COURT FILE NO.: 2956/14

DATE: 2015-08-12

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

ADAM MOREAU Applicant

– and –

SARAH KELLY Respondent

T. F. Baxter, for the Applicant C. Fitzgerald, for the Respondent

HEARD: July 30, 2015

REASONS ON MOTION

JUSTICE E. GAREAU:

[1] Before the court are two motions, one brought by each of the parties. The motion at Tab 21, Volume 2 of the continuing record is brought by the applicant father for various relief, including expanded unsupervised access and police enforcement of any access ordered by the court. The motion at Tab 2, Volume 3 of the continuing record is brought by the respondent mother for an order that any access to the father be supervised access and for an order permitting her to change the residency of the child from the Township of Hornepayne to the City of Greater Sudbury.

[2] These motions were argued before the court on July 30, 2015 with the decision reserved. There is some urgency in the matter in that the applicant has not had access to his son since the beginning of June, 2015 and the respondent wishes to change the residency of the child before the child’s school commences in September, 2015 and the respondent’s school commences in September, 2015.

Factual Background:

[3] The parties were in a relationship between July, 2008 and May 29, 2013, when they separated. The parties resided together in a common-law relationship but were not married.

[4] As a result of their relationship, the parties are the biological parents of one child, namely, Bentley Kenneth Moreau born June 6, 2011.

[5] At the time of Bentley’s birth, the parties resided in Orillia, Ontario. This is where the respondent’s family is located. In November, 2012 the applicant secured a transfer with his employer, CN Rail, from Orillia, Ontario to Hornepayne, Ontario. The respondent moved to Hornepayne with Bentley to be with the applicant as a family.

[6] The relationship between the parties began to deteriorate and the parties separated in May, 2013 and have lived separate and apart since that date. The respondent alleges that the reason for the separation was the applicant’s drug use, excessive drinking and violence toward her. The applicant denies the allegation of domestic violence but does admit to abusing drugs, although he suggests that that is in the past and he is now not using non-prescription drugs. In the affidavit material, the applicant attaches drug follicle testing which indicates negative testing for drugs to support his contention that he no longer has a drug problem. The testing is recent in time, the last test results produced being June 23, 2015.

[7] Since the date the parties separated, the child Bentley has been in the care of the respondent mother. The father brought the application on January 3, 2014 for shared care of Bentley or, in the alternative, that Bentley have his primary residence with him. Although the applicant father had liberal contact with Bentley after the parties separated, his access became more restrictive and by the Spring of 2014, the respondent mother requested that the court order that the applicant’s access be supervised. The basis for this request was the applicant’s abuse of drugs and the mother’s contention that Bentley was displaying an “increased interest in sexuality and an age inappropriate knowledge of sexual behaviours” (paragraph 19 of the respondent’s affidavit of March 7, 2014). As a result of the mother’s concerns, an investigation was commenced by the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma.

[8] As a result of these allegations, the applicant’s access to Bentley began to be supervised in March, 2014. By order granted on March 27, 2014 by Varpio, J. the applicant received access to Bentley on Wednesdays and Saturdays from 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m. to be supervised by Reverend Josh Quinn or some other mutually agreed upon third party.

[9] By order granted on June 12, 2014 by McMillan, J. the access times were expanded on Wednesday from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and the supervisors expanded to include the paternal grandmother, Sandra Moreau, as well as Josh Quinn.

[10] By the beginning of June, 2014, the investigation conducted by the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma was completed and the Society closed its file. A letter from the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma advised Ms. Kelly that “upon a thorough investigation which included collaborating with the police, our office has concluded that the allegations cannot be substantiated.” (Exhibit “A” to the affidavit of Kerri Hill sworn on May 29, 2014).

[11] As a result of the information received from the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma, the applicant brought a motion returnable on June 12, 2014 for an order for unsupervised access. That motion was heard on June 26, 2014, at which time the court ordered that the previous orders were rescinded and the applicant father was to have unsupervised access to Bentley each Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and each Wednesday from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., commencing June 28, 2014. The court requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and made the order reviewable on receipt of a report from the OCL or, in any event, after September 15, 2014.

