount that the court considers appropriate;

(b) make the appointment for a limited period as the court considers appropriate;

c) impose such other conditions on the appointment as the court considers appropriate.

Incapacity for personal care

45. A person is incapable of personal care if the person is not able to understand information that is relevant to making a decision concerning his or her own health care, nutrition, shelter, clothing, hygiene or safety, or is not able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.

Court appointment of guardian of the person

55.(1) The court may, on any person’s application, appoint a guardian of the person for a person who is incapable of personal care and, as a result, needs decisions to be made on his or her behalf by a person who is authorized to do so.

Appointment criteria

Two or more guardians

57.(4) The court may, with their consent, appoint two or more persons as joint guardians of the person or may appoint each of them as guardian in respect of a specified period.

[23] I am satisfied based on the above evidence that Isabella is unable to:

(a) manage property as she does not understand information relevant to the management of her property nor appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision in that regard, and

(b) understand information relevant to a decision concerning her health care, nutrition, shelter, clothing, hygiene or safety, or to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision in that regard.

WHICH OF THE PARENTS SHOULD BE GUARDIAN?

[24] These parents have been unable to corroborate, communicate or see beyond their differences for decades, even as to the well-being of this daughter. This inability has defeated the past attempts of this court to develop appropriate terms such as joint guardianship with short alternating residence and care.

[25] Ms. Côté is commended for the years of devotion and care she has provided this daughter. Isabella’s future interest until a group home setting becomes available however necessitates a change.

[26] The lengthy past care of this daughter by her mother, their loving relationship, the Francophone environment in which they live and the regular opportunity for Isabella to interact with her two sisters argues in favour of maintaining the status quo. Those positives however come with a price which is the decrease in learning capacity and opportunity, outside stimulation, regular exercise, development of independence and maintenance of life skills which this woman desperately needs now and for the future.

[27] At present, Mr. Ciccone is more oriented and better able to provide and access the underlying sources of stimulus, training and encouragement that their daughter needs.

[28] Mr. Ciccone upon the separation and since commencement of these proceedings in 2007 has remained constant, despite much adversity, in his attempts to care for and provide the kind of stimulation Isabella needs. He continues to believe his daughter can achieve and live a healthier lifestyle and develop a higher level of independence. If he is right, Isabella stands to benefit now and potentially in the future from exposure to increased stimulation, better diet, exercise and encouragement in developing increased capacity or maintaining her current level of independence.

[29] Parenting for couples living together is normally a shared responsibility with each parent providing different things to the child who thereby benefits from two rather than one parent. Isabella has benefitted from and been loved by her mother for many years. Mr. Ciccone however has demonstrated commitment and love towards this daughter for a long time. Isabella at this point stands to gain from his contribution which potentially will better enable her to cope with the future. That future at some point will ultimately have her not living with either parent because an opening in a group occurs or they are no longer here.

REVIEW OF EVIDENCE

[30] The following evidence supports the above conclusion that Mr. Ciccone should become the sole guardian of the property and personal care of Isabella.

[31] Dr. Sarazin in a report states that Isabella is liable to show functional deterioration and to lose even her previously limited acquired practical skills without adequate stimulation, encouragement towards independence and participation in programs for individuals with handicaps and other activities to enhance her quality of life.

[32] Dr. Sarazin interviewed and quotes Ms. Côté’s observation of a decline in her daughter’s functioning over 2006 which the mother attributed to her daughter’s hearing capacity.

[33] In 2008, the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee conducted an investigation regarding Isabella entered as exhibit 8. The investigator interviewed a number of service and health care providers as well as the parents regarding Isabella’s level of care and condition.

[34] The above report quotes Ms. Van Gurp, supervisor of the Respite Program with SD&G Respite Services, who stated that Isabella had been receiving services from that agency since 1992. Ms. Van Gurp advised the investigator that Isabella then had a lot more potential than given credit for.

