COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-76817-00
DATE: 2014-03-19
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: K. v. M.
BEFORE: JUSTICE VAN MELLE
COUNSEL: M. Kurz, for the Applicant
A. Crossley, for the Respondent
DATE HEARD: March 6, 2014
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] This is a motion brought by the Applicant Dr. K. who seeks sole custody of the two children of the marriage V. born September 2004 and J born October 2009. This motion is resisted by the Respondent Ms. M. who asks that she continue to have sole custody of both children.
[2] The parties were married on March 10, 2003 in India. They moved to Canada around November 2008. They lived in Newfoundland from November 2008 to June 2011. Ms. M. left the matrimonial home on November 12, 2012. She took the children and went to a shelter for abused women.
[3] In November 2012 Dr. K. brought an urgent motion in the Ontario Court of Justice. His motion was dismissed because he did not comply with Family Law Rule 14(12). His application in the Ontario Court of Justice was subsequently stayed after he commenced this application in the Superior Court of Justice.
[4] On January 3, 2003 Dr. K. brought an urgent, without notice motion in the Superior Court after Ms. M. left the matrimonial home with the children. Justice Skarica granted him temporary sole custody of the children.
[5] On January 4, 2013 the children returned to reside with Dr. K. in the matrimonial home.
[6] On January 8, 2013 Ms. M. brought an urgent motion (on short notice) asking to have the Order of Justice Skarica set aside and to have the children returned to her and to her temporary sole custody. Justice Price declined to give her the relief she sought on that day as he felt that Ms. M. had not provided sufficient evidence to address the medical concerns that caused Justice Skarika to make his without notice order on January 3, 2013.
[7] On February 12, 2013 an Early Case Conference was held before Justice Edwards regarding access.
[8] On March 1, 2013, after hearing argument on the motion brought by Ms. M. to set aside Justice Skarika's Order, Justice Price ordered that the children be returned to their mother's custody. He granted Ms. M. exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and ordered Dr. K. to pay child and spousal support.
[9] On May 10, 2013, Justice Edwards adjourned, on terms, Dr. K.'s motion seeking an extension of time in which to appeal Justice Price's Order. Dr. K. was granted supervised access; the order for exclusive possession in favour of Ms. M. was set aside as she had not moved back into the matrimonial home; disclosure; and on consent, an assessment.
[10] On June 6, 2013 there was a motion before Justice Edwards pursuant to which Dr. Goldstein was appointed on consent of the parties to carry out the section 30 assessment that had been agreed to on May 10.
[11] On September 23, 2013 Justice Daley made an Order on consent varying Justice Edwards' Order of June 6, 2013 insofar as the access was concerned.
[12] On February 4, 2014 Justice Edwards ordered a one-day viva voce hearing on the issue of interim custody. He ordered that Dr. Goldstein would be the sole witness who would be cross-examined by both parties and that both parties could then make argument on their motion. He established time limits and guidelines for the motion. He also granted Dr. K. access to V. once per week to be supervised by Dr. Goldstein.
[13] The early stage of this proceeding is a cautionary tale as to what can happen when parties bring motions without notice to the other side.
DR. GOLDSTEIN'S ASSESSMENT
[14] This motion comes about as a result of Dr. Goldstein's recommendations. Dr. Goldstein was sufficiently concerned to provide a preliminary report on January 9, 2013 wherein he recommended immediate transfer of the children to the custody of Dr. K. Subsequently at the request of counsel Dr. Goldstein provided a complete report dated January 29, 2014 explaining and reiterating his earlier recommendations of January 9, 2014.
[15] Dr. Goldstein's recommendations are:
V. and J. are to be removed as soon as possible from Ms. M.'s influence and the primary care for them is to be transferred to Dr. K. and those who assist him.
There is to be no contact whatsoever between mother and the children or any of her friends, previous therapists of the children, or anyone involved with them through the shelter staff and those whom they had recommended to help the children deal with "the abuse which they had suffered and observed".
Should the Court issue such an Order, this should be made enforceable by all police departments having to do with the jurisdictions in and around the residences of the parents.
