CITATION: Kornienko v. Walsh-Kornienko, 2016 ONSC 7300
COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-1599
DATE: 2016/11/29
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Christopher Kornienko
Applicant
– and –
Natasha Walsh-Kornienko
Respondent
Meagan LePage, for the Applicant
Self-Represented, for the Respondent
HEARD: November 22, 2016
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
SHEARD J.
[1] This was a Motion brought by the Applicant (“Father”) for an order that the Respondent (“Mother”) return to Ottawa with the parties’ infant child, Peter Christopher Kornienko (“Peter”) born March 31, 2015. In his Notice of Motion, the Father also asked for interim access to the child as follows:
(a) At a minimum of every second weekend from Friday to Monday;
(b) For Christmas, from December 26, 2016 to January 1, 2017;
(c) If not otherwise his access weekend, for at least five (5) hours on Father’s Day;
(d) Three full weeks in the summer;
(e) For Thanksgiving and Easter, one half of each holiday;
(f) Skype/Facetime/Telephone access at all reasonable times while the child is in the Applicant’s care, at a minimum of twice per week;
(g) The Applicant also asks for his costs.
Preliminary Matters: Representation of the Mother
[2] At the opening of the Motion, counsel, Aaron McKenzie appeared in court. He had not been served with a Notice of Change in Representation and had previously been counsel of record for the Mother. Counsel for the Father advised Mr. McKenzie that she had been served with a Notice of Change in Representation by lawyer, Tania C. Davies on Friday November 18, 2016. Ms. Davies was not present in court but her agent, lawyer Jacques Bahimanga, but advised the court that Ms. Davies was not able to appear today because she had a matter in another court outside of Ottawa.
[3] Mr. Bahimanga further advised that he was asked by Ms. Davies to tell the Court on November 21, 2016 that the Mother advised Ms. Davies that she was not able or willing to pay Ms. Davies to appear on the return of this Motion and, as a result, Ms. Davies asked the Mother to serve a Notice of Change in Representation by which the Mother advised that she had decided to act in person. That document was served upon the Father’s counsel at 7:49 a.m. on the day of the Motion and filed over the Bench, with an affidavit of Service by Mr. Bahimanga. In the result, the Mother became self-represented.
[4] The Mother was not present in court.
[5] The Mother’s father, Charles Walsh, who was present, advised the Court that his daughter could not attend because she was working as a tutorial assistant at York University where she is enrolled in her PhD. program. However, she was ready to proceed with the Motion and to represent herself via telephone conference. Arrangements were then made by the Court staff to equip the courtroom with a Polycom telephone and a court reporter so that the Motion could proceed.
Background
[6] The parties were married on October 16, 2014 and cohabited until June 26, 2016 on which date they separated. They have one child together, Peter.
[7] Both parties are musicians. Prior to separation, the Mother had completed her Master’s degree in Ottawa. With the knowledge and agreement of the Father, she applied to various Universities to pursue a PhD. In May 2016 the Mother was accepted in a PhD. program at York University, Toronto, Ontario.
[8] As set out in the Father’s affidavit sworn October 28, 2016, after the Mother was accepted at York University, the parties began making plans to move to Toronto. He refused work contracts in Ottawa believing that they would relocate to Toronto as a family.
[9] According to the Father, soon after their marriage broke down, the Mother denied him access to Peter. The Mother’s evidence is that the Father behaved violently towards her and was abusing alcohol and marihuana. Subsequent to the parties’ separation, the Mother no longer believed that the paternal grandparents were fit to care for Peter. The Father’s parents had cared for Peter on a regular basis from Wednesday afternoon overnight to Thursday, which the Mother stopped after separation. The Mother alleges that the paternal grandmother suffers from bipolar disorder. The Father denies that. The Father also denies that there is any basis to any of the Mother’s allegations of his substance addictions, violence or anger management problems.
[10] There is no independent or corroborative evidence by which to assess the accuracy or reliability of the allegations made by the Mother against the Father or his parents.
Litigation
[11] The Father commenced this Application on July 26, 2016. Among other things, he asked for joint custody of Peter; that Peter remain a resident in Ottawa pending a determination of custody and access; that the Father have interim access at a minimum of every second weekend and an equal sharing of holidays; summer access; and the return of his personal belongings including his piano and television. The Notice of Application was served on August 8, 2016.
