Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-14-3222-01SR Date: 2018-07-20 Decision: Oral and in writing July 20, 2018

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen – and – S.S.M., Applicant

Counsel: Jayme Lesperance, for the Crown S.S.M., acting in person

Heard: June 29, 2018

Ruling on application to vary probation order

Pomerance J.:

[1] S.S.M. seeks a variation of his probation order. He wants the court to remove the condition that prohibits contact with his girlfriend, J.R., and his children. The Crown opposes this request.

[2] In July 2013, S.S.M. tried to run over J.R. with his pick-up truck. At the time, she was pregnant with his first child. He chased after her in his vehicle, travelling at a high rate of speed on the wrong side of the street. His blood alcohol concentration was close to three times the legal limit. The victim hid behind a tree and S.S.M. crashed his truck into the front of a house, close to where she was. It was entirely fortuitous that neither she, nor anyone else, was injured.

[3] I sentenced S.S.M. to 46 months in custody which, with credit for pre-sentence custody, amounted to an additional 12 months in jail. This was followed by three years of probation, a term of which prohibited contact between S.S.M. and J.R.: see R. v. [ S.S.M. ], 2015 ONSC 3840. I imposed this term over the strong objection of J.R., who insisted that she was safe with S.S.M. and that she wished to marry him. I ruled that, despite the victim’s wishes, it was necessary to impose a term that would protect her from further violence.

[4] At the time of sentencing, S.S.M. had a lengthy criminal record, containing many past convictions for offences of violence and for breaches of court orders. He had previously been violent toward three different domestic partners, and had a prior conviction for assaulting J.R.

[5] Since 2015, S.S.M. has worked hard to change his life. He has attended programs and counselling. He says that he is a changed man. J.R. agrees and both ask that I remove the non-association clause from the order. S.S.M. also wishes to have contact with his children. The probation order will expire in February 2019.

[6] This is my preliminary decision. I have determined that I require more information. I will begin by summarizing the factual backdrop. I will then address the issues, including the need for another hearing at which all relevant parties and agencies are represented.

The Backdrop

Overriding the wishes of the victim

[7] In my original sentencing decision, I imposed the non-association order over the objection of the victim. The case raised a very real tension between the need to respect citizens’ autonomy, on the one hand, and the need to protect the public, including J.R., on the other. In this case, I came down on the side of protection. For ease of reference, I have reproduced below the relevant portion of my reasons for sentence:

[34] At first blush, this approach might seem a paternalistic solution to the problem of domestic violence. But it is important to remember the public nature of the criminal law and its role in maintaining societal norms of conduct. A sentence is not a private remedy any more than a criminal offence is a private wrong. A crime – even a crime against an individual victim – offends the broader public interest. Crime and punishment have implications that extend beyond the individuals appearing in court: see Michelle Madden Dempsey, “Public Wrongs and the Criminal Law’s Business: When Victims Won’t Share” in Rowan Cruft, Matthew H. Kramer & Mark R. Reiff, eds., Crime, Punishment, and Responsibility: the Jurisprudence of Antony Duff (Oxford University Press, 2011).

[35] This was not always the case. For far too long, domestic violence was erroneously seen to be a private or family matter, leaving victims with little or no protection. We now accept that the public has a compelling interest in seeing that offenders are fairly prosecuted and, where convicted, properly sentenced. The wishes of a victim are relevant and must be considered, but can never be determinative. Whether a plea for leniency or a cry for retribution, a victim’s view may conflict with what is in the public interest. Where that occurs, it is the public interest that must prevail.

