COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-1007

DATE: 20140115

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: MELANIE MEGHAN VARCOE, Applicant

AND:

CHRISTOPHER MELVYN VARCOE, Respondent

BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE J.P.L. McDERMOT

COUNSEL:
F. McFarlane, for the Applicant

L. Burgess, for the Respondent

HEARD: January 9, 2014

SUPPLEMENTARY ENDORSEMENT

[1] Counsel for Ms. Varcoe, Ms. McFarlane, has raised by correspondence the fact that, in my endorsement of January 13, 2014, I did not render a decision on one of the requests for relief contained in her client’s Notice of Motion, which was a request that I order Mr. Varcoe to sign a parenting coordination agreement submitted to him by the proposed parenting coordinator, Douglas Manning. Based upon comments made during argument, I had assumed that this issue had been abandoned. I was obviously mistaken.

[2] This claim arises from the Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties regarding custody and access matters on November 12, 2013, which provided that Mr. Manning “serve as the ‘Parenting Coordinator’” and set out in a detailed manner his responsibilities.

[3] The Applicant states that she provided her “paperwork” to Mr. Manning but the Respondent has not. She asks that Mr. Varcoe be ordered to “executed (sic.) and return the Parenting Coordinator’s Contract between the parties and the Parenting Coordinator, Mr. Douglas Manning, within five (5) days of this order.”

[4] The material filed by the Applicant, although not answered by the Respondent, is deficient. It does not contain a copy of the draft agreement forwarded by Mr. Manning to the parties. It does not state how long Mr. Varcoe has been in default of his obligation to sign the agreement (although it appears from the e-mail from Mr. Manning dated December 19, 2013, that as of that date, neither party had sent signed documentation to him). I note as well that there was an allegation from the counsel table by Ms. Burgess that Ms. Varcoe had failed to provide her retainer to Mr. Manning.

[5] A parenting coordination agreement is a document that may bear negotiation between the parties. I am not willing to impose an obligation on Mr. Varcoe, especially when that agreement has not been placed before the court. As well, bearing in mind that Mr. Manning stated that he has nothing from either party as late as December 19, 2013, I am not convinced by the Applicant’s material that there has been any inordinate delay by Mr. Varcoe in providing the documentation. This is especially so where there is nothing in the material, other than the issue of choosing the counsellor for the children, which indicates some immediate crisis concerning the children which would require the intervention of the parenting coordinator.

[6] Finally, it is implicit in the order of November 15, 2013 that each party sign and provide all necessary documentation necessary to retain the parenting coordinator. As discussed during argument, it is a superfluous and pointless to order an individual to comply with an order which has already been made. If there is a default under the order, the Applicant has her remedies in contempt or to strike pleadings: see Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules[^1] as recently amended.[^2] The solution is not to amend the order or to provide what is already required by it; it is to take whatever steps which are necessary under the Rules to enforce the order.

[7] The motion for the Applicant to sign the parenting coordination agreement is accordingly dismissed.

McDERMOT J.

Date: January 15, 2014

[^1]: O. Reg. 114/99

[^2]: O. Reg. 322/13, s. 1