[12] On and after retaining counsel there was an exchange of correspondence between the Father’s lawyer and the Mother’s then lawyer, Aaron McKenzie. On its face, that correspondence leads reasonably to the conclusion that the Father did not consent to the Mother’s move from Ottawa to Toronto and that there was a disagreement about the Father’s access to Peter, which he claimed was being denied to him. However, the parties were also communicating directly.
[13] During the month of August, the Mother and Father were communicating via e-mail and otherwise. The e-mail exchange produced by the Mother as exhibits to her November 17, 2016 affidavit paints a different picture of the positions being taken by the parties. The Father’s e-mail takes issue with the Mother’s allegations against him and the Mother’s e-mail seem to recite instances in which she found the Father to have behaved violently and causing her on one occasion to contact the police. Notwithstanding the contradictions between the events as described by the parties in their respective e-mails, there does seem to have been a recognition and acceptance by the Father that the Mother and Peter were going to move to Toronto so that the Mother could embark upon her PhD. studies at York University.
[14] For example, in his e-mail to the Mother of August 23, 2016 the Father states, in part:
My intention to settle matters in court were, and still are, due to impossible/no communication between us, and drastic measures involving our child. You have not outlined or proposed any parenting plan to me, nor any prospects of joint custody of Peter. Your plans to leave Ottawa are also of tremendous concern to me, given the distance this will create between father and son.
I have now gone so far as to offer you an alternative method of resolution, even though I have felt continuously wronged during our seperation thus far. I’m not preventing you from following your desired career path and I’m letting you leave Ottawa with our child. [Emphasis added]
But what of my rights to him? They have not been respected.
I will not withdraw my court application (sic).
[15] A further example is the Father’s e-mail to the Mother of August 24, 2016 at 8:04 p.m. which reads, in part:
I’ve come to terms with your choices, your treatment of my relationship with Peter, and all of your potentially damaging allegations. I have 70 hour work weeks confirmed for September, and that will be my “therapy”: working hard to provide for my son. I do appreciate your psychiatric assessment I’m not sure what you mean by “cycles”, but thanks for the advice.
I’m not looking to argue and disagree with you any further. I’m trying to move on from an impossibly difficult summer. I’ve had the police called on me by you, had no place to call home for over a month, had the locks changed on me, was investigated by the CAS, had a hard time retrieving personal items, had to renew work contracts lost when with you, and the ultimate blow: my son was kept from me to the point where I felt victimized.
Nevertheless, I have appreciated the visits you offered with Peter. They were brief moments of infinite joy for me. It’s a shame that they were spoiled. I refuse to believe that it is entirely my fault.
Good luck with your upcoming move and your studies, and try to find it in your heart to kiss Peter on his father’s behalf. It pains me to watch him go. [Emphasis added]
Take care of yourself.
[16] An e-mail exchange on August 26, 2016 began with the Mother, who wrote:
I’m recognizing that after cancelling your final three visits with Peter, you have requested that time be restored. I am available on Sunday afternoon to do both the drop-off and pickup of Peter (Aug. 28th from 2-6pm.) Please let me know if you would like to spend Sunday afternoon with Peter.
August 28th concludes our interim Parenting Plan and I look forward to a new arrangement soon.
The Husband’s response:
Natasha,
I accept your offer. I would love to spend the afternoon with Peter.
Thank you for making this arrangement possible.
Regards,
Christopher
[17] By e-mail of August 31, 2016 the Mother purported to provide the Father with a “status update” on her move to Toronto. She advised that she was en route to York University, had stopped to spend the night at her grandparents place in Wellington, and that she planned on moving in to a two-bedroom apartment on the York University campus the following day and provided the Father with the address. His response to the e-mail was “I appreciate you keeping me informed.”
[18] There is a hiatus in the e-mails produced, the last one being an e-mail from the Mother to the Father dated October 24, 2016. This e-mail is quite lengthy and will not be reproduced here. The tone of this e-mail is quite different from earlier e-mails. This e-mail contains the Mother’s detailed account of the shortcomings in the Father with respect to his conduct in bringing a court application; recounting access visits with Peter that she asserts were returned early or cancelled; and concludes with a list of her concerns regarding the Father’s drinking or drug use and specific quotes from his e-mails that she found inappropriate. By October 24, 2016 the parties were in full litigation and I do not rely on this e-mail as an accurate summary of the events; rather it appears to be a self-serving document intended to be used (as it was) rather, for the purposes of this litigation.