[36] Moreover, the dynamic of domestic violence is complex. The victim and offender share an emotional bond, have a common history and may be planning a united future. The relationship may involve elements of affection and trust in addition to manipulation and control. Victims may experience fear, love, optimism, despair, denial and/or resignation. They may be influenced by romantic entanglement, fear of retaliation, economic need, and/or the symptoms that comprise battered woman’s syndrome. Whatever the cause, recantation is a notorious problem in these cases, with victims often reluctant to cooperate with the prosecution. The Crown anticipated that there might be a recantation in this case. Victims often return to, or remain with, a violent partner despite the risk of future harm. In extreme cases, this can lead to tragic, even fatal, outcomes: see Domestic Violence Death Review Committee 2012 Annual Report, Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario, February 2014.

[37] I am not equipped to unpack the dynamic in this case. I do not know enough about [J.R.]’s relationship with [S.S.M.] to hazard a hypothesis about why she wants to remain in the relationship. What I do know is that [S.S.M.] assaulted [J.R.] by threatening to run her over with a truck, while she was pregnant with his child. I know that he slapped and punched her before the chase and threatened her that the violence would get worse. I know that she was sufficiently afraid for her safety that she fled from the truck on foot. I know that she ran from the vehicle as he chased her with it. I know that he crashed the truck into the front of a house not far from where she was seeking cover. I know that, after the offence, she was found curled up in fear hiding behind a bush. It is against this backdrop that I must consider [J.R.]’s statement that she will be safe if she has contact with [S.S.M.].

[41] Mr. Marley argued that I should defer to [J.R.]’s opinion because she is an educated 30 year old woman who is competent to make her own life decisions. It was said that she likely knows [S.S.M.] better than anyone else in the courtroom. I accept that [J.R.] is an educated, intelligent woman. However, it does not follow that she is either exempt from partner abuse, or impervious to its impact. Domestic violence crosses geographical, cultural and socio-economic barriers. It cuts across incomes, professions and education levels. Victims of domestic violence are not exclusively women; nor are they exclusively young, poor or uneducated women. The forces at play in this context are powerful and sometimes subtle. Abuse and its aftermath do not always come with clear warning signs.

[42] Does [J.R.] know [S.S.M.] better than anyone else? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Her contact with him over the last 23 months has been artificially constrained by his detention in custody. [J.R.] believes that [S.S.M.] becomes violent with alcohol. Because he is no longer drinking, she believes she will be safe. But the alcohol is not the only problem. When he assaulted a fellow inmate in October 2013, [S.S.M.] was in custody and, according to him, had no access to alcohol. On that occasion, he was sober, but angry. It was his anger that caused him to punch and kick the victim to the point of bodily injury.

[43] In short, [J.R.]’s assessment of her safety does not correspond to the objective facts. Given her emotional attachment, [J.R.] may wish to shield herself from the uncomfortable realities. She may choose to be wilfully or wishfully blind. She wants to believe [S.S.M.] will not assault her again. She may genuinely believe it. The difficulty is that she may genuinely be mistaken.

[44] This is not to say that [S.S.M.] will necessarily re-offend. I hope that he does not re-offend. I hope that he receives the counselling he needs to curb his anger and control his aggressive impulses. But that has yet to happen. I must consider the evidence that is currently before the court. If future behaviour is best predicted by past behaviour, there is a reasonable likelihood that [S.S.M.] will become violent again in the future.

[45] Even if I were inclined to allow [J.R.] to gamble with her own safety, I cannot permit her to gamble with the safety of children in her care. [J.R.] has custody of the child fathered by [S.S.M.]. She cares for her two other children, fathered by other partners, on alternate weekends. The presence of children in the home heightens the concern about domestic violence. Were an assault to take place, the children might be present to witness it or otherwise be affected by the dysfunction. This would not be in anyone’s interests, let alone the best interests of the children. If [S.S.M.] wishes to have contact with his child when he is released on probation, he may apply for an order from the court in the context of a family law proceeding: see R. v. Cowell, 2001 BCCA 158 at para. 13.

[46] For all of these reasons, the probation order will absolutely prohibit association and communication between [S.S.M.] and [J.R.]. I regret overriding [J.R.]’s wishes, but there is no meaningful alternative. The public interest demands that protection be a paramount consideration in this case – protection of [J.R.] and protection of other citizens who might be affected in the event of future offences.

