COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-2999-1
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: ERROL PLUMMER, Applicant
AND
CHARMAINE WILLIAMS, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Marc R. Labrosse
COUNSEL: Linda A. Hanson, Counsel for Applicant (Moving Party)
Charmaine Williams, Respondent, Self-represented
Jane O’Neill, Counsel for Cameron Plummer (Office of the Children’s Lawyer)
HEARD IN OTTAWA: March 26, 2014
ENDORSEMENT
1The Applicant father brings this motion claiming that the Respondent mother is in contempt of a number of orders of this Court, which relate principally to the issue of access for the Applicant with his son, Cameron Plummer (d.o.b. December 5, 2000). Specifically, the Applicant claims that the Respondent is in contempt of the following orders:
(a) Order of Justice Minnema dated September 18, 2012;
(b) Order of Justice Kershman dated January 28, 2013;
(c) Order of Master Roger dated May 17, 2013; and
(d) Order of RSJ Hackland dated September 13, 2013.
2In addition, the Applicant claims various other forms of relief against the Respondent, which were not specifically pursued at the motion. The main issue was the finding of contempt and putting in place a process for the Applicant to re-establish contact with Cameron.
3The Respondent states that she has tried to encourage Cameron to attend access visits with the Applicant. However, the Respondent’s actions in the past few years suggest otherwise. In or about May 2012, the Respondent took the position that if she was required to provide the Applicant with access to Cameron, she would prefer to relinquish custody of Cameron to the Applicant and not see her son. On May 18, 2012, she did exactly that and brought Cameron to the Applicant on a full‑time basis and had little or no contact with him for a period of approximately eight months. In January 2013, the Applicant encouraged an access visit between Cameron and the Respondent and immediately, Cameron refused to return to the Applicant’s care. He has remained with the Respondent since then and, with the exception of a few instances, Cameron has had no access with the Applicant.
4On March 2, 2012, Justice R. Smith requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) to represent Cameron in these proceedings. The OCL filed two affidavits from Holly Pontello, an OCL clinician. While the affidavits state that Cameron does not want to see the Applicant, it is noted that Cameron feels that the Respondent does not want him to see the Applicant. The OCL, on behalf of Cameron, states that the Respondent should have custody of Cameron and that he should maintain his primary residence with the Respondent. The OCL is also of the view that the Applicant should have access with Cameron. During submissions, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the Respondent is trying to have the OCL organize and set up access visits. This is not the duty of the OCL, according to Ms. O’Neill and she submits that it is up to the Respondent to organize access visits with the Applicant. I agree.
5The main issue on this motion is if the Respondent is in contempt of the Order of RSJ Hackland dated September 13, 2013. I do not propose to review if there is contempt of the other orders listed above. The terms for custody and access have seen material changes over the period of these orders and I am of the view that it is only since September 13, 2013 that we have a consistent period whereby the Respondent’s actions can properly be evaluated.
6I find that paragraph 24 of the Respondent’s affidavit, sworn on January 13, 2014, properly summarizes her opinion and her actions since September 13, 2013. She states:
Cameron says he just wants this to be over. He has communicated his wishes and preferences consistently to the OCL and to me, his father and to the Police; that is, he wants to live with me and see his father as he wishes.
7The Respondent is of the opinion that Cameron’s wishes should simply be respected and he should not be required to follow the terms of RSJ Hackland’s Order. This statement supports the allegations made by the Applicant that Cameron has been told by the Respondent that he cannot be forced to spend time with the Applicant. Furthermore, the Respondent has confirmed that she has not implemented any form of parental discipline for Cameron’s refusal to comply with RSJ Hackland’s Order. I conclude that, by her actions, the Respondent has dissuaded Cameron from complying with the September 13, 2013 Order and I therefore find her in contempt of this Order.
8I do not propose to address the possible sanctions against the Respondent until after a period of approximately 60 days during which the Respondent will have an opportunity to participate in a process towards restoring regular access for the Applicant with Cameron. I will remain seized of this matter and hereby order the following:
(a) From March 26, 2014 to June 3, 2014, the Order of RSJ Hackland dated September 13, 2013 will be temporarily suspended;
(b) From April 12, 2014 to May 4, 2014, the Applicant will have access with Cameron on April 12th, April 19th, April 26th and May 3rd, subject to the following conditions:
i. The access will be for between 1 to 2 hours and may be longer should Cameron so desire;
ii. Cameron will be able to request that Christine Anderson‑Brown attend the access visit with him;
iii. The access dates are provided for a Saturday, however, the Saturday date may be changed for the following Sunday where it may be more suitable for Ms. Anderson‑Brown or for Cameron;
iv. It is intended that the access time will be spent to allow the Applicant to do an activity with Cameron. The nature of the activity will be at the Applicant’s discretion; and
v. Pick‑up and drop‑off of Cameron will be provided by Ms. Anderson‑Brown or a third party, failing which the Respondent shall provide for the pick‑up and drop‑off of Cameron herself.
(c) From May 5, 2014 to June 2, 2014, the Applicant will have access with Cameron on May 11th, May 19th, May 25th and June 2nd, subject to the following conditions:
i. The access will be for between 2 to 4 hours and may be longer should Cameron so desire;
ii. Cameron will be able to request that a third party attend the access visits with him;
iii. The access dates are provided for a Saturday, however, the Saturday date may be changed for the following Sunday where it may be more suitable for Cameron;
iv. Pick‑up and drop‑off of Cameron will be provided by a third party acceptable to Cameron, failing which the Respondent shall provide for the pick‑up and drop‑off of Cameron herself.
(d) On consent, the Respondent shall arrange at her cost, for Cameron to receive counselling with respect to his refusal to participate in access visits with the Applicant; and
(e) On consent, both the Applicant and the Respondent shall arrange for independent counselling to assist them in dealing with the issues relating to the Applicant’s access with Cameron, and also with communication issues with Cameron and amongst themselves.
9Upon any material breach of the terms of this Order or at any time after June 3, 2014, either party may request a return date of this motion in order for the Court to hear submissions on the applicable sanctions which should be imposed with respect to the finding of contempt against the Respondent.
10The last issue is that of costs. The Applicant has been successful on this Motion and he is entitled to have the Respondent pay those costs on a partial indemnity basis. If the parties cannot agree on the costs of this Motion, the parties may write to me. The Applicant shall provide written costs submissions within 14 days of the date of release of this Endorsement. Thereafter, the Respondent shall provide written costs submissions within 14 days. Thereafter, the Applicant shall have a right of reply within 7 days. Each costs submission shall be no longer than two pages in length, excluding the Costs Outline. The parties shall comply with Rule 4.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Mr. Justice Marc R. Labrosse
Date: April 7, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-2999-1
DATE: 2014/04/07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Errol Plummer, Applicant
AND
Charmaine Williams, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Marc R. Labrosse
COUNSEL: Linda A. Hanson, Counsel for Applicant (Moving Party)
Charmaine Williams, Respondent, Self‑Represented
Jane O’Neill, Counsel for Cameron Plummer (Office of the Children’s Lawyer)
ENDORSEMENT
Labrosse J.
Released: April 7, 2014