Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-18-2500 DATE: 2019/05/24 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: PHILIPPE JR. NGASSAM – Applicant v. ELIANE DUMONT-FRENETTE - Respondent

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger

COUNSEL: Stephen Pender, for the Applicant Deborah E. Bennett, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 23/2019

Endorsement

[1] This was a motion for a finding of contempt brought by Mr. Ngassam (the father) against Ms. Dumont-Frenette (the mother). The basis of the alleged contempt was that she failed to abide by a Court Order dated July 3, 2013, specifically, the access provisions contained in that order relating to their child, Simon, born September 12, 2005.

[2] At the commencement of the motion the mother sought an adjournment requesting that the Court order the preparation of a Voice of the Child Report through the Offices of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL). The adjournment request was granted, subject to certain conditions some were agreed upon, while others were contested.

[3] This matter has a long, intense, history of high conflict litigation; including but not limited to the following:

a) Protracted litigation from the date of separation in May 2006 through to the final order of Justice Gibeau dated September 30, 2010. With numerous hearings and court attendances in between, including 11 different court orders prior the September 30, 2010 order. b) The involvement of the children’s aid Society of Ottawa. Specifically with respect to the child Simon. c) The order dated July 3, 2013 whereby the parties ultimately shared parenting time with Simon on a week about basis.

[4] On November 16, 2018 Simon emailed his father advising that he did not want to see him anymore nor go to his home. The precise reason for the abrupt termination of access is not clear. The father believes that the mother has not taken sufficient steps and/or appropriate steps to ensure that Simon attends for access.

[5] The parties agreed to the following court orders as part of the adjournment request: 1) the appointment of a case management justice; the matter will be referred to Justice Mark Shelton the local administrative justice in family law for that purpose. 2) the parties begin reintegration counselling with either Nadine Crowley or Janet Claridge, whichever professional is available earliest.

[6] There were three specifically contested issues: 1) whether the court should order a voice of the Child Report through the OCL. 2) whether there should be a follow-up assessment prepared by Dr. Abe Worenklein following his report/assessment of April 17, 2012 3) whether the court should immediately order that Simon attend at an in person access visit with his father.

[7] After considering the arguments of counsel, the materials filed, the affidavit evidence and the jurisprudence I make the following ruling with respect to each request and for the reasons stipulated:

a) I order a Voice of the Child Report be prepared by the OCL as soon as possible. The report can only shed light on the reasons why Simon has abruptly ended access with his father. While I understand the position by counsel for the father that he has already stated to some degree why he does want to see his father, this is a contempt motion where it is alleged that the mother hasn’t done enough to persuade him or has even acted in a fashion that has alienated Simon against the father, something concrete from Simon is mandated in the circumstances. b) With respect to a follow-up report/assessment by Dr. Worenklein, I am of the view that that issue should be left to the case management justice following the results of the reintegration counselling. It seems to me that the reintegration counselling should be the focus at this point in the litigation. c) The most difficult issue here was whether to so to speak make an order that would force the 13 ½-year-old boy’s hand, by ordering that Simon have face-to-face contact with his father at a specified date and time. Mr. Pender the father’s counsel made a persuasive argument to the effect that the child doesn’t decide what is in his best interests, and that having a relationship with his father certainly is in his best interests. While I agree with that statement I would not make that type of order just yet; I would want to see the voice of the child report and get the reintegration counselling started first. Forcing Simon’s hand without knowing more at this point may be more detrimental than beneficial. d) That said I would strongly suggest that the mother use every possible means of persuasion to try to re-open the lines of communication between the father and son; and that the father at least write to Simon to inquire what he can do to re-open those lines.

[8] Finally, I consider this an urgent matter requiring immediate attention; the risk is the passage of too much time will weaken the prospects of a successful reintegration.

[9] Therefore I make the following order:

a) That the contempt motion is adjourned at the mother’s request to date to be set through trial coordination; b) That the matter be remitted to Justice Shelston the administrative judge of family law for the purposes of appointing a bilingual case management justice. c) That the parties attend reintegration counselling using the services of Nadine Crowley, or Janet Claridge. d) That a Voice of the Child Report to be prepared through the OCL and that the parties shall forthwith complete the necessary intake forms to expedite the preparation of the report.

[10] With respect to the issue of costs, I am strongly disinclined to make any cost order in the circumstances of this adjourned motion, however if counsel feel they can persuade me otherwise I will accept two pages of written argument to be delivered within 15 days of the release of this endorsement failing which there will be no order as to costs.

Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger Date: May 24, 2019