Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-20872 DATE: 202006 16 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Corbin Kenneth Mott Applicant – and – Taylor Green Respondent
Counsel: Michael D. Frank, for the Applicant George Kyriazakos, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 12, 2020
Endorsement
THIS MOTION HAVING BEEN HEARD BY CONFERENCE CALL PURSUANT TO THE PROTOCOL IN PLACE DURING SUSPENSION OF NORMAL COURT OPERATIONS DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
BONDY J.
A. Introduction
1) Background
[1] The applicant, Corbin Kenneth Mott (“Mr. Mott”), and the respondent, Taylor Green (“Ms. Green”), were involved in a common-law relationship from February 2019 until April 27, 2020. They have one child of that relationship, Talia Brielle Mott, born August 26, 2018 (“Talia”).
[2] According to the respondent mother, the relationship has been characterized by conflict and hostility.
[3] On April 27, 2020, there was an altercation. According to the applicant father, he was attacked by the respondent mother and consequently suffered a black eye and split lip. The respondent mother has been charged with assault as a result. The respondent mother maintains that she acted in self-defence.
[4] The respondent mother moved from their shared residence after that incident. According to the applicant, she had only allowed Talia parenting time with the applicant father on one occasion between the date of separation and the date he filed his motion. That was the May 22 to May 24 weekend. The applicant father’s motion was served June 3, 2020. The respondent mother has since also allowed an access visit on the June 5, 6 and 7 weekend.
[5] The substantive relief sought by the applicant includes the following:
- An order granting the applicant custody;
- A week on week off shared residency arrangement with exchanges taking place Sundays at 6:30 p.m.;
- An order that each party be entitled to information and documentation from third parties as to the health, education, and welfare of the child.
[6] The respondent mother’s affidavit also contained a request for an order for custody for her, liberal and generous access for the applicant father, and child support. There was, however, no motion before me in that regard.
B. Analysis
1) Urgency
[7] I find this case meets the definition of urgency set out in the Notice to the Profession of the Chief Justice of Ontario. It involves an allegation of wrongful removal and/or retention of a child.
2) Factual background
a) Introduction
[8] The respondent mother deposed that when she became pregnant, the applicant asked her to have an abortion. She refused. The applicant father maintains that the two of them considered all options immediately after they became aware of the pregnancy because they had only known each other for a few weeks at the time. The applicant deposed that once the decision was made to continue with the pregnancy, he and his family accepted the respondent into the family.
[9] I reiterate Talia was born August 26, 2018. According to the respondent mother, the applicant failed to attend the birth. According to the applicant father, he did not attend because the respondent did not notify him that the birth was about to occur. The applicant explained that the respondent was then dating another person.
[10] The respondent mother deposed that she always made efforts to include the applicant in Talia’s life.
[11] Talia lived with her mother from her birth until February 2019 when the parties moved in together.
[12] The respondent mother was on maternity leave until August 2019. That was a year after Talia’s birth. Mr. Mott worked outside of the home during that time frame.
[13] According to the applicant father, once the respondent returned to work in September 2019, child care responsibilities were shared. That was because they generally work different shifts.
[14] According to the applicant, his mother Lori Mott (“Ms. Mott”) was a regular caregiver to Talia throughout the relationship. Ms. Mott’s affidavit supports that contention. The respondent did not deny it. According to her affidavit, Ms. Mott is 58 years of age, does not have a criminal record or pending charges, and has never been involved with a Children’s Aid Society regarding the care of her son. She is a registered practical nurse who works at Windsor Regional Hospital and also teaches in the registered practical nurse program at St. Clair College.
[15] I reiterate that, according to the respondent mother, there never was shared parenting. It was her evidence that the applicant father essentially did nothing for Talia as a parent. For the reasons below, I found the evidence of the respondent was either an exaggeration or simply not true.
[16] Unfortunately, both parties were laid off due to the COVID-19 crisis. According to the respondent, the process of self-isolation caused a great deal of stress in the relationship.
[17] I reiterate the respondent deposed that the relationship has been characterized by conflict and hostility.
[18] There is consensus Ms. Mott was visiting on April 27, 2020.
[19] There are two irreconcilable versions as to what occurred that day.
[20] According to the respondent, the applicant father assaulted her.
