COURT FILE AND PARTIES
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: JENNIFER EMILY MURRELL, Applicant
AND
GEOFFREY CHRISTOPHER WALLS, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Marc R. Labrosse
COUNSEL: Robie Loomer, for the Applicant
Geoffrey Christopher Walls, Self‑represented
HEARD IN OTTAWA: March 26, 2014
ENDORSEMENT
Overview
1The Applicant has brought a motion for a Temporary Order relating to sole custody and access for Aubrey Cyrus Walls (d.o.b. April 13, 2012), a restraining order against the Respondent on behalf of herself and Cyrus, an order that the Respondent undergo an assessment and an order for disclosure. The Respondent brings his own motion for a Temporary Order with respect to joint custody and access for Cyrus.
Analysis
2The Applicant’s motion relates principally to the Respondent’s mental health issues. The Respondent has been forthright with the Applicant and the Court as to the difficulties he has had with suicide ideation and paranoid delusions. The Respondent refers to these as “intrusive thoughts”. The Respondent has provided supporting documentation which addresses, in part, the treatment he is following with respect to alcohol addiction and the treatment he is receiving from his psychiatrist, Dr. Krishnaprasad. While these documents provide some information, I agree with the Applicant that there is a need for further information about the ongoing treatment and assessment of the Respondent’s mental health issues. While a Custody-Access Assessment (with participation by the Applicant) may be of assistance, I am not prepared to order that the Respondent provide one to the Court. As for the documentary disclosure requested, I do not agree that the Applicant is entitled to have copies of all counselling and medical records. It would be too intrusive to provide these documents at this stage of the proceedings; however I agree that the Applicant is entitled to have written reports which would address the treatment the Respondent is receiving.
3In the meantime, the Respondent is entitled to access while the ongoing mental health issues are being addressed, and such access should be supervised until such time as information is provided that a course of treatment is put in place for the Respondent and that his mental health issues have been stabilized. The Applicant has advised that the Respondent’s father or sister would be acceptable individuals to supervise access; however, the Respondent says they are no longer willing to do so. This leaves the Respondent in the difficult position of being limited to having access visits at the Ottawa Supervised Access Centre and such access may be very limited in frequency and duration and there could be significant delay before it becomes available. While the Respondent did not propose any other suitable person to supervise access, I am prepared to confirm that his father and sister are still appropriate to supervise, along with any other person deemed acceptable by the Applicant, acting reasonably. Furthermore, the Applicant is encouraged to allow access at appropriate public locations, such as public swimming where some supervision is provided, and where a third party supervisor for access may not be required. These activities were discussed at the motion as suggestions for the Applicant, who will have to be comfortable that such access activities are in the best interests of Cyrus.
Order
4Upon reviewing the material filed and hearing the submissions of the parties, the Court orders on a temporary basis:
5The Applicant shall have custody of Aubrey Cyrus Walls, born April 13, 2012;
6The Respondent shall have supervised access, which shall be supervised either by:
a. The Respondent’s father, David Walls;
b. The Respondent’s sister, Shannon Walls;
c. Such other person deemed acceptable by the Applicant; or
d. The Ottawa Supervised Access Centre.
7The parties shall agree on the times and frequency of supervised access, which shall be a minimum of one time per week for a period of not less than five hours per week. The times and frequency may vary depending on the availability of supervision and the Applicant shall make efforts to accommodate the person who is supervising the access. While the times and frequency for access is more than the father is currently having with Cyrus, it shall not be viewed negatively if he is not able to benefit from it every week. To the extent possible, the Applicant should be given one week notice prior to a scheduled access visit. In the event that the parties are unable to agree on the times and frequency of access, the parties may write to the court and schedule to appear before me to fix access times and frequency.
8The Respondent shall be restrained from annoying, molesting or harassing the Applicant and, in particular, from:
a. Contacting the Applicant directly or indirectly, including by phone, fax or any means, except relating to access or as consented to by the Applicant; and
b. Attending within 500 meters of the home or place of work of the Applicant.
9The Respondent shall provide the following information to the Applicant with respect to his ongoing treatment for alcoholism and mental health issues:
a. Confirmation of completion of the Rideauwood treatment phase and aftercare phase of treatment, as each is completed;
b. A further and more detailed report of Dr. Krishnaprasad or other treating psychiatrist which addresses the Respondent’s Treatment Plan, how long it will last, medication prescribed and the prognosis for the Respondent, including any recommendations with respect to access with Cyrus and the need for it to be supervised; and
c. A report from the Respondent’s family doctor, Dr. Neil Rogers, with respect to the Respondent’s ongoing need for treatment and any recommendations with respect to access with Cyrus and the need for it to be supervised.
10The Respondent shall provide copies of all bank records and credit card statements for the past year.
Costs
11The Applicant has been substantially successful on this motion. 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-13-1038
DATE: 2014/04/07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: JENNIFER EMILY MURRELL, Applicant
AND
GEOFFREY CHRISTOPHER WALLS, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Marc R. Labrosse
COUNSEL: Robie Loomer, for the Applicant
Geoffrey Christopher Walls, Self‑represented
ENDORSEMENT
Labrosse J.
Released: April 7, 2014