Court File and Parties

CITATION: Levesque v. Windsor, 2016 ONSC 7206

COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-1468

DATE: 2016/11/18

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Maxime Gaetan Levesque, Applicant

AND

Lindsay Windsor, Respondent

BEFORE: M. Linhares de Sousa J.

COUNSEL: A. Mayer, counsel for the Applicant

Ginger Warner, counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: November 8, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Respondent’s Mother, Lindsay Windsor, brings two motions, one for contempt (August, 2016) against the Applicant’s Father, Maxime Gaetan Levesque, as well as an order for increased access to the child, Pyper Kathryn Levesque, born November 1, 2012 and who is now 4 years old. The second motion (October, 2016) brought by Ms. Windsor, seeks joint custody of the child, and a gradually increasing unsupervised access schedule until the parties have relatively equal parenting time, in accordance with the recommendations of the office of the Children’s Lawyer (See Notice of Motion at vol. 2 CC tab 4).

[2] The Applicant’s Father contests the Respondent’s Mother’s motions against him and filed a cross-motion in November of 2016. Mr. Levesque, in his Cross-Motion, seeks to vary the terms of the existing access order in the following way:

(a) one visit of 2 hours at the Family Services Ottawa on alternate Sundays (pursuant to the status quo), plus;

(b) one visit of 2 hours at the Centre Vallée-Jeaunesse on alternating Sundays when Family Services Ottawa is unavailable (See Notice of Motion at vol. 2 CC tab 7)

[3] He also seeks an order for child support, as well as some other corollary relief to resolve some financial accounting between the parties.

[4] Both parties seek their costs of these proceedings.

[5] The most pressing issues on the motions and cross-motion were clearly the issues of contempt and custody and access. I decline to deal with any support issues or property issues and leave those for final determination on the merits when this matter proceeds to a full hearing.

[6] On the motions and cross-motion, I make the following findings of fact, some of which were contested, that I find to be relevant to my determination on this matter:

(1) After a period of cohabitation the child Pyper was born to these parties.

(2) The parties separated in July of 2015.

(3) It cannot be disputed that before the parties separated, Ms. Windsor had been struggling with an addiction to cocaine and possibly alcohol. Ms. Windsor sought out residential treatment and completed one such 7 week program at Homewood Heath Centre in Guelph. She was discharged from this program in April, 2015. Ms. Windsor admitted to a relapse in the summer of 2015.

(4) Ms. Windsor maintains that since September of 2015 she has not consumed any drugs. There appears to be a conflict in the evidence on this point because the OCL report on page 10 makes reference to an admitted relapse in January of 2016. Ms. Windsor is in a follow up program at Amethyst Women’s Addiction Centre in Ottawa. She continues to see a therapist and is also attending group therapy. Ms. Windsor also maintains that she continues to attend Narcotics Anonymous Meetings; attends their group meetings and has an NA sponsor.

(5) Ms. Windsor has been willing to take urine samples for toxicology screening to proof that there are no drugs in her system. In fact, she has produced 3 such tests (June 10, 2016, Oct. 5, 2016 and Oct. 7, 2016), all of which tested negative for drugs. These tests were not random and were arranged by Ms. Windsor herself.

(6) There is no evidence to indicate that Ms. Windsor has consumed cocaine or other illicit drugs since, at the latest January, 2016, if the OCL report is correct, or at the earliest September of 2015 if the OCL report is incorrect. According to the OCL report at page 15, the mother’s doctor, Dr. Bissonnette confirmed that the last positive test result for Ms. Windsor is in 2015.

(7) Mr. Levesque is sceptical that Ms. Windsor is not still consuming illicit drugs although he cannot provide any evidence that Ms. Windsor is still consuming illicit drugs. His concern is also based on the fact that Ms. Windsor may be currently cohabiting with another individual who is also struggling with drug addiction and rehabilitation. The evidence with respect to Mr. Tim Henley is that he used drugs in the past. Mr. Henley has taken drug screening test for Valoris in March 2016 which was negative. Mr. Henley has unsupervised access to his own children weekly and it is the intention of Valoris to close their file on the family.

(8) Mr. Levesque places little importance on the negative urine tests obtained by Ms. Windsor as they encompassed a short period of time. His additional concern was that these tests were not random and could have been planned for by Ms. Windsor. Mr. Levesque seeks an order for hair follicle testing that he indicates are more reliable.

