COURT FILE NO.: FC-18-954
DATE: 20201022
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
AREF AHMAD HAJJI
Applicant
– and –
AYYOUCH AL-JAMMOU
Respondent
Diana Aoun, for the Applicant
Odette Rwigamba, for the Respondent
HEARD: October 20, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION
Audet J.
[1] This is a motion by the respondent mother seeking the immediate return of the parties’ three youngest children to her care. She also seeks an order that access to the father be suspended until he has completed a parenting course and anger management counselling, at which time he could have supervised access.
[2] The father seeks an order that the children remain in his care pending further investigation by the Children’s Aid Society (“the Society:) and/or the police. He does not believe that there should be access between the mother and the children at this time, given that they are currently refusing to see her.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I order that the children be returned to their mother’s care immediately, and that the father’s access to them be suspended until further order of the court. I have also made a number of orders to ensure the children’s prompt return to their mother’s care in a way that is sensible to their needs, and to provide for next steps in this case, including the return of this motion before me to re-assess the terms upon which the father may resume access to the children.
Background
[4] The parties were married on August 7, 2003 in Syria and came to Canada as refugees on or about 2016. They separated on July 2, 2017. They have four children together: Ahmed (15), Joumaa (14), Ritaj (9) and Mohamad (5). After the parties’ separation, the children remained in their mother’s primary care.
[5] The father is now remarried to Ms. Yassin, with whom he has two young daughters. I do not believe that the mother has re-partnered.
[6] Pursuant to interim without prejudice Minutes of Settlement entered into on August 23, 2018, the parties agreed that the children would have access to their father on specific days during the month of August 2018 and that, as of September 4, 2018, he would have regular access to them every Thursday from the end of school to 7:30 p.m., as well as every second weekend on Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. (“the August 2018 Minutes”).
[7] Pursuant to interim without prejudice Minutes of Settlement entered into on September 19, 2019, the parties varied their previous agreement by providing for mid-week access to take place on Wednesdays instead, from 4:30 p.m. to 7: 30 p.m., with the exchanges taking place at a local Tim Horton’s. As a result of events which led to the father being charged with various offences in relation to the mother and one of her friends, and a no-contact order being made, the parties also varied the August 2018 Minutes to provide that the children would be picked-up and dropped off by the father’s partner, Ms. Yassin, instead of the father himself (“the September 2019 Minutes”).
[8] It is the mother’s evidence that the father was abusive towards her, which ultimately resulted in the break-up of their relationship. This is disputed by the father, who asserts that the mother has continuously made false allegations against him which led to frequent police involvement, for no reason.
[9] It is also the mother’s evidence that the father’s access to the children was very inconsistent and that he and his wife continuously created frustrations by dropping the children off very late after visits (sometimes 2.5 hours after the agreed-upon return time), or by frequently failing to show up for visits, without notice. It appears that Ahmad, the parties’ eldest son, at some point in 2019 decided not to attend visits anymore because of his frustrations related to his father’s failure to show up, because he found them boring and because he would get scolded by his father when he just fell asleep on the couch during visits.
[10] The mother states that the father’s constant failure to show up at school to pick up the children was the reason why the August 2018 Minutes were amended to include a provision that they would be picked up at 4:30 p.m. at Tim Horton’s instead, and that if the father did not show after 20 minutes she would be permitted to leave, cancelling the visit. It is the mother’s evidence that the children were showing a lot of frustration with their father failing to show up for visits and that at one point, Joumaa was also refusing to go instead of having to deal with the disappointment.
[11] It is not disputed that from December 2019 until July 2020, the father did not exercise access at all with the children.
[12] It is also not disputed that in 2019, the father was charged with a number of criminal offences related to an incident during which the father is alleged to have driven the mother, the children and the mother’s friend off the road while in a vehicle and making death threats to the mother. Although the father denies the mother’s account of those events, he ultimately pled guilty to criminal stalking of the mother and her friend, in exchange for a conditional discharge with a restraining order precluding him from contacting or communicating with the mother or her friend. It is not disputed that during the events in question, the father’s partner was with him and the children were with their mother in the vehicle. They were, therefore, present and witnessed the whole incident.
