CITATION: Robertson v Robertson, 2017 ONSC 6629

COURT FILE NO.: 48680-14 DATE: November 3, 2017

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Carinna Maria Robertson

Applicant

– and –

Michael James Leslie Robertson

Respondent

Hamoody Hassan - Counsel for the Applicant

Self Represented - Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: November 2, 2017

The Honourable Justice James W. Sloan

MOTION RULING

1As stated before by this court, the respondent either does not understand or does not want to understand the facts of this case and the rulings that have been made.

2He continually brings motions to the court seeking the same relief that has already been dealt with on a final basis by the court.

3He did not appeal those rulings and specifically the rulings with respect to custody and access and therefore if he wishes to try to change those orders he will likely have to do so by bringing a motion to change.

4It appears clear from all the material filed by the respondent when he appears in court and from his submissions in court, that everything he has done has been perfectly normal and correct and that everything the applicant has done has been underhanded, unfair and that she essentially set out to stop him from seeing his children.

5He seems to utterly fail to see, that there were serious problems with his two children both of whom have developmental delays when he had access to them.

6In February 2016, this Court specifically set aside $7500 from the sale of the matrimonial home to fund an assessment of the family with the hope that the respondent would get some insight into the problems and some path could be opened up in an effort to foster a meaningful relationship between the children and their father (respondent) that would be in the best interests of the children.

7Between February 8 of 2016 and August 21, 2017, (approximately 18 months) the respondent refused to accept any assessor suggested by the applicant’s lawyer, and unbelievably did not suggest any assessors to the applicant’s lawyer.

8As a result of the respondent’s inaction the $7500 was released to the applicant and is no longer available to fund an assessment.

9This matter has been back in court innumerable times including:

A. March 27, 2014, where, because the respondent would not cooperate in the selling of the matrimonial home, an order was made giving the applicant carriage of same. On the same date the OCL was appointed.

B. June 17, 2014, where the respondent was ordered to produce numerous financial documents.

C. November 26, 2015, (approximately 14 months later) where, because the respondent had not produced the documents, he was ordered to comply and ordered to pay costs of $500.

D. February 8, 2016, where a divorce was granted, the respondent was given supervised access and the previously mentioned assessment and funding for same was ordered.

E. February 10, 2016, where child support was ordered and arrears were quantified and no spousal support was ordered.

F. April 1, 2016, where costs were ordered against the respondent in the amount of approximately $73,000 which the court understands have not been paid.

G. September 22, 2016, where the respondent’s access was suspended and it was ordered that the trial would not proceed until the assessment was completed. The matter was adjourned to be spoken to on March 1, 2017, so that the court could be appraised of what progress was being made with respect to the assessment. Cost of $2,500 were ordered against the respondent.

H. August 21, 2017, where, because it was apparent that the respondent was unwilling to proceed with the assessment, the $7,500 being held in trust to pay for the assessment was released to the applicant. Paragraph 8 of that order reads:

8. If and when the respondent elects to file a motion to change or a response to any motion to change filed by the applicant he shall be required to pay all outstanding costs in this matter and the respondent shall post security for costs of $5,000 in respect of the new proceeding, without prejudice to the applicant’s right to seek additional relief as certain stances then may warrant.

10The respondent has not paid the costs that the court has ordered, has not posted the security for costs as set out above and has not brought a motion to change.

11The motion currently before the court is improper from a procedural point of view since final orders have been made.

12I therefore dismissed the motion with cost payable by the respondent fixed in the amount of $1000.

James W. Sloan