(9) Mr. Levesque has presented in evidence a report of Dr. Iris Jackson of Gilmour Psychological Services whom he retained to give a professional opinion “about the risks and impact of a parent’s use of drugs such as cocaine on the children”. As Dr. Jackson acknowledges, she has never met any of the parties or the child in this matter. Consequently, I find her report of limited to no use in coming to a decision in this matter. Dr. Jackson does acknowledge that there has been significant disputes about the validity of hair analysis in Canada.

(10) When, Mr. Levesque realised in the summer of 2015, that Ms. Windsor was still consuming illicit drugs he involved the Children’s Aid Society with their family because he feared for the well-being of Pyper who was being cared for by Ms. Windsor. As a result Mr. Levesque began to have Ms. Windsor’s contact with her daughter supervised by family members.

(11) There was one unfortunate incident at Cosmic Adventures on September 2, 2015 immediately prior to Mr. Levesque bringing the emergency motion for custody and supervised access for Ms. Windsor. There was a disagreement between Ms. Windsor and Mr. Levesque’s father, who had been designated by Mr. Levesque to supervise access that day, as to who would be the supervisor and the police were called. I say this is an unfortunate incident because Pyper was privy to the conflict between the adults present, the presence of the police and she was clearly upset. I have read the respective parties evidence concerning this incident. Although Mr. Levesque refers to this incident as an attempted abduction of his daughter by her mother, I cannot find from the evidence that Ms. Windsor was attempting to abduct Pyper.

(12) Shortly after the September 2, 2016 Cosmic Adventures incident, Mr. Levesque brought an emergency motion seeking an order for sole custody of Pyper with supervised access to Ms. Windsor. In his affidavit, dated August 25, 2015, para 28, in support of his emergency motion, Mr. Levesque indicated to the Court that Pyper was “doing well but has shown signs of distress of when she is confronted with having to see her mother (stuttering, sudden onset of crying and screams, sadness, and unwillingness to sit in her car seat).

(13) At the hearing of the emergency motion, the parties reached an agreement which became the consent order of Justice Phillip, dated September 8, 2015. That order is the subject order of the contempt motion. It provides that Mr. Levesque was to have interim sole custody of Pyper, until the Court otherwise orders or the parties shall agree. Ms. Windsor was granted supervised access to Pyper at “a supervision centre to be agreed upon between the parties and approved by the CAS” as per a set schedule. That schedule included supervised visits 3 times per week, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday from 10:00 am to 11:30 am.

(14) The order made no provision for who would pay the cost of the supervised access, in the event there was one.

(15) Issues between the parties arose regarding where the visits would take place and who would pay for the costs of those visits. Shortly after the interim consent order Ms. Windsor took the position that she could not pay for any of the costs of supervised access. Mr. Levesque agreed to pay the intake costs and the $60 or $70 per visit for one visit per week at the Separation and Divorce Resources Centre (“SDRC”). The parties had also put their name on a waiting list to be admitted to a supervised access program at the Family Services Ottawa (“FSO”).

(16) The evidence also supports the finding that once the intake with the SDRC was completed, while the SDRC could provide three visits per week of supervised access it was not possible to do so according to the schedule provided for in the interim consent order.

(17) I find that it was Mr. Levesque who insisted that they start with one visit per week because he was “unsure as to how Pyper would respond to visits.” (See letter from SDRC dated April 28, 2016, vol. 2 CR tab 2A). I also find that another reason for Mr. Levesque’s hesitation to commence visits three times per week as per the Court order was because of the costs involved and Ms. Windsor made it clear that he would be the only one bearing those costs.

(18) Neither party at that point brought any proceedings back to the Court in view of the fact that supervised visits with Pyper were not taking place at the frequency provided for in the Court order of Justice Phillips dated, September 8, 2015. The first that such proceedings were brought were in August of 2016 (Ms. Windsor’s contempt motion) and September of 2016 (Ms. Windsor’s custody motion) and November of 2016 (Mr. Levesque’s access motion).

(19) Visits at the SDRC began at the end of October, 2015 and continued once weekly until January 30, 2016. Mr. Levesque terminated visits at this facility because the family was finally able to be accommodated at the FSO at a much lesser cost. While the FSO could accommodate the family at a much lesser cost, they could only provide one 2 hour visit every two weeks.

(20) Mr. Levesque’s affidavit of Nov. 1, 2016 indicates that in January of 2016 when he terminated supervised access at the SDRC and visits at the FSO began, he offered Ms. Windsor to continue the weekly visits at the SDRC if she paid the costs. I cannot find that the evidence supports this assertion made by him. On the contrary, I find that he unilaterally terminated the weekly visits at the SDRC and accepted that they be replaced by the bi-weekly visits for one half hour longer at the FSO. I find this change to be a substantial reduction in access imposed on Ms. Windsor.