Discontinued Report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer
[13] In the context of the court hearing which took place on September 19, 2019, the parties consented to an order involving the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“the OCL”). The OCL agreed to get involved and in February 2020, a clinical investigator began her work with the family.
[14] On April 2020, the OCL released a discontinued report explaining that, due to the father not having exercised access with the children since December 2019, the investigation could not be completed. Nonetheless, the clinical investigator was able to meet with both parents at least once and got the opportunity to make an observation visit at the mother’s home and to interview each of the children privately. The clinical investigator also reviewed collateral information obtained from the police, the Society, and the children’s schools. Based on that information, the clinical investigator had the following observations to share:
The father, despite inquiries during his first and only interview, was unable to satisfactorily explain why he had not exercised his access to the children since December 2019;
The father presented as not having a great deal of information about the day-to-day care of his children. He did not know what schools they attended and did not know that his youngest child was attending school;
During the one observation visit between the children and their mother, at the mother’s home, the children responded to their mother positively and without hesitation. The children were all affectionate to their mother and presented as secure in her care;
The father reported that he had not had regular involvement with the children’s day-to-day care although he noted that he had met with the school principal one or two months before his interview;
The mother has been the primary caregiver in regard to all of the children’s day-to-day needs including but not limited to their education and medical issues. She has also regularly transported the children to the agreed-upon access exchange location, documenting the trips on her phone;
The children were observed to be healthy, happy and advancing at age appropriate levels in the care of their mother.
[15] The clinical investigator’s report of her interviews with the children is also detailed and quite informative. Without reproducing the details of each interview here, it is important to note the following observations she made based on those interviews:
All four children spoke about their mother taking care of everything for them and about not having visits with their father;
The three oldest children reported being driven by their mother to Tim Horton’s for visits with their father but that their father and his partner would make them wait for hours and then would not show up, which was upsetting to them;
The three oldest children presented as angry and frustrated with their father’s behaviour;
Joumaa reported having witnessed his father swearing at their mother and made her cry all the time. He reported that his father had sent threatening messages to their mother on his and his siblings’ phones and that he was afraid that his father was going to “do something” to his mother. For that reason, he had refused to go to school and leave his mother alone;
Ritaj remembered the car incident that led to criminal charges being laid against her father and reported that her father had started to follow them and then started to hit their car;
The three oldest children confirmed that they lived with their mother and siblings and did not visit their father, and that they wanted this to continue. All three children were found by the clinical investigator to be able to clearly express their views and preferences with clear and precise examples to back them up.
[16] The clinical investigator further stated that information provided by the Society and the children’s schools supported the premise that the mother was the parent in charge of all the children’s needs. The Society records described a history of concerns of domestic violence in the home including a number of investigations regarding disputes between the father, Ms. Yassin, and Ms. Yassin’s natural family. Finally, information from collaterals and the parties supported a conclusion that the parents were not communicating civilly and that there was no evidence of a history of positive decision-making between them in relation to their children.
[17] Overall, the clinical investigator was of the view that the children were well taken care of by their mother, seemed happy, healthy and functioning at an age appropriate level, except for Mohamad who appeared to be functioning at a level below his age. She saw a very close bond and connection between the mother and the children and confirmed that the mother was meeting all the children’s needs.
