NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-40090-01 DATE: 20190325 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – FAMILY COURT

RE: Amy Nicole Warr, Applicant -and- Wayne Phillip Riettie, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice R.S. Jain

COUNSEL: Amy Nicole Warr, Self-Represented Wayne Phillip Riettie, Self-Represented

HEARD: December 5, 6 and 7, 2018 and February 11 and 15, 2019

ENDORSEMENT

BACKGROUND

[1] This was a five day trial that commenced on December 5, 2018. As there were only three days remaining in the fall trial sittings, the trial could not be completed during the scheduled fall trial sittings. Both parties agreed they would only need an additional two days to complete the trial. An additional two days were scheduled in February 2019. The trial was completed on February 15, 2019.

[2] My decision was delivered orally and an Order was taken out by the court staff on February 15, 2019. On that day, I made the following final order:

Re: Child Support

1. Paragraph 3 of the Order of Justice Bennett dated March 29, 2017 shall be final. The Respondent Father shall pay the Applicant Mother child support in the amount of $150.00 per month in based upon his ODSP income of $13,276.00.

Re: Custody

2. Sole custody and primary residence of the children: Marley Lisa Riettie born June 3, 2006 (Marley) and Christiana Erin Riettie born September 5, 2008 (Christiana) shall be with the Mother;
3. Brooklin Amber Riettie born August 13, 2000 (Brooklin) is now the age of majority and shall no longer be subject to any orders regarding custody or access.
4. The Respondent Father may make inquiries and be given information regarding the children’s (Marley and Christiana) health and education from their family doctor and schools.
5. All communication regarding the children between the Father and Mother will be through “Our Family Wizard.” The Father and Mother shall communicate with each other on their cell phone only if there is an emergency regarding the children or the Father when the children are in their care.
6. Both parents shall not speak to the children in a derogatory or negative manner about the other parent, or about this trial or custody and access issues. Both parents shall make their best efforts to ensure that third parties do not speak to the children in a derogatory or negative manner about the parents, or about this trial or custody and access issues.
7. The Respondent Father shall not speak to the children about his cancer diagnosis, illness or prognosis unless the Applicant Mother has consented in writing and only in the following circumstances: (a) the Applicant Mother is present; (b) the conversation is within a therapeutic setting, (in the presence of a medical or therapeutic professional to appropriately manage the information and conversation in a child focused way having regard for the children’s ages and stages of development).

Regarding Access:

8. The Respondent Father shall continue to have access with the children Marley and Christiana as follows: (a) Commencing February 15, 2019, two hours every second weekend at the same location being Durham Regional Supervised Access Centre in Pickering/Ajax. (b) Telephone access on Mondays and Wednesdays and on the children’s birthdays between 7:00 pm and 8:30 pm. If the children are not available, the Applicant Mother will ensure they call the Respondent Father at a convenient time. (c) Email access up to two times per week. (d) Additional access (whether at the SAC or at the hospital) as arranged between the parties in advance and in accordance with the wishes and preferences of the children and at the discretion of the Applicant Mother.
9. Access visits shall not take place at the Respondent Father’s home or the home of anyone unknown to the children.
10. The Respondent Father shall not communicate with the children through social media. The Respondent Father shall not discuss or post anything about the custody/access issues regarding the children through social media.
11. The Respondent Father shall not use any illegal or un-prescribed substances 12 hours prior to or during his access visits.
12. If one of the children or the Father cannot attend access due to illness, the parties shall give as much advance notice as possible through Our Family Wizard or through cell phone and arrange make up access.
13. The Respondent Father shall provide his medical team with the contact information of the Applicant Mother. The Respondent Father shall provide a limited consent to his Doctors/Medical care team to contact the Applicant/Mother directly to provide an update or urgent/emergency information about the Respondent Father’s health status.
14. The Applicant Mother shall arrange therapy and/or bereavement counselling for the children.
15. The Applicant Mother shall arrange and ensure the children participate in therapy and/or bereavement counselling with the Father if it is made available through the Palliative Care Team.

