Superior Court of Justice – Ontario
Court File No.: FC-14-429
Date: 2014/03/31
RE: Jennifer Sakina Ali, Applicant
AND
Dilbag Singh Pangalia, Respondent
Before: Mr. Justice Paul F. Lalonde
Counsel:
Alison Campbell, for the Applicant
Tamarra Scarowsky, for the Respondent
Heard at Ottawa: March 24, 2014
Endorsement
[1] The Applicant brings a motion for the following:
Interim care and custody of Noah, born November 13, 2003 (10 years old), and Jack, born July 26, 2007 (6 years old);
Reasonable and generous access to the children, by the father;
Assessment of the ability to parent the children by both parties;
The appointment of counsel from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to represent the children;
The assignment of this case to the High Conflict Project;
The exclusive possession of the matrimonial home located at 70 Stonemeadow Drive, Kanata, Ontario;
A restraining order; and
Costs.
[2] The parties cohabited for 15 years prior to their separation on January 11, 2014. Both parties are overachievers in their respective professions. The Applicant is a valued employee at Statistics Canada, earning slightly more than $100,000. The Respondent is also a highly respected professional with Correction Services Canada, currently on disability leave. He is drawing 70 percent of his income of $92,000.
[3] Both parties have mental health issues. The Respondent has been diagnosed with post‑traumatic stress disorder. The Applicant has been treated for a dissociative identity disorder although she claims not to have the disorder. The Respondent claims that the Applicant has several different personalities.
[4] The application was commenced and filed on March 10, 2014. The file, one month later, is composed of two very thick books of materials including an affidavit by the Applicant of 144 paragraphs, 22 exhibits and one affidavit by the Respondent of 89 paragraphs and 14 exhibits followed by his 130-paragraph affidavit and 15 exhibits. What one party holds as true is promptly denied by the other party. The parties have dug up old dirt that will only weaken their case and hurt the children. Most of the materials filed establish that it is necessary that this couple live separate and apart for their children’s well-being, if not for their own sake.
[5] The parties are forewarned that this Court will not tolerate abuse and parental misconduct that affects the children. Henceforth, any negative conduct by either party will impact on his or her chances to be successful with their claims at trial.
Consent Orders
[6] I suggest that the Ontario Office of the Children’s Lawyers appoint counsel to represent the interests of the children to make their views and preferences known to the Court.
[7] On consent, each of the parties will obtain, at their own cost, a psychiatric report on their mental health and ability to parent their two children, and file that report with the Court after serving the opposite party with the report in a timely fashion.
[8] On consent, the parties agree that their case be listed in the High Conflict Project.
[9] Faced with so many contradictions raised by each party and with an overabundance of “he said”, “she said” statements, I have to turn to an independent party assessment to ground my decision. At this stage, the abundant letters from friends, both in the community and at work, do not help to determine what was happening in the past year in the Ali-Pangalia household. I say the past year, as unearthing dirt from the past will not be helpful. The children need stability and the Court needs to address the future needs of the children and determine which parent is better placed right now to look after them.
[10] The Applicant left the matrimonial home with Noah and Jack and fled to a shelter for abused women. She stated in her affidavit that the Respondent has issues with compliance with medications by failing to take his medication or by taking higher doses than prescribed. This meant that the Respondent would run out of the medication and is unable to obtain a renewal of his medication for a number of days. When that happens the Respondent’s behavior hurts the children, as he is more hostile, paranoid, angered and intolerant of the children’s behaviour. It also affects the Applicant who is out working all day.
[11] The Respondent is still participating as an outpatient in a local hospital program. While the Respondent can look after the children for three or four hours at a time, family outings tire him and he must rest to recuperate his energy.
[12] On February 17, 2004, an incident developed in the matrimonial home between the parents, and the children witnessed it. The Applicant called the police and soon afterwards the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) became involved. The CAS assisted the Applicant to remove the children from the matrimonial home on February 20, 2014.
[13] Melanie Guibord, a CAS protection worker investigated this conflict and sent a report to the parties dated March 12, 2014, that both parties annexed to their affidavit. This is the one page report:
I am writing this letter to provide written notification of the outcome of The Children’s Aid Society’s investigation regarding concerns of domestic violence/partner conflict in your home as well as caregiver capacity concerns related to both Mr. Pangalia and Mrs. Ali’s mental health. Subsequent allegations of questionable sexual activity by Mrs. Ali toward the children and Mrs. Ali’s’ substance use were also received.
The Society did not confirm that the children were placed at risk of physical harm; however, the Society verified that the children were placed at risk of emotional harm due to exposure to partner conflict in the home. I take this opportunity to remind you that conflict and/or violence in the presence of children can have a negative impact on their physical and emotional well-being.
The Society did not confirm that caregiver capacity related to mental health for both parents and substance use for Mrs. Ali places the children at risk of harm, however, the Society verified that both caregivers have mental or emotional conditions but supportive services are in place and the caregivers have their conditions well enough under control to care for the children.
The Society did not confirm allegations of questionable sexual activity by Mrs. Ali.
The Society will close its file at this time given that both parties indicated a strong commitment to sheltering the children from further exposure to conflict with the recommendation that both parties attend the Parenting Through High Conflict Separation and Divorce program offered through Family Services Ottawa. They can be reached at (613) 725-3601.
[14] The above report is all I have. The Applicant’s employers have confirmed that the Applicant is functioning properly in a high level job.
[15] Therefore, I order the following on an interim basis:
The Applicant will have interim sole custody of Noah, born November 13, 2003, and Jack, born July 26, 2007, until further order of this Court;
The Respondent will have access at a minimum of twice per week namely on Wednesdays from the time school finishes to 6:30 p.m. and on Fridays from the time school finishes until 6 p.m. on Saturday; children can be picked up at the school by the Respondent and returned to the mother at the closest fast food facility to the matrimonial home. This new regime will commence on Saturday, April 5, 2014. Access can be at any other time or times as the parties agree upon. The best interests of the children must govern all of the parties’ decisions concerning their children.
The Applicant is granted interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and this is to take place as soon as possible and not later than noon on Saturday, April 15, 2014. The Applicant will have interim possession of the contents of the matrimonial home, releasing as many of the contents to enable the Respondent to receive the children properly in his new home.
I refuse to grant a restraining order to either party as I find that the CAS admonishment, together with my unfavorable comments to the parties concerning how badly their high conflict disputes are hurting their children, should suffice to have the parties use common sense in dealing with each other in front of the children.
Each party is to bear his or her own costs in this matter because 90 percent of the cost involves the children at this point and it is the right of the father to contest custody of his children without being penalized.
Mr. Justice Paul F. Lalonde
Date: March 31, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-429
DATE: 2014/03/31
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Jennifer Sakina Ali, Applicant
AND
Dilbag Singh Pangalia, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Paul F. Lalonde
COUNSEL: Alison Campbell, for the Applicant
Tamarra Scarowsky, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Mr. Justice Paul F. Lalonde
Released: March 31, 2014