SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
FILE NO: FS-12-74462-00
DATE: 2013-11-18
RE: Gupta v. Gupta
BEFORE: D.L. Edwards, J.
COUNSEL:
M. Freeze, for the Applicant
C. H. Desai, for the Respondent
HEARD: 2013-11-18
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] On September 24, 2013 Edwards J. issued an Endorsement based upon written submissions, which by clerical error did not include the Respondent’s written submissions.
[2] The parties consented to an Order, dated November 18, 2013, for Edwards J. to review the Respondent’s written submissions and to grant an order advising whether his Endorsement dated September 24, 2013 shall continue or be set aside in part or in whole.
[3] I hereby revoke the Endorsement dated September 24, 2013 and replace it with this Endorsement.
[4] The parties have failed to agree upon the appointment of a counsellor for Rohan, and I have now have had an opportunity to review both parties’ submissions.
[5] I have reviewed the CV’s of the counsellors, as well as their availability as set out in the submissions.
[6] Through the correspondence, the Applicant initially suggested John Kotur, but subsequently expressed some concern about his availability for court. Although he is not the choice of the Respondent, the Respondent was prepared to accept John Kotur’s appointment. He appears to be well qualified to act in this role.
[7] I order that John Kotur be appointed the counsellor for Rohan.
[8] Should John Kotur be unwilling to act as counsellor, then I appoint Dr. Joanna Henderson to be Rohan’s counsellor.
[9] The Mother and Father shall cooperate with the counsellor in arranging Rohan’s appointments and in meeting with the counsellor, if the counsellor requests such meetings.
[10] In the event that the mother’s benefit plan pays for all or part of the cost of counselling, she shall take the necessary steps to ensure coverage.
[11] During the period when part of the cost is covered by such plan, the father shall pay the portion of the counselling not covered by such benefit plan, if any.
[12] If the cost of counselling is not covered by the mother’s plan, or once the benefits have been maxed out, on an interim without prejudice basis the parties shall equally bear the cost of the counselling session until such benefits become available. At that time the father shall once again pay the portion of the costs not covered by the plan, if any.
D.L. Edwards J.
DATE: November 18, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-74462-00
DATE: 20131118
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Chitra Gupta v. Sanjay Gupta
BEFORE: D.L. Edwards J.
COUNSEL:
M. Freeze for the Applicant
C. H. Desai for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Edwards J.
DATE: November 18, 2013