(21) In a letter dated February 9, 2016, Mr. Levesque’s lawyer communicated with Ms. Windsor’s lawyer asking if Ms. Windsor would be prepared to pay the costs of supervised access at the SDRC “on the weeks when FSO is unable to accommodate the parties” (vol. 2 CC tab 8 I ). The reply came in a letter from Ms. Windsor’s lawyer dated April 12, 2016, that Ms. Windsor was prepared to assume the costs of these visits (see vol. 2 CC tab 8 J). Access at the SDRC never resumed.

(22) I also find that, on all of the evidence, while Ms. Windsor continued to attend the supervised access with her daughter at the limited access visits provided for by Mr. Levesque, she did not ever acquiesce to having less access time than that provided for in the order of Justice Phillips dated September 8, 2015. In fact, as the case proceeded through the Court to the order appointing the OCL to do an enquiry and report by Justice Sheffield dated May 13, 2016, Ms. Windsor made her wishes known clearly that she wanted her existing access to increase.

(23) The OCL commenced the process of its inquiry and report in July of 2016. Ms. Louis was the OCL clinician tasked with the responsibility of conducting the inquiry.

(24) The supervised access facilities, where Ms. Windsor has been exercising access to her daughter kept observation notes of the visits that took place. These notes are very positive (See vol. 2 CC tabs C and D). Upon arrival and leaving the visits with her mother, Pyper generally appears happy to see her mother when the visits commence and shows affection towards her mother. There was one visit on March 20, 2016, where the notes indicated that Pyper was having a hard time starting the visit but once it commenced she quickly became comfortable with her mother. The child appears engaged in the activity she does with her mother. In these notes, Pyper demonstrates her wish to prolong the visit at the end and shows affection towards her mother as she leaves the visit. I conclude from this evidence that Pyper enjoys visits with her mother.

(25) In September of 2015 Pyper commenced school. Mr. Levesque, as stated in his affidavit material, began to become increasingly concerned about Pyper’s behaviour that he associated with the commencement of supervised visits with her mother. He observed Pyper’s resistance to going on the visits; Pyper’s nightmares following visits; regression to soiling herself; and, Pyper’s complaints of stomach upsets. For this reason, Mr. Levesque had Pyper assessed at the Centre Psychosocial (“CPS”). The report from that Centre is found as Exhibit K to Mr. Levesque’s affidavit found at tab 8 of the CC and dated 9 November, 2015.

(26) I find the evaluation of the development of Pyper dated 9 November, 2015 carried out by the Centre Psychosocial to be ambiguous. It reports that the evaluation « ne déceint aucune difficulté dans les différentes sphères évaluées soit, cognitive-langagière, motrice et socioaffective. » The report goes on to note that with respect to the social and emotional sphere, both Pyper’s father and the school reported a regression in Pyper’s behaviour over the last 2 weeks, difficulties in expressing herself, whispering in her father’s ear instead of speaking normally, isolating herself from others at school and loss of appetite. The report did not see the need for « aucune référence vers des services externes ».

(27) Mr. Levesque determined that Pyper’s symptoms continued to escalate so he sought out treatment for his daughter from Dr. Sharon Francis Harrison, an Ottawa psychologist, in the spring of 2016. Since May 2016, Pyper has been attending 2 sessions per month with Dr. Harrison. Mr. Levesque has been involved in this treatment, remaining present during the sessions until very recently.

(28) The OCL clinician, Ms. Louis, held her Disclosure meeting with the parents in September of 2016. Her final report was delivered in October, 2016. In brief, the content of her report is as follows:

(i) Ms. Louis was made fully aware of the mutual recriminations the parties had for each other;

(ii) she observed good and positive interactions between the child and both parents;

(iii) she accepted on the evidence before her that Ms. Windsor was progressing in her rehabilitation;

(iv) she saw none of the disturbing conduct alleged by the father when the child interacted with her mother. She did a thorough examination of the observation notes of the supervised access which reinforced her own observations of the good, positive and affectionate interaction between Pyper and her mother during the visits. In fact, she observed that the child was openly communicative with mother concerning her life with her father and his family but was notably silent in discussing anything about her time with her mother with her father;

(v) she did not agree with the position the father was taking with her that the solution to Pyper’s difficult behavior was to terminate the visits;

