Court File and Parties

Date: 2020-04-03 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario – Family Court

Re: Geannine Balbontin, Applicant And: Francis Luwawa, Respondent

Before: The Honourable Justice D.A. Jarvis

Counsel: Theodora Oprea, for the Applicant Francis Luwawa, Self-Represented

Heard: Electronically

Reasons for Decision

[1] As a result of COVID-19 regular Superior Court of Justice operations are suspended at this time as set out in the Notice to Profession, the Public and Media Regarding Civil and Family Proceedings of the Chief Justice of Ontario. See the Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020 available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/ ["the Chief's Notice"].

[2] The applicant shall be referenced as "the mother" and the respondent shall be referenced as "the father".

[3] On March 31, 2020 I ordered the temporary suspension of access by the father to the parties' three-year old daughter who was primarily residing with her mother pursuant to an Order of Bennett J. dated July 29, 2019. As noted in my endorsement, this matter had been referred to me as I had dealt previously with outstanding parenting issues between the parties.

[4] Access was suspended until the father filed an affidavit responding to the mother's concerns about the father's compliance with prevailing COVID-19 public health protocols. There were seven areas of concern requiring a response from the father, those responses to be satisfactory to the Court.

[5] The father delivered an unsworn affidavit in French dated March 31, 2020 after release of my Order made earlier that day and a teleconference was scheduled for today to involve the parties, counsel for the mother and a French translator. The translator was unable to connect (as was made known to the court after the matter concluded) but Mr. Luwawa indicated that he was prepared to proceed anyway and so he was sworn by me to the truth of his affidavit's contents. A translation from French of the father's March 31, 2020 affidavit was provided by court services.

[6] Mr. Luwawa expressed no difficulty in understanding Ms. Oprea and me in English.

[7] The affidavit addressed most of the mother's concerns. Mr. Luwawa confirmed to the Court that he was following all provincial COVID-19 precautions and that he shared custody of another child taking place on those times that the parties' child was with him, and that child's mother also adhered to COVID-19 safety measures. A blended family situation can present special challenges in the current environment but I accept Mr. Luwawa's assurances that he is taking appropriate COVID-19 precautions and that, given the diligence with which he has sought to participate more fully in the child's life in these proceedings, he will prioritize her safety and well-being.

[8] The stay of paragraphs 1-3 of the Order of Bennett J. dated July 29, 2019 is rescinded. The child's next scheduled time with her father pursuant to that Order is April 8,2020. As Easter falls on the following weekend, which is a weekend that the child would otherwise be with her father, the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Order apply and so on afterwards pursuant to the schedule set out in the Order.

[9] Costs of this motion are reserved to the earlier of the court's disposition of the parties' outstanding motions, already scheduled but likely adjourned now pursuant to the Chief's Notice, or final disposition of this case as the motions' judge may direct. The father may renew, when regular court facilities are reopened, his request for make-up time then. In the circumstances, he should have been more responsive to the mother's concerns and made, as recommended by Pazaratz J. in Ribeiro to all parents in these challenging times, a better, more tangible effort to communicate in good faith with the mother but this is a high conflict case and I am not prepared to make any such Order at this time.

[10] Both parties were reminded that compliance with court Orders was mandatory and that the additional risks for non-compliance could be serious.

[11] In the circumstances of the COVID-19 emergency, these Reasons for Decision are deemed to be an Order of the Court that is operative and enforceable without any need for a signed or entered, formal, typed Order.

[12] Approval of this and any later Order dealing with the subject matter of these Reasons is dispensed with: the parties may submit formal Orders for signing and entry once the court re-opens; however, these Reasons for Decision are an effective and binding Order from the time of their release.

The Honourable Justice D.A. Jarvis

Released: April 3, 2020