Events of July 2020
[18] On Thursday, July 20, 2020, the father contacted the mother for the first time in months to arrange a visit between him and the children, for a few hours. The mother agreed and immediately accommodated his request. However, only the three youngest children attended the visit as Ahmad still harboured much resentment towards his father and refused to go. The father asked once again to have the children for a few hours the following Wednesday, and once more two days later. Again, the mother accommodated the father’s request and brought the children to two more visits with their father. After the first two visits, the father returned the children to the mother as planned. However, on the last visit, the father refused to return the children. He and his partner sent the mother messages asking her to leave the children alone and that they would be staying with the father “forever”. When the mother unsuccessfully tried to arrange visits for herself, she tried to arrange visits between the children and their older brother Ahmad, but this was also unsuccessful.
[19] The father alleges that during the third visit, the children made disclosures to him and his wife about serious abuse and harm inflicted on them by the mother. He says that the children disclosed that their mother was burning them with cigarettes and hitting them; that their mother’s friend, Mr. Aziz, had threatened to kill the father; and that the mother had also threatened that if they disclosed this information to their father, she would hurt them. The children reportedly pointed to the marks on their legs where their mother burned them with cigarettes. The father states that he immediately called the police who attended their home and interviewed the children about their disclosures. A report was made by the police to the Society and an investigation by the Society ensued.
[20] This all occurred in the middle of the pandemic, when court operations were limited and access to the court system required the matter to be deemed urgent by a triage judge before it could proceed. At some point in late August, the mother brought a motion and sought a determination that her matter was urgent. On September 15, 2020, the triage judge scheduled the matter to an expedited case conference on the basis that there was an ongoing investigation by the police and the Society. She requested that the Society be invited to participate in the case conference to update the court on the status of their investigation.
[21] The case conference was held on October 8, 2020, before Engelking J. At that time, the Society had interviewed all four children as well as the mother, the father and his partner Ms. Yassin. The Society reported having been advised by the Ontario Police Services that they would not be laying any charges against the mother in relation to the children’s alleged disclosure. The court was also informed that the children had been seen at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario’s (“CHEO”) Child Youth Protection Team only the week before, and that the Society was awaiting a report from them before the determining the outcome of their investigation. At Engelking J.’s request, the Society offered to provide one supervised visit per week between the mother and the three children until the hearing of the mother’s motion, for 1.5 hour per visit, semi- supervised by Child Protection Worker Ms. Roy, pending the conclusion of their investigation. Ms. Roy further agreed to transport the children to and from the visits as the father was still subject to a no-contact order.
[22] In her endorsement made on that day, Engelking J. noted that the three children in their father’s care had not attended school at all since the school had started in September, despite being properly registered at their existing schools. She made the following order:
1- Mohamad and Retaj shall immediately commence attending Vincent Massey Public School, where they have been registered since the beginning of the school year. It is the responsibility of the father to ensure that they get to and from school;
2- Joumaa shall immediately commence attending Ottawa Technical School, where he has been registered since the beginning of the school year. It is the responsibility of the father to ensure that he gets to and from school;
3- A motion to determine whether the three youngest children should be returned to the care of their mother or remain in the care of their father shall be heard on October 20, 2020;
4- In the interim, on consent of the Society and pending the conclusion of their investigation, the Society shall provide one supervised visit per week between the children and the mother for 1.5 hour. The arrangements for same will be made by CPW Ms. Roy with the parents, and will include that Ms. Roy transport the children to and from the visits;
5- If the Society's investigation is not completed by the return date of the motion, the Society will, again on consent, provide an update on their investigation by letter to both parents prior to the motion.
New Evidence
[23] This motion proceeded before me today. On October 14, 2020, the mother served and filed a lengthy reply affidavit as well as an affidavit sworn by her friend and immigration sponsor, Ms. Susan Finlay. The father’s counsel objected to those affidavits being relied upon by the court in the context of the motion on the basis that they went beyond the limited purpose of a reply and contained new allegations to which the father had not had an opportunity to respond.