[35] Public funding has been made available for Isabella over the years for her accommodation, food and care. The form of the care includes attendance at school for developmentally challenged individuals in the morning. It also includes care workers taking Isabella out during the afternoon to programs or events, again to provide stimulation.

[36] Schooling was provided through Initiation à la Vie. Isabella did not attend that schooling program from March, 2006 until April, 2010. Isabella changed schools to CÉFEO. That school reported that Isabella between December, 2009 and July, 2010 was absent 28 out of the 42 school days during that period.

[37] Ms. Côté testified that the school program now available to Isabella has been reduced to two and one-half mornings per week rather than five. The reduction in fact is as a result of Isabella’s irregular attendance. Ms. Côté testified that her daughter attends school approximately 50% of the time but frequently refuses to go to school. The mother feels she has no option but to accept this day by day decision by Isabella.

[38] The court can understand that as a single parent dealing with the developmental challenges of Isabella and raising other children, Ms. Côté has experienced periods of exhaustion and frustration in the past. A number of years ago, Ms. Van Gurp witnessing the difficulty that Ms. Côté was experiencing, offered to place Isabella in the Family Home program of SD&G. Apparently, the mother refused this offer.

[39] By 2006, Mr. Ciccone was concerned about Isabella’s weight which he estimated at that time was approximately 190 pounds which is high for a younger woman who is just under five feet tall.

[40] Mr. Ciccone had a concern in 2006 that Isabella was receiving too much medication which he unilaterally and then with the agreement of his daughter’s physicians, decreased from some 11 pills to 8 pills per day.

[41] Mr. Ciccone testified that the regression in his daughter’s capacity while living with her mother includes her present inability to:

(a) answer the phone;

(b) comb her hair;

c) open the car door unless she pushes the door with her feet; and

d) operate a television remote control.

[42] Mr. Ciccone testified that when his daughter is with him in Florida he drives her to school Monday to Friday on a daily basis. She attends school from 8:00 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. He registers her in summer camp from 8:30 to 10:00 four days a week when her regular school program is not in session.

[43] Mr. Ciccone testified that he is careful as to what his daughter eats and ensures that she receives daily exercise in the form of walking with him some two kilometres in order to increase her exercise level.

[44] Mr. Ciccone’s alleged level of engagement, patience and care of Isabella is corroborated by his former partner and her son.

[45] Bernadette Van Gurp indicated S.D.G. Development Services provides services to intellectually challenged children and adults and they also offer services in the area of respite care and operates nine foster families where some 14 disabled people permanently live.

[46] Isabella currently only receives respite care from this agency for a few days of transition between living periods with each parent. She qualifies for and could be receiving services such as family home program, counselling or assistance services.

[47] On the suggestion of Mr. Ciccone, this agency is willing to conduct a search to find a resident couple to live with his daughter in one of the three apartments he owns in Cornwall. Ms. Van Gurp testified that this approach would likely take three to six months to process including screening of candidates. She said that if this formula was put in place, her agency would on a monthly basis provide some supervision to make sure that things were operating as they should.

[48] In June of 2011, the father raised concern with this agency as to whether the funding being provided for Isabella was being used for her. The agency investigated and took over administration of the March of Dime funding available for Isabella in June, 2011.

[49] Michelle Alguire is the Assistant Executive Director of Stormont Community Living. She testified that Isabella receives funding to the extent of $9,180 a year, $6,680 of which is to pay for community support with the balance of some $2,500 to pay for respite care. She testified the mother has not had her daughter participate in their community support programs for several years.

[50] Ms. Gagnon is presently with the Development Services Ontario. From 2001 to 2011, she was a case worker with Community Integrated Services and acted as the link between the client and the service providers for the intellectual disabled and as an advocate for disabled individuals.

[51] Isabella was a client of Ms. Gagnon at Community Integrated Services over the period of 2002 to 2007. During that period, the file and services for Isabella with this agency was opened and closed on several occasions.

