Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-255-00 DATE: 2020 05 25

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Patrick Robert McKeogh Applicant And Alanna Crysia Maria Syrena McKeogh Respondent

BEFORE: Bloom, J.

COUNSEL: Irene Petrakis, for the Applicant William Fanjoy, agent for the Respondent

HEARD: May 15, 2020

E N D O R S E M E N T

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] The Applicant moves for an order (1) dispensing with a case conference, (2) returning the child, Sophia Grace McKeogh, born June 10, 2009 to the Applicant within 24 hours of the order of the court being received by the parties, (3) providing for parenting time for the Applicant with the child for 2 weeks and then returning to an equal week-about schedule for the parties, (4) alternatively, returning the parties to the equal week-about schedule, (5) in the further alternative, providing for an equal two week-about schedule during the remainder of the quarantine period during the current pandemic and then a return to the equal week-about schedule, (6) enforcement by the police and other law enforcement authorities of parenting provisions of the order, and (7) providing for compliance by the parties with all government directives regarding Covid-19.

[2] The Respondent now consents to an order returning to the week about schedule and providing for police enforcement; but moves for a Voice of the Child Report, a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment, or a report under s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act; she moves also for an order for compliance with governmental directives regarding Covid-19 and for non-disparagement by the Applicant of her to the child.

II. FACTS

[3] The parties were married on December 21, 2006; separated on November 1, 2014; and were divorced in the summer of 2017.

[4] Sophia is almost eleven years old.

[5] The parties entered into a separation agreement on July 7, 2016. Pursuant to that agreement they shared custody of Sophia and she resided with each parent on an equal week-about schedule.

[6] There has been no case conference. I ordered the Applicant’s motion heard as urgent in my endorsement of May 5, 2020. I also apply that finding of urgency to permit the Applicant’s motion pursuant to FLR 14(4.2).

[7] Since approximately March of 2020 in an attempt made by her to protect Sophia from the pandemic, the Respondent has kept the child with the Respondent’s mother in a rural community in Ontario.

[8] The Applicant is a police officer who currently has no contact with the public; has limited contact with co-workers; wears a mask; and washes his hands in order to protect against the virus.

[9] He lives with his partner along with her 4 children and one of whom they are both parents. She works as an administrative clerk in a hospital. She does not have direct contact with patients; and takes applicable precautions against the virus.

[10] The Respondent works as an investment adviser.

III. ANALYSIS

[11] The Respondent did not provide reasonable notice of her cross-motion to the Applicant; nor was it contemplated by my order of May 5, 2020 granting an urgent hearing of the Applicant’s motion.

[12] While the Applicant seeks make-up time with Sophia, I order instead a return to the equal week-about schedule of parenting time set out in the separation agreement; the week-about schedule is to re-commence May 29, 2020 with a week of parenting time for the Applicant. The best interests of Sophia, in my view, are more consistent with a return to the stability of the established schedule of parenting time. The Respondent, moreover, consents to that order; and it remains an agreement of the parties to which I give appropriate weight, subject to Sophia’s best interests. I order that any police force within the jurisdiction of this court assist in implementation of the equal week-about schedule.

[13] I further order as in Sophia’s best interests that both parties comply with all governmental directives regarding Covid-19 as they relate to themselves and Sophia; and that each party not make disparaging remarks about the other in Sophia’s presence.

[14] I dismiss the cross-motion of the Respondent for a Voice of the Child report, s. 30 CLRA assessment, and s. 112 CJA report. It would be unfair to have this matter heard without giving the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to present his case on the point, including adducing evidence. Moreover, there is no basis to dispense with a case conference before this issue is addressed; further, the Respondent should not be permitted to avoid compliance with the system of Notices to the Profession and court orders implemented during the pandemic. The Respondent is free to employ the procedures set out in the Central West Notice to the Profession which came into force May 19, 2020 to seek a case conference. I wish to make clear that my refusal to grant the relief she seeks regarding a Voice of the Child report, s. 30 CLRA assessment, and s. 112 CJA report is without prejudice to her seeking this relief at and after a case conference.

IV. COSTS

[15] I shall receive written costs submissions from the parties. They are to be served and filed by one e-mail to opposing counsel, and to my assistant Sara Stafford at Sara.Stafford@ontario.ca

[16] The Applicant is to serve and file his submissions within 14 days from release of this endorsement; the Respondent is to serve and file her submissions within 14 days from service of the Applicant’s submissions; and there shall be no reply.

Justice Ivan Bloom

DATE: May 25, 2020

COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-255-00 DATE: 2020 05 25 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Patrick Robert McKeogh Applicant - and – Alanna Crysia Maria Syrena McKeogh Respondent ENDORSEMENT Bloom J. Released: May 25, 2020