Huibers v. Huibers, CITATION: 2015 ONSC 4096

COURT FILE NO.: 7277/13

DATE: 2015-06-24

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Renee Christine Huibers, Applicant

AND: William Christopher Huibers, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL: Ms Bernadette M. McCartney for the Applicant Ms A.E. Gibson for the Respondent Mr Erik Grinberg for the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: 2015-06-24

ENDORSEMENT

[1] These are my reasons for allowing the Respondent’s motion for an order requiring the Applicant to file the necessary forms to permit reconciliation counselling to begin at Pathstone, the Respondent to pay the up front costs, subject to reimbursement of half of the costs by the Applicant in due course.

[2] The Children’s Lawyer has recommended immediate reconciliation counselling. These children need to be reconciled with their father. The only immediate prospect is the agency chosen by the father. The Applicant objects to paying her share, even in future. She says that private counselling can be arranged that would be paid by the parties’ insurance. She also objects on the basis that Pathstone will make inquiries of the parties’ lawyers, not just the parties.

[3] As to the first objection, the children need counselling now, not later. Private counselling would necessitate delay. The cost is justified by the children’s needs, and it is just as much their mother’s responsibility as their father’s to see to their needs.

[4] I cannot see any harm in having parties speak through their lawyers. I do not take this objection seriously. It confirms my view that the Applicant is deliberately stalling reconciliation for her own purposes.

J.A. Ramsay J.

Date: 2015-06-24