Court File and Parties

Cobourg Court File No.: 129/09 Date: 2018-07-04 Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Family Court

Between: LW, Applicant And: SW, Respondent

Before: Nicholson J.

Counsel: Self-Represented, for the Applicant Michael H. Tweyman and Ashley Waye, for the Respondent

Heard: November 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 2017, December 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 2017, February 26 and 27, 2018

Reasons for Judgment

NICHOLSON J.

Background

[1] An 11 year-old child, SLW, born […], 2007 (the “Child”), was at the center of this 13-day trial regarding custody, access and child support. The original application in this matter started in 2009 when the Child was only two years old. A final order has never been made. A final resolution is long overdue.

[2] The Applicant mother, LW, (the “Mother”) and the Respondent father, SW, (the “Father”) met in 2006. During their short cohabitation—July 2006 until June 2007—the Child was conceived and born.

[3] The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) has been involved with the family throughout the Child’s life. Several CAS workers were called as witnesses in the trial.

[4] The parties entered a memorandum of understanding on August 11, 2011. The memorandum clearly stated that it was not a binding agreement, and it was never converted to any agreement or court order. The parties have scheduled their parenting time somewhat in line with this memorandum, but no provisions were made in it for child support.

[5] Roughly speaking, the Mother has the Child from Wednesday evening through Fridays and on alternate weekends. The Father parents the Child from Monday through Wednesday and on alternate weekends.

[6] The Father argued that the time division resulted in him parenting the Child 70 percent of the time whereas the Mother argued she parented the Child 40 percent of the time. The 10 percent discrepancy arose primarily from a dispute over who was in charge of the Child while she attended school and other aberrations from their schedule.

Issues

[7] The issues to be determined at trial were:

1. What custody order and parenting schedule is in the Child’s best interests?
2. What child support order should be made, if any, based on the parenting schedule?
3. Does either parent owe the other any retroactive child support?
4. Is the Mother in contempt for failing to comply with various orders made during the course of the trial and for misleading the court during trial?

The Parties’ Positions

[8] Regarding custody and the parenting schedule, the Mother submits that the schedule should remain as is with continued shared parenting. The Father replies that the Child should be in his primary care with supervised access to the Mother, or in the alternative, alternate weekends and one alternate evening visit for the Mother.

[9] Regarding child support, the Mother’s position was somewhat difficult to ascertain. Because she asserts that the Child was in her care at least 40 percent of the time, I take her submission as supporting her entitlement to set-off child support pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 (CSG), retroactive and ongoing. She argues that she is owed approximately $49,000 of retroactive child support.

[10] Based on the Father’s position—that he has parented the Child 70 percent of the time for many years—he has paid the Mother no child support. Rather, he argues that she owed him child support but has not paid any. Regardless, he is prepared to waive any retroactive claim to child support; he is also prepared to waive ongoing support if the court permits.

Highlights of Relevant Evidence

[11] I will not summarize all the evidence here, since it covered all 11 years of the Child’s life over a long trial. I will, however, highlight numerous examples of the parties’ conduct and the Child’s expressed wishes, as the backdrop to the orders I find to be in her best interests.

The Parties’ Conduct

The Mother’s conduct

Drug use

[12] The Child was kept in a neonatal intensive care unit for a period following her birth. The Mother conceded that she was taking prescription medication (oxycodone) during her pregnancy from which the baby had to be weaned using morphine. The Mother gave evidence that she was prescribed this pain medication to address injuries following a serious motor vehicle accident. She claims that her doctor advised her against terminating the medication during the pregnancy as this would cause harm to the child in utero. She was advised that the best option was to wean the child off the medication after birth.

[13] Due to the above, the Child was placed in the Father’s primary care while the Mother was permitted only supervised access for many months. Briefly afterward, the Child had to be placed in foster care after the Father tested positive for cocaine use. The Mother was also testing positive for various drugs during this period in the Child’s early years. Both parents were tested by hair sample through the Motherisk laboratory at the Hospital for Sick Children.

[14] It was later discovered that Motherisk results were unreliable, as were the above mentioned test results for both parties. After producing a clean drug screen, the Child was eventually returned to the Father’s care. The Mother was initially granted supervised access, which was eventually increased.