[12] On August 21, 2014 a consent order was granted by Varpio, J. which provided that “neither party shall change or attempt to change the residence of the child Bentley Kenneth Moreau born June 1, 2011 from Hornepayne and area pending the completion of an investigation and report by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer or, in the alternative, pursuant to a further order of this court.”

[13] On February 3, 2015, the parties entered into a consent order which expanded the applicant’s access with Bentley. By order granted on February 3, 2015 by McMillan, J. the applicant was to have three alternate weekends from Friday at 3:30 p.m. to Saturday at 4:00 p.m. and a specified Wednesday visit on February 4, 2015 from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Commencing March 19, 2015, the alternate weekend access expanded to Thursday at 3:30 p.m. to Saturday at 4:00 p.m. and commencing February 10, 2015 the weekday visit was set for Tuesdays from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

[14] This access regime continued to the beginning of June, 2015. The respondent mother alleges that on June 11, 2015 Bentley made a disclosure to her and since that time she has refused to allow Bentley to go for access with his father.

[15] The exact nature of the disclosure, if true, would suggest that the father has been acting in a sexually inappropriate way towards his son, Bentley.

THE ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT:

(a) The Mother’s Request to Change the Residency of Bentley from Hornepayne, Ontario to Sudbury, Ontario

[16] The respondent is requesting the court to consider a move for Bentley on an interim basis. The trial date scheduled in this matter for August 4 to 7, 2015 was vacated by the court and a new trial date has yet to be set by the court. Given the court’s calendar and the length of time needed to try this matter (7 to 10 days), the trial of this matter will likely not take place until the Spring of 2016.

[17] A move by the mother from Hornepayne, Ontario has been contemplated for some time. In his initial application dated January 3, 2014, the father requests at Box 50 of his claim at page 4 the following relief:

“Injunction or restraining order prohibiting the respondent mother from changing or attempting to change the residence of the child Bentley Moreau from Hornepayne, Ontario any time before December 31, 2015 and after that date only with the approval of a court order.”

[18] The simple fact of the matter is that the mother has no connection to Hornepayne, Ontario and there is nothing for her in the community of Hornepayne. She has no family in Hornepayne. Her family is in Orillia, Ontario. She has limited employment prospects in Hornepayne. She has worked in the past at retail employment, which has not generated sufficient funds for her and Bentley to adequately live on. The respondent’s partner, Chad Ranger, has secured a transfer with his employer CN Rail from Hornepayne to the Greater Sudbury, Ontario and Ms. Kelly wishes to resume her cohabitation with Mr. Ranger.

[19] Sarah Kelly has been previously accepted at Cambrian College in September, 2014 but could not attend because she was held back in Hornepayne, Ontario. Ms. Kelly has re-applied and been accepted to Cambrian College for September, 2015 and will take the Community and Justice Program at Cambrian College. Ms. Kelly wishes to pursue a post-secondary school education. As Ms. Kelly puts it in paragraph 13 of her affidavit sworn on July 22, 2015, “There is no career employment opportunity for me in Hornepayne or anywhere without an education.”

[20] Bentley is four years of age. He is eligible to attend junior kindergarten in September, 2015. Ms. Kelly deposes at paragraph 10 of her affidavit sworn on July 22, 2015:

“Our child will be starting school this September. I believe it would be best for Bentley to start school in Sudbury and not switch part way through the year, especially given that it is his first year. Bentley has friends that attend the school he will be going to in Sudbury; Bryce, Emma and Lucas. They are from Hornepayne and Bentley became close with them during the summer of 2014 when I babysat them. The father moved to Sudbury one year ago.”

[21] The father opposes a change in residency of Bentley on an interim basis without the matter being fully explored at a trial. The father sees the mother’s request as an attempt to remove him and his family from Bentley’s life and to establish a home for herself and Bentley with Chad Ranger in a new place far removed from where he is and his family members are.