The prospect of rehabilitation

[8] While I had serious concerns about S.S.M. reoffending, I encouraged him to attend counselling for anger management, alcohol abuse and other issues contributing to his violent tendencies. I said that it was open to him to come back before the court and seek a variation of the order if he could establish a material change in circumstance:

[48] I will make one final point before leaving this issue. The probation order will prohibit contact for three years, but [S.S.M.] may seek to vary the order if there is a material change in circumstances. If [S.S.M.] is serious about receiving counselling and working towards rehabilitation, and if he is able to lead evidence as to his progress, it may provide the court with the assurance that it needs to vary the order and permit contact between [S.S.M.] and [J.R.]. The balance is presently tilted in favour of protection, but it could shift. This may provide an additional incentive to [S.S.M.] to work toward his goals. The no contact order is set to run for three years, but its actual duration may, in the final analysis, be up to [S.S.M.] and the degree of his commitment to change.

The Application to Vary

[9] On the application to vary the probation order, S.S.M.’s probation officer testified as did S.S.M. He was self represented on the probation hearing, though he is represented by a lawyer in concurrent family proceedings.

Testimony of S.S.M.’s probation officer

[10] Karmen Rusnak has been S.S.M.’s probation officer for just over a year. She spoke about the positive steps that he has taken to address his issues. She also spoke about her ongoing concerns.

[11] S.S.M.’s attendance has been excellent. He has seen the probation psychologist twice a month; has been working with a case worker from the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA), and meets with a psychiatrist on a regular basis.

[12] S.S.M. has participated in programming including the PARS program, (Partner Assault Response Program), which he completed in May 2017. Ms. Rusnak suggested that S.S.M. repeat PARS, as he could get more out of it by doing it again, but he was not interested in doing so. Similarly, Ms. Rusnak expressed concern about S.S.M.’s lack of interest in addressing his issues with alcohol. As she put it, he remains ambivalent about alcohol counselling, despite the fact that it has historically been a catalyst for violent outburst. He did attend for treatment in the past, and made progress, but has not been engaged in treatment for alcohol abuse for the past year.

[13] Ms. Rusnak spoke in positive terms about S.S.M.’s progress. She testified that she saw a lot of change in him and believed that he is taking genuine steps toward rehabilitation. However, she testified that she maintained concerns about recurrence of domestic violence, given his history, and ongoing issues surrounding alcohol abuse.

[14] Ms. Rusnak testified that S.S.M. is in the intensive supervision stream, a category reserved for offenders who pose a high risk to victims. He is one of 30 individuals in this category. His case is reviewed on a monthly basis by a risk review team concerned with reducing the risk within the community. Ms. Rusnak anticipated that S.S.M. would remain under intensive supervision until such time as his probation order expires.

Breaches of the Probation Order

[15] Since imposition of the probation order, there have been several breaches of the non-association clause.

[16] At the sentencing hearing in 2015, I perceived that S.S.M. and J.R. were determined to see each other, despite any order made by the court. That was an accurate perception. S.S.M. has been convicted twice of breaches. In October 2016, he was convicted of breaching the non-association order as well as mischief, the latter relating to damage he caused to J.R.’s car. In May 2017, he was convicted of being in her home in Chatham, in breach of the order. In both instances, S.S.M. was sentenced to additional jail time, and a term of probation that runs concurrently with the order imposed by this court.

[17] There have also been several uncharged breaches.

[18] For example, in June 2015, the couple had one child. They now have a second daughter who was born approximately six months ago. Suffice to say, the birth of a second child during the term of probation leaves little doubt that the non-association clause was breached.

[19] S.S.M. candidly acknowledged other breaches in his testimony on the hearing. He testified that for a period of time, J.R. routinely came to pick him up in her car and drive him to her home in Chatham. The two spent most days together. S.S.M. testified that he no longer does this. The two stopped seeing each other about a year ago. S.S.M. explained that he did not want to go back to jail.