This is to go on for a period of the next three months. During that entire time, and until such time that she fully realizes that her having placed her own needs and issues ahead of the needs of the children has been damaging to them and cannot be repeated, Ms. M. is to be involved in a psychotherapy process with a therapist who is well versed in parental alienation and the psychological damage which this causes to the children who are subjected to this. This therapist will be chosen from a list of three names which will be submitted to both lawyers at the recommendation of the writer.
Following the three months, mother is to have supervised access to the children twice a week for two hour periods.
Following one month of such supervised access, telephone times should be arranged for the children to call their mother. These conversations will be supervised by father or someone in his home who he would designate to do so.
Following two months of this schedule, that is five months into the process, mother is to have overnight access to the children in the middle of the week.
This is to be followed after one more month by one overnight on the weekend in addition to the mid-week overnight.
The ultimate goal for these children would be that they share equal time with their parents as soon as mother is able to desist from any alienating activity whatsoever. Should any evidence of such activity recur, then the step towards the eventual goal will have to be repeated until all such activities have ceased.
A parenting coodinator should be appointed to oversee the progress of all of this and to help them expedite the goal of a half-time schedule with each parent.
This writer, if requested to do so, will oversee the following of this entire schedule on the condition that he be offered the proper release of information forms signed by Dr. K. and Ms. M. which would allow him to be in contact with any of the therapists involved.
The supervision of father's reconnection with V. shall be followed by either Dr. Goldstein or a therapist who works with alienation, to be involved as long as it is found to be necessary.
[16] In order to assist him with his assessment, Dr. Goldstein sent both parties for psychological testing with Dr. Rex Collins whose reports were provided along with Dr. Goldstein's reports. In my view, it is important to read the psychological reports of Dr. Collins along with Dr. Goldstein's assessment.
[17] The materials demonstrate that both parents are equally capable of looking after the physical needs of the children. Much was made by Ms. M.'s counsel during cross-examination, of the fact that Ms. M. was misdiagnosed as being bipolar. Ms. M. blames her misdiagnosis on Dr. K.; claiming that other medical professionals paid more attention to his views because he was a medical doctor. These claims may well be true.
[18] Dr. Collins, in reporting on the psychological assessment that he carried out on Ms. M. stated at page 5:
[Ms. M.] emerges from an analysis of her test materials as a significantly troubled, but complex, woman, wherein aspects of her psychological functioning, as evidenced by the test material, indicate some capacity for flexible and reflective thinking, thoughtful planning, and insight, while other aspects bespeak a more regressed and primitive defensive structure, likely involving projection, splitting, denial and more manic defenses of idealisation and omnipotence. While there is little compelling evidence to suggest the presence of psychosis, she might be considered to have what some theorists describe as a "psychotic core."
[19] Dr. Goldstein's recommendations are not based on the fact that Ms. M. is or is not bipolar. From the materials, including Ms. M.'s own affidavit evidence, it is evident that Ms. M. has had, and continues to have some psychological issues. Indeed she is still on medication. However, Dr. Goldstein's concerns centre around Ms. M.'s relationship with V.
[20] In December 2013 Dr. Goldstein attempted with the parties to implement a 50/50 parenting plan. He was hopeful that such a plan could be implemented within 6 weeks. In his report of January 9, 2014 he referenced having met with the most currently retained counsel for mother and with counsel for father, in order to discuss his findings and to gain their permission and co-operation in attempting a short-term intervention designed to interrupt the dynamics being played out between the parties.
[21] Dr. Goldstein testified that unfortunately after several weeks it became apparent that the six-week plan was not working. Dr. Goldstein could see that V.'s resistance toward her father was not changing. She was continuing to be totally obedient but this obedience was tied in with her mother and her mother's thinking. Dr. Goldstein was concerned because at no time would V. accept any food from her father. Her reasons for refusing the food changed from visit to visit. Dr. Goldstein felt that V.'s refusal of food from her father was a direct result of things that her mother was telling her.