REASONS

[3] On February 15, 2019, the last day of the trial, the respondent was not feeling well, (he has cancer). He was visibly in pain, (wincing and unable to stand). After submissions were completed, he asked to be excused so he could go home. He requested that his mother, Joyce Riettie, remain in the court to receive the decision. I allowed this on the understanding that Ms. Riettie would not be addressing the court on his behalf and that the written reasons for my decision would follow at a later date. Both the applicant and respondent consented to same.

[4] Before the respondent left, I made some comments in court directly to both parties. I acknowledged to both parties how difficult this has been for both of them. I commended them both for their civility and behaviour towards each other during the trial. I advised them that although they both disagree of what is best for their children, I know they both love their children very much and that all three of their children love their parents. I told them these are deeply personal and painful issues and that although one or both of them may or may not like all or part of my decision, I will have made it in accordance with the law and the evidence that was presented during this trial. I advised them that I am bound to make this decision based on one overarching principle, that being, the best interests of the children.

[5] This matter has a very elevated level of conflict between the parties. The respondent and applicant had exhausted all attempts to negotiate, mediate, and conference in family court. They had utilized the services of the Supervised Access Centre and/or private family or friend supervision. They had received the report from a Clinical Investigator, Tamara Genesove, of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL), dated September 18, 2017. During the trial, I offered the parties the opportunity for a mid-trial conference with another judge, however, this offer was not accepted by both parties. All of these valuable services are designed to help parties lower the level of conflict and possibly narrow or settle their issues without going to trial. Although these services work for many children and families, this was not the case for applicant and respondent. What follows are my reasons for the above final decision and order.

[6] This trial came before me as a result of the respondent’s Motion to Change the Final Order of Gilmore J., dated April 11, 2013. Justice Gilmore’s Order is the following:

1. The applicant Amy Nicole Warr will have full custody, care and control of the children of the marriage, namely Brooklin Amber Riettie born August 13, 2000, Marley Lisa Riettie born June 3, 2006, and Christiana Erin Riettie born September 5, 2008.
2. The respondent Wayne Phillip Riettie may have reasonable access to the children on reasonable notice to the applicant Amy Nicole Warr under her supervision, on dates and times agreed upon by the applicant in advance.

[7] The respondent’s Motion to Change, dated January 14, 2016, is seeking:

(a) Joint custody of the children: Brooklin Amber Riettie born August 13, 2000 (Brooklin), Marley Lisa Riettie born June 3, 2006 (Marley) and Christiana Erin Riettie born September 5, 2008 (Christiana); (b) Gradually increasing access to return to a regular alternate weekend schedule access from Friday at 5:00 pm to Sunday at 12:00 noon as set out in Minutes of Settlement dated December 12, 2014; and, (c) Equal decision making and information regarding the children’s health, education and activities;

[8] The applicant’s Response to Motion to Change, dated February 12, 2016, is seeking an order:

(a) Dismissing the respondent’s claims; (b) Sole custody of the children; (c) That the respondent’s access with the children Marley and Christiana be supervised at the Durham Supervised Access Program located in Ajax, Ontario for up to 2 hours; (d) Communication between the respondent and applicant about child related issues take place electronically via the Our Family Wizard program; and, (e) Child support both ongoing and retroactive.

CHILD SUPPORT

[9] The parties agreed on the issue of child support. As such, I made paragraph 3 of Bennett J.’s Order, dated March 29, 2017, final. Both parties consented that the respondent shall continue to pay the applicant $150.00 per month based upon his ODSP income of $13,276.00. I relied on the Child Support Guidelines [1] and ss. 17 (6.2) and (6.4) of the Divorce Act [2] which gives the court authority to make an order for child support if the court is satisfied that the agreement between the parties regarding child support is reasonable and that this arrangement has been made for the support and benefit of the children. I am not making any order regarding the retroactive claims as I heard no evidence on this issue during the trial.