(vi) based on the information before her, Ms. Louis was not convinced, as the father was, that the difficult behavior Pyper may have been demonstrating was necessarily related to commencement of visits with her mother, but may be grounded in Pyper’s whole difficult experience with her mother’s addiction, her parents’ conflict, the disturbing incident between her mother and paternal grandfather at Cosmic Adventures in September of 2015, and other traumatic events Pyper may have experienced before and after her parents’ separation;

(29) Ms. Louis recognized that Pyper needed professional help, was aware of Pyper’s treatment with Dr. Harrison and endorsed the continuation of that treatment, even suggesting that the mother come into the therapy sessions with Pyper, in Pyper’s best interests;

(30) Ms. Louis concluded that Ms. Windsor ought to have substantially more access time with her daughter and that the access could be unsupervised;

(31) Ms. Louis concludes he report at page 17 with the following paragraph:

“All things considered, this writer believes it is in Pyper’s best interest to have both parents equally involved in her care. The information gathered in the course of this investigation led to believe that Mr. Levesque is not a good candidate for sole custody. We have concern that otherwise he will continue to exclude the mother from the important decisions about Pyper. A Joint Custody is necessary to ensure that the mother is involved in the child’s life. It might be difficult due to the history of conflict. Therefore, the involvement of a Parenting Coordinator might be essential.”

(32) Ms. Louis also recommended that both parents go to counselling and that the mother continue to remain sober and provide urine tests monthly.

(33) Ms. Louis’s final recommendation was a regime of joint custody and shared time. She provided a suggested schedule on page 18 of her report whereby access would gradually increase, unsupervised, until there was equal time sharing by August of 2017. Now that Pyper is in school, this could only be viable if the parents lived in reasonably close proximity.

(34) Mr. Levesque has filed a Dispute to the Ms. Louis’ report and recommendations.

(35) Ms. Windsor’s response has been to bring this motion seeking an order that would implement immediately the recommendations of the OCL.

(36) Dr. Harrison has provided a letter, entitled “Brief Consultation Note”, dated Nov. 2, 2016(See vol. 3 CC tab 9A). From her testing and observation at page 3 of her Note Dr. Harris writes:

(i) “From these results, it is clear that Pyper is displaying similar difficulties with anxiety, somatic complaints related to psychological stress and withdrawal with different caregivers and in different environments. In addition, it is important to note that Pyper is having difficulty adjusting to school. She began Junior Kindergarten this September. However, after two months continues to attend half days only due to anxiety and stress. As you can see, the teacher rates Pyper as stressed despite the reduced expectation for attendance. Her father also reports that despite making friends and saying that she enjoys school, Pyper is anxious and often does not wish to go to school.”

(ii) Dr. Harrison, at page 3 of her Note, has diagnosed Pyper as an “anxious four year old”, whose ability to cope is “less than average for a child her age.”

(iii) Dr. Harrison states that it is not yet clear but that the child may have “intrusive thoughts or feelings that are frightening and disturbing her” as evidenced by Pyper’s “changeable moods observed by her teacher, the behavior shifts observed by her father and the intrusions observed in her play”

(iv) She goes on to say: “She (Pyper) is easily overwhelmed and displays signs of stress. She is experiencing difficulty with the normal developmental milestones of attending school. Further, she is less able to be age appropriately independent. Pyper requires extra care and attention to ensure that she does not become overwhelmed. Pyper’s parents and adults who care for her need to be aware of her anxiety and how to help her to cope and develop”

(v) Dr. Harrison recommended the continuation of the psychotherapy.

(37) As part of Mr. Levesque’s dispute to the OCL report, Dr. Harris has provided an undated document entitled “Comments on report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer” where she expresses a number of concerns and questions after reading the OCL report. Much of what Dr. Harris raises are issues to be decided when this matter is decided on its merits. Some of the things Dr. Harris takes as fact may indeed not be factual, such as the mother’s attempting to abduct Pyper, the mother’s drug use and that of her partner, Mr. Henley, Ms. Louis being harder on Mr. Levesque than on Ms. Windsor. The one important point I take from Dr. Harris’ comments, however, is that she raises the legitimate question of whether Pyper, as an anxious child could comfortably cope with the quick change recommended in the OCL report.

