Court File and Parties
CITATION: Otterman v. Letourneau, 2017 ONSC 5083
COURT FILE NO.: F1204/16
DATE: August 25, 2017
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
FAMILY COURT
RE: KATHERINE OTTERMAN, applicant
AND:
JEFFREY JOSEPH LETOURNEAU, respondent
BEFORE: VOGELSANG J.
COUNSEL: Bayly Guslits, agent for the applicant
Genevieve Samuels, agent for the respondent
HEARD: August 23, 2017
Endorsement
[1] Ms. Otterman seeks an order that she be solely responsible, on an interim basis, for decisions regarding her daughter Genevieve Marie Letourneau’s enrollment and attendance at junior kindergarten beginning next month. Mr. Letourneau, her father, wants to prohibit the child’s registration.
[2] Ms. Otterman also seeks an order that the child reside primarily with her.
[3] Genevieve will be five years old in January. A final order was made in Woodstock by McSorley J. on January 26, 2015 granting the parties joint custody with equally shared (bi-weekly) care and control of the child who would have daily child care by the same woman she was accustomed to.
[4] Section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 requires a material change in circumstances before any variation of an existing order is made. In my view, there has been a material change:
When the order was made, both parties lived in Tillsonburg. Ms. Otterman moved to London in late 2015 or early 2016;
Genevieve was just two years old when the final order was made but both parties obviously knew that, eventually, her schooling would have to be addressed;
Mr. Letourneau has stable employment in Wallaceburg, west of Chatham, and lives there in a rented trailer in his weeks without Genevieve;
In Mr. Letourneau’s weeks with Genevieve, she is mainly looked after by Mr. Letourneau’s mother and sometimes a third party;
Another final order was made on consent by Carr J. on January 25, 2016 requiring Ms. Otterman to give 60 days notice of her intention to enrol Genevieve in a London school, so both parties were well aware of this issue, and
Some of the unfortunate texts directed to Ms. Otterman by Mr. Letourneau display a quality of belittling and bullying, certainly aspects of abuse which would make the communication expected and required in an equal shared residence regime difficult. Any form of abuse is, of course, a required consideration in s. 24(4).
[5] Any assessment of the best interests of Genevieve would lead to the conclusion that her stability is of primary importance and, from all of these circumstances revealed in the affidavit evidence, I have come to the inference that those best interests would be served if she were enrolled in the St. George’s Public School. The unusual circumstances of Mr. Letourneau with his work and the decreased amount of time he is able to actually spend with his daughter make me think that, as between these two parents, it is Ms. Otterman who has assumed the psychological role of primary parent. That is consistent with Genevieve having her primary residence with her mother.
[6] I am cognizant of the fact that the generous access proposed by Ms. Otterman should result in Mr. Letourneau having considerably more quality time with Genevieve than he is able to have now.
[7] In the result, an order will go in terms of paragraphs 2 and 4 of the August 4, 2017 notice of motion advanced by Ms. Otterman.
[8] I ask counsel to give serious consideration to obtaining an order for the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer in this case.
[9] Counsel may make submissions with respect to costs in letter form addressed to me in the care of the trial coordinator within 30 days. I want to know particulars of offers to settle, if any, and when they were made. Submissions must be brief.
“Justice Henry Vogelsang”
Justice Henry Vogelsang
Date: August 25, 2017