CUSTODY AND ACCESS

[10] As this was a motion to change a final order, the two contested issues for me to determine are:

(a) Has there been a material change in circumstances regarding the custody and access of the children since the Order of Gilmore J., dated April 11, 2013? (b) If there has been a material change in circumstances, the court must determine what is in the best interests of the children in light of these “new” material circumstances?

Has there been a material change in circumstances regarding the custody and access of the children since the Order of Gilmore J., dated April 11, 2013?

[11] Based upon the evidence before me, I find that there has been a material change in the circumstances regarding the custody and access for the children since the Order of Gilmore J., dated April 11, 2013.

[12] The parties were together for a number of years (since approximately 1998) prior to their marriage on March 13, 2009. They separated in 2010. Justice Gilmore’s Order was made on April 11, 2013, almost 6 years ago. The parties were ultimately divorced on August 1, 2013. The applicant’s Application was uncontested by the respondent, although he had been served. The respondent never filed an Answer or participated in the original proceedings. He did not bring his Motion to Change until 2016.

[13] A great deal of time has passed since the Order was made and a lot has happened during those years. The undisputed evidence presented in this trial was that the respondent was an admitted addict and had abused illegal drugs both during the relationship and after separation. His contact with the applicant and children was sporadic after the separation. There were times when he was living on the streets, homeless and unemployed. The respondent admits that he was going through very difficult times at the time of Gilmore J.’s Order. The respondent attended for treatment/rehabilitation at least three different times. The applicant has had primary care of the children since separation, and has since remarried.

[14] Both parties admit they were engaged in negotiating changes to the access in 2014. They attempted mediation and negotiations with counsel. The applicant admitted signing Minutes of Settlement on November 7, 2014. However, she says she was unaware whether the respondent had signed them. She never received a signed copy back and no order was ever made pursuant to them.

[15] As a result of continued problems with the access, the applicant “revoked” her consent by way of a letter from her lawyer, Louise Morin, dated March 2, 2015, to the respondent’s lawyer, Rono Baijnath. [3] The applicant said she had never seen a copy of the fully signed Minutes until the respondent filed his Motion to Change.

[16] The applicant gave evidence that she had done her best to encourage and support safe healthy access for the children and the respondent; however, the children had been expressing resistance to the access visits for various reasons, and Brooklin stopped going altogether. [4] Depending upon their age and level of development, the ability of the children to express views and preferences is enough to justify a review of custody and access. The children were approximately aged 12, 6 and 4 at the time of the order. Now, they are 18, 12, and 10. The OCL was requested and they appointed a clinical social worker to provide a report to the court, which they did. [5]

[17] Another very important and recent change in circumstances was the fact that the respondent is seriously ill with cancer. His health began declining very quickly during this trial between the months of December 2018 and February 2019. [6] On Monday February 11, 2019, he advised the court that he is terminal and that he may only have a few months left. He advised that he has been offered palliative care in his home to start and may be moving into the hospital as early as the following week under treatment of the palliative care team at the Durham Regional Cancer Centre.

[18] Accordingly, I find that all of the changes set out above amount to a material change in circumstances warranting a review of the Order of Gilmore J., dated April 11, 2013.

What is in the best interests of the children in light of the material change in circumstances?

[19] When considering the merits of any application for custody or access, the court must base its decision on the best interests of the children. In Gordon v. Goertz [7], McLachlin J. confirmed that in determining the best interests of a child, “[e]ach case turns on its own unique circumstances and the only issue is the best interests of the child in the particular circumstances of the case.” The best interests of children is determined by reviewing the many factors as set out in ss. 24(2), (3) and (4) of the Children’s Law Reform Act [8] (CLRA). In this matter, the court was required to consider all the child’s needs and circumstances set out in s. 24(2), 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 be reasonably 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 or 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 or access to the child for the children case 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 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.

[20] In addition to the above factors, in accordance with s. 24(3) of the CLRA, a person’s past conduct shall be considered only in accordance with s. 24(4); or “if the court is satisfied that the conduct is otherwise relevant to the person’s ability to act as a parent.”