[22] There is no requirement that Bentley attend school this coming September. Bentley is four years of age. He would be attending a junior kindergarten program in Sudbury, but it is not required that he do so. If Ms. Kelly is concerned about Bentley’s socialization, opportunities for him to socialize exist in Hornepayne as well as in Sudbury. There is a junior kindergarten program in Hornepayne which Bentley could attend as easily as he could in Sudbury Ontario. Since there is no legal requirement that Bentley attend school in September, 2015, it cannot be considered that Bentley must move to Sudbury for educational purposes.

[23] A move to Sudbury at this time would undoubtedly interfere in the relationship that Bentley has with his father and would greatly limit the opportunities available to him to spend time with his father. Hornepayne, Ontario is 694 kilometers from Sudbury, Ontario. It is an eight-hour car ride from where Bentley’s father resides. This distance would make continued contact between Bentley and his father difficult, especially the weekly and alternate visits currently ordered on February 3, 2015.

[24] The respondent mother requests that the court make an order changing the residency on an interim basis. The conflicting allegations made by the parties require the close scrutiny and examination of the court that only a trial can provide where the court can receive viva voce evidence of the parties and see them under cross-examination. It may be that after such an examination that the court will determine that a move for Bentley from Hornepayne, Ontario is not in his best interest. If a move is ordered now on an interim basis and the trial judge concludes that such a move is contrary to Bentley’s best interest, then Bentley is required to move twice. Bentley will have to adjust himself to two communities, two schools and two sets of friends and activities. This would make life more difficult for Bentley than it needs to be. Bentley remaining in Hornepayne until this matter is fully adjudicated will eliminate these adjustments for him.

[25] It may very well be that a move for Bentley from Hornepayne to Sudbury can be agreed upon by the parties in the future. Mr. Moreau is employed by CN Rail. He moved from Orillia to Hornepayne on a three-year arrangement with his employer that expires in November, 2015. At that time, Mr. Moreau is able to apply for a transfer from Hornepayne to Sudbury to be in the same community as his son. Such a transfer is not guaranteed, but at least it is an option that can be explored, but it cannot be explored at this particular time due to the employment contract that Mr. Moreau is bound by. The impression I have is that this is an option that Mr. Moreau would explore in December, 2015 to facilitate a move by Ms. Kelly with Bentley to Sudbury, Ontario. I formed that impression from the affidavit material filed by Mr. Moreau, from his submissions of his counsel and by the fact that Mr. Moreau’s application seeks an order restraining the mother from changing the residence of Bentley any time before December 31, 2015.

[26] That request coincides with the time frame that Mr. Moreau is eligible to apply for a transfer with his employer, CN Rail.

[27] A move from Hornepayne, Ontario at this time would undoubtedly be in the best interest of Sarah Kelly and meet her needs. She could reunite with Chad Ranger, resume cohabitation with him and start her studies at Cambrian College. Although such a move would be good for Ms. Kelly, it does not necessarily follow that such a move at this time would be good for Bentley. A move would remove him from the community that he has resided in for almost three of the four years of his life. A move would remove him from the weekly contact with his father that he presently enjoys by court order. A move would remove him from extended family members who reside in Hornepayne, Ontario, including his paternal grandparents, Richard Moreau and Sandra Moreau.

[28] At the end of the day, after a trial, the move requested by the mother may be in the best interest of Bentley. At this stage, on an interim basis, I can only conclude that a move from Hornepayne to Sudbury would be in the best interest of Sarah Kelly. I cannot reach the same conclusion, absent the full examination that only a trial can provide, with respect to Bentley Moreau.

[29] In reviewing all of the evidence, I am not persuaded that a change in residency for Bentley from Hornepayne to Sudbury at this time, on an interim basis, is in Bentley’s best interest. In so deciding, I have considered the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Gordon v. Goertz [1996] S.C.R. 27 which have been summarized in subsequent case law as follows:

(1) The judge must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interest of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child’s needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.

(2) The inquiry does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent, although the custodial parent’s views are entitled to great respect and the most serious consideration.

(3) Each case turns on its own unique circumstances. The only issue is the best interest of the child in the particular circumstances of the case.

(4) The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interest or rights of the parents.