[24] I find that the mother’s October 14, 2020 affidavit was meant to both reply to allegations made by the father in his responding affidavit, but also to provide the court with an important update since her last affidavit was sworn, which was almost two months prior. To the extent that her affidavit raised new allegations not already mentioned in prior affidavits filed, I have disregarded those new allegations. Without making a finding as to whether Ms. Finlay’s affidavit was properly adduced into evidence as part of the mother’s reply, I confirm that I did not need to rely on its content, which I have disregarded for the purpose of this decision, in order to come the conclusions that are set out below.
[25] I am advised that, despite Engelking J.’s clear Order of October 8, the children only returned to school on October 15, 2020, the Friday before this motion was heard.
[26] As requested by Engelking J., the Society – who has not yet completed its investigation in this matter – provided the court with an update report. It advised me of the following.
[27] On October 9, 2020, Ms. Roy scheduled a visit between the mother and the children, fully supervised at the mother’s home with an interpreter present. When Ms. Roy attended at the father’s home, the children refused to go for the visit. Ms. Roy tried to convince them to attend by reassuring them that she would be present the entire time and nobody would be able to harm them. Ms. Roy also told the children that there would be an interpreter present so she would be able to understand everything that was being said. Ms. Roy also suggested having a “safe word” which any of the children could use to let her know if they were uncomfortable. The three children refused to attend, so the visit was cancelled. Ritaj went to another room and Ms. Roy could hear her crying.
[28] After advising the mother of the cancelled visit, Ms. Roy interviewed each child individually. They continued to tell her that they refused to see their mother and would not go on a visit. The children continued to express worries that their mother would hurt them, as they stated that she had hurt them in the past. Ms. Roy remarked that the children appeared quite stressed on that day. I will not go into the details of all the “disclosures” reportedly made by the children to Ms. Roy at the time. The Society’s report is very detailed and thorough. Suffice it to say that the children’s disclosures raise significant concerns on my part, for two reasons. Firstly, the type of mistreatments by their mother that they alleged on that day do not match the type of mistreatments that the father stated were reported to him by the children back on July 24, which according to him was the reason he refused to return the children to their mother. Secondly, it is very hard to understand how the Ottawa police would have closed their file without laying charges back in July if the children had made the kind of disclosures they made to Ms. Roy on October 9, 2020.
[29] On October 15, 2020, Ms. Roy attempted to arrange a second visit between the children and their mother. In an e-mail to the father and his counsel, she confirmed the details of the visit for that afternoon and provided detailed directives on what was to be relayed to the children by the father. Later that morning, Ms. Roy received an e-mail from the children’s stepmother indicating that the children were refusing to attend the visit that afternoon. Discussions ensued in relation to the timing of the visit since the children had started school on that day.
[30] Despite clear directives about the timing and arrangements for that afternoon’s visit, the family was one hour late getting home from school. When the children got out of their father’s car, and without any prompting by Ms. Roy, they started telling her that they did not want to go on the visit with their mother, that they loved their dad, that their mom did not love them, and that she would hurt them. They also told Ms. Roy that if they came for a visit, their mom would pretend to be nice, then she would be mean when there was no one watching and that they want to stay with their dad not their mom. While Ms. Roy attempted to explain to the children that this was just a visit, which had nothing to do with where they would stay, Ritaj stated, without being prompted, that she did not want to go for a visit and that she was saying that on her own, that it was not her dad who said to say that. She was crying and saying, “I don’t want to go”. Joumaa told Ms. Roy that he was tired of talking to people and of people trying to force him to go see his mother, and that if someone came to talk to him again, he would get very mad. Both children appeared very distressed. Mohamad was playing, but also refused to go when asked.