[15] The Mother’s drug use was addressed by her family doctor—Dr. Stratford. Dr. Stratford testified at trial that the Mother was referred to prenatal care at Kingston General Hospital because she was taking prescribed narcotics in a significant dosage, and because the Child had to be weaned off this drug after birth.

[16] Dr. Stratford identified that the doctor-patient relationship he had with the Mother broke down in 2007. He learned that while she was requesting an oxycodone prescription through him, another doctor was also prescribing her methadone. He testified that he was unaware of this additional prescription.

[17] As a result of this breach of trust, Dr. Stratford terminated his relationship with the Mother. He also testified that he usually recommended his patients use only one pharmacy for safety reasons, so that the pharmacist could identify potential detrimental interactions of drugs. He confirmed that the Mother was instead using multiple pharmacists.

[18] The Mother’s adult daughter, A, testified that she and the Mother had taken cocaine and Percocet together in 2015 before A stopped using drugs.

[19] At trial, the Mother confirmed that she continues to struggle with chronic pain and now receives pain medication through periodic injections. Her condition has resulted in her qualifying for long-term disability through ODSP.

The Mother’s alleged assault against her step-daughter

[20] In March 2015, the CAS contacted the Father to advise him that the Mother had allegedly assaulted her step-daughter, BS. The Mother initially denied having been charged with assault. BS also testified that the assault never happened. The evidence was clear, however, that charges were indeed laid against the Mother, albeit subsequently dropped.

[21] The arresting officer gave evidence in stark contrast to the Mother’s and BS’s evidence. He received a radio call about the assault. The complainant BS called from her high school. BS advised the officer that the Mother struck her in the face. The officer observed redness/swelling to BS’s left eye.

[22] With the assistance of his notes, the officer testified in a straightforward and credible manner and had absolutely no reason to misstate the facts. The officer also testified, shockingly, that the Mother’s partner DS—BS’s father—called him after the assault to advise him that BS would be recanting her accusations against the Mother.

The ATV accident

[23] The Child’s daycare provider contacted the CAS to report that the Child had some marks on her back and that the Child told the daycare worker that she had been involved in an ATV accident while her mother drove in a highly intoxicated condition.

[24] The Mother expended a great deal of energy at trial trying to convince the court that a second ATV accident did not occur as the CAS and the Father alleged. She did not, however, challenge that a first accident occurred or that she was intoxicated. The Father and a CAS worker testified that the Child stated that the Mother told her not to tell the Father about the accident. I find, therefore, that the Mother exposed the Child to physical harm from her careless conduct and also encouraged the Child to withhold the truth about the incident from the Father.

Domestic violence in the mother’s home

[25] Evidence from several witnesses—including the Mother during her cross-examination— confirmed that the Mother’s home was often characterized by yelling, screaming, and at times physical conflict.

[26] In addition to the specific assault incident by the Mother against BS, the Child’s evidence was that her mother and DS often argued with and yelled and screamed at each other.

[27] The Mother admitted yelling and screaming at the Child. As recently as one year ago, the Mother became very angry with the Child when she learned of her expressed views and preferences in the report prepared for this trial (the “Report”). The Child reported that her mother raised her hand to strike her when the Child first visited with her following the Report’s release.

[28] Additionally, A testified that she observed the Mother yelling at the Child and putting her down, and acting belligerent and rude and calling her names. A confirmed that she observed conflict between the Mother and DS, indicating that the conflict often ended in violence or yelling and DS leaving the home. When these fights escalated to physical violence, A observed that her mother was the perpetrator. She also testified that she witnessed the ATV accident detailed above.

[29] The reliability of A’s testimony is somewhat questionable because she and the Mother are currently involved in a custody and access dispute over A’s son, presently in the Mother’s custody as that child’s maternal grandmother. The Mother did not, however, challenge any of A’s evidence on these topics during cross-examination, and A’s credibility is bolstered by the consistency of her evidence with the objective and neutral evidence of the officer who testified regarding the Mother’s assault charge against BS.