[21] According to both the applicant father and his mother, Ms. Mott was attempting to take Talia outside when Ms. Green “snapped” and attacked Ms. Mott. Ms. Mott was holding Talia at the time. According to the applicant, the respondent then attacked him and, as a result, he suffered a black eye and a split lip. The police were called and, as said above, the respondent mother was charged with assault.
[22] According to the respondent, the police handcuffed her. Also according to the respondent, it was the applicant’s mother who convinced the police to remove the handcuffs and convinced the police not to put her in jail. Ms. Mott did so by telling the police that the respondent was the “primary caregiver”.
[23] As a result, the respondent mother was released on an undertaking not to associate with Mr. Mott. The parties initially agreed that the respondent mother would stay at Ms. Mott’s home with Talia temporarily. Although the respondent mother went to Ms. Mott’s home, she left almost immediately.
[24] According to the respondent mother, Ms. Mott was there that day to conduct an “anger intervention” with the applicant. The respondent states that it was the applicant who assaulted her on April 27, and that she had only struck him out of the fear in self-defence.
[25] The respondent deposed that the applicant has anger management issues and a history of physically abusing her. Attached to her affidavit were a series of photographs showing significant bruising to her entire left arm, her entire left leg, and her entire right leg. According to respondent’s counsel, that very significant bruising had been caused by the applicant that day.
[26] I have significant difficulty with that proposition for three overarching reasons.
[27] The first is that I find it difficult to believe that the police would not have charged the applicant if bruising of that significance had been present during the police investigation of the events of April 27. The police incident report would have likely observed such significant bruising. A copy of that police report would have been of assistance to the court.
[28] The second is that there was no evidence as to when the bruising had occurred, or how the bruising had occurred, only the photographs. All but one of the photographs do not show a face. Most digital photographs have the date and time the photograph was taken contained in their file name. That would have been of assistance. In addition, evidence from the photographer would have been of assistance in determining date and equally important authenticity: see R. v. Creemer, 1967 NSCA 711, [1967] N.S.J. No. 3 (N.S. C.A.), 53 M.P.R. 1. Given the evidence of Ms. Mott that the text messages annexed to the respondent’s affidavit had, from time to time, been altered through cutting and pasting, I do have concerns that the photographs may be from a completely different point in time and may have nothing to do with the applicant.
[29] Consistent with that possibility, the respondent’s allegation that she was assaulted by the applicant that day was denied by the applicant father. That denial finds support in the evidence of Ms. Mott who deposed that the respondent did not have any bruising on her at the time that she was arrested. Ms. Mott also expressed a belief that the applicant had never struck the respondent. She believed the respondent would have told her if she had suffered abuse and she also said that the respondent had not.
[30] The third reason is my observations below as to the quality of the evidence of the parties.
[31] The respondent mother also maintains that the applicant does not respect either her or his own mother. Ms. Mott disputed that assertion. According to Ms. Mott, the text messages produced by the respondent were misleading for several reasons. They include a misrepresentation of approximately one year as to when they occurred, and the context in which they occurred, as well as cutting and pasting of the messages to change the context.
[32] The respondent states that the applicant never shared cooking, cleaning, or laundry responsibilities when they lived together. She maintains that the applicant is unable to take care of himself. That evidence was disputed by both the applicant and Ms. Mott. That evidence is further considered below.
[33] I reiterate that, according to the applicant, Talia has only visited with the applicant father on one occasion between the date of separation and the date the motion was filed. That was from May 22 to May 24, 2020. Ms. Mott facilitated the exchange. According to the applicant father, the visit went very well. The only exception was repeated calls from the respondent which resulted in the applicant blocking her calls. As said above, a second weekend visit was arranged after the motion was filed.
[34] There is consensus that Talia spent a second weekend with her father after the motion had been served. There is also consensus that Talia was over held for two days after the agreed time that she was to be returned.
[35] The respondent says that she is frustrated because she has “anxiety when the baby is with Corbin”. She has requested “regular updates” throughout the weekend but has not been provided with them. The issue of updates is further considered below in the context of the quality of the respondent’s evidence.
3) Overview of legal principles
a) The Best Interest of the Child
[36] Section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12, governs the factors to be considered in respect of custody or access. It reads as follows:
Merits of application for custody or access
24 (1) The merits of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4).