[52] The original involvement originated by Ms. Côté seeking assistance to fill out the necessary forms and apply for ODSP. On subsequent occasions, Ms. Côté called expressing fatigue as Isabella was mad or was crying over an extended period of time and the mother was having difficulty handling the situation.

[53] This witness testified that accessing their available services became problematic as Isabella was not attending the services provided and the providers or Community Integrated Services were unwilling to commit for more services because of the lack of participation.

[54] Ms. Gagnon testified that Ms. Côté would cooperate with her or her agency if the mother needed something but would, for example, refuse her time alone or allow her to take Isabella anywhere for fear the father would gain access with his daughter.

[55] Ms. Gagnon further testified that Ms. Côté was not following up on getting the kinds of services available and would initially express an interest in services but then lose interest and not get her daughter admitted or attend regularly.

[56] Ms. Gagnon at the time was concerned as the funding had been decreased from $5,000 to $2,500 due to lack of participation and that that level, in the opinion of this witness, was insufficient for Isabella’s needs. The further concerns of Ms. Gagnon were reports by Isabella that she was being hit on occasion by her mother and by Anne Renée. Ms. Côté refused to discuss these allegations with Ms. Gagnon.

[57] This service agency ultimately closed its file as a result of an event that occurred in 2007. Isabella was back from a visit with her father. The father called Ms. Gagnon and asked her to deliver a C.D. that belonged to his daughter to the mother. Ms. Gagnon agreed, took it to the mother’s residence and Anne Renée then telephoned Ms. Gagnon and said that Isabella had seen or become aware of the C.D. being dropped off and that the presence of Ms. Gagnon was causing the daughter to have flashbacks about her father and that it also was causing her to have a seizure to which she was experiencing at that moment. During this phone conversation, Anne Renée and Ms. Côté began yelling at Ms. Gagnon over the phone that the father had sexually abused this daughter.

[58] In cross-examination, Ms. Gagnon stated that at the time, she did not feel that the daughter was being properly cared for. She justified this statement by indicating that on a number of occasions she would attend and find Isabella crying. On other occasions, the mother would call Ms. Gagnon and say the child had been crying for three or four days. Ms. Gagnon found that she was able to talk Isabella out of her turmoil or crying when she was present.

[59] Ms. Gagnon further justified the above statement by indicating that it was her opinion at the time that Isabella’s life skills, such as her level of independence and her ability to talk, were decreasing. Testing was done by her agency which confirmed that those abilities were decreasing. She was of the opinion that there was a lack of outside stimulation.

[60] Ms. Gagnon further stated that towards the end of the agency’s involvement in 2007, agency representatives were spending large amounts of time mediating between the parents.

[61] The father’s access with his daughter was interrupted for several years commencing in 2007 as a result of charges of sexual abuse of this daughter communicated by the mother to authorities and allegations of telephone comments made by him. Mr. Ciccone was acquitted in both matters. Subsequent repetition of similar complaints by the mother to police never resulted in charges.

[62] Mr. Ciccone’s former partner and her son testified that there was no reason for concern that this father would improperly touch this daughter.

[63] As to these allegations of inappropriate touching, the court in evaluating probability is concerned because Ms. Côté has made similar accusations on two occasions that Isabella was being touched improperly by staff or residents in the respite home.

[64] This mother and daughter presently live in a two-bedroom apartment. Ms. Côté in her testimony described a typical day for Isabella.

[65] Ms. Côté testified that Isabella normally gets up between 5:00-5:30 each morning and drinks a Coke. Ms. Côté would get up between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m., give the daughter her medications and then discuss what they are going to do that day. After breakfast, the mother will suggest activities for the day but tries to leave it up to the daughter to choose what she wants to do that day. She testified that the daughter will help her clean up the house, listen to music, view video recording such as Bambi.