The Mother’s demeanor and relationship to persons and institutions in authority

[30] It is common for a parent to become upset with a child protection agency who removes a child from his or her care or otherwise intrudes and disrupts their life.

[31] In this case, the Mother not only experienced disruption and intrusion, but also the unjust persecution resulting from Motherisk’s false hair follicle testing. Thus, to some extent, the Mother’s hostility toward the CAS and individual protection workers is understandable.

[32] The Mother’s bitterness is deep-seated beyond justification, however, and has completely clouded her judgment. As an example, she did not recognize when JR—a CAS worker testifying before this court—was delivering some positive evidence about the Mother, testifying that she made progress in her overall attitude and relationship with the Child. The Mother acted very mean-spirited in her examination of JR during both their initial testimony and on a subsequent re-examination at the Mother’s request. The Mother’s accusations were so stinging that JR admitted during cross-examination by the Father’s counsel that perhaps the Mother had not changed for the better. She had not yet adopted a different attitude or acknowledged her problematic behaviour during the previous CAS involvement in 2015.

[33] On April 15, 2016, Justice McLeod—acting as case management judge in this case—made an order requesting the assistance of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL). The OCL agreed to become involved and to prepare a report for the court under section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

[34] The Mother eventually withdrew her consent and would not cooperate with the OCL. The OCL clinical investigator filed a brief report stating,

after signing the necessary release of information forms for collateral resources to be consulted, [the Mother] rescinded her consent and indicated that she no longer consented to the involvement of the OCL. The mother had no explanation for her decision when asked during cross-examination. I am therefore concluding that she was of the view that the report would not benefit her.

[35] More troubling, however, is the Mother’s attitude toward this court’s authority, which she displayed during the trial. When asked during cross-examination whether she would comply with the court’s decision, she answered, “we’ll see.” She also testified that she would appeal the decision if she disagreed with it.

[36] Furthermore, the Mother ignored the order I made several times during trial that she file a form 35.1 affidavit and a CPIC criminal record check.

[37] Also, the Father alleges that the Mother misled the court on an adjournment request during trial. When I denied the Mother’s request to take two days off from the trial to allow her to travel with family members to the Dominican Republic, she then requested instead that she be entitled to attend and assist with a friend’s funeral on those same two days. Subsequently, the evidence unfolded to show that she ultimately traveled to the Dominican Republic on one of the two days I granted for her funeral attendance.

[38] The Mother’s demeanor overall during the trial can be characterized as bitter, sarcastic, and demeaning. She had to be reprimanded for laughing, snickering, and using foul language.

The Father’s conduct

Drug use

[39] The Father has a medical marijuana prescription. Unfortunately, the Child has seen the Father’s drugs and stated that she is aware of his drug use. Despite that fact, however, the evidence does not indicate that the Father’s marijuana use has negatively impacted his parenting.

Lack of cooperation with CAS

[40] Although the Mother alleged throughout the trial that the Father reported concerns that initiated the CAS’s involvement in 2015, the evidence was clear that he did not. The CAS’s involvement was initiated when the Child’s daycare worker called to report the Child’s disclosure of the ATV accident. The CAS worker followed up on this report by contacting the Father and requesting his input. He was initially very hesitant and uncooperative with the CAS. He refused to meet the CAS worker to provide any background information. He testified that he was concerned that the Mother would blame him for providing any negative information about her and she would retaliate.

[41] The evidence also made clear that the Father’s partner once refused to give the CAS and police access to the Father’s home. These two agencies attended his home unannounced to investigate allegations of the Father growing marijuana there.

[42] Ironically, the Mother did not focus on the Father’s lack of cooperation with the CAS. On the contrary, she alleged that the Father used the CAS to further his efforts to get custody of the Child. She claimed that the Father would take the Child to the CAS to make false statements about the Mother. The evidence, however, did not support the Mother’s theory.

Did the Father coach the child?

[43] The Mother testified the she strongly believes the Father has manipulated and influenced the Child to say negative things about her. She alleges that he coached the Child into expressing a desire to spend less time with her mother. I find that the Father has facilitated opportunities for the Child to express her views and concerns about the Mother and the environment at the Mother’s home (he took her to the CAS and retained the clinician to prepare the views and preferences report), but I do not find that he coached or otherwise negatively influenced the Child against the Mother. He has properly responded to the Child’s complaints about the Mother’s conduct, the details of which are outlined above.