Testimony of S.S.M.

[20] S.S.M. testified on the hearing. He spoke about the steps he has taken. He testified that he did not know how much more he could do. He acknowledged consuming alcohol from time to time, but explained that his life is stressful.

[21] S.S.M. provided letters written by various professionals about his progress. One letter, from Dr. Russlan Aboushassan, a psychiatric resident, spoke about the improvement of his mental health issues, and offered the opinion that his alcohol use disorder is in remission. There is no date on this letter. A letter dated February 27, 2018, written by Dr. John Berek, attested to the positive changes in S.S.M.’s handle stresses in constructive and responsible ways.

[22] These letters had been obtained for purposes of family court proceedings in which S.S.M. seeks access to his children.

The future relationship between S.S.M. and J.R.

[23] S.S.M. testified that after his probation ends, in February 2019, he and J.R. are going to get married. As he put it: “I’m going home”.

[24] S.S.M. ended his testimony by asserting: “My love for J.R. trumps this probation order”. It is not entirely clear what was meant by this statement, though it suggests that S.S.M. sees his relationship with Mr. Rushlow as taking priority over the terms of the court order.

[25] J.R. is supportive of the request to vary the terms of probation. She wrote a letter to the probation officer expressing her views. They included the following:

By the looks of it and after everything I’ve seen through Family Court documents, [S.S.M.] seems to of changed a lot from who he was 5 years ago. Karmen had asked me a few times if I had any safety concerns if [S.S.M.] was granted his request, I told her I didn’t have any concerns as everyone changes over time and [S.S.M.] has proof to show he is changing for the better.

Concurrent family proceedings

[26] During the hearing, it came to light that S.S.M. and J.R. have been involved in child protection proceedings in the Family Court. Their two daughters have been removed from the custody of J.R. and are currently residing with one of her aunts.

[27] S.S.M. has applied to the Family Court for supervised access to his daughters. Part of the initial difficulty was that the probation order prohibited contact with his children. On July 21, 2017, I varied the order as it related to his first daughter to read as follows:

Communication/association with the child LS is permitted in a supervised access setting if and only if such access is determined to be appropriate by the Ontario Court of Justice. In the event that such access is not granted by the Ontario Court of Justice the clauses directing non-association with [S.R.]’s children shall remain in full force.

[28] Following the above variation, S.S.M. renewed his application for supervised access to his first daughter, but this request was denied.

[29] On June 29, 2018, I varied the order to provide for the same clause as it relates to S.S.M.’s second child.

[30] I do not know much more about the proceedings in family court, as neither the Crown nor the probation officer were privy to those proceedings. S.S.M.’s family lawyer was not in attendance on the application to vary. The only person in the room who had knowledge of both court processes was S.S.M. himself.

Concurrent criminal proceedings

[31] As noted above, S.S.M. was sentenced to short jail terms along with probation for his breaches of the probation order. The probationary terms imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice also prohibit contact with J.R.. S.S.M. has applied to vary those probation orders, just as he seeks to vary this one. The Crown advises that the Ontario Court of Justice has adjourned its decision pending the decision of this court.

Analysis

Positions of the parties

[32] S.S.M. seeks to terminate the no contact clause relating to J.R. He argues that two things have changed.

[33] First, he says that he has, though counselling and programming, addressed the issues that have led him to violence in the past. He is a changed man, and ready to embark upon a non-violent relationship with the woman he loves. He points out that J.R. supports the request. She wrote a letter to the court confirming her insistence that she is safe with S.S.M. and that she wishes to be with him.

[34] Secondly, S.S.M. points out that J.R. no longer has custody of her children. He notes that, in my sentencing decision I said that I was not willing to allow J.R. to gamble with the children’s safety. Because the children are no longer residing with her this is no longer a concern.

[35] The Crown opposes the variation as it relates to J.R.. The Crown relies on S.S.M.’s history of domestic violence, his criminal record, and the testimony of his probation officer which, while positive, reflects continuing concern over S.S.M.’s violent tendencies. The Crown argues that there has not been sufficient change to warrant a judicial condonation of contact between the offender and victim. The Crown also notes that the parties have largely disregarded the court’s order on several occasions, and have spent considerable time together despite the no contact clause. The Crown relies on S.S.M.’s assertion in his evidence that “my love for Jessica trumps a probation order” as further proof of his disrespect for the court’s process.

S.S.M.'s rehabilitation: The Current Record

[36] S.S.M. is to be congratulated for the steps he has taken to change his life and address his issues. He has attended programming. He has seen counsellor and psychiatrists. He has an excellent attendance record with his probation officer. I detected a marked change in S.S.M.’s demeanour before the court. In 2015, he was openly contemptuous and hostile toward the court. On the last two appearances, he was polite and respectful.

[37] It is hoped that S.S.M. will continue to follow through with counselling and other programs even after his probation order expires.

[38] S.S.M.’s probation officer is very supportive of S.S.M. and has seen him achieve personal growth. However, she has identified red flags that warrant continuing concern.

[39] First, S.S.M. was unwilling to re-attend on the PARS program, despite his probation officers encouragement to do so. This program is directly relevant to the conduct that S.S.M. is trying to change – his tendency to be violent with domestic partners. It is not clear why he was unwilling to repeat a program that is central to his rehabilitation. It is possible that he is tired of the process and just wants to be done. He said as much during his testimony. If that be the case it does not bode well for the future.

[40] Second, S.S.M. is ambivalent about attending programs dealing with alcohol abuse. If the past is any indication – and it usually is – alcohol is a gateway to violence for S.S.M. Most of his antecedents have been fueled by intoxication, including the attempt to run over J.R. with his truck in 2013.

[41] Third, the backdrop to all of this is S.S.M.’s history of domestic violence. I have to hope that his desire to change his life is genuine. However, in light of his history, good intentions may not be enough to control his anger. These are long standing issues. I do not suggest that S.S.M. cannot change his behavioural patterns. I believe with the proper work and commitment he can. The question is whether he is now in a place where these issues are under control.

[42] Fourth, I also note the extent to which the parties have knowingly breached the non-association order to date. The evidence would indicate that, for a time, S.S.M. and J.R. had regular contact with one another. If there has been compliance over the last while, it is likely more a function of S.S.M.’s desire to avoid jail than it is a respect for court orders. S.S.M. might have best expressed the point when he said that his love for J.R. trumped any probation order. S.S.M. has already been punished for two breaches, with jail terms, and it is not my intention to punish him again, nor to punish him for uncharged breaches. However, the blatant disregard of the order in the past means that S.S.M. does not come before this court with clean hands. J.R. has been an equally willing and blatant participant in the breaches of the non-association clause.

[43] Fifth, I have considered J.R.’s request that she have contact with S.S.M.. I will say little about this, save to note that she took the same position in 2015, when S.S.M. was being sentenced for trying to run her down with a pick-up truck.

[44] Finally, the record before me is not complete; it does not contain evidence and information from concurrent proceedings. I will turn to that next.

Missing Links: Lack of Coordination between the criminal and family court

[45] At present, three separate courts are considering S.S.M.’s risk of re-offending. Two different agencies – the police and CAS – have conducted separate investigations. The cases have been argued by different lawyers in different courts. Each court has received different items of evidence.

[46] If this case were a jigsaw puzzle, I would not be able to complete the picture. I am missing important pieces relating to the proceedings in Family Court. I presume that the family court is missing important pieces relating to the criminal proceedings. A partial image may misrepresent. One can only perceive the full picture when all of the interlocking segments are combined.

[47] I am aware that S.S.M. and J.R. have been involved in child protection proceedings in the Family Court. However, I know very little about these proceedings. I know that the children have been removed from the care of J.R. and are currently in the care of one of her relatives. I know that S.S.M. has been unsuccessful in persuading the court that he should have supervised access to his children. I do not have access to the evidence that was led in the Family Court.

[48] The only person before me that knew what was happening in both courts was S.S.M.. S.S.M. may have offered this information out of a perceived duty of candour, or he may have offered it because he perceived that it supported his application. Whatever his motivation, there are limitations flowing from the fact that: a) he is a self-represented litigant; and b) his interest in the outcome may cause him to consciously or subconsciously report in a self-serving fashion.

[49] The Family Court is not directly concerned with protecting the safety of J.R. Its concern is the protection of the children. However, it stands to reason that the information about risk of harm to the children may shed light on the risk of harm to J.R.. The proceedings in the Family Court involve the same individuals, the same family unit, and similar issues of risk assessment. One might expect that, through its interaction with the family, the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) has developed insights into the family dynamic which could shed light on the issues before this court.

[50] Neither the Crown nor S.S.M.'s probation officer were able to offer information about the proceedings in the family court. This is not a criticism of their skill or their diligence. It is a function of the fact that criminal and family proceedings are traditionally seen as independent of one another. The lack of coordination between criminal and family justice systems has, for some years, been identified as an impediment to justice. Potential solutions have been identified, but have yet to be implemented. There is still no clear, practical answer to the problem.

[51] Domestic violence will often give rise to concurrent proceedings in criminal and family court. The family court may be concerned with child protection litigation or issues of custody and access in matrimonial disputes. Criminal and family proceedings are defined by different objectives and governed by different rules. Yet, there are important points of convergence. Where family violence is alleged, or established, the courts must consider the risk of harm posed by the offender to others. Whether it be criminal, child protection or matrimonial litigation, questions of contact and association are often in issue. The assessment of risk is a complicated and imperfect calculus. The more information that can be made available to a court, the better the decision will reflect the realities of the family unit. Of course, at a criminal trial, there are restrictions on admissibility of evidence that may not apply in Family Court. However, when the issue is one of bail, or sentence, or variation of a probation order, the law accommodates a more flexible approach to the receipt of information.

[52] If criminal and family courts are dealing with the same factual issues, affecting the same family, one might expect there to be a mechanism for the sharing of information between the two sectors. Yet, there tends to be little interaction between these systems. The criminal and family courts seem to operate as separate silos, through which cases move vertically, but not horizontally, toward completion. The silo approach or “two solitudes” model does a disservice to the administration of justice. It can lead to conflicting rulings and incomplete records. Important information and evidence can fall through the cracks. In the worst case scenario, the lack of coordination might result in the recurrence of serious violence. As noted in Making the Links in Family Violence Cases: Collaboration among the Family, Child Protection and Criminal Justice Systems, Vol. 1, the Report of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Ad Hoc Working Group on Family Violence (Ottawa: Dept. of Justice Canada, November 2013) [“FTP Report”]:

Because the system is fragmented and there is a lack of communication, sometimes, no one actor has a full appreciation of the nature of risk to victims.

Numerous domestic violence death reviews, inquiries and coroners reports have cited the lack of coordination between officials operating in these systems as a contributing factor in tragic family homicides.

[53] The lack of coordination between criminal and family courts has been the subject of academic commentary: see e.g. Dr. Linda C. Neilson, Enhancing Safety: When Domestic Violence Cases are in Multiple Legal Systems (Ottawa: Dept. of Justice Canada, 2013) [“ Enhancing Safety ”]; Joseph Di Luca, Erin Dann & Breese Davies, Best Practices where there is Family Violence: Criminal Law Perspective (Ottawa: Dept. of Justice Canada, 2013) [Di Luca, Dann & Davies]; Nicholas Bala & Kate Kehoe, Concurrent Legal Proceedings in Cases of Family Violence: The Child Protection Perspective (Ottawa: Dept. of Justice Canada, 2015). It has also been the subject of study by the Department of Justice, as evidenced by the report cited above. It is beyond the scope of this ruling to engage in a comprehensive discussion of the issue. Suffice to say that this case is one in which the silos are firmly in place. There is no clear mechanism to allow me access to the evidence heard at the child protection proceedings.

[54] I initially contemplated that I would obtain the transcript of those proceedings or listen to the digital audio recording. However, that was not a simple matter, given the privacy interests attaching to those proceedings. Under s. 87(4) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (CYFSA), a hearing is presumed to be held in the absence of the public, unless the court rules to the contrary. Similarly, there are strict controls over who can obtain access to the transcript of the proceedings. Section 87(10) provides that:

(10) No person except a party or a party’s lawyer shall be given a copy of a transcript of the hearing, unless the court orders otherwise.

[55] The court is defined in s. 2(1) as follows:

“court” means the Ontario Court of Justice or the Family Court of the Superior Court of Justice; (“tribunal”)

[56] As a Superior Court judge, sitting in a non-Family Court, I have no jurisdiction to direct that the transcript be released for review.

[57] The judge who does have jurisdiction, and who presided over the child protection proceedings, quite properly advised that she will not make an order releasing the transcript unless there is a hearing, on notice to S.S.M., J.R., and the CAS, on the question of whether the transcript should be released.

[58] I have considered whether I should request that such a hearing take place. I have decided, instead, to direct that there be a hearing in this court which brings together the various parties, agencies, and lawyers involved with this family unit. I have chosen this path not because I wish to assume primacy over the Family Court. To the contrary, that court is best situated to assess whether the children are in need of protection. I have chosen this path because somewhere, somehow, all of the relevant actors should be brought together by someone. The fragmented proceedings have left both courts in the dark on important issues. Because this matter is before me, I am directing that the hearing occur in this court. I will continue to defer to the Family Court on issues falling uniquely within its jurisdiction.

[59] There is good reason to join the puzzle pieces in this case. While S.S.M. has taken steps toward rehabilitation, he is still identified as a high risk offender. S.S.M. and J.R. intend to resume their cohabitation as a family. When the probation order expires in February 2019, the requirement of no contact between S.S.M. and J.R. will be replaced, overnight, by an unrestricted contact, with no programs to assist with the transition. The children may or may not remain in the care of a family member. S.S.M. has been denied the right to have supervised access. This constellation raises very real issues of risk and safety.

[60] These issues are best addressed by a holistic approach that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. It can only enhance the decision making process to hear all of the relevant information and evidence, and canvass all of the interested agencies for their level of comfort or concern. Issues arising from domestic violence deserve a coordinated response. This is the time to do it. This family is at a crossroads. Safety concerns should be addressed before it is too late to do so.

[61] In short, this case calls for the court to break down the silos, or, at the very least, create a workable pathway between them. This is necessary to permit an informed decision on the probation issue. Incidentally, this approach might also assist other actors to discharge their responsibilities in a coordinated fashion.

Conclusion

[62] I direct that there be a hearing, on a date to be scheduled, to be attended by the parties, S.S.M. and the Crown. The hearing shall be held on notice to the following parties: the relevant Children’s Aid Society, counsel acting for the CAS; J.R., counsel acting for J.R.; and Sharon Murphy, counsel for S.S.M. in the Family Court. Such notice may be given through service of this decision. I am specifically requesting that the CAS and Ms. Murphy attend the hearing. I will leave it to J.R. to determine whether or not she voluntarily wishes to attend.

[63] I am asking that the parties or their representatives attend before me on Thursday, August 2, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., to speak to the issue of scheduling.

Original signed by “ Pomerance J. ” Renee M. Pomerance Justice Released: Decision: Oral and in writing – July 20, 2018