[19] The October 24, 2016 e-mail does, however, show that the parties have not been able to agree and confirms the Father’s assertion that he has not had access to Peter since the Mother moved with Peter to Toronto.
[20] At Exhibit I to her affidavit of November 17, 2016 the Mother sets out a proposed parenting schedule which grants the Father access to Peter in Toronto for four hours on Friday afternoon, and Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. In that same exhibit, the Mother proposes that the parties have alternate Christmases with Peter which include that Peter spend five days with the Father from Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. to Wednesday, December 30, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. In her oral submissions, the Mother confirmed that she is still prepared to abide by her proposed parenting schedule.
Positions of the Parties
[21] As set in Exhibit I of the Mother’s affidavit, she was prepared as at November 22, 2016 to provide the Father with generous daytime access to Peter in Toronto, and five days overnight between December 25-30, 2016. In that same access schedule, she proposes an increase in the access commencing January 13, 2017 by offering one-weekend per month starting on January 13, 2017 from that Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Sunday January 15, 2017. She proposes that she and Peter would take the train from Toronto to Belleville and that the Father would pick up Peter at the Belleville Via Rail Train Station and travel with him to Ottawa. The Mother proposes this monthly weekend access for the balance of 2017 except for the weeks of June 30, 2017 to July 5, 2017 and August 11, 2017 to August 16, 2017, when the Father is to have Peter.
[22] As set out in his Notice of Motion referred to above, the Father seeks weekend access on alternate weekends in Ottawa.
Factual Findings
[23] Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the Father knew of the Mother’s plans to pursue PhD. studies and that he knew in May 2016 that she had been accepted into a PhD. Program at York University in Toronto. I further find that the Father supported this move to Toronto, which he had anticipated would be made by them as a family.
[24] Based on the e-mails exchanged between the Mother and the Father in August of 2016 I conclude that, even though that Father had commenced an application in July, 2016, he knew and accepted and acquiesced in the Mother’s move, with Peter, to Toronto so that she could pursue her PhD. studies. In other words, the Father acquiesced in the status quo that has existed since September 1, 2016.
[25] On the motion, counsel for the Father acknowledged that there was a conflict between the e-mails exchanged between the parties and the communications exchanged between counsel. His counsel argues that the conflict is reconciled in that the Father was only agreeing to allow the Mother to move with Peter to Toronto if the parties could reach a mutually agreeable access schedule. That never happened and, therefore, the Father’s consent was never given.
[26] The Father acknowledges that he has not seen Peter since he moved with the Mother to Toronto in August, 2016. Apparently he had hoped to see Peter at Thanksgiving but those plans did not materialize. The Father states that his work schedule makes it impossible for him to travel to Toronto to exercise his access as proposed by the Mother. Furthermore, he has no family or friends in Toronto and nowhere to stay, other than a hotel. Travel expenses are a concern for both parents.
[27] The Father wishes to exercise his access to Peter in Ottawa where his parents reside and, where the Mother’s father also resides. The Father argues that Peter had been spending one day and overnight a week with his parents, until the parties separated, and that he would like to exercise access in Ottawa so that Peter could resume seeing his paternal grandparents. Also, they could care for Peter so that the Father could continue his employment as a Church organist on Sunday mornings.
[28] I accept that both parties have limited financial means. That makes travelling to and from Toronto difficult financially, especially for the Father, who would have to pay for a hotel on those visits. By contrast, the Mother’s father lives in Ottawa and the Father believes that the Mother could stay with her father on access weekends.
[29] Based on the evidence, this is not a case in which one parent has absconded with a child without the prior knowledge or consent of the other parent. While the Court accepts that the consent was based on an expectation that the parties could reach a reasonable agreement with respect to access to Peter, I conclude that the Father agreed to the move.