Views and Preferences of the Child

[44] The court had the benefit of two very objective sources of information regarding the Child’s wishes beyond each parent’s testimony.

[45] First, when the CAS interviewed the Child in September 2015 while investigating the ATV accident allegations, JR, the child protection worker, completed a “three houses” diagram. This diagram aptly contains three houses as follows:

a. The first—the house of worries—identified the Child’s worries about her mother, including that her mother would perhaps hit or drag her and that her mother and DS would fight. She added that she was worried that her mother would “get all crazy and drink and drive with the four wheeler again with me on it”; b. In the second—the house of good things—the Child listed DS as being really nice to her. She also listed BS, her step-sister, as someone who takes her to her house to keep her safe when her mother and DS are fighting. She also identifies her father who never gets angry at her; c. The third—the house of dreams—includes the following quote: “that my mom would not make any more scenes at school, that there would be no more fighting between [DS] and mom and that mom would stop yelling at me”.

[46] The second source of information regarding the child’s wishes is the Report along with testimony given by EM of Quinte Assessment and Treatment Group Inc. The Report was prepared specifically to give the court evidence at trial of the Child’s views and preferences about custody and access. As EM was not retained to conduct an assessment, she was not qualified as an expert to give opinion evidence. She had an extensive background, however, working with children in both therapeutic and assessment contexts. I was satisfied that her evidence on the Child’s wishes was reliable and trustworthy.

[47] EM testified that the Child’s wishes were expressed consistently in the four meetings she conducted. Furthermore, she testified that she saw no evidence of parental coaching by the Father. She testified, however, that the Mother told the Child to say that she wanted week-to-week access. The Child was described as being articulate and clear about what she was saying, even though she was given the option of keeping her views and preferences to herself.

[48] EM testified that the parenting arrangement the Child wanted was to live primarily with the Father and have access with the Mother at the Child’s discretion. To support this position, the Child advised EM that she saw her mother and DS fighting and yelling and wrestling. The Child told her that she would get blamed, scolded, and yelled and sworn at regularly, and that she was fearful of her mother’s yelling. She had a distant relationship with her mother from her mother spending a lot of time in her bedroom, either sleeping, on her phone, or watching TV instead of interacting with the Child. She reported being bored at her mother’s house and not being allowed to visit her friends. She said that her mother says a lot of derogatory things about her father which makes her feel bad. These observations are very consistent with the other evidence submitted for the purpose of trial.

[49] Although the Report itself indicates the Child’s wishes to have alternate weekends and a mid-week visit with her mother, EM confirmed that she suggested this schedule to the Child. The Child had clearly indicated to EM that she would prefer an unstructured access arrangement with the Mother giving the child the flexibility to decide the schedule.

[50] For all these reasons, I am prepared to accept that the Child wishes clearly to reside primarily with the Father and have unstructured access with the Mother.

The Law on Custody and Access

[51] The issues in this case require a straightforward analysis of the factors that the court must consider in determining the best interests of the child as outlined in section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12:

Merits of application for custody or access

24 (1) The merits of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4).

Best interests of child

(2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person, including a parent or grandparent, entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

(h) any familial relationship between the child and each person who is a party to the application.

Application of the law

[52] This analysis can be divided into two major areas: the first focuses on the parents’ capacity; the second is on the Child’s wishes.

Capacity to act as a parent

[53] First, I considered the ability, willingness and plan of each parent to provide the Child guidance, education, and the necessities of life. In essence, this is an analysis of each parent’s ability to act as a parent.

[54] Today, some may view the concept of “acting like a parent” as a moving target. Our culture is undergoing a moral revolution such that those who suggest there are right and wrong answers to the questions of life, and an ultimate truth to be discovered, are viewed as intolerant and/or delusional. It is my view, however, that acting like a parent involves creating rules, establishing boundaries, and providing moral guidance about these truths for our children.