Best interests of child
(2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, 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 reasonably be 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 of 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 of or access to the child for the child’s care 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 of 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.
Past conduct
(3) A person’s past conduct shall be considered only,
(a) in accordance with subsection (4); or
(b) if the court is satisfied that the conduct is otherwise relevant to the person’s ability to act as a parent.
Violence and abuse
(4) In assessing a person’s ability to act as a parent, the court shall consider whether the person has at any time committed violence or abuse against,
(a) his or her spouse;
(b) a parent of the child to whom the application relates;
(c) a member of the person’s household; or
(d) any child.
Same
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), anything done in self-defence or to protect another person shall not be considered violence or abuse.
[37] In summary, I am obliged to take into consideration only the best interests of the child as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child. In doing so I am also obliged to give effect to the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.
[38] The best interests of the children are to be considered in the context of the litigation. The issue before me is interim custody or residency. “[A]ny temporary order granted is always intended only to stabilize separated parties' circumstances until trial, when a full and complete consideration can be conducted…” (see Sellick v. Bollert, 2004 ONSC 18894, [2004] O.J. No. 2022, 4 R.F.L. (6th) 185, at para. 16). “Stability is a primary need for children caught in the throes of matrimonial dispute and the de facto custody of children ought not to be disturbed pendente lite, unless there is some compelling reason why in the interests of the children” (see Donley v. Donley, [2008] O.J. No. 3445, 51 R.F.L. (6th) 164, at para. 91; Kimpton v. Kimpton, [2002] O.J. No. 5367; Dyment v. Dyment, 1969 ONSC 544, [1969] 2 O.R. 631; Papp v. Papp, 1969 ONCA 219, [1970] 1 O.R. 331 at pp. 344-5; and Lancaster v. Lancaster (1992), 1992 NSCA 14032, 38 R.F.L. (3d) 373).
[39] "In interim custody and access cases, the status quo is ordinarily maintained until trial unless there is material evidence that the best interests of the children require a change" (see: Madill v. Madill, 2014 ONSC 7227, [2014] O.J. No. 5952, at para. 31; Grant v. Turgeon (2000), 2000 ONSC 22565, 5 R.F.L. (5th) 326 (Ont. S.C.); Kimpton v. Kimpton; and Easton v. McAvoy, 2005 ONCJ 319). The onus is on the party seeking to disturb a status quo arrangement with respect to the custody of children” (see Donley v. Donley, para. 91, and Norland v. Norland, [2006] O.J. No. 5126, 2006 CarswellOnt 8253).
[40] To that I would add that these are extraordinary times. As was observed by Pazaratz J., at para. 13 of the decision in Ribeiro v. Wright, 2020 ONSC 1829, "[i]n troubling and disorienting times, children need the love, guidance and emotional support of both parents" (emphasis in original).
4) The quality of the evidence
a) Introduction
[41] I begin with the observation that the evaluation of the reliability and credibility of the affidavit and evidence of the particular witness is difficult absent the beneficial features of a trial such as cross-examination. That is particularly true in high conflict cases such as this where there is disagreement regarding important features of the factual matrix.
b) The evidence of the applicant
[42] I approached the evidence of the applicant father with some caution. There are several reasons.
[43] The first is because the crime he was convicted of last month is a crime of dishonesty involving circulation of photographs of a prior girlfriend. A conviction for a prior crime involving dishonesty has probative value with respect to the issue of credibility: see R. v. Turlon, 1989 ONCA 7206, [1989] O.J. No. 524, 32 O.A.C. 396. This crime is more fully considered below.
[44] The second example is that it appears that the applicant father failed to make full disclosure in his affidavit. For instance, although the applicant father acknowledged having had three jobs in the time frame the applicant and respondent lived together, he failed to disclose the fact that he had, according to the respondent, been fired from all three jobs.
c) The evidence of the respondent
[45] I approached the evidence of the respondent mother with much greater caution. That is because I found there was, from time to time, either an internal lack of harmony in her evidence and/or a lack of harmony with the preponderance of evidence that I believed. I also found the respondent’s evidence to have been exaggerated from time to time.
