Court File and Parties

CITATION: Bridgeford v. Bridgeford, 2016 ONSC 7338

COURT FILE NO.: 16-51612

DATE: 2016/11/24

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Amy Bridgeford - Applicant

AND:

Jeffrey Bridgeford - Respondent

COUNSEL: Tania Harper - Counsel, for the Applicant

Brian R. Kelly - Counsel, for the Respondent

BEFORE: James W. Sloan

HEARD: November 23, 2016

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The parties commenced common-law relationship 2003, married June 28, 2008 and separated in June 11, 2016.

[2] They have 2 children Gordon Bridgeford born June 8, 2012 who is now 4½ and Isabel Bridgeford born December 11, 2013 who is almost 3.

[3] Based on the allegations set forth in the applicant’s affidavit dated August 10, 2016, I granted her an ex parte order for custody and primary residence of the children, supervised access to the respondent, a restraining order against the respondent exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and child support.

[4] The first matter dealt with was whether or not there had been appropriate disclosure set out in the affidavit of the applicant filed in support of the ex parte order.

[5] In her August 10, 2016 affidavit the applicant made the following allegations against the respondent:

A. There was physical, emotional & sexual abuse in the relationship which significantly escalated since the separation on June 11, 2016.

She did not disclose in her affidavit, that approximately 2 weeks prior to August 10, 2016, she had initiated sexual relations with the applicant. In addition no fears of any type of abuse are contained in a letter provided by her psychiatrist approximately 7 days after August 10, 2016.

B. That the respondent was surreptitiously taking videos of her in the shower.

She does not disclose in her affidavit, that she sent the respondent explicit pictures of her genitalia as recently as July 2016 which would be after the date of separation on June 11, 2016.

C. The accused had a past criminal history of assault.

She did not disclose that the respondent’s criminal charges are from about 1995 to 2000 which would be approximately 3 years before the parties relationship began.

D. The accused uses marijuana.

She did not disclose that she also uses marijuana nor did she disclose that the respondent uses marijuana as a medical prescription to manage his extreme pain.

E. The respondent should only have supervised access and there would be no potential other family members able to provide such a supervision.

On cross examination she stated that she was 98% okay with leaving the children with the respondent and that her sole reason for requesting the respondent’s access to be supervised was because he changed his work schedule and wouldn’t communicate with her, none of which is disclosed in her affidavit.

[6] Based on the above non or mis-disclosure by the applicant I vacated my order of August 15, 2016 in full.

[7] As a result of my order the respondent was forced out of the matrimonial home, deprived of the use of his possessions in the matrimonial home, deprived of contact with his children, subjected to a restraining order, arrested and lost his liberty for 5 days as a result of allegedly breaching the restraining order and lost his employment.

[8] In discussions with the parties it was agreed that the OCL should be appointed with a clinical assist and that the applicant should have exclusive possession of the former matrimonial home.

[9] In addition the parties agreed that I should not make an interim order for custody pending a report from the OCL and that child support would simply flow from the my residency order for the children.

[10] That left three interim issues to be decided, being, (1) the residence of the children, (2) whether the respondent should have any access to the children other than access supervised at Child And Parent Place and (3) whether or not the respondent should be subject to a restraining order.

[11] The remainder of the morning was spent, listening to argument and ruling on four procedural matters.

[12] Prior to the lunch break I encouraged the lawyers to discuss the issues between themselves to see if any of the issues could be resolved or further narrowed.

[13] At 2:15 PM, after hearing that the parties were unsuccessful in resolving any matters notwithstanding my oral endorsement on the procedural issues, I set up a mid-motion settlement conference before Justice Campbell.

[14] Unfortunately after a very brief time, Justice Campbell returned to my chambers and informed me that he had been unable to make any progress.

[15] At the commencement of the afternoon hearing before me the applicant’s position had not changed from what it was at the start of the day.

[16] As is often the case in these matters, at the motion stage, when one party says something negative about the other party the other party simply denies it. This case is no exception and this fact was brought to the attention of the parties by myself on several occasions.

[17] While there are certainly some disturbing allegations with respect to the children’s behaviour, whoever or whatever is causing it isn’t clear, but has likely been contributed to or condoned by each of the parties to a lesser or greater extent.

[18] In the above paragraph I am referring to the children and mostly the oldest one’s use of foul language and running around playing with a sex toy.

[19] The only allegation of physical abuse against the respondent with respect to the children, is that on one occasion he smacked the oldest child.

[20] The main thrust of the applicant’s submissions centered around her allegations, that the respondent was physically, sexually, emotionally and financially abusive to her.

[21] Not surprisingly these allegations were denied by the respondent and he made allegations of his own with respect to the behaviour of the applicant.

[22] Another fear expressed by the applicant and denied by the respondent is that he uses marijuana to the point where he cannot appropriately look out for the well-being of the children.

[23] Not surprisingly these allegations were denied by the respondent.

[24] What does appear to be factual, is that, essentially from the birth of these children to my order in August of this year, the parties, because of their opposite work shifts, shared a great deal of hands-on parenting with respect to their young family.

[25] The applicant leaves for work approximately 5:30 AM and the respondent looks after the children and until approximately 11:00 AM, when he takes them to a sitter and goes to work. After the applicant has completed her work, she picks up the children and returned home with them.

[26] It appears that both parties worked between 40 and 44 hours per week, such that the rest of the time, when not working they are either together or available for parental duties.

[27] Although the parties separated on June 11, 2016, they remained living under the same roof in the former matrimonial home until my order was served on the respondent.

[28] The applicant also has concerns that the respondent who was forced out of the matrimonial home by my ex parte order, does not have suitable accommodation to have the children overnight.

