Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 4129/15

DATE: 2015-08-21

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: K. M. J., Applicant

AND:

K. A. J., Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz

COUNSEL: Thomas Pratt, Counsel for the Applicant

K. A. J., Self-Represented

Alisa Williams, Counsel for the Paternal Grandmother

HEARD: August 21, 2015

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This high conflict file has had a tortuous history.

[2] There are two children J. age 9 and S. soon to be 6.

[3] The issue before me is the motion by the paternal grandmother M. J. to be added as a party to the continuing divorce action between the parties in which the father’s access is the primary issue in dispute.

[4] Pursuant to a series of temporary orders, the father has had access to the children supervised at all times by his mother.

[5] The Respondent mother says the father has serious mental health issues. Even the paternal grandmother says the father has had serious, long-standing mental health issues. The self-represented father, however, denies he has any mental health issues relevant to the parenting issues herein.

[6] The mother says the father’s mental health issues are worsening, and she says she has lost confidence in the paternal grandmother’s ability or commitment to supervise the father’s access. She wants better professional evidence as to the father’s mental health, and she proposes that in the meantime any supervision should be by an independent person or agency.

[7] The father says there is no need for supervision, and he seeks an expansion of time with the children.

[8] It is in that context that the paternal grandmother seeks to be added as a party. In support of her position her lawyer argues:

a. The paternal grandmother’s status and involvement as a supervisor of her son’s access is in dispute, so that means she is a person who will be affected by the outcome of this case (Rule 7(2)).

b. While the paternal grandmother is not currently advancing her own claim for access to the children (because she sees them during supervision of the father’s time), if she is ruled out as a supervisor she may lose contact with the children, in which case she would have to commence a separate application for her own access. In the interest of avoiding multiple proceedings in relation to these two children, it would be more logical and convenient to have all interested persons added as parties at this time.

c. During periods of supervision the paternal grandmother has “care and control” of the children, so she also qualifies under Rule 7(4).

[9] The mother opposes adding the paternal grandmother as a party. Among her lawyer’s submissions:

a. The father and both of his parents were all applicants in a protection application commenced by them and heard over eight days in 2014. All of the allegations of the father and his parents were rejected, and costs of $9,500.00 were ordered against them (and paid only 10 minutes prior to the commencement of today’s motion).

b. The paternal grandmother’s affidavit simply sets out that she wishes to be a party as a result of her involvement as supervisor of her son’s access, but she does not formally seek or identify any claim or entitlement separate from her son.

c. The paternal grandmother has always assisted and supported the father by providing evidence on his behalf, and she can continue to provide evidence without being a party.

d. This action is already complicated enough and drawn out enough. Adding the paternal grandmother will not provide the court with any additional information or ability to determine all of the issues in this case as they have currently been identified.

[10] Notably, the Respondent father also opposes his mother being added as a party. Among his submissions:

a. His mother has always been involved as a supervisor.

b. His mother has always provided evidence and there is no reason she cannot continue to provide evidence by affidavit or as a witness at trial.

c. There is no evidence to support the speculation that if the paternal grandmother’s ceases to be involved as a supervisor, that she would cease to have access to the children.

[11] I agree with the biological parents that there is no reason to add the paternal grandmother as a party.

a. It is appropriate to add someone as a party if that person has an interest or claim which would be affected by the outcome of the trial, or if that person’s presence as a party is necessary to determine matters in issue.

b. Being a supervisor of someone else’s access is not a substantive right. In most instances, supervision is only intended to be temporary and often multiple persons or agencies might equally qualify as supervisors.

c. A supervisor can provide evidence as to observations during supervision; and about perceptions as to the need for supervision, without being a party.

d. The paternal grandmother has not identified any instance in which her lack of status as a party has prejudiced her in any way.

e. To the contrary, during the period when she was a party to the aforementioned protection application – in concert with the father – the court made a determination that the application was entirely without merit. In no circumstance was the paternal grandmother’s participation on that occasion something the court would want to encourage again.

f. There is no evidence that the paternal grandmother’s voluntary role as a supervisor of her son’s access is a personal right which needs to be protected.

g. There is no evidence that the paternal grandmother’s role as a grandmother is currently in jeopardy. As with most grandparents, they see their grandchildren as arranged though the biological parents.

h. Finally – and quite importantly – this is a file where all parties need to get the message that the scope of this case needs to be brought under control. The issues need not be so complicated. Adding more parties will needlessly complicate matters, and cause unnecessary cost and expansion of time, without assisting the court in determining any of the currently identified issues.

[12] The paternal grandmother’s motion is dismissed.

[13] The paternal grandmother shall pay costs to the Applicant mother fixed at $1,000.00. The Applicant was successful. These parties need to understand that this court is not a playground for people to just make claims without regard to the complication and expense they create in other people’s lives.

Pazaratz, J.

Date: August 21, 2014