[22] At page 4 of his January 9 report he stated:
In my meetings with you, Ms. Crossley, I have found you to be very helpful in your dealings with your client and her daughter to try to accomplish a proper reconnection and the re-establishment of a 50/50 sharing of the parenting of the children by both their parents within a six week period. That was two weeks ago, but from what I have seen happening over the past two weeks, it has become very clear that this is not working and, given the current circumstances, this effort is doomed to failure in spite of your very positive involvement in this.
My reasons for believing the above come from the fact that following the initial visit to the Science Centre, the next session scheduled for a few days after that was cancelled due to [V.]'s having had the "stomach flu". This then necessitated a delay of one week because of recovery time and my schedule over the holiday period. During that week, there were incidents during the exchange time with [J.] where father's nanny delivered [J.] to the police station where he was to be picked up by mother. The nanny has been repeatedly criticized for not dressing [J.] warmly enough. Ms. M. detains the nanny in order to help change [J.]'s clothes thereby leaving the nanny with the impression that she is being accused by mother of not doing her job properly, and feels herself to be harassed by mother. This also forces father to wait outside for a sufficient period of time to have him be late for a Clinic which he has to run, resulting in a backlog and increased waiting time for his patients. There always seems to be an issue about [J.]'s not wearing socks which he refuses to wear when father tries to dress him.
In my observing the exchange when father picked up [V.], I was concerned about Ms. M.'s seeming lack of sensitivity to her son in his attempts at putting on his socks which father had brought in his pocket. The situation was such that father had a choice of engaging himself with [V.] or helping [J.] with his socks – a situation where he would be enacting what he is being accused of, namely the dealing with [J.] at the expense of paying attention to [V.].
[23] During cross-examination Dr. Goldstein elaborated on the above and defended his view that the incidents he wrote about pointed to alienation by the mother. He stated, for example, that not bringing V. to the access visit because she had a "stomach ache" was a real problem insofar as Dr. Goldstein was then unable to determine the real reason for the stomach ache particularly as both Dr. Goldstein and Dr. K. had medical training so V. would not be in any danger.
[24] There was also an appointment prior to Christmas where Dr. K. came late and with gifts and balloons for V. which she refused to touch, open or look at. The next session, one of the accusations levelled by V. against her father was that he did not even get her anything for Christmas. Dr. Goldstein felt this was a "borrowed scenario". According to Dr. Goldstein when children are being alienated one of the factors are that children arrive with stories that are obviously unreal or untrue or what they have been told.
[25] Another concern of Dr. Goldstein's was V.'s other "borrowed scenarios". V. clearly recalled events when she was a baby yet was unable to remember more recent events. She had a keen and clear recollection of scenarios that would be beyond her scope at the time. At the same time she could not recall anything positive that she had ever done with her father. When asked by Dr. Goldstein if she remembered anything she ever did with her father she would respond that she could not or did not remember. At page 5 of the January 9 report:
It was of considerable interest to this writer that, although [V.] was able to remember clearly how she was first neglected as a baby especially after her brother was born, when father attempted to remind her of how, while they were living in Newfoundland, he had rented an entire ice rink for all of them to learn how to skate and how he had played with her and helped he along with this and her mother had fallen and could no longer be involved, [V.] could not recall any of this. Nor could she recall anything which she had done or where she had gone with her father during any time in the past.
[26] When Dr. Goldstein was cross-examined regarding this passage, it was put to him that perhaps V. had been too young to recall the occasion where her father rented the skating rink. However, the importance of the skating rink occasion is that it post-dated other events that V. purported to remember quite clearly.
[27] One of the collaterals interviewed by Dr. Goldstein was the family physician and Dr. K.'s boss in Newfoundland. He told Dr. Goldstein that all V.'s appointments had to be made at the end of the day. Each of the appointments would start around 7:30 p.m. and continued until 10:00 o'clock in the evening. This gentleman was struck by how great both parents were and how they were both involved with the child. Dr. Goldstein found this to be at odds with what V. reported.