(5) More particularly, the judge should consider, inter alia:

(a) the existing custody arrangement and relationship between the child and the custodial parent;

(b) the existing access arrangement and the relationship between the child and the access parent;

(c) the desirability of maximizing contact between the child and both parents;

(d) the view of the child;

(e) the custodial parent’s reasons for moving, only in the exceptional case where it is relevant to that parent’s ability to meet the needs of the child;

(f) the disruption to the child of a change in custody; and

(g) the disruption to the child consequent on removal from family, schools, and the community he has come to know.

[30] In considering the aforementioned factors, I am of the view that Bentley’s best interest requires him to continue in the care of his mother in Hornepayne, Ontario until the trial of this matter.

[31] Accordingly, the motion brought at Tab 2, Volume 3 of the continuing record, at paragraph 1 for a change of Bentley’s residence from the Township of Hornepayne to the City of Greater Sudbury, on an interim basis, is dismissed.

(b) The Father’s request that ongoing access be unsupervised and the Mother’s request that ongoing access be supervised:

[32] The mother has restricted the father’s access with Bentley since an alleged disclosure to her was made by Bentley on June 11, 2015. The nature of the disclosure made by Bentley to his mother is set out in detail at paragraph 2 of the affidavit of Sarah Kelly sworn on July 8, 2015 at Tab 24 of Volume 2 of the continuing record.

[33] That paragraph reads as follows:

“While I was cooking lunch on Thursday, June 11th, 2015, Bentley, who was playing in the livingroom, came to me and asked “Mommy why is my bum red?” I told him I wasn’t sure why his bum was red. He responded at first by saying “maybe Tank (our dog) did it or Dixie (our cat), or maybe a monster did it.” I told him that I didn’t think it was the dog or the cat and that monsters are not real. He kept asking me “why is my bum bruised”, and saying “it’s just a bruise”. I told him that it’s ok bud you could tell me anything. His response was alarming when he said “I can’t tell you.” I asked him “well who said that you can’t tell me” and his response was “my dad”. Together Bentley and I then built a fort in the living room with chairs and blankets and I told him how this was our “Magic fort” and that when we were inside the fort, no one could hear anything we said. I explained to him that I am his mommy and he can tell me anything. He eventually said “daddy did it”. I asked him “what did daddy do?” and he said “put his finger in my bum.” I asked him “why does dad say you can’t tell me?” and he responded “because I’m going to miss him.” This was very upsetting and I did not want to press Bentley. He had already came to me on his own and started by questions that something was happening to him.”

[34] Further, Sarah Kelly goes on at paragraph 7 of the same affidavit as follows:

“In the following days Bentley opened up to me even more on the events with his father. He told me that he was in his bedroom at dad’s house and he was standing on his bed. He said his dad “puts a finger up my bum” even going into great detail when I asked where this happened and what were they doing. He stated “he tippy toed in my room, pulled down the back of my pants and undies and stuck his finger up my bum.” I asked him what happened after that. He told me that they played dinky cars for a little bit before going to pick up Jenna. Bentley said that dad said not to tell mom or anyone. I asked him why and he said that his dad says he will go to jail and so will his mommy. He also talked about how his dad put cream on his bum and his pee pee and told Bentley not to touch it. While telling me about Adam’s cell phone having a “dinosaur game” on it and a “carnivore game where you shoot animals”. He also said “dad can take pictures with his phone. He takes pictures of my bum and when I’m naked.”

[35] Sarah Kelly has support from her father, Ken Kelly, with respect to the disclosure made by Bentley. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Ken Kelly sworn on July 7, 2015 at Tab 25 of Volume 2 of the continuing record, Mr. Kelly states the following:

“On Thursday, July 2nd, 2015, my wife and I were talking to Bentley on the phone. I had the phone on speaker so my wife and I could both talk and listen to him. He told his mom to leave the room. Something seemed to be bothering him and having a close relationship he trusts if he has a problem he can tell his grandpa. He wanted to talk privately with me. Bentley told me that his dad put a finger up his bum. I asked him if it hurt him and he said yes. I asked him if his dad had touched him anywhere else and Bentley said his dad touched his pee pee. I asked him if he was wearing clothes when it happened and he said no. I asked him where did this happen. He said in my room at my dad’s and then I asked him has your dad ever done this before and he said “two times”. I told him that I love him very much and what his dad did is wrong.”

