Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 85/19 DATE: 2019-12-16 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Derrick Florence, Applicant AND: Christina Tota, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL: both parties in person

HEARD: December 13, 2019 at Welland

Endorsement

[1] The parties are father and mother of a twelve-year-old girl. The parties have long since divorced and remarried. The father has applied for access to the child. Today he is moving for a temporary order for alternate weekend access, Wednesday evening access and special access at Christmas. He also wants me to order the Respondent to enrol the child in reconciliation counselling.

[2] The child has lived with the Respondent since separation. The Applicant exercised access from time to time. The last time was in August 2018 when he took her to Canada’s Wonderland with a woman friend, without the knowledge of his wife. In November 2018 when the Applicant wanted access again, the child made it known to her mother that she did not want to see her father because of his betrayal of her stepmother. The Voice of the Child report confirms this. The clinician detected no indication that the child was acting under pressure from the Respondent.

[3] The Respondent herself is not opposed to access, although she thinks that the child’s views should be taken into account and that re-introduction should be slow, or else the child will be damaged. I think she is quite right.

[4] The Applicant has not exercised access regularly, which may also be a source of the child’s feelings of betrayal. Her expressed reason for not wanting to see her father is understandable. Not only did he cheat on his wife, he involved her by telling her not to tell. She did not like that. The Respondent already has the child in counselling. It is not in the child’s best interest to interfere with the Respondent’s management of the situation, especially on an interim basis.

[5] In the interim I do not think that the child should see the Applicant against her wishes. I do not think that she should go over the river with him. I do not think that she needs to see him at Christmas, at least not this year.

[6] The motion is dismissed. The successful Respondent’s costs are minimal, so I will order full recovery. I order the Applicant to pay to the Respondent the costs of this motion forthwith. I fix those costs at $326.

J.A. Ramsay J. Date: 2019-12-16