[46] As an example of a difficulty I had with the respondent’s evidence, the respondent maintains that she has always encouraged contact between Talia and the applicant father. At one point in her affidavit, she denies having failed to allow access to Talia. That assertion stands in contrast to her conduct post-separation. In the approximately five week time frame between the date of separation and the date the applicant father’s motion was filed, she had only allowed access on one occasion. Further, it is clear from her materials that she dislikes the applicant and his parenting style.
[47] As another example of the difficulties I had with the respondent’s evidence, the applicant father said that child care responsibilities had been shared after the respondent mother’s maternity leave ended and she returned to work outside of the home. The respondent mother acknowledged that she had worked a steady midnight shift but denied any involvement with Talia by the applicant father. At one point in her affidavit, she unequivocally states the “applicant does not provide care for my daughter”. It was her evidence that she would attend to all of the child care activities by sleeping only three to four hours every day.
[48] The applicant father maintains that he cooked, cleaned, did laundry, and was involved in all aspects of caring for Talia.
[49] I find the applicant father’s version of events the more likely of the two. There are several reasons.
[50] Presuming eight hour shifts and a one half hour drive to and from work, I calculate the applicant father would have been with Talia nine hours each working day to allow the respondent to work. While I doubt that the respondent actually only slept three or four hours each night, presuming that to be true, the applicant father would have been available for Talia about 12 to 13 hours a day. That is a little more than one half of the time. I am aware that Talia would have been sleeping during much of that time. That said, I think I can take judicial notice of the fact that a one-year-old child requires constant attention, even at night. They often do not sleep through the night, require frequent feeding, and require diaper changes. It seems to me absurd to suggest that the applicant did none of that in the absence of the respondent.
[51] Further, the assertion that the applicant could not be trusted with the care of Talia lacks harmony with the respondent having trusted Talia to the care of the applicant on two weekends after separation. Ms. Mott was working on shifts both of those weekends. It follows that Talia was alone with the applicant most of the time. It defies common sense that a loving mother would leave the child with anyone who would do nothing for the child for two consecutive days.
[52] As a third example of the difficulties I had with the respondent’s evidence, at one point in her affidavit the respondent mother states that the applicant father should have liberal access. At another point, she states that the applicant father “does not have the ability to care for her on his own as he is irresponsible and plays video games when he is supposed to be watching her. He also is easily agitated and I fear his anger will get the best of him.” To be blunt, I found those two propositions irreconcilable. It follows that one or both are either exaggerated or not true.
[53] As a fourth example of the difficulties I had with the respondent’s evidence, she maintained that the applicant and Ms. Mott did not provide updates during access visits. Ms. Mott provided text messages, one of which included a photograph of Talia. These text messages demonstrate the opposite. The authenticity of those texts was acknowledged by respondent’s counsel.
[54] As a final example of the difficulties that I had with the respondent’s evidence, at paragraph seven of her form 35.1 affidavit, the respondent states that she is not now charged with any criminal offences. That is simply not true.
d) The evidence of Lori Mott
[55] I found the evidence of Lori Mott internally consistent and consistent with the preponderance of evidence that I believed. Notwithstanding, I did approach her evidence with some caution given the level of hostility and the possibility she may not be completely objective because the applicant is her son.
5) Conclusions as to parenting time and decision-making
a) Conclusions as to parenting time
[56] I have some difficulty with the parenting ability of both parents.
[57] I conclude that Talia is likely close to both of her parents.
[58] As to the respondent mother, I reiterate the parties did not begin living together until February 2019. It follows that Talia spent the first six months of her life in the almost exclusive care of her mother. Her mother was also Talia’s primary caregiver for the first full year of her life. That is because the respondent mother was on maternity leave.
[59] That said, the respondent mother has exhibited behaviour that is potentially very damaging to a young child.
[60] As an example, Talia clearly has a close relationship with both her father and grandmother. The respondent mother has failed to accommodate Talia’s contact and relationship with both. I reiterate that, according to the applicant father, the only access visit permitted by the respondent mother between the date of separation and the date the motion was filed was frequently interrupted by telephone calls from the respondent mother. In other words, there was only one visit, and the quality of that visit was quite low.
[61] Further, I am aware that the respondent mother maintains that she believes that it is in Talia’s best interest to have access with both parents. That bald assertion however lacks harmony with her other evidence. The respondent mother adds that she does “not trust the applicant’s ability to care for our daughter. Nor do I ever receive any updates as to my daughter’s well-being”. She also states that although the applicant receives help from his mother “she constantly tries to tell me how to care for our daughter and is extremely controlling and possessive.”