[28] Dr. Goldstein testified that there were three main issues which led him to conclude that V. has been alienated from her father by her mother:
Insecure attachment;
Parentification; and
Shared delusion (folie á deux).
[29] At page 13 of his January 29th Dr. Goldstein said:
I am highly concerned about [V.] and her current symbiotic relationship with her mother at the expense of her reality testing to the point that she becomes involved in a shared delusional experience with [Ms. M.] I am also concerned about her reversal of roles with her mother where she has become seriously parentified. She is showing a (conscious or unconscious) loss of memory, loss of capacity for critical thinking, loss of any memory of positive experiences with her father, and a distortion in her reality with a regard to his interactions with her. She has been clearly alienated from him and is currently involved as a co-conspirator in working on alienating [J.] from his father. All of this leads this assessor to the opinion that [V.'s] mental health has been, and continues to be, seriously compromised by her mother's influence upon her. This is what must be interrupted immediately.
[30] Dr. Goldstein found that V. showed indications of an insecure attachment. According to Dr. Goldstein if a child has a healthy attachment a child can leave the parent. The child knows that parent will be there when she comes back. An insecure attachment is evidence by a child wanting to be with that particular parent all the time which Dr. Goldstein testified was reflected in V.'s behaviour.
[31] Parentification occurs when the role of child and parent are exchanged and the child parents the parent. The parent communicates a vulnerability to the child which gives the child great power that she can say things to comfort that parent. This is a problem because the child is burdened with looking after her mother's needs and carrying across the message. Dr. Goldstein was clear that this is occurring with V. and Ms. M.
[32] One example of parentification occurred when Ms. M. had injured her ankle in a fall. When she was bringing V. to Dr. Goldstein's office she had to manoeuver a number of steps. She insisted that V. help her even when Dr. Goldstein told her that he would take V. from her and that Ms. M. did not have to climb the steps.
[33] There are several examples of the shared delusion between mother and daughter. On November 28, 2012 Ms. M. went to a police station and reported that Dr. K. had assaulted her before she left the matrimonial home.
[34] The police report synopsis included the following:
On November 10, 2012 at approximately 9:30 PM the victim and the accused became involved in a verbal argument. The argument escalated to the point where the accused grabbed the victim's face with an open hand making it difficult for her to breathe.
[35] In her statement to the police, V. spontaneously accused her father of assaulting her mother without being asked any questions. She also gave the police a completely different time for the incident; different, contradictory details about the events leading up to the assault; claimed that her father not only hit her but her brother (Ms. M. has never claimed that Dr. K. has assaulted J.), added another claim of hair pulling and scratching on the evening of the assault, even though she said that she was asleep at the time.
[36] Dr. K. was charged with assault. Dr. K. was able to demonstrate to the police that he had not been at the matrimonial home at the date and time alleged by Ms. M. The charge against him was withdrawn by the Crown on November 7, 2013.
[37] The previous month (October 2012) V. had also made some vague and unsubstantiated allegations that Dr. K. had assaulted her at a time Ms. M. was not at the house. Peel CAS interviewed V. The interviewer, Jose Chitooparambil found that V. was unable to offer any details of when, where and how Dr. K. had hit her. He found that the children were safe in Dr. K.'s care and stated that: "It appears to me that the mother has been negatively influence [sic] the older child to speak against the father."
[38] In February 2013 Ms. M. told the Peel CAS and the police that Dr. K. had assaulted V. in the face and left a red mark on her face. This claim was disproven when it was discovered that V. had make-up on her face after spending time with her mother in a bathroom.
[39] There was another allegation made by V. that Dr. K. had pinched her on the swing during a supervised access visit with an access supervisor present. The access supervisor was able to confirm that V. had in fact been happy during the visit and had made no complaint that her father had pinched her or hurt her in anyway.
[40] It is also of note that in 2013 six access visits (including the visit referred to in the previous paragraph) were supervised by Optimal Family Services whose director is Barry Brown. Optimal provided social workers and nurses to supervise the access. After six access visits Optimal withdrew on May 28, 2013. It did so because Ms. M. claimed that Barry Brown had verbally abused her. Mr. Brown vehemently denied Ms. M.'s accusation and withdrew Optimal's supervision.