[66] After lunch, the mother will then encourage the daughter to have a sleep. Ms. Côté likes to have a sleep and states her daughter is not always keen about it but generally will agree to lie down for approximately half an hour. After the sleep and if it is nice outside they will then go outside and at times go to the store.

[67] Ms. Côté will then ask Isabella to read to her in the evening. She testified that her daughter then goes to bed between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. That amounts to 10 hours of sleep per night.

[68] Ms. Côté stated that her daughter has a bath at least once a week. The daughter will draw the bath. The mother will tell her when there is enough water. The child will then undress herself and spend time in the bath until the water cools as it is an activity that Isabella enjoyed. The mother will remind the daughter to wash specific areas of her body. The daughter will decide when the bath is over. The daughter stands up; the mother puts a towel around her shoulders. Isabella then dries and dresses herself.

[69] The mother agrees that Isabella’s life skills are decreasing but feels that this is to be expected given her daughter’s ailments, her age and what a pediatrician once told her.

CONCLUSION

[70] The change of living primarily with her father instead of with her mother will be difficult for Isabella. Given the parents’ age, 72 and 70 years old, and their agreement that Isabella ideally should reside in a group home setting, the one certainty in this case is that Isabella is headed for a dramatic change in her future living arrangements which will require a serious adjustment.

[71] Isabella fortunately has been spending an equal amount of time with each parent for some time now which will reduce the change resulting from this order.

[72] The easy decision is to order a status quo. That however will deprive Isabella of what she needs now and in the future.

[73] The terms applicable to this appointment of Mr. Ciccone as guardian of the person and care of Isabella Ciccone, beyond the legislative provisions, include the following:

(a) That Isabella Maria Ciccone, born December 5, 1970 is incapable of managing her property and incapable as to her personal care, specifically in respect of her health care, nutrition, shelter, clothing, hygiene and safety.

(b) That the applicant, Vincenzo Ciccone is and shall be appointed guardian of the property and personal care of Isabella Maria Ciccone, born December 5, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “Isabella”).

(c) That in relation to the property of Isabella:

(i) The applicant shall establish a bank account for Isabella and deposit in this account all funds received for the benefit of Isabella including, but not limited to, her ODSP allowance, community service allowance and the passport funds received from March of Dimes;

(ii) The applicant shall have sole signing authority with respect to Isabella’s funds;

(iii) The applicant shall provide Isabella with a weekly allowance for her own use;

(iv) The passport fund or funds of that nature shall be used for activities for Isabella and for payment of wages for community workers as may be required from time to time;

(v) The applicant shall ensure that Isabella does not lose her entitlement to receive ODSP benefits without first ensuring that she is entitled to benefits in Florida to receive similar benefits of which are equal to or greater than ODSP benefits she is now receiving; and

(vi) The applicant shall provide the respondent on February 1st and August 1st each year with a copy of monthly bank statements of this account and identification of all receipts and disbursements therefrom and on behalf of this daughter.

[74] The terms applicable to this appointment of Mr. Ciccone as guardian of the person of Isabella shall include the following:

(a) That in relation to Isabella’s personal care:

(i) The applicant shall be entitled to obtain and receive all information relating to Isabella’s personal care;

(ii) Isabella is to bathe a minimum of three times per week. The applicant shall immediately engage the services of a female worker to assist Isabella during such bathing. Confirmation in writing from such service provider to be provided to the respondent every six months, including the days worked and the charges for such service. The applicant shall not be in attendance or witness his daughter’s bathing;

(iii) The applicant shall consult with all community service providers which provide services to the mentally disabled, including Family Counselling Centre, Community Integration Services, S. D. & G. Development Services Centre and Developmental Services Ontario Eastern Region and their equivalents in the State of Florida, U.S.A;

(iv) The applicant shall provide Yolande Côté with the current names and addresses of Isabella’s health care providers including her doctors, dentists, neurologist and such other health care providers as she may have from time to time be involved with;

