SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
Court File No.: FC-12-1873
Re: Laurie E. Slaughter – Applicant v. Roderick William Slaughter, Corinne Slaughter, Colette Dee Ouellet and Roderick Slaughter - Respondents
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
Counsel:
Sabrina Herscovitch for the Applicant
Wade L. Smith, for the Respondents
Heard: December 17, 2012
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This was a motion by Laurie Slaughter for the following relief: disclosure of medical records regarding William Slaughter, an order that Laurie Slaughter be advised of all future care decisions respecting William Slaughter, an order allowing for cross-examination of the respondent, an order directing that a Judge be appointed as the case manager Judge of this case, an order directing that an independent expert conduct an assessment with respect to the mental competency of William Slaughter, an order under the Substitute Decisions Act respecting the care and management of William Slaughter’s affairs.
[2] William Slaughter and the other respondents have cross-applied for an order for the sale of jointly owned property (matrimonial home), the return of some of his personal property contained in the home, and for an order dismissing the action as against Corinne Slaughter, Colette Dee Ouellet and Roderick Slaughter.
[3] With respect to the Application by Laurie Slaughter while I have sympathy for her desire to reconcile with her husband, and believe that her feelings are sincere; I am obligated to base my decisions on the evidence. The evidence in this case supports the proposition that William Slaughter is mentally competent to manage his own affairs. He is entitled to proceed with the family litigation. I come to that conclusion based upon the following:
• There are two separate professional assessments concerning Mr. Slaughter's mental capacity. One prepared by Nicole Robert and the second prepared by Dr. Clarissa Bush PhD. They are both unequivocal in concluding that the applicant is mentally competent. Dr. Bush indicates "at no point did he say anything or did I observe any behaviour to suggest that he is incapable of instructing you, although accommodations naturally need to be made in any conversation with him to ensure that is spoken languages understood."
• While I understand that Mr. Slaughter has Parkinson’s disease and that it can impact on his ability to communicate and perhaps have some implications physically, it does not necessarily mean that it renders him mentally competent.
• Counsel representing Mr. Slaughter has in no uncertain terms expressed to the court that he is able to receive instructions from his client, and that he is simply following those instructions. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt counsel's advice. He is an officer of the court I take him at his word.
• The allegation that Mr. Slaughter is being directed by his children has no foundation in evidence. Again counsel representing Mr. Slaughter has indicated no uncertain terms that he meets with his client and receives his client’s instructions not the instructions of his client’s children.
[4] In order for Mrs. Slaughter's motion to succeed there would have to be reasonably compelling evidence that calls into question this man's capacity to instruct his lawyer. In this case there is the suspicion of Mrs. Slaughter and the concerns regarding capacity expressed by Dr. Grimes the physician treating his Parkinson. These concerns are outweighed by the expert evidence to the contrary and by the representations of an officer of the court. For these reasons Mrs. Slaughter's motion is dismissed. Mr. Slaughter is entitled to decide to proceed or not proceed with the divorce or separation.
[5] With respect to the application to have the claim against Mr. Slaughter's adult children dismissed I would grant the application as there is no legitimate basis in law or on the evidence to have it continue.
[6] With respect to the application for partition and sale of 136 Darlington private, Ottawa. The family home. Counsel representing Mrs. Slaughter has indicated that the sale should not take effect on an interim basis because of the ongoing litigation in the family courts.
[7] In the decision of Chaudry v. Chaudry, 2012 CarswellOnt 4080, MacKinnon J summarizes the law in this area in the following manner:
To make a pre-trial order for the sale of the matrimonial home the court must first determine whether the resisting party has established a prima facie case that he or she is entitled to a competing interest under the Family Law Act. If not then the right to sale prevails. If so, then the motion for sale is denied unless the selling party can demonstrate that the sale would not prejudice the rights of the resisting party.
There have been a number of cases in which the court has denied an interim motion for sale prior to trial… In each case there were compelling circumstances in which one or both tests favoured the resisting party, such as the availability of a trial within a short period of time, prejudice on the equalization payment, or the need to preserve the residence for a vulnerable spouse or child might well retain a home in the cause.
[8] In the case before me there is no compelling reason to suggest that the Family Law Act rights of Mrs. Slaughter are in any way prejudiced by the immediate listing and sale of the matrimonial home. Therefore, I grant the application for partition and sale an order that the subject property be listed for sale.
[9] I understand that the personal property has already been delivered to Mr. Slaughter and no order is required.
[10] With respect to costs I will allow one page written submissions on the issue to be delivered no later than 15 days of the release of this decision. Otherwise I will presume the parties have resolved the issue.
Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
Date: January 15, 2013
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No.: FC-12-1873
Re: Laurie E. Slaughter - Applicant
AND
Roderick William Slaughter, Corinne Slaughter, Colette Dee Ouellet and Roderick Slaughter - Respondents
Before: Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
Counsel:
Sabrina Herscovitch, for the Applicant
Wade L. Smith, for the Respondents
ENDORSEMENT
Maranger J.
Released: 2013-01-15