[41] Dr. Goldstein testified that one of Ms. M.'s complaints about Dr. K. was that he made her eat his faeces. Not too long thereafter, V. made the complaint that she too had been forced to eat faeces by her father. Dr. Goldstein said that he specifically brought V. into his office for a session to examine that complaint. She was unable to tell him specifics and her affect was non-disgust which was extremely unusual given what she was relating to Dr. Goldstein.
[42] Of concern is the fact that Ms. M. lacks self-awareness about her conflict with her husband. Dr. Goldstein said at page 8 in the second last paragraph:
[Ms. M.] shows only a limited insight into her own involvement in what has gone on. The emotional upheavals from which she has suffered, the lack of appropriateness of some of her behaviour in the past, with all of this being handled by her main defences of denial and rejection.
[43] Dr. Goldstein testified as well that Ms. M. has an uncanny ability to surround herself with a team of professionals who believe and support all her allegations against Dr. K. Although V. exhibits major symptoms of alienation, Dr. Goldstein is concerned that J.'s alienation is starting. He refuses to speak to his father on the telephone. Dr. Goldstein is concerned that J. is being alienated by both his mother and by V. When Dr. Goldstein was asked about the risks to V. of being taken away from her mother, he was clear that she would feel anxious. She will be worried about her mother, however she is 9 years old so she has to learn that it is not up to her to look after or care for her mother. She has to re-establish her critical thinking and the freedom of childhood.
[44] Dr. Goldstein is adamant that staying in this situation is risky. He says that alienation is a form of child abuse. He is concerned about the children's long term mental health.
[45] In support of her position, that custody of the children should remain with her, Ms. M. relies on case law. She cites Genovesi v. Genovesi (1992), 1992 8562 (ON SC), 41 R.F.L. (3d) 27 (Ont.Gen.Div.) where the court disapproved of disturbing a long established status quo when the assessor had not been tested by cross-examination and "when a full trial of the issue is to take place in the immediate future". She cites Grant v. Turgeon, 2000 22565 (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 970, where the court ordered an expedited trial, noting that it is only in "exceptional" cases "where the assessor's recommendation should be acted upon immediately and before the full investigation provided by a trial". She cites K.A.C. v. P.P. 2007 ONCJ 217. The court noted the need to be mindful of the principles set out in McEachern v. McEachern (1994) 7379 (Ont.S.C.) that in making an interim custody order, court should generally maintain the status quo in the absence of important reasons suggesting that a change is necessary in the child's best interest. Additionally the court noted two other factors that should be considered in determining whether there should be a change in the status quo on an interim basis:
the quality of the evidence available; and
how soon an action is likely to go to trial.
[46] There is no evidence before me to indicate that the parties have put their minds to determining when a trial of this matter might take place. However, in my experience the very earliest that a trial could take place would be May, 2014. It is far more likely that a trial could not be scheduled before January 2015. On this motion, I have had the benefit of cross-examination by both sides of the assessor. There are important reasons suggesting that a change is necessary and in the children's best interests. In my view this is an exceptional case where the assessor's recommendation must be acted upon immediately.
[47] Interestingly, after Justice Edwards adjourned this matter to a long motions' date, despite the fact that supervised access with V. was in place, V. contacted her father and a couple of unsupervised visits took place. Ms. M. argued that this demonstrated her willingness to encourage a relationship with Dr. K.. Dr. Goldstein felt, and I accept that all that was demonstrated was more manipulation by Ms. M.
[48] Ms. M. on this motion questions Dr. Goldstein's objectivity in the assessment. However, the fact that he has found that she has been responsible for alienating V. does not mean he is not objective. His mandate is to determine the best interests of the children and the parties' ability to meet those interests, not the best interests of the parties.