[30] The Father asserts that both parents shared in the care of Peter. It is difficult for me to properly assess the relative sharing of Peter’s care as between the Mother and the Father. However, the e-mails put forward by the Mother tend to favour a conclusion that the Father did not fully or vigorously exercise access to Peter in August. There may have been reasons for his not having done so, but the evidence still leads to the conclusion that on and after the date of separation, the Mother was the primary, if not sole, caregiver for Peter.
[31] Despite having been deprived of the access that he sought, the Father did not bring this Motion until October 19, 2016. In argument, counsel for the Father explained that until August 31, 2016, the Father did not know with certainty that the Mother was moving to Toronto. That assertion is contradicted by the e-mails between the parties earlier in August. However it is clear that the Mother’s previous lawyer did not disclose to the Father’s lawyer that the Mother had decided and was making plans to move to Toronto. On the Motion, the Mother stated that she did not know why her lawyer did not disclose that as he was fully authorized to do so. In any event, the evidence of the Father is that, post-separation, he was denied access to Peter by the Mother, and that by early or mid-August he knew that the Mother and Peter were moving to Toronto. Despite that, he did not bring a motion to prevent the Mother from leaving nor did he bring this Motion to have Peter returned to Ottawa until October 19, 2016. By that date, the Mother had long ago left her apartment, enrolled in her PhD. program, enrolled Peter in daycare, and settled with Peter in Toronto.
[32] On the Motion, counsel for the Father explained that the Motion was not brought in September because counsel was off work for three weeks in September and thereafter, negotiations were ongoing with the hope and expectation that there would be a resolution. Based on the evidence, negotiations were about access. Were Peter to return to Ottawa without the Mother, the Father has stated that he and his parents can collectively provide care for Peter. As set out above, the Father has taken on a heavy workload in an effort to be able to provide financially for Peter and I conclude that much of Peter’s care will either be daycare or Peter’s paternal grandparents. In fairness, even with the Mother, Peter is in daycare in Toronto as well.
The Law
[33] The leading case on parental relocation is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 SCR 27, 1996 191 (SCC). Per Gordon v. Goertz, the focus of the court is on the best interests of the child and not on the interests and rights of the parents.
[34] It is difficult to determine the best interests of the child on an interim mobility motion: in such cases, the evidence is limited to affidavit evidence where, as is the case here, there is considerable conflict or contradiction between the affidavit evidence. A full and proper analysis can likely only be conducted at a trial. In the recent Superior Court of Justice decision in Teague v. Violante, 2016 ONSC 1402, the court referred to Plumley v. Plumley, 1999 13990 ONSC, 1999 CarswellOnt, 3503, in which Marshman, J. summarized the guiding principles on an interim mobility case as follows:
It appears to me that the following factors are or ought to be important in deciding the mobility issue on an interim basis:
A court will be more reluctant to upset the status quo on an interim basis and permit the move when there is a genuine issue for trial.
There can be compelling circumstances that might dictate that a judge ought to allow the move. For example, the move may result in a financial benefit to the family unit, which will be lost if the matter awaits a trial or the best interests of the children might dictate that they commence school at a new location.
Although there may be a genuine issue for trial, the move may be permitted on an interim basis if there is a strong probability that the custodial parent’s position will prevail at a trial. (at para. 31)
[35] Contrary to the facts in this case, in Teague v. Violante, the court noted that the moving party would have brought an emergency motion, had notice been given of the move. In this case, notice was given of the move in August at the latest. In reality, in May 2016 the Father knew of the Mother’s intention to relocate to Toronto as she had accepted an offer to enter the PhD. Program at York University. Despite that, and despite his having commenced legal proceedings in July, the Father did not seek an order for almost three months. In that intervening time, he told the Mother that he was accepting that she was relocating to Toronto with Peter. His main concern was not about the move, but about the terms of access, given the distance between Ottawa and Toronto.
[36] The Mother submits that completing her education by obtaining her PhD. is in Peter’s best interests. She states that it will allow her to seek employment as a professor and that will benefit Peter, whose Mother is now a single parent. She also referred to the Father’s poor income-earning history.
[37] In her oral submissions, the Mother also stated that it was in Peter’s best interests to relocate to Toronto because the Mother felt better being so far away from the Father. She also stated that, in her view, it was not in Peter’s best interests that he have contact with his Father; she was allowing that contact in order to appear to be cooperative.