[62] As another example of worrisome behaviour, while aware of the presumption of innocence, I find there is a very real possibility that the respondent was responsible for violence which resulted in the applicant father’s black eye and split lip. Although the matter has yet to be tried, the preliminary police investigation concluded that it was the respondent and not the applicant who should be charged with a criminal offence. I also find there is a very real possibility that the respondent struck Ms. Mott while Ms. Mott was holding Talia. Such violence cannot be tolerated.
[63] I am aware that the applicant father deposed that the respondent mother suffers from mental health issues including what he describes as significant anxiety issues, and a processing disorder for which she is prescribed medication but does not take consistently. The applicant father also deposed that the respondent mother told him that she may be bipolar, although there has been no formal diagnosis.
[64] Mental health issues are not in themselves a factor to be weighed in considering the best interests of the child. That is unless those mental health issues impact an individual’s ability to parent.
[65] In order to ascertain whether or not there is an impact on the best interests of the child, the nature of the illness, the subjective impact of the illness on the individual, whether or not the illness is treatable, and whether or not the particular individual is amenable to treatment for the particular illness are all important to know. There was very little evidence in this regard.
[66] The respondent does acknowledge that she has a therapist named Patrick Hansen from Family Services. It was, however, unclear from the respondent’s affidavit why she requires a therapist. The respondent also states that her doctor was working with the Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (the “CAS”), and her doctor has informed them that she does not require medication.
[67] Given the very frail evidence as to potential mental health issues, I did not give any weight to this issue. To be clear, this issue may be revisited in the future if better evidence demonstrates that it is an issue worthy of consideration.
[68] Finally, given the respondent’s acknowledgement that the CAS is involved in her life, evidence from an objective third party such as the CAS, and/or her doctor would have been of assistance to the court.
[69] As to the applicant father, I conclude that he, like the respondent mother, has been extensively involved in Talia’s life, especially since the respondent mother’s maternity leave came to an end. On the record before me it appears that once both parties were working outside the home, parenting time was likely divided between the parties. That is because of the parties having worked opposite shifts. In other words, Talia is used to spending as much parenting time with one of the parties as the other. That conclusion finds support in the evidence of Ms. Mott.
[70] In addition, Talia appears to have a very close relationship with her maternal grandmother Ms. Mott. That relationship will no doubt continue and flourish in a residency situation where Talia spends a significant amount of time with her father. I reiterate that Ms. Mott is a registered practical nurse and would be available to assist Mr. Mott with Talia when he returns to work.
[71] According to the applicant father, the CAS worker supports Talia having regular ongoing contact with both himself and his family. Independent verification of that assertion would have been of assistance to the court. I say that because the CAS is an objective third party whose interests are only aligned with the best interests of Talia.
[72] Unfortunately, the applicant father has in the past exhibited conduct which is unacceptable.
[73] As an example, he is currently serving what appears to be a conditional sentence with 90 days of what he describes as “house arrest” followed by 12 months probation. In 2012, the applicant shared some pictures of a former girlfriend. He was charged in 2018 and convicted last month. On one hand, the conduct underlying that conviction is quite dated. On the other hand, that conduct displays both insensitivity and lack of respect for women.
[74] As another example of unacceptable conduct, the applicant over held Talia for two days at the end of the last access visit. That kind of self-help is inexcusable.
[75] In summary, both parties have been extensively involved in Talia’s life in the recent past. I find that she likely has a very close relationship with both. On the other hand, each has serious flaws in their parenting ability.
[76] I conclude that in the circumstances of this case, Talia’s best interests would be served by dividing her time equally between her parents.
[77] I also conclude that Talia’s best interests would be served by maintaining communication with one parent while she is staying with the other. Unfortunately, during the only access visit which has occurred to date, the respondent mother telephoned constantly. It follows that there must be limits on those telephone calls in order to ensure that Talia’s time with each parent is as beneficial to her as it can be. I conclude that one short call every second day would be appropriate.
b) Conclusions as to decision-making
[78] The applicant father seeks an order that each party is entitled to information and documentation from third parties as to the health, education, and welfare of the child. There is nothing in the record to suggest such an order would be inappropriate in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to make that order.