[49] Ms. M.'s criticism is that Dr. Goldstein's report is not the result of a complete and thorough assessment in that he did not speak to many individuals who had knowledge of the situation. She alleges that he disregarded anyone who advocated on her behalf. There is no question that Dr. Goldstein felt that the individuals who advocated on behalf of Ms. M. had been conscripted by her to be part of her team against Dr. K. In my view he did in fact listen to these individuals, however, he discounted the value of their opinions for that reason.
[50] This is one of those rare exceptional cases where the assessor's recommendations should be acted upon immediately or grave psychological harm might befall these two children.
FINANCIAL ISSUES
[51] The change in custody will necessitate a change in the child support order as well. Child support from Dr. K. to Ms. M. will cease with the March 1, 2014 being the final payment for now. Spousal support as ordered by Justice Price will continue.
[52] On March 1, 2013 Justice Price ordered Dr. K. to pay $50,000.00 as an advance for Ms. M.'s legal costs. Justice Price subsequently (on August 13, 2013) fixed Ms. M.'s legal costs at $46,772.33 for the March 1 motion. However, on August 8, 2013 Justice Edwards awarded costs in favour or Dr. K., payable by Ms. M. for the May 10, 2013 motion. He awarded costs of $45,000.00 to be set off against any cost award made by Justice Price. Dr. K. asks that the difference between the two costs award be sorted out in the final financial determination. I agree that approach would be appropriate. For that reason, I order that the balance of the $50,000.00 ($12,000.00 having been paid to Dr. Goldstein as Ms. M.'s share) be released to Dr. K.
[53] I also agree to remaining involved in this matter and am agreeable to Dr. K.'s request that I be seized for the time being.
ORDER
[54] I asked each party for a draft Order reflecting what he or she wished to see in my endorsement on this motion.
[55] For the most part I accept Dr. K.'s draft Order. The following Order will issue:
- Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the temporary order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Price, dated March 1, 2013, and paragraph 1 (a)-(f) of the temporary order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Daley, dated September 23, 2013 shall be varied as follows:
a. Dr. K. shall immediately be entitled to temporary sole custody of the children, V. K., born September 6, 2004 and J. N. K., born October 22, 2009 ("the children);
b. There shall be no contact whatsoever between the Ms. M. and the children.
c. Any contact between the children and any friends, relatives, therapists or previous treatment providers for either Ms. M. or the children shall be at the discretion of Dr. K.;
d. The issue of contact between Ms. M. and the children shall be reviewed before me on a mutually agreed upon date arranged by the parties and the court at least three months from the date of this order. At that time, I will consider:
i. Whether Ms. M. shall be entitled to supervised access to the children twice a week for two hour periods. In considering this issue, I will consider whether Ms. M. has undergone therapy with a counsellor knowledgeable about the issues arising out of high conflict custody disputes and parental alienation.
ii. When and if telephone times should be arranged for the children to call their mother; such conversations to be supervised by Dr. K. or someone whom he would designate to do so.
iii. When to again review Ms. M.'s access in order to determine whether she has made sufficient progress as to increase such access and allow it to expand into overnight access.
e. All police forces in the Province of Ontario, including but not limited to the Peel Regional Police, Toronto Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police, Sheriff's Officers, and/or such other law enforcement agencies as may have jurisdiction, are directed and authorized to enforce this Order;
f. In the event that Ms. M. has not immediately returned the children to Dr. K., then pursuant to section 36 of the Children's Law Reform Act, police forces in the Province of Ontario, including but not limited to the Peel Regional Police, Toronto Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police, Sheriff's Officers and/or such other law enforcement agencies as may have jurisdiction, are directed and authorized:
a. to immediately locate, apprehend and deliver the children into Dr. K.'s care; and
b. enter and search any place, at any time of the day or night, where he or she has reasonable or probable grounds to believe the children may be, with such assistance and such force as are reasonable in the circumstances,
but this order to apprehend the children shall expire six months from the date of any Order, unless extended or terminated by further court order.