[21] The respondent’s evidence was that he has been rehabilitated and living in very stable circumstances for many years. He further alleged that despite the Order of Gilmore J., the applicant had not been “reasonable” in arranging access for him and the children. He also relied upon the Minutes of Settlement signed by the respondent on December 12, 2014, that indicated the parties actually had joint custody and the respondent had regular weekend access with the children. [9] The respondent alleged that regular weekend access was withheld, interfered with, or changed by the applicant on numerous occasions. He alleged that the applicant was not supporting or encouraging the access and she was not acting in the best interests of the children.

[22] The applicant’s evidence was that the respondent was not completely rehabilitated or mentally or physically stable. She says that she is, and has been trying her best to protect the children and has made parenting decisions in their best interests. She denies all the allegations respondent has made against her. The applicant says she has used her discretion to support, arrange and encourage the respondent’s reasonable access with the children from the time of separation to present; whether it was in her home, in the community, in the respondent’s home, supervised or unsupervised.

[23] At the beginning of the respondent’s cross-examination of the applicant, he attempted to point out that the Application filed by the applicant was incorrect because the parties made a brief attempt at reconciliation in the summer of 2011. [10] He questioned her credibility in all court documents as a result of this alleged incorrect statement. However, the applicant explained that they never fully reconciled and they never lived together again after the separation in 2010. The respondent had never disputed the divorce in 2013 and did not bring this motion to change until 2016. I found that the respondent’s efforts to discredit the applicant on a possible minor problem with the original court documents was the first of many examples of him attacking the applicant instead of the problem. Throughout the trial, the respondent was focused on his negative perceptions of the applicant, the separation, and even the children.

[24] I found that the evidence presented at the trial was overwhelmingly supportive of the applicant’s position. As a result, I preferred the evidence of the applicant over the respondent on the issue of custody and access. The children have strong love, trust, affection and emotional ties with their mother, the applicant. [11] They also have a strong connection with their step-father who resides with them. I accepted the evidence of the applicant that despite her efforts to communicate, support and encourage access through the years, the respondent did not focus on the children or their best interests.

[25] It is undisputed that the children have resided in the primary care of the applicant since separation in 2010. They have lived in her sole custody since the Order of Gilmore J. Unfortunately, when the respondent was finally able to overcome his addiction issues and have access with the children, he focused on the separation and his negative perceptions of the applicant and the children. As a result, the children have suffered emotionally and experienced a great deal of anxiety. They became resistant to unsupervised access and/or overnight access visits, for which the respondent again blamed the applicant.

[26] The applicant gave evidence that she has tried to address these concerns through the years by arranging and providing the children with counselling and shorter day-visits and/or supervised access in order to ensure the children’s safety and well-being. [12] For a period of time in 2014, the applicant arranged for supervised visits to take place in her home and later in the same year, in the community. These visits were supervised by a family friend, Kim Page. Ms. Page advised the court that she had several concerns about the access. During the visits in the applicant’s home, the respondent went upstairs in the house and was, “looking around for things.” He also “lingered after visits,” (it seemed to her he was waiting for the applicant to come home). Once, during a June 2014 visit, the respondent wanted to speak to Brooklin alone; he walked ahead of Ms. Page and the younger kids and isolated Brooklin. To Ms. Page, it seemed like Brooklin was visibly uncomfortable and needed intervention so she put a stop to the one-on-one discussion. She said that during the visits, there was always tension, and the respondent made many negative comments about the applicant and about the children’s behaviour, blaming it on the applicant. She advised the court that she stopped supervising visits because she was unable to control the respondent.

