Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: C889/11-4 DATE: August 3, 2018 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO FAMILY COURT
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 87(8) OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
RE: CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF LONDON AND MIDDLESEX, applicant AND: T.R. and G.R., respondents
BEFORE: VOGELSANG J.
COUNSEL: Denise E. Marshall for the Society Nicole Nussbaum (duty counsel) for T.R. (mother) Alexander Hodder for G.R. (father) Salim Khot for the children, K.R. and N.R. Edward J. Mann for the moving party E.N.H.
HEARD: July 27, 2018
Endorsement
[1] In her March 9, 2018 parenting capacity assessment with respect to T.R. and G.R., Dr. Louise Sas stated that the “history in this matter is complicated and disturbing.” To me, that is understatement.
[2] The case involves two young girls: K. is almost sixteen and N. is soon to be nine years old. The former is described by Dr. Sas as “lovely, intelligent” and the latter as “delightful.” They were apprehended from their mother’s care in 2013 and placed with their father where they stay.
[3] E.N.H. is T.R.’s sister. This status review application is to be heard in the third week of September, about six weeks from now. The trial management conference has been completed. Now Ms. H. advances a motion to be added as a party respondent, saying that would permit her to make a claim for placement of the two girls with her, subject to supervision or, in the alternative, to seek a custody order under s. 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1.
[4] After a long trial before Aston J. in 2016, T.R.’s access was recognized as very problematic. She insisted that G.R. was abusing the children and levels serious accusations against him. Not blameless, he also seems to have pestered her with complaints to the authorities. After a remarkably full review of the whole “difficult … and certainly complex” family proceeding, Dr. Sas recommended that T.R.’s access to the children be stopped, possibly in N.’s case to recommence if T.R. demonstrates substantial emotional and behavioural change.
[5] The Children's Aid Society, the father and counsel for the children are strongly opposed to the addition of Ms. H. as a party. I agree that the order sought should not be made.
[6] In A.M. v. Valoris Pour Enfants et Adultes de Prescott-Russell, 2017 CarswellOnt 10733 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal affirmed that, combined with determinative necessity and a lack of probable delay, both the best interest of the child and consistency of the potential proposed plan with the child’s best interests must be considered before a party is added under r. 7(5) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, citing Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. H.(S.), 2002 ONSC 46218, [2002] O.J. No. 4491 (Sup. Ct.).
[7] Ms. H. asserts that her plan is to achieve custody or a supervised placement of the girls with her and to involve T.R. in their lives, but the affidavit of Jeannine Curts, the Society worker, shows that she is only a stalking horse for T.R. and has completely bought into the latter’s firm fixed delusion about G.R. sexually mistreating K. and N. While the ability of an existing party to present or support a plan of placement of a child with a non-party can be a significant consideration in deciding whether or not to add that non-party, the Court must determine whether the plans merit consideration (not whether or not they would succeed). See Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H.(D.), 2009 ONCJ 2 (Ont. Ct.).
[8] In my view, Ms. H.’s plan falls far short of meriting consideration. Her belief in the bizarre complaints raised by T.R. and, to some extent, her minimizing the past sexual misconduct of her son D. combine to satisfy me that the best interests of these children require the dismissal of the motion.
[9] If costs are claimed, written submissions (four pages maximum) may be submitted to my assistant within 30 days.
“Justice Henry Vogelsang” Justice Henry Vogelsang Date: August 3, 2018