Dr. Sol Goldstein shall be appointed to continue to assess and report to the court in regard to the progress, needs and best interests of the children, the abilities of the parties to meet those needs, and whether the arrangements set out above should continue. Each of the parties shall execute all release of information forms necessary to allow Dr. Goldstein to obtain any information and/or records that he may see fit to require from any therapists or care givers providing services to either of the parties or the children.
Dr. K. will enroll the children as soon as possible with the Families in Transition Programme. Each of the parties will fully cooperate with the programme and participate as the programme service providers may request.
Dr. K. shall continue in counselling with Isolina Varano.
Ms. M. is to undertake a course of therapy with a therapist approved by Dr. Goldstein. If there are any difficulties in this regard, the parties may schedule a meeting or conference call with me to address this issue.
Ms. M. shall immediately deliver the children's OHIP cards and any other documents including but not limited to their Canadian and Indian passports (if any), birth certificates, and social insurance cards to the Applicant.
Dr. K. is at liberty to immediately remove the children from their current school (Sheppard Public School, in Toronto, Ontario) and enroll them in Claireville Public School located at 97 Gallucci Crescent, Brampton, Ontario, L6P 1R6. Dr. K. will be entitled to arrange for the transfer of all of the children's school records from Sheppard Public School to Claireville Public School.
The following provisions relating to custody or access contained in the temporary Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Price of March 1, 2013 and the interim Court Orders of Justice Edwards of May 10, 2013 and June 6, 2013 shall continue and remain in force including but not limited to:
i. Police enforcement at paragraph 3 of the March 1, 2013 order;
ii. Non-removal order at paragraph 4 of the May 10, 2013 order;
iii. No passports being issued at paragraph 5 of the May 10, 2013 order; and
iv. Refraining of disparaging or speaking negatively about the other parent to the children at paragraph 6 of the June 6, 2013 order.
Variation of Child Support
- The child support provisions of paragraph 5 of the temporary Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Price dated March 1, 2013 are varied to provide as follows:
Dr. K.'s child support obligation to Ms. M. shall be immediately terminated, effective the date of this order.
- Ms. M. will immediately notify the Family Responsibility Office that all support payments are up to date. The parties will sign and provide to the Family Responsibility Office such documents as may be required to update it about the termination of Dr. K.'s child support obligations.
Release of Funds
- Paragraph 2(e) of the temporary Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Edwards of May 10, 2013 that requires $50,000.00 to be held in trust by the Respondent's former solicitor, Michael Cochrane, formerly of Heydary Green PC, is varied to provide as follows:
a. The funds held in trust by Michael Cochrane, formerly of Heydary Green PC (now of Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP) of approximately $38,000.00 (net of the first payment installment already made to Dr. Sol Goldstein) shall be immediately released to Dr. K.; and
b. The balance of the trust funds in the trust account of Mr. Daman Aujla from the sale of 28 Wardsville Drive, Brampton, Ontario shall be immediately released to Dr. K.
Payment of the Fees of Dr. Sol Goldstein
- Dr. K. will be at liberty to pay all outstanding fees owing to Dr. Goldstein for his assessment, testimony and access supervision out of the funds described in paragraph 9 above. Such payment is without prejudice to Dr. K.'s right to claim that Ms. M. is liable for more than 50% of those fees as part of the costs of this motion.
Motion of the Respondent Dismissed
- Ms. M.'s motion, originally returnable February 4, 2014 is dismissed.
Costs
- The issue of costs of this motion, Ms. M.'s motion, and Ms. M.'s abandoned 14b motion, including the fees of Dr. Goldstein, are reserved. The Applicant shall provide a submission regarding costs within 10 days not to exceed 3 pages excluding a Bill of Costs. Ms. M. shall respond within 10 days on the same basis. Dr. K. may file a reply within a further three days being a maximum of 1 page.
[56] I want to thank both counsel for their assistance with this very difficult case.
Van Melle J.
DATE: March 19, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: FS-13-76817-00
DATE: 2014-03-19
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: K. v. M.
BEFORE: JUSTICE VAN MELLE
COUNSEL: M. Kurz, for the Applicant
A. Crossley, for the
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
JUSTICE VAN MELLE
DATE: March 19, 2014