[36] Mr. Moreau has categorically denied all allegations of sexual impropriety by him toward his son. In paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of his affidavit sworn on July 24, 2015 at Tab 5 of Volume 3 of the continuing record, Adam Moreau states the following:

“As to sexually abusing my son, it did not happen and has never happened. In the allegations dated February, 2014, Bentley was two years old. In Sarah’s affidavit she quotes Bentley referring to body parts in the language of “penis” and “vagina”. This is in her affidavit of March 7, 2014 paragraph 19. In December, 2014 Sarah stated that Bentley said I had put a hook down his pants and wrapped it around his “penis”. In the most recent allegation (the July 8th affidavit), Bentley, who is now 4 years old, refers to his penis as a “pee-pee”. How is it that a four year old regresses in language terminology as his age increases?

On June 9, 2015, I had a third party with me at all times. I was never alone with Bentley in my home or at any time. Jenna Collins, my parents, Nana (my grandmother) plus a soccer team shared Bentley’s visit.

On June 16, 2015 I had not had access to Bentley for 7 days. I requested Bentley’s medical record and saw the photo of Bentley’s penis. There was a small slightly pink area under his penis. I do know that Bentley wets the bed every night and wears pull-up diapers. I do know that Sarah states in her affidavit that he has “sensitive skin”. I do know also that Sarah only bathes him “every two days” and that he attends to himself. This could possibly lead to chafing of his skin.

When Bentley is in my care, I bathe him every day. I help him wash his body as well as his hair. He gets soaped up, rinsed and wrapped. I put cream on his privates if he has a rash or is chafed. I help him brush his teeth, clean his ears and cut his nails. I am not afraid to admit this. He has just turned 4 years old and believe this practice is good hygiene.

Bentley would not know the word “porn” or what it means. I have never heard him use this word nor does he watch porn in my home. He does not talk about anything sexual with myself or my parents. The only comment Bentley made to my parents and myself was that “Chad is going to put a baby in Mommy’s belly”. He told this to us in May, 2015. We were surprised, as he was still only 3 years old and I felt it was something he didn’t need to be told in that manner.”

[37] This is the second time that Sarah Kelly has made allegations that Adam Moreau had acted in a sexually inappropriate way toward Bentley. The first allegations were investigated by the Children’s Aid Society who closed the file concluding that the allegations were “unsubstantiated”.

[38] After the first set of allegations were made, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer completed its report that is found at Tab 11, Volume 2 of the continuing record. That report is dated November 20, 2014 and was completed by Marion Mitchell, OCL Clinical Investigator. As indicated on page 15 of her report, Ms. Mitchell considered the allegations of sexual impropriety and the allegations of Ms. Kelly that she was a battered woman in an abusive marriage in making her recommendations to the court. It was the recommendation of Ms. Mitchell that Ms. Kelly have full custody of Bentley and that Mr. Moreau have access with Bentley every Wednesday from 3:30 p.m. until Thursday morning at 8:00 a.m. and every other weekend from Friday at 3:30 p.m. to Sunday at 4:00 p.m., with an equal sharing of holiday periods between the parents.

[39] In my view, of particular importance is Ms. Mitchell’s comments at the second last paragraph on page 15 of her report. These comments are as follows:

“Both Mr. Moreau and Ms. Kelly need to understand that their son needs both of them equally. A mother and father are both important for the healthy development of any child. As parents they are equally equipped to provide for their son’s basic needs. In addition to this, a mother and a father each offer specific contributions to their child, which correspond with specific needs. Depriving Bentley of either parent’s contributions would cause significant challenges or impairments to his development. A child at Bentley’s age may regress, have temper tantrums or engage in sexualized behaviour. Continuing to remaining child focused and giving value to the other parent’s skills and attributes will aid their son’s growth and development and support the difficulties he may naturally have with transitions from one parent to the other.