[7] The law governing contempt is not disputed. As was stated in the case of Docherty v. Catherwood, 2015 ONSC 5240, which like this case, was a contempt motion relating to a denial of access, it is a three-part test:

(a) the order that was breached must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done;

(b) the party who disobeys the order must do so deliberately and wilfully; and

(c) the evidence must show contempt beyond a reasonable doubt

[8] After considering all of the evidence and applying the contempt test to the facts of this case as I have found them to be above, I conclude that Mr. Levesque is in contempt of the existing Court order. The order was very clear that supervised visits were to take place three times per week. As the evidence shows the times for the visits stipulated in the order had to necessarily change because of what could be arranged by the supervised access centres.

[9] While having had the opportunity to execute the order from the very beginning at the SRDC, so that Ms. Windsor could have supervised visits three times per week, Mr. Levesque chose not to do so. In January, 2016, Mr. Levesque chose an arrangement for supervised access with FSO to limit even more the weekly access Ms. Windsor had enjoyed with her daughter since October, 2015 and from all accounts, according to the supervised access notes was going well.

[10] Mr. Levesque has raised the issue of cost as the reason for not implementing the existing order. That reason was non-existent when Ms. Windsor offered to bear the cost of such visits in April of 2016. Despite this offer, Mr Levesque chose not to follow the Court order, nor to bring the matter to Court so that he would not be in breach of the Court order.

[11] I am persuaded on the evidence that the Mr. Levesque deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the Court order. One of the reasons for this is that he is absolutely convinced that Ms. Windsor continues to consume illicit drugs. The second reason is that he is absolutely convinced that the anxiety and disturbing behaviour Pyper is demonstrating is caused by his daughter’s supervised visits with her mother.

[12] The evidence is far from establishing that Pyper’s “anxious” behaviour is caused by those visits alone. In fact the visits were positive experiences for Pyper. Unless there was a situation of emergency where there may have been a serious risk of harm to Pyper, Mr. Levesque should have ensured that Pyper saw her mother in accordance with the existing order. On all of the evidence I can find no such situation of emergency.

[13] Having found that Mr. Levesque is in contempt of the Court order, I am not persuaded that the remedy and solution that is in Pyper’s best interests is the substantial change to the parenting arrangement requested by the mother in her motion.

[14] I conclude this for the following reasons. The issues of custody and access in this matter ought to be decided on its merits and where questions of credibility and hotly contested facts can best be determined. The OCL inquiry and report was conducted for consideration at trial where it can be tested and analysed in the context of the overall evidence. I accept the reasoning found in the decision of Wang v. Grenier 2016 ONSC 5346, that while it may be done if the best interests of the child requires immediate change, the interim implementation of an evaluator’s recommendations should not be routine. I leave the ultimate question of custody to the trial judge.

[15] Finally, while Pyper is clearly benefiting from the visits with her mother, she remains an “anxious” child, slow to adapting to change, as has been seen with her response to the commencement of school. Her father has been her primary care giver for the last 2 and a half years. Her therapy with Dr. Harrison is continuing which hopefully will help with this. On the facts of this case, there seems a lot of wisdom in the letting Ms. Windsor be involved in this therapy when Dr. Harris sees that it might be appropriate. There is no question that Ms. Windsor should have more contact with Pyper and that it should become gradually unsupervised; that I find to be in Pyper’s best interests on all of the evidence before me.

[16] I make the following order with respect to access pending trial of the matter. Not knowing when this matter may be heard I have extended my order into 2017 acknowledging that it may be superseded by the final judgment in this case once the case is tried on its merits.

[17] Access shall be as follows:

(1) Ms. Windsor shall continue to have supervised access to Pyper at a supervision center three times per week for a duration of 2 hours per visit for a total of 6 hours per week. The Centers may be the FSO, the SRDC or the Centre Vallée-Jeunesse or any other center the parties can agree on and that might accommodate the access schedule and so that all ordered access may be exercised. The days and hours of the week when these visits take place, I leave to the parties to determine with the assistance of their counsel and what the supervision centers can accommodate. If there is an issue with respect to this I can be spoken to. The visits may also take place during the week when Pyper is not in school (as I understand from the evidence that she is not yet in school full days) or on consecutive days on the weekend. Any visits that are missed through no fault of Ms. Windsor are to be made up within 7 days of the missed visit.

(2) There shall be one extra supervised visit of 2 hours during Christmas week of 2016 so that Pyper may celebrate Christmas with her mother.

(3) All costs associated with the supervised access, until further order of the Court, shall be borne by Ms. Windsor.