[27] Ms. Page further advised the court that the respondent made many negative comments about the applicant on Facebook like: the applicant was alienating the kids, comments about court, questioning Marley’s paternity, a video with Marley crying and (in Ms. Page’s opinion) the respondent was taunting Marley. [13] She advised the applicant as she was concerned because Brooklin was on Facebook and these posts were visible to her. She advised the court that the respondent has since stopped posting things like this on Facebook, but he continues to post “troubling things” such as “racism and the cops etc. and about a mentally ill girl threatening suicide.” [14]

[28] The applicant advised the court that when some overnight unsupervised visits started in late 2014, problems began immediately. The respondent exposed the children to inappropriate parental conflict by:

(a) discussing the applicant negatively with the children; (b) recording the children when they were crying and making them listen or watch it; (c) making numerous negative Facebook postings about the separation and about the applicant and the children; and, (d) having inappropriate email conversations with the children. [15]

[29] The applicant further alleged that the respondent has not provided the children with a physically safe environment in his home because of the type of people who attended at his home and conflicts that have occurred during his visits with the children. Brooklin complained about strange people coming in and out during visits. The respondent had black eyes when the children visited and he locked himself and these people in his room. The respondent told Brooklin that she had “a bad attitude like her mother.” The children told the applicant that the respondent spoke negatively to them about the applicant and shared court documents, correspondence and recordings of their conversations. The respondent sometimes shortened visits himself because he said he “couldn’t handle the children.”

[30] Very quickly, the children became more and more resistant to the visits. In early 2015, Brooklin told the applicant she would “rather be dead then go to Dads.” The applicant told the court that she took Brooklin to a counsellor and it was decided with the counsellor that seeing respondent was not good for her so Brooklin wrote her father a letter and tried to explain her feelings, (which the respondent posted on Facebook). [16]

[31] The respondent did not dispute the authenticity of these the above recordings, texts, emails and Facebook messages. He actually presented many of them during his evidence. He defended them by saying that the applicant is just showing it all in a negative light and he was in fact “educating the children” or disciplining them for crossing boundaries, or giving the children “the truth,” which he thinks is within his rights as a parent.

[32] The court considered the respondent’s past conduct as it was highly relevant to his ability to act as a parent. The respondent’s past conduct included an admitted history of serious mental health concerns, substance abuse/addiction, unemployment, homelessness and transiency. There were many long periods of time since the separation where there was little to no contact because he had either disappeared entirely or he was in-and-out of treatment.

[33] The respondent is to be commended for attending treatment for his substance abuse. His evidence was that he has been rehabilitated and he is no longer an addict. He is now living in his own residence in Oshawa. However, despite this progress, there was no evidence provided that he had addressed his mental health. According to Homewood Health Centre during his second admission, the respondent “presented as arrogant, angry and resistant to change.” [17] He was discharged early having not completed the full Homewood Addiction Program. He was diagnosed with having: a cocaine dependence; Narcissistic Personality Disorder; chronic Hepatitis B; moderate to severe stressors (homelessness, financial problems, suspended from job, and separated from wife and children). [18]

[34] Throughout the trial, I found that the respondent was primarily focused on his own views of the history of the parties’ relationship and his own experiences. He minimized his behaviour and placed the blame squarely on the applicant for the breakdown of his relationship with the children and many of his own challenges. He showed very little insight or compassion for the children’s struggles and for the grief they must have experienced due to the separation, the lengthy gaps in contact, and the exposure to parental conflict. He dismissed the OCL report as “biased” and would not give any respect or credit to the children’s views and preferences as expressed therein. He called his children “rude, spoiled” and “disrespectful” and “entitled and unruly.” This description was directly contradicted by the evidence of the applicant and the OCL.

[35] The evidence of the applicant was that the children were very good, well-behaved and intelligent. She said that,

Brooklin is a great child, on the honor role in high school and getting high 90’s in her courses. She also has a part-time job. Marley is in grade 7 is also a great student on the honor role. She plays soccer and is being scouted. Chrissy is also a great student. She is in dance and is excelling quickly. They are very good children and I couldn’t ask for any better.

[36] The well-adjustment and resilience of the children spoke volumes with respect to the parenting they had received from their primary caregiver, being the applicant.