[40] As in the first allegation of sexual impropriety by the father toward Bentley, the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma conducted an investigation in June and July, 2015 with respect to the recent allegations. The pertinent portions of the CAS records are attached to the affidavit of John Baxter sworn July 26, 2015 at Tab 6, Volume 3 of the continuing record. Attached as Exhibit “B” to that affidavit is a letter dated July 23, 2015 from the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma to Adam Moreau. Paragraph 2 of that letter reads as follows:

“The Society initiated an investigation, and as part of that investigation, met with you to discuss the concerns and interviewed the child Bentley. Based on all information gathered during the assessment period, the concerns have not been verified.”

[41] A far stronger statement appears in the supervision case note dated June 29, 2015 prepared by Jill Anderson, Supervisor at the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma. That case note is attached as Exhibit “C” to the affidavit of John Baxter sworn on July 26, 2015 referred to above. The last line of that case note reads as follows:

“At this time, we have no reason to say that the child would be unsafe with the father.”

[42] This, in my view, is a very strong statement to be made by the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma. The statement means that the Society would have no protection issues if the mother allowed unsupervised access by the father to their son Bentley. In fact, the supervision case note of Ms. Anderson indicates that “The CPW explained to the mother that at this time, we have nothing to keep the child away from the father and that access should resume. The child did not disclose to us.”

[43] There is interesting commentary in the first paragraph of the supervision case note of Jill Anderson. The CPW asked the child how his day was and the child stated that he just talked to the mother about everything and stated that “Daddy touched his privates” and then immediately changed his story to daddy looked at my privates two times. The fact Bentley had talked to his mother prior to being interviewed by the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma raises the whole spectre of whether Bentley is being coached by Ms. Kelly to make up a false story to gain an advantage in the litigation. That is what Adam Moreau is alleging and Ms. Kelly is not helped in this regard by the fact that she and Chad Ranger have been recently charged with mischief in allegedly fabricating a story about Mr. Moreau to the police. I am aware that these charges are still pending before the court, but the issue raised by the father about the mother coaching Bentley will have to be examined closely by the court when this matter is ultimately tried.

[44] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer recommended unsupervised access to Mr. Moreau after the first allegation. The Children’s Aid Society has investigated both allegations and closed its file on both occasions. The Children’s Aid Society has gone so far with respect to the latest allegation to conclude “At this time, we have no reasons to say that the child would be unsafe with the father.” And that “At this time, we have nothing to keep the child from the father and that access should resume.”

[45] In reviewing the totality of the evidence, I cannot conclude that the father’s access should be supervised. Accordingly, the respondent’s motion at Tab 2, Volume 3 of the continuing record for supervised access is dismissed.

[46] The interim access ordered by McMillan, J. on February 3, 2015 shall be reinstated with the applicant to have interim access to Bentley Kenneth Moreau born June 2, 2011 on alternate weekends from Thursday at 3:30 p.m. to Saturday at 4:00 p.m. and each Tuesday from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. with this access commencing on Tuesday, August 18, 2015 and the alternate weekend access commencing on Thursday, August 20, 2015. In addition to the aforementioned access, the applicant shall have access from Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 3:30 p.m. to Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. to make up for access missed by the applicant since June, 2015 while the motion brought by the respondent mother for an order for supervised access was pending before the court.

[47] With respect to the issue of costs, while the mother did not succeed in her motion for supervised access, I find no fault in her bringing this motion on the facts of this case and in the circumstances of this case. While the respondent was not successful in both her motions before the court, including the mobility issue, she is presently without employment and without income independent of Mr. Ranger. The court has ordered Bentley to remain in Hornepayne, Ontario until the matter of mobility is fully tried, which the court recognizes will inhibit Ms. Kelly’s employment possibilities and income earning potential for some time into the future. In all the circumstances, it is inappropriate to make an order of costs against the respondent and accordingly, the parties will bear their own costs with respect to the motions at Tab 21, Volume 2 and Tab 2, Volume 3 of the continuing record.

[48] The Trial Coordinator is directed to set a trial date in this matter for a two-week sitting to be tried no later than the end of June, 2016. This matter is to be placed as the number one case on the list to ensure that it is tried and disposed of.

Justice E. Gareau

Released: August 12, 2015