[38] The Mother’s candid admissions in her oral submissions support the Father’s allegations that she wanted to deprive him of access to Peter. It also fuels concerns that the Mother will find reasons not to facilitate Peter’s access to the Father.
[39] In her submissions to the Court on the Motion, the Mother stated that she was prepared to allow the Father access provided he did not “cross the line”. She did not elaborate on what she meant by that. The Mother’s affidavit evidence suggests that she will refuse access if, in her view, the Father is impaired by alcohol or drugs, is disrespectful to her in front of Peter, and any other number of conditions that she wants to leave in her own hands to determine. In her November 17, 2016 affidavit, the Mother candidly states that she needs “to remain in a position of control, for Peter’s sake” (para. 42). Here she raises for the first time an allegation that the Father has “dangerous sexual fetishes”.
[40] The Mother’s attitude towards the Father and her expressed view that she must retain control concerns the Court. There is no evidence to corroborate the allegations made by the Mother which are disputed in the paternal grandmother’s sworn affidavit in which she makes allegations against the Mother of alcohol abuse: and “critical, demeaning and cruel” and controlling behaviour toward the Father.
[41] I conclude that the reasons for the Mother’s move to Toronto have nothing to do with the best interests of Peter. She moved there because she seeks to pursue her educational and professional ambitions. The fact that she suggests that it is in Peter’s best interests that he be far from his Father conflicts with the factors that the Court is to consider when determining whether or not to allow a parent to relocate.
[42] There is no evidence to contradict that Peter is well cared-for and that he is happily enrolled in a daycare and that his Mother’s schedule allows her flexibility to spend time with Peter, who has his own bedroom in the two bedroom apartment occupied by the Mother at York University. By contrast, the Father’s evidence is that he works 90 hours per week and would not have the time to care for Peter but would have to rely on the assistance of his parents to care for Peter while he is at work. Moreover, the move to Toronto was made with the Father’s knowledge and, I conclude, his consent. I also conclude that it is within the Father’s power to relocate to Toronto, and, in fact, he contemplated doing so while the marriage was intact. That is not to say that he should now relocate in order to be closer to Peter, but, rather, that the joint plans made by the Father and the Mother can be taken into account whether to upset what has now become the status quo on an interim motion.
[43] The largest factor weighing in favour of the Father’s Motion is that it is desirable to maximize contact between the child and both parents (Gordon v. Goertz). Given both Peter’s location in Toronto and the Mother’s overtly negative attitude towards the Father and toward contact between Peter and the Father are almost predictably going to interfere with the maximum contact between Peter and the Father.
[44] In giving the sufficient weight to the “maximum contact principle” (Gordon v. Goertz) I note that although the Father asks for an order returning Peter to Ottawa, he seeks access on alternate weekends only and does not seek mid-week access. Admittedly, the Motion asks for a minimum of alternate weekend access but the Court also takes into account that the Father has not seen Peter since August. While the Mother may be the ostensible and proximate cause of that lack of contact, it cannot be overlooked that the Father has never travelled to Toronto to see Peter in almost three months. For a child Peter’s age, that is a significant period of absence.
[45] The Father has referred to the decision of Sherr J., a known expert in the area of family law, in Downey v. Sterling, 2006 ONCJ 490. In that case, the Applicant sought permission to relocate from Toronto to Texas. The Respondent father rejected the move. He claimed to spend every weekend with his son, then aged 9, and that his son was also upset at the prospect of relocating away from his father, friends, school and community. Sherr J. considered the following factors to favour the Applicant mother’s request to relocate:
• She had been the child’s primary caregiver and had a close relationship with him;
• The father did not contest the mother being the child’s sole custodial parent;
• The case law shows that the views of the custodial parent are given great respect;
• The court did not know whether the mother would relocate to Texas if she was not allowed to bring the child with her;
• The mother had remarried and had two children with her new husband, who lived in Texas and the court felt it preferable not to separate siblings;
• A custodial parent’s happiness was a relevant consideration;
• The applicant mother would have greater financial security in Texas;
• The mother had made arrangements for the child to enroll in school; and
• The mother expressed her willingness to facilitate access, even offering to pay for a yearly trip to Canada to see the father and to reduce child support each month to reflect the father’s increased access costs.