[79] The record before me supports the conclusion that both parties have most likely been involved in decision-making since the applicant father moved in with Talia and the respondent mother in February 2019.
[80] Unfortunately, the undertaking signed by the respondent mother does not contain a provision excepting the no-contact provision from Family Court Orders, as is often done. It follows that I am without jurisdiction to make an order that decision-making be made in consultation.
[81] As a result, I find the best approach would be for each party to make any necessary day-to-day decisions or emergency decisions while Talia is in their care. Although in the short run major decisions will not likely be necessary, there should be a temporary mechanism in place.
[82] There is consensus that Ms. Mott has in the past acted as a go-between. It seems to me appropriate that joint decisions be made by the parties using Ms. Mott to communicate through.
c) Conclusions as to exchanges
[83] The applicant father requests that access exchanges take place on Sundays at 6:30 p.m. There was nothing to suggest that time would not be appropriate.
[84] The applicant father also requests that Talia’s time with him coincide with his mother’s work schedule. Ms. Mott works a light week every second week. In that way she would be available to assist with Talia. Ms. Mott’s next light week commences Sunday, June 21, 2020.
[85] It seems appropriate to avoid contact between the applicant and respondent at exchanges. I reiterate that it is a term of the respondent mother’s undertaking that there be no contact with the applicant father. A further constraint on exchanges is the applicant father’s current house arrest.
[86] According to the applicant father, his mother Ms. Mott has a good relationship with Talia. Consistent with that assertion, respondent’s counsel expressed a belief that both parties need assistance from Ms. Mott. According to Ms. Mott, she has been conducting the exchanges thus far and is agreeable to continue doing so.
[87] For all of these reasons, I conclude that Lori Mott ought to conduct the exchanges.
C. Order
1) Custody or decision-making
[88] On a temporary basis the applicant Corbin Kenneth Mott and the respondent Taylor Green shall have joint custody of, or decision-making responsibility, with respect to Talia Brielle Mott, born August 26, 2018. Each party shall make the necessary day-to-day decisions and emergency decisions while Talia is in their respective care. Any major decisions shall be made jointly by consultation conducted through Lori Mott.
2) Parenting time
[89] On a temporary basis the parenting time for Talia Brielle Mott, born August 26, 2018, shall be shared between the applicant Corbin Kenneth Mott and the respondent Taylor Green on a week on week off basis. Exchanges shall take place Sundays at 6:30 p.m. at the home of the respondent mother. The applicant father’s mother, Lori Mott, shall be responsible for the pickup and drop off of Talia at the home of the respondent mother. The first pick up of Talia by Lori Mott shall take place on Sunday, June 21, 2020.
3) Telephone access
[90] On a temporary basis each party may have telephone access with Talia on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays at 7:00 p.m. for 10 minutes during the weeks when Talia is staying with the other parent.
4) Ancillary orders
a) Neither party shall speak disparagingly of the other to, or around, the child Talia. b) Neither party shall discuss the litigation with Talia.
5) Costs
[91] In the event that the parties are unable to agree on costs within seven (7) days, then Costs submissions shall be in writing on the following basis:
a) The applicant’s counsel shall serve costs submissions upon the respondent’s counsel within fourteen (14) days. Such written argument shall be no more than three (3) pages in length. In the event the foregoing is not complied with within that time period, the applicant shall be deemed to have waived his right to do so. b) The respondent’s counsel shall have a further ten (10) days to provide a response to counsel for the applicant. Such response is to be no more than three (3) pages in length. In the event the foregoing is not complied with within that time period, the respondent shall be deemed to have waived her right to do so. c) Counsel for the applicant shall have five (5) further days to provide a reply to counsel for the respondent. Such reply is to be no more than one (1) page in length. In the event the same is not complied with within that time period, the applicant shall be deemed to have waived his right to do so. d) Once all of those steps have been completed, counsel for the applicant shall provide all the submissions to the court through Trial Co-ordination. e) The costs submission shall be double-spaced and use a "Times New Roman" font no smaller than 12 pitch. All references to the length of submissions exclude Bills of Costs and Costs Outlines and any Offers to Settle.
Christopher M. Bondy Justice
Released: June 16, 2020