[31] In the end, I retain the following relevant information from the Society’s updated report;
The father’s failure to ensure the children’s immediate attendance at school after October 8, as ordered by Engelking J., is not satisfactorily explained;
Ms. Roy expressed her worries for the children as they appeared very stressed both times that she saw them;
The children have made new disclosures to Ms. Roy about their mother’s alleged mistreatment of them that varied from one interview to the next, including the children’s interview by police officers back in July;
Ms. Roy expressed concerns about the fact that the children made comments about information the father had shared about the mother and felt the need to remind the father on more than one occasion the importance of not involving his children in his disagreement with the mother and not to talk negatively about the other parent. The father denied talking negatively about the mother;
Ms. Roy was of the view that the children were under a huge amount of stress. She reported that Ritaj was crying on both October 9 and15, refusing to go for a visit, and Joumaa was almost threatening, telling Ms. Roy he did not want anyone to talk to him again, that he just loved his dad and wanted to stay with him.
[32] In its report, the Society also confirmed that on October 16, it received the reports from the CHEO’s Child Youth Protection Team. Those reports indicate that Joumaa and Ritaj have been noted to have ‘more skin findings than is normally seen on a child of the same age. The marks are non-specific, meaning that their causes cannot be determined simply by their appearance’. Ms. Roy reported that Joumaa and Ritaj provided explanations for some of the skin findings without prompting or questioning. Mohamad was noted to have ‘one area of hypopigmentation which is non specific’.
[33] The Society concluded its update report by stating that the referral it received in August 2020 raised concerns about the use of physical abuse of the children by their mother. At this time, the Society’s investigation of this concern is inconclusive since, although the children continue to report multiple incidents of abuse by their mother, the Society has noted many inconsistencies between the various reports and the reports are changing. The Society reviewed the transcripts from the children’s interviews with officers from the Ottawa Police Services’ Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Section, the various interviews of the children completed during the Society’s investigation, the report from the OCL and CHEO as well as the children’s interviews completed in previous investigations. It concluded:
During the course of its investigation, the Society has added and verified the concern of risk of emotional harm resulting from the children’s exposure to ongoing post-separation caregiver conflict as the Society is concerned about the messages shared with the children. Joumaa spoke about believing that his mother doesn’t love him and only wants him for money after his father told him that his mother was receiving money from the government for them. Ritaj reported that her father told her he had gone to jail two or three times because of their mother and that he had been trying to see them but that he could not because police was always around.
The children had informed the OCL earlier this year that they no longer wanted to see their father after incidents where they would be present for access visits and their father would not attend. Currently, they report they no longer want to see their mother after visiting with their father. Joumaa and Ritaj report that their mother is no longer part of their family and that they no longer want to see her while they had previously expressed no concern about their mother to the clinical investigator from the OCL.
Analysis
[34] The mother takes the position that this is a classic and severe case of parental alienation. The father maintains his position that the children have been subjected to significant physical abuse in the hands of their mother, which is why they now refuse to see her.
[35] To say that there is something terribly amiss in this case is an understatement. This is a situation where the children were reported to be happy, healthy, and developing at an age-appropriate level less than six months ago. They were observed as sharing a strong and loving bond with their mother, whom they confirmed was meeting all of their needs and with whom they wanted to continue to live. Reports from the children’s schools reviewed by the clinical investigator revealed no concerns about the three eldest children, confirmed that the mother attended to all of the children’s academic needs, that the children attended school consistently and that they were progressing well academically. The only exception related to Joumaa, who appeared to be struggling academically and socially and who had been the subject of a psycho educational assessment which found some cognitive challenges and made recommendations about his schooling which the mother followed. Less than six months ago, the children had not seen their father for almost six months and the three eldest children all confirmed the he constantly missed his visits (to which their mother drove them anyway), and all expressed anger at their father's lack of commitment to spending time with them.
[36] The father has provided no objective and reliable evidence that would explain why, from the very first day he withheld them in his care, the three youngest children have allegedly refused to see their mother and older brother. Quite the contrary, the entire evidentiary record unequivocally convinces me that the children have been significantly influenced, and potentially even coerced, to despise their mother, make false allegations of abuse by her, and express their refusal to have contact with her.
[37] A finding of parental alienation can be made at the interim stage and on a written record, particularly when the evidence overwhelmingly points to this conclusