Court File and Parties

Court File No.: D26891/19 Date: 2019-03-20 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Michele Patricia Lennox, Applicant And: Alan Michael Lennox, Respondent

Before: Mr Justice Ramsay

Counsel: Richard C. Corbett for Applicant Respondent in person

Heard: March 20, 2019

Endorsement

[1] This motion is urgent because the status quo is unacceptable for two minor children. Leave is given to bring the motion before the case conference.

[2] The parties have cohabited in the Applicant’s residence since 2015. They married in 2015 and separated in 2019. The Applicant is the mother of a 15-year-old daughter from a previous relationship. The child lives with her and visits her father in Hamilton occasionally. The Respondent is the father of a seven-year-old son. The Respondent shares residence equally with the boy’s mother who lives in St Catharines.

[3] The parties separated in January 2019 because of the Respondent’s psychological abuse. The Applicant moved with her daughter to a shelter. Since then the Respondent has subjected her to repeated telephone calls and a campaign of defamation.

[4] The matrimonial home is owned by the Applicant and its costs are carried by her exclusively. The Respondent’s income is limited to ODSP. The disability is mental illness.

[5] It is obvious that the parties cannot stay together. If the Respondent remains in the matrimonial home, the Applicant’s daughter will have to change high schools mid-term and go stay with her father. The Respondent will not keep up the matrimonial home because he is unable to do so. His son will be living in a deteriorating home that will be under threat of foreclosure. On the other hand, if the Applicant moves back into the matrimonial home, she will be able to keep it up and maximize its value for equalization purposes. The Respondent’s son can live with his mother, if necessary. He already spends half his time there. He would not necessarily have to change schools, but a change in grade 2 is much less disruptive than a change in the middle of a high school term.

[6] It seems to me that the Respondent should be able to manage with his ODSP and some short term spousal support. Spousal support can be addressed at the case conference. To me, the consideration that tips the balance in the circumstances is the best interests of the children affected (Family Law Act, s.24 (3) (a)).

[7] I am not sure that a restraining order under s.40 of the Act is necessary at this point. I observe, however, that the Respondent would be well-advised to communicate with the Applicant only through her lawyer.

[8] I order as follows:

a. The Applicant is given exclusive possession of the matrimonial home at 8341 Breadner Crescent in Niagara Falls. b. The Respondent is ordered to vacate the matrimonial home forthwith. c. The Niagara Regional Police are requested to enforce this order. d. Costs of the motion are fixed at $750 and reserved to the trial judge.

J.A. Ramsay J. Date: 2019-03-20