(4) An important aspect of access is information about Pyper. Mr. Levesque is obligated to inform the mother of important events in Pyper’s life such as school projects, medical or psychological recommendations, extra-curricular/social activities etc. The parties should agree on how this exchange of information should take place, by an access book or electronically or by any other method agreed to by the parties. Ms. Windsor shall be free to contact the child’s school teacher and medical doctor and psychologist to obtain directly from them information concerning Pyper. Mr. Levesque shall sign all releases required to permit this direct communication.

(5) Ms. Windsor shall immediately arrange to participate in a program of random urine tests for illicit drugs in her system to be done 2 or 3 times per month randomly at a minimum. She will bear the cost of these tests. She shall immediately share with Mr. Levesque when these tests take place and their results.

(6) Ms. Windsor is to continue her involvement with her therapist and family physician and be prepared to provide proof of this when ordered to do so by the court.

(7) It is strongly recommended that both parents attend counselling sessions of their choice with particular emphasis on effective parenting and co-parenting.

(8) By March of 2017, visits shall become unsupervised if Ms. Windsor has been able to provide between now and then a series of random negative drug urine tests, undertaken in accordance with the order in paragraph (4)

(9) If condition (7) has been met, then unsupervised access shall take place for 4 hours on Saturday or Sunday of each week commencing the first weekend of March, 2017.

(10) Commencing the first weekend in May, 2017, the weekly unsupervised visits shall be extended to 8 hours or full days, 9 am to 5pm on Saturday or Sunday.

(11) Commencing the first weekend in July, 2017, if the matter has not yet been decided on its merits, or if the parties have not otherwise agreed, unsupervised overnight access in the mother’s home shall begin, commencing with one overnight on alternate weekends from Saturday 9 am until Sunday 5pm. In addition, in the week preceding the non-overnight weekend, Ms. Windsor shall have unsupervised access to Pyper for 8 hours during the summer months, 9am to 5pm when Pyper is not in school and from after school to 7pm when Pyper is in school. This mid-week access shall be on a day agreed to by the parties and on Wednesday if the parties cannot agree.

(12) Commencing the first weekend in September, 2017, the alternate weekend access shall become full weekend access from Friday after school to Sunday at 7pm. In addition, the mid-week access preceding the non-access weekend shall become one overnight access on a day agreed to by the parties, and on Wednesday if they cannot agree with Ms. Windsor being responsible for picking Pyper up from school and returning her to school the next morning.

(13) Thereafter, special provisions shall have to be made for the long school holidays and special family events, such as birthdays etc. It is hoped that this matter will have been decided on its merits by this time and provisions made for these holidays or that the parties may agree to them. If the parties cannot agree, then the matter may have to be decided by the Court.

(14) Any assistance Dr. Harris can give in helping Pyper adapt to the gradually increasing access to her mother would be welcome.

[18] There remains the question of penalty for Mr. Levesque’s contempt. Orders of the Court must be respected. For that reason the penalties for contempt as established in the case law and as enunciated in Rule 31(5) of the Family Law Rules can vary from the most severe, namely to incarceration to nominal fines. Depriving Pyper of her primary caregiver is not in the child’s interests. I am not persuaded that a monetary sanction is in Pyper’s best interests either. Since the separation of her parents her father has been the child’s sole financial support with no child support being paid by Ms. Windsor. Hopefully, this will be remedied quickly and ideally without further Court proceedings, as the Child Support Guidelines are not difficult to understand and a parent’s obligation to support their child is clear in law. In addition, Mr. Levesque has financed the limited supervised access that has taken place to date and he has financed Pyper’s therapy with Dr. Harris.

[19] It is within the discretion of the Court, in proceedings of this kind, not to proceed with a penalty and I choose this option pursuant to Rule 31(5)(g). I will permit Mr. Levesque to purge his contempt by complying with this Court order. Failing this, the matter may be brought before me again to determine a more appropriate penalty.

[20] The last issue is that of costs. Ms. Windsor shall have two weeks from the date of this endorsement to serve and file her written submissions on the costs of the two motions and cross-motions. Mr. Levesque shall then have two weeks from that date to serve and file his written submissions on the issue of costs. Ms. Windsor shall then have one week from that date to serve and file a reply if she so wishes.

M. Linhares de Sousa J.

Released: 2016/11/18

CITATION: Levesque v. Windsor, 2016 ONSC 7206

COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-1468

DATE: 2016/11/18

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: Maxime Gaetan Levesque, Applicant

AND

Lindsay Windsor, Respondent

BEFORE: M. Linhares de Sousa J.

COUNSEL: A. Mayer, counsel for the Applicant

Ginger Warner, counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: November 8, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

M. Linhares de Sousa J.

Released: 2016/11/18