COURT FILE NO.: FS-09-66347-00
DATE: 20140116
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Komalpreet Luthra v. Narinder Pal Singh Luthra
BEFORE: Fragomeni J.
COUNSEL: Applicant, Komalpreet Luthra, In Person
Respondent, Narinder Pal Singh Luthra, In Person
HEARD: December 9, 2013
ENDORSEMENT
[1] Mrs. Luthra seeks the following relief at this motion:
That the husband’s pension be divided equally;
That the access set out in my judgment be changed with respect to the holiday period;
Access to be arranged according to the availability of the father;
An order that the father take out life insurance to secure spousal and child support payments;
Confirmation that the trustee of his life insurance policy is the mother.
[2] I will deal with each of these issues in reverse order.
ISSUE: Trustee of his Life Insurance Policy
[3] Mr. Luthra advised the court that he has made the change and will send confirmation to Mrs. Luthra that he has done so. On that basis an order shall issue that Mr. Luthra shall provide to Mrs. Luthra, within 10 days, documentary confirmation that the trustee of his life insurance policy is the applicant mother in accordance with the terms of the judgment released April 26, 2013 at paragraph 10 of the judgment.
ISSUE: Life Insurance to Secure Payments
[4] The judgment sets out that the father shall continue to have in place his life insurance policy with Sunlife Financial and shall continue to name the child, Nimrit Kaur Luthra, as the irrevocable beneficiary for as long as he is obligated to provide support for the child. A further order is not required nor was it requested at trial.
[5] With respect to additional life insurance to secure the spousal support payments, this request was not made at trial and it cannot be made at this time. The judgment has been issued and I am now functus. In other words I have no authority or jurisdiction to change my judgment.
ISSUE: Access According to Father’s Availability
[6] At this motion the parties continue to make allegations against each other with respect to access. Mrs. Luthra sets out in her Affidavit allegations of abuse and mistreatment of the child by Mr. Luthra’s new wife. Mrs. Luthra asserts in her Affidavit that Mr. Luthra does not properly deal with her concerns and is abusive and sarcastic toward her. She claims as well that Mr. Luthra continues to send abusive messages to her.
[7] Mrs. Luthra claims that Mr. Luthra is violating the current access order.
[8] Mr. Luthra in his defence asserts that Mrs. Luthra is violating the current access order. She is denying him access. She continues to send abusive texts to him.
[9] Mr. Luthra is asking the court that in order to enforce the terms of access set out in my judgment, released April 26, 2013, a police enforcement term must be made. In his Affidavit sworn November 27, 2013, Mr. Luthra states that he is agreeable with the current access schedule, as well as the one proposed by Mrs. Luthra, with a police enforcement clause added.
[10] Mr. Luthra in his Affidavit sets out examples, as did Mrs. Luthra, of instances when Mrs. Luthra disrupted or denied access. He also sets out, as did Mrs. Luthra, text messages sent by her to him.
[11] It is clear that the conflict and allegations being made by the parties continues. These types of allegations were made at trial. It was precisely because of this conflict and inappropriate communication that a detailed and comprehensive access order was made. At para 3 of the judgment, 27 paragraphs set out the terms of access and terms governing the conduct of the parties. For example, at paras 9 and 10:
The picking up and dropping off arrangements set out in this Order can be changed by mutual agreement of the parties, such changes to be made in writing.
The parties can mutually agree on additional access at times and dates set out in writing.
[12] This permits the parties to change the schedule to fit the father’s work schedule.
[13] At para 15 it states:
- The parties shall only communicate with each other with respect to pick-up and drop-off issues, otherwise they are not permitted to communicate with each other and that includes e-mail, texting, fax, or letters, except as set out in this order.
[14] It is clear in that paragraph that the parties shall not communicate with each other except for pick-up and drop-off issues. A further order is not required. The parties must comply with this order. Their continued communication as now set out in their respective Affidavits is not in compliance with this term of my judgment.
[15] At paragraph 17, it states:
- Neither party shall speak in a disparaging or negative manner about the other party or allow or encourage others to do so in the presence of the child.
[16] Again, it is clear how the parties must conduct themselves. A further order is not required.
[17] At paragraph 19, it states:
- The parties shall engage in a counselling program to improve their communication skills with each other regarding their parenting of the child.
[18] It is even clearer now that the parties require this counselling. A further order is not required.
[19] The existing access order made is detailed and comprehensive and on the basis of the evidentiary record before me at this motion I am not prepared to make any amendments to it. The Affidavits are conflicting and have not been the subject matter of cross-examinations. The parties do not require any further orders. The parties must comply with the existing order and conduct themselves accordingly.
ISSUE: Division of the Pension Section 7 Expenses
[20] I will deal with both of these financial issues at the same time.
[21] The issue relating to the division of the pension was not raised at trial. The issue of equalization of property was dealt with in my judgment commencing at paragraph 61.
[22] The judgment relating to property issued was based on the evidentiary record filed and Mrs. Luthra cannot ask to have that issue re-litigated at this time as I am now functus. In other words I have no authority or jurisdiction to change my judgment as my duties as the trial judge are fully completed.
[23] With respect to the Section 7 expenses, that issue was also dealt with in my judgment. Again, I am functus on that issue.
[24] The parties shall file written submissions on costs of this motion within 20 days.
Fragomeni J.
Date: January 16, 2014