[46] Despite those factors, the court declined to allow the mother to move on a temporary basis as it would have long-term consequences for the child. The Court concluded that it was in the best interests that the Court have the best possible evidence available before making that decision.
[47] That case is quite different to the case here. Here, the child is an infant and is too young to express his views or wishes with respect to his living or child care/schooling arrangements. Toronto is not nearly as far from Ottawa, as Texas is from Toronto. As evidenced by the Mother’s affidavit, there is regular train service from Toronto to Belleville which is the location the Mother proposes as the exchange place for Peter and, indeed, the train carries on to Ottawa. Again, unlike in this case, in Downey the child would have to change schools. Here, it would require Peter to change daycares likely be less disruptive for him than for a 9 year old.
[48] Significantly, in Downey, there was evidence that the Mother mentioned that she would not move if she was not allowed to take the child with her. Here, the Mother’s evidence is that there is no PhD. program offered in Ottawa and, moreover, she has only been accepted in the PhD. program in Toronto.
Disposition on Relocation
[49] This is not a case in which the “self-help” of the Mother is being rewarded. Rather, this is a case in which a joint decision was made by the Mother and the Father to relocate to Toronto which was subsequently changed when the move included only the Mother and Peter. However, the Father not only acquiesced but he also consented to the move, subject only to an agreement being reached with respect to his access. Accordingly, I conclude that it is in the child’s best interests that the status quo which has developed since September 1, 2016 continue on an interim and without prejudice basis until the date of the trial of this issue. However, there must be regular and unwavering access to Peter.
Disposition on Interim Access
[50] The Mother has proposed that access occur once per month and that it be effected by her taking the train to Belleville, where her grandparents live, at which place the Father would take Peter and travel with him to Ottawa. The Mother proposes that the exchange take place at 6:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon and that the Father return Peter to the Belleville train station at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday afternoons. That proposal minimizes the inconvenience to the Mother and would have Peter travelling until mid-evening.
[51] I conclude that access is inadequate to achieve the maximum contact objectives and that it is not in Peter’s best interests that he sees the Father but once a month. Therefore, I order that the Father’s access be as follows:
(a) At a minimum of every second weekend from Friday to Monday;
(b) For Christmas, from December 26, 2016 to January 1, 2017; as per the Mother’s proposal that this year Peter spends Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. until Wednesday, December 30, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. with the Father.
(c) If not otherwise his access weekend, for at least five (5) hours on Father’s Day;
(d) Three full weeks in the summer on dates agreed to between the parties;
(e) For Thanksgiving and Easter, one half of each holiday; and
(f) Skype/Facetime/Telephone access at all reasonable times while Peter is in the Mother’s care, at a minimum of twice per week;
[52] The Father is to have access to Peter every other weekend commencing the weekend of December 3, 2016. On that weekend the Mother is to bring Peter to Ottawa and to arrive in Ottawa no later than 7:00 p.m. on Friday to deliver Peter to the Father at that time and the Father will return Peter to the Mother by 1:00 p.m. on Sunday. She is to continue to do so every other weekend thereafter. On the alternate access weekend the Mother is to bring Peter to Belleville no later than 4:00 p.m. to be picked-up by the Father from the Via Rail Train Station at Belleville. The Father will return Peter to Belleville no later than 4:00 p.m. on Sunday afternoon.
[53] Unless the parties agree otherwise, the costs of the access shall be borne by the Mother in bringing Peter to and from Ottawa. On the alternate weekends, the costs of the access will be shared by the parties, each of them paying for their own leg of the trip.
Costs
[54] If the parties cannot agree on costs, each may submit written submissions not to exceed three pages, plus a bill of costs, within 30 days of the date of the release of this endorsement. If I do not hear from the parties, within 30 days of the date of the release of this decision, there will be no order as to costs.
Sheard J.
Released: November 29, 2016
CITATION: Kornienko v. Walsh-Kornienko, 2016 ONSC 7300
COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-1599
DATE: 2016/11/29
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
CHRISTOPHER KORNIENKO
Applicant
– and –
NATASHA WALSH KORNIENKO
Respondent
REASONS FOR decision on motion
Sheard J.
Released: November 29, 2016