[37] The views and preferences of the children were presented to the court by way of the report filed by the OCL. The OCL Clinical Investigator, Ms. Genesove, completed her report on September 18, 2017. [19] She was cross-examined by the parties during the trial. In her report, she made 10 recommendations:

1. The children should be in Ms. Warr’s sole custody.
2. Mr. Riettie should have access to Marley and Christiana on alternate Saturdays for five hours.
3. The first three months of visits should include pick-up and drop-off at the Ajax Community Centre.
4. Subsequent visits should include pick-up and drop-off at the Oshawa YMCA.
5. The children should not be taken to Mr. Riettie’s home.
6. If one of the children cannot attend due to important other activities, the parties should agree on an appropriate time to make up the access.
7. On special holidays, additional access could occur at the grandmother’s home or in the community as agreed to by the parties.
8. Mr. Riettie to have independent access to the children’s educational records, including in-person interviews.
9. Mr. Riettie to have independent access to Christiana and Marley’s health records.
10. The parents and the children should engage with a counsellor in order to improve the relationship between Mr. Riettie and the children.

[38] When asked by the respondent why she made a recommendation for sole custody, Ms. Genesove said: “Generally we are asked about whether the parties have been able to cooperatively parent. I didn’t see any evidence that the parties had been able to agree or communicate.”

[39] Ms. Genesove described the children as “lovely” and said,

They were all three articulate, expressed themselves openly. I typically ask open ended questions and all three were able to respond very easily. They all seemed to be happy. They spoke fondly about their home situation with Mom and step dad. The seemed happy, well-spoken and lovely.

[40] She further said that all three girls’ views and preferences were strong, consistent and independent. She advised that if the children had concerns, they were not comfortable talking about them with their father. She suggested counselling in order to help the children and their father improve their communication and to “move the access along” as the children would be able to express their wishes with the counsellor.

[41] Ms. Genesove advised the court that Marley expressed that she likes seeing her dad at the access centre as he, “can’t yell at her there, and if something goes wrong there is an adult around. She adds that her father is like a different person than when they visited him at home.” Christiana said that she also “enjoyed her visits at the supervised access centre as it feels safer than at Father’s house. Her father seems more excited to see them, and he shows he cares about them as well.” Brooklin, who was 17 at the time of her interview, indicated that she does not wish to see her father or have any contact with him at this time.

[42] The court gave a great deal of weight to the views and preferences of the children as expressed through the OCL. It takes a great deal of courage for children to express strong, consistent and independent views and preferences on these deeply emotional issues. All parents should give their children’s views and preferences their due respect and consideration whether or not they coincide with the parent’s position.

[43] The respondent called Lori van Wick, as a witness, who is an access supervisor at the Durham Supervised Access Service. She told the court that she had been supervising the access between the children (Marley and Christiana) and the respondent for approximately two years. She advised the court that, for the most part (except for the key-chain incident), the access visits had been without incident. The “key-chain incident” was an occurrence that happened during a supervised visit that gave the court concern about the respondent having any unsupervised access. During a visit in June, 2018, the respondent gave the children (Marley and Christiana) a key-chain that said, “Bitches are forever” and asked them to give it to their mother. [20] The respondent denied and/or minimized the seriousness of this incident, however, the access centre viewed it as serious enough that they temporarily suspended the visits. Aside from this incident, Ms. van Wick had not witnessed anything uncooperative, aggressive or violent from either parent or the children. She said that the respondent came to the visits prepared and the children attended willingly and engaged with the respondent during the visits.

[44] In his closing submissions, the respondent said that if there were no changes to the access, soon it would be too late and he would be gone and, “The kids will live the rest of their lives not knowing what really happened and that is unacceptable.” The court could not agree with this submission.

[45] Through the evidence presented in this trial, the court found that the respondent does not understand the emotional damage that has been done to the children by him continually exposing them to conflict, his own pain and his perspectives of the separation and custody and access issues. The respondent has shown little insight into how his own behaviour has contributed to the conflict and hurt the children. The respondent further put no value on the views and preferences of the children and simply dismissed the OCL report as biased. The court is unsure whether this lack of insight or the rigidity of his position was a result of his own personality, his addiction issues, mental health issues or his physical health, or a combination of all these factors. However, the focus of the court must be children’s future and how it can be made better.