(v) The applicant shall provide Yolande Côté with information concerning Isabella’s health and general welfare every six months, or sooner should there be material incident or deterioration in her health;

(vi) The applicant shall forthwith proceed with an Application for residential accommodation with Developmental Services Ontario Eastern Region and shall take all steps necessary to find a long-term placement for Isabella in a residential setting in Ontario;

(vii) The applicant shall encourage Isabella to participate fully in all relevant learning development and social activities and programs as are available to her from time to time and as permitted by her physicians and confirm to the respondent in writing on February 1st and September 1st each year Isabella’s level of participation therein during the previous six months to the respondent;

(viii) Isabella shall have her primary residence in the applicant’s home. He shall maintain a residence for Isabella until such time as she is able to move into a residential group home;

(b) That Isabella shall until a placement occurs under para. 74 (a) (viii), reside with the respondent each year

(i) from May 1 to June 30;

(ii) the last three weeks of July;

(iii) the last three weeks of August;

(iv) the first ten days of November;

(v) the last week of December and the first week of January;

(vi) the last week of February;

(vii) for periods when Isabella and her father are residing in excess of two weeks or more in Cornwall, every second weekends from Friday at 4 p.m. to Sunday at 7 p.m.;

(c) That the applicant shall not change Isabella’s residence from Ontario to the Florida jurisdiction if the result of such change is the loss of Isabella’s ODSP benefits and her entitlement to health services under OHIP unless the applicant has first obtained equivalent replacement pension benefits and equivalent medical coverage for Isabella in Florida.

(d) That neither the applicant nor the respondent shall speak ill of the other in the presence of Isabella and the applicant shall encourage Isabella to attend for her visits with the respondent.

(e) That the respondent shall be entitled to free and liberal telephone communication with Isabella when she is residing with the applicant.

(f) That the applicant shall be entitled to free and liberal telephone communication with Isabella when she is residing with the respondent.

(g) That the applicant shall be entitled to apply for a passport in Isabella’s name at his expense.

(h) That the applicant shall provide the respondent with a schedule of Isabella’s daily programs in Cornwall which she is participating when she is to be with the respondent and the respondent shall ensure her daughter’s attendance.

(i) That the applicant shall provide the respondent in writing with Isabella’s dietary needs when she is to reside with the respondent. The respondent shall follow and ensure that such dietary needs are followed.

(j) That the applicant shall provide the respondent with a list of the medications Isabella is taking at the commencement of each visit with the respondent and the respondent shall follow and ensure that Isabella takes those medications as and when required.

(k) That the applicant shall provide the respondent with a sufficient quantity of Isabella’s medication for the times Isabella is in the respondent’s care.

(l) That in the case of a medical emergency involving Isabella while residing with her mother, the respondent shall be authorized to instruct and obtain medical treatment.

(m) That the applicant shall be entitled to obtain all records, including health records with respect to Maria Isabella Ciccone, from any source including but not limited to any person, government agency, income source, financial institution, hospital, nursing home, retirement home, community agency, police agency, health professional or psychiatric hospital and that such records shall be disclosed in their entirety and shall not be subject to any provision of any freedom of information legislation.

(n) That neither parent shall interfere with the day to day care of Isabella in the home where she is residing from time to time.

(o) That neither parent shall interfere with service providers working with Isabella. Each shall make Isabella available to such service providers when Isabella is under their respective care.

(p) That the approval of any order in this proceeding by any self-represented party is not required.

[75] The interim appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee as interim guardian of this person from June 28 until October 30, 2013 and its prior appointment as guardian of this person’s property are terminated.

[76] The parties may make brief submissions on costs within 20 days.

Kane J.

Released: November 15, 2013

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

VINCENCO CICCONE

Applicant
(Respondent by counter-application)

– and –

YOLANDE CÔTÉ

Respondent
(Applicant by counter-application)

ISABELLA MARIA CICCONE

Respondent

THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN AND TRUSTEE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Kane J.

Released: November 15, 2013