Restraining Order

[29] On the facts as I find them on this interim motion, I am not prepared to issue a restraining order.

[30] Although the applicant may subjectively fear the respondent, given her conduct in July 2016 of initiating intimate relations with him and sending him electronic pictures of her genitals, the court has its doubts with respect to what level of fear she has and how objective that fear is.

[31] Notwithstanding, that I’m not prepared to issue a restraining order, there will be an order that neither party is to attend within 100 m of the place of employment of the other party. If this term of my order causes any difficulties I may be spoken to.

[32] Neither party shall attend at the residence of the other party except for the purpose of picking up or dropping off the children unless the nonresident party is invited to attend either in writing or by text or email.

[33] The parties may politely contact each other by text or email to discuss any of the matrimonial issues outstanding between them. In the event that one of the parties requests that the other party no longer contact them with respect to matrimonial issues, both parties shall then cease texting or emailing each other to discuss their matrimonial issues, and deal through their lawyers while they are both represented.

[34] The parties may politely contact each other by text or email with respect to the children particularly to coordinate pickups and drop offs. In the event of any emergency concerning the children either party may phone the opposite party.

Residency of the Children

[35] This is not and never was the case in which access at Child and Parent Place should have been requested or ordered.

[36] As stated previously the facts seem to show that the parties shared the parenting experience of their young children.

[37] It is especially noteworthy that, on cross examination the applicant stated, that she was 98% okay with leaving the children with the respondent and that her sole reasons for her requesting the respondent’s access be supervised was because he changed his work schedule and wouldn’t communicate with her.

[38] It is disturbing to note that in a July 5, 2016, police general occurrence report, there is a paragraph that reads:

“There were insufficient grounds to pursue a criminal charge against either party. The complainant, when spoken to, acknowledged that she had spoken to her lawyer earlier in the day and that he had told her that the separation and division of assets would move a lot faster if her ex-husband were to be arrested. The complainant was offered the victim services but declined. She assured the writer that she was already receiving counselling.”

[39] Custody and access to children is almost always a very emotional issue.

[40] At this stage of the proceedings I find that the status quo has been one, where both parents have shared the parental duties of raising their children on a more or less equal basis.

[41] On an interim basis the “playing field” should be leveled. I see no reason why that status quo should not continue albeit in a different form because the parties are living in 2 separate residences.

[42] The residence of the children shall alternate between the two parents households at least until this matter is returned to court after the OCL has issued its report or some other factor intervenes making it imperative that the Court review the situation.

[43] Given the age of the children I order that there be a 2 – 2 – 3 rotation commencing Sunday, December 18, 2016, in accordance with the coloured schedule attached to this endorsement. The applicant days are in blue and the respondents are in red.

[44] In the event the parties would rather have a week about access they may on consent, amend my order accordingly and if they have any difficulty in having it issued and entered it may be sent to my chambers.

[45] I have not dealt with the school Christmas holidays specifically, however they are to be split equally and take precedence over the usual rotational access schedule.

[46] If the parties are unable to agree on Christmas access I may be spoken to.

[47] As a lead-in to the equal sharing of time, the children shall stay with the respondent each weekend commencing November 26, 2016, from Saturday at 9:00 AM until Sunday at 5:00 PM and if his schedule permits, the respondent shall also have midweek access each Wednesday or such other day as agreed to by both parties for 2 hours.

Father’s Residence

[48] The respondent resides at 139 Spadina Street West in Kitchener.

[49] Through their lawyers, the respondent shall make arrangements with the applicant to have a friend/designate of hers attend at his residence for the purpose of taking pictures or a movie of the residence in an effort to assure her that it is an appropriate place for the children to stay overnight.

[50] In the event of any problems arising from this part of my order I may be spoken to.

Child Support

[51] Child-support should be payable on a set off basis. The parties are unable to resolve this issue I may be spoken to.

Costs

[52] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, Mr. Kelly shall forward his brief submissions on costs to me by November 30, 2016. Ms. Harper shall forward her brief response to me by December 6, 2016. Mr. Kelly shall then forward her/his reply, if any, to me by December 9, 2016. Cost submissions may be sent to my attention by email, care of Kitchener.Superior.Court@ontario.ca.

Other Issues

[53] This young family has many issues going forward.

Economic

[54] One of course is economic because there are 2 children, 2 adults and now 2 separate residences to support on approximately $80,000 total income per annum.

[55] I hope the parties are able to consider this large practical aspect of their separate lives going forward from here with respect to what is in the best interests of the children.

Duties as Parents

[56] I am assuming your children are your most important concern.

[57] You are responsible to raise and for the development of a human being. You get to do this without a license. You don’t need to have specialized courses.

[58] Your most important job in life is to raise healthy, happy, well adjusted, educated and independent adults.

[59] That job started at your children’s birth and today is the first day of the rest of their lives.

[60] What you do going forward into the future, will affect them for the rest of their lives.

[61] You are the most important people in their lives and therefore you have the greatest influence BOTH positively and negatively over their development as human beings.

[62] You as parents have the inside track to emotionally damage up your children.

[63] You are the male and female role models they will learn from with respect to all their future relationships. Think about it! How you treat each other is imprinting on them.

[64] How you treat each other teaches them how they should treat and be treated by the opposite sex or significant other.

[65] Please don’t think of each other as ex-spouses, think of each other as your children’s mother & father. Show your children’s mother and father the respect they deserve because they are your children’s mother and father.

[66] Think of how you would react if someone referred to one of your parents in unflattering terms. I suspect they better duck.

[67] To put it another way you don’t have to like each other but you should treat each other, with at least the respect you would show a neighbour.

Justice James W. Sloan

Date: November 24, 2016