[46] Unfortunately, after reviewing all the evidence presented during the trial I found that allowing the respondent unsupervised parenting time with the children, (Marley and Christiana) is not in their best interests. With respect to Brooklin, I cannot make a custody/access order for her because she is now 18 years old. Brooklin is able to make up her own mind regarding the contact she has with the respondent. I do recommend however, that the applicant continue to support Brooklin, Marley and Christiana as best as she can in terms of their contact with the respondent.

[47] Throughout the trial, the court found that the applicant has tried numerous things on numerous occasions over the years to support and encourage safe, healthy access between the respondent and the children. The court preferred her evidence, and that of the OCL, that there had been ongoing problems with the access for years and that the children had suffered as a result, which was expressed through their anxiety and their resistance to unsupervised access and overnight visits. The evidence was clear and uncontroverted that for the most part, the visits that took place at the Supervised Access Centre had been positive and the children felt safe there. [21]

[48] From the applicant’s past efforts, the court found and trusted that the applicant would continue to support the children in their access with the respondent; especially while they are going through what is going to be a very difficult time in the next few months due to the respondent’s illness. For all the reasons set out above, it was not in the best interests of the children to disturb the long standing status quo. The court found that that it was in the best interests of the children to leave them in the sole custody of the applicant, with ongoing supervised visits and/or additional visits, the nature and frequency of which will be at the discretion of the applicant, and in accordance with the children’s views and preferences.

[49] If the parties cannot agree on costs, I will receive written submissions commencing with the applicant serving and filing her submissions on or by April 19, 2019, followed by the respondent serving and filing his submissions on or by April 26, 2019, then the applicant’s reply submissions, if any, served and filed on or by May 6, 2019. Cost submissions shall be no more than 3 pages in length (12 pt. font size, regular 1 inch margins, 1.5 spacing), exclusive of any costs outline or offers to settle. All costs submission shall be delivered via email at: barriejudsec@ontario.ca. If no submissions are received by May 6, 2019, the issue of costs will be deemed to have been settled between the parties.

R.S. Jain, J. Released: March 25, 2019

[1] Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175. [2] Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3. [3] Exhibit 32, Letter from Louise Morin, dated March 2, 2015, revoking draft Minutes of Settlement. [4] Exhibits 7(a) and 7(b), Thread of emails from Brooklin to the respondent and a picture posted by the respondent on Facebook. [5] Exhibit 2, OCL Report of Ms. Genesove, dated September 18, 2017. [6] Exhibit 17, Affidavit of the respondent, dated February 6, 2019, containing a letter from Lakeridge Health, dated February 4, 2019. [7] Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27. [8] Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12. [9] Exhibit 6(a), Joint custody agreement in Minutes of Settlement, dated December 2014. [10] Exhibit 27, Handwritten letter from applicant to respondent. [11] Exhibit 8, iPad text messages between the applicant and the children. [12] Exhibits 33, 34, 35, 36, Letters from counsellor, Suzanne Dumais, and medical reports from Dr. Morris. [13] Exhibit 14 (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e), Facebook posts authored by the respondent. [14] Exhibits 24 and 25 Transcript of respondent’s Facebook post from December 26, 2018 and letter dated February 10, 2019 [15] Exhibits 5(b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g), 7 (a) (b), 9 (a) (b), 10 (a) (b), 11 (a) (b), 12 (a) (b), 14 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e), 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 [16] Exhibit 7(a), Thread of emails between Brooklin and the respondent from March 2014. [17] Exhibit 13, Homewood Health Centre, Discharge Summary, dated March 9, 2012. [18] Exhibit 13, Homewood Health Centre, Discharge Summary, dated March 9, 2012. [19] Exhibit 2, OCL Report of Ms. Genesove, dated September 18, 2017. [20] Exhibit 15 – Letter from Marion Hunter, Director, Durham Supervised Access Service, June 28, 2018. [21] Evidence of the applicant, respondent and the OCL, as well as the testimony of Lori van Wick of the Durham Supervised Access Centre.