[55] I agree with Beckett J. in DiMeco v. DiMeco, [1995] O.J. No. 3650 (Ont. Gen. Div.) at para. 36:

The parent is a role model for the child. Children learn their behaviour from their parents. Surely it is in the best interest of every child that he or she learn the values of love, caring, honesty, integrity, understanding, gentleness to others, and should be shielded from violence and dishonesty.

[56] If a parent’s own life is characterized by dishonesty, deception and violence, then he or she will likely be incapable of modeling positive behaviour for the child.

[57] The Father’s evidence focused on the Child. He did not become obsessed with disproving allegations against him. He outlined a clear plan to meet the Child’s needs in the future. Numerous witnesses spoke about his strong and positive relationship with the Child.

[58] The evidence also supported the Father’s position that communicating with the Mother is extremely difficult rendering it highly unlikely that the parties could easily make joint decisions about the Child.

[59] The applicant mother expresses a true love for the child, and the evidence established that there are some positive aspects to the relationship between the mother and the child. However, the mother has shown she has little respect for those in authority, she is capable of misleading her own doctor to get drugs, she becomes enraged at her child for telling the truth and she does not hesitate to misrepresent the truth to this court.

[60] I find the Mother’s conduct reflects a long-standing pattern of dishonesty, manipulation, and deceit. She lacks integrity. Her character is morally flawed and she lacks capacity to exercise basic requisite judgment to act like a parent. She puts her own needs before her Child’s needs.

The Child’s wishes

[61] The Child’s wishes are the second consideration. The Child has clearly been impacted by the Mother’s negative conduct over the years. She has clearly and consistently expressed a desire to minimize her exposure to negative parenting. She desires primary parenting from her Father and to visit with her mother on her own terms.

[62] Notwithstanding my conclusions about the Mother’s character, I find that the relationship between the Child and Mother should be preserved. The Child is entitled to a positive relationship with both her parents. The Child also requires the stability and certainty of a specified access order.

Custody order and parenting schedule

[63] For the above reasons, I find that the custody order and parenting schedule in the Child’s best interests is as follows:

1. The Father shall have sole custody and primary residential care of the Child.
2. The Father shall immediately engage a therapist for the Child. The Mother’s consent is not required for the engagement or ongoing retainer for such therapy.
3. The Mother will not expose the Child to domestic violence.
4. The Mother will not use any physical discipline against the Child.
5. The Mother will not use excessive yelling or degrading comments toward the Child.
6. Neither parent will speak in a negative or derogatory manner about the other parent in the Child’s presence or hearing.
7. The Mother will have access to the Child as follows (the “Regular Schedule”): a. Alternate weekends from Friday after school until Sunday at 5:00 p.m.; and, b. Every Wednesday evening for three hours after school.
8. The Regular Schedule will be replaced during holidays and special occasions as follows: a. The Child shall celebrate her birthday with her mother in even years from […] at 5:00 p.m. until […] at 5:00 p.m. The Child shall celebrate her birthday with her father in odd years from […] at 5:00 p.m. until […] at 5:00 p.m.; b. The parent who, according to the Regular Schedule, is not scheduled to spend Easter and Thanksgiving weekends with the Child shall have her on those weekends starting Sunday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 6:00 p.m. c. The Christmas Holiday shall be defined as the dates determined by the Child’s school board as the Christmas school break. The Child shall spend equal time with each parent during the Christmas Holiday as follows: i. The Child shall spend Christmas with her mother in odd years from December 24 until December 26; ii. The Child shall spend Christmas with her father in even years from December 24 until December 26; iii. The parties will schedule and finalize the balance of the Christmas Holiday schedule no later than December 1 each year; d. Summer Holidays are defined as the period of time that starts on the first day following the last day of school, and terminating on the day prior to the first day of school in each year in the school district where the Child attends school. During the Summer Holidays, access will be in accordance with the Regular Schedule, except the Child will reside with her mother for two consecutive weeks during the summer, the dates of which shall be determined by June 1 each year; e. The Child shall spend Mother’s Day with her mother, and Father’s Day with her father, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on both those days.

Child Support Analysis

[64] On the issue of retroactive child support, I find that the Father’s evidence regarding the parenting schedule—particularly his position on responsibility for the Child during school hours—is more persuasive than the Mother’s submission. Although I provided the Mother with several opportunities to outline her calculation of the time division, she failed to do so. As such, I accept the Father’s evidence and argument that, since the separation, he has always had care and control of the Child over 60 percent of the time. Accordingly, the Father does not owe the Mother any retroactive support payments.

[65] On the other hand, the Mother has received ODSP for many years. Although the evidence suggests that her common-law partner, DS, has been able to support her significantly over the years and paid for a comfortable lifestyle including extensive travel, I am prepared to accept the Father’s proposal that the Mother will owe him nothing for retroactive or ongoing child support. This will allow the Mother to pay for any activities associated with ongoing access. I make this order based on evidence that the Father’s income from his retirement pension is $77,000 annually and the Mother’s imputed income is $24,000 annually—though she filed no evidence to support this. I also find that the Child’s needs are sufficiently met by the Father, justifying child support less than that provided under the CSG.

Contempt Analysis

[66] The remaining issue is whether this court should find the Mother in contempt for failing to comply with various orders made during the trial and for misleading the court during trial.

[67] At the trial’s conclusion, the Father filed a motion with the court seeking an order that the Mother be found in contempt for failing to comply with my order to file a form 35.1 affidavit and a CPIC criminal record check. He also asks for an order of contempt against the Mother for misleading the court about her adjournment request for November 30 and December 1, 2017, when she traveled to the Dominican Republic during trial, after telling the court she would attend a funeral. He contends that the Mother also did not comply with my order that she disclose her plane ticket to clearly establish her travel timing on those dates.

[68] The Father acknowledges that a contempt order should be used only sparingly and in the clearest of cases. He submits, however, that this case is one that justifies such an order. He submits that the order for the mother to provide the form 35.1 affidavit was made several times before and during trial. He concedes that the Mother eventually filed the affidavit which technically purges the contempt. He submits, however, that purging the contempt impacts the sentencing stage only, not the finding.

[69] Although the Father’s counsel had previously requested that one of the days during trial be adjourned to allow him to attend before the Court of Appeal, he rescheduled this appearance to coincide with the two days adjourned to allow the Mother to attend the funeral.

[70] The test for contempt as outlined by G. (N.) c. Services aux enfants & adultes de Prescott-Russell, 82 O.R. (3d) 686 (Ont. C.A.):

1. the order that was breached was clear and unambiguous;
2. the party who disobeyed the order did so deliberately and willfully; and
3. the party alleging contempt has proven the contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[71] The Mother presented throughout the trial as being disorganized, scattered, and overwhelmed. Furthermore, she filed evidence to confirm that her friend died and the family needed her help with the funeral. I suspect that she saw an opportunity to accomplish both her goals of attending to pay respects to her friend (at a visitation as opposed to the actual funeral) and attending a short vacation. I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she deliberately and willfully misled the court about her travel. Even if she had done so, one day of adjournment was still required of counsel to attend at the Court of Appeal.

[72] I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that the Mother failed to file her form 35.1 affidavit and CPIC until the last day of trial, several months after I made the first order to do so. Furthermore, she did not file her plane ticket as the court ordered. I believe she did so deliberately and willfully despite my order being clear and unambiguous. As such I find the Mother in contempt.

[73] As to the issue of sentence, I am influenced by jurisprudence encouraging that I exercise restraint and use only what is necessary to send a message to the litigant that court orders are not to be flaunted. This approach is consistent with the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, and in particular rr. 2(2) and (3). I believe that the order that meets the objective of dealing with this case justly and ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties is to require that the Mother to pay a fine for her contempt in the amount of $250 payable within 90 days. While the Father may view this sentence as light, he should consider the fact that the consequences of the Mother’s conduct have already been born out in the decision made above regarding custody and access.

[74] Submissions regarding cost are to be no longer than five (5) pages, plus offers to settle and shall be filed by the respondent within seven (7) days and in reply by the applicant within ten (10) days.

The Honourable Mr. Justice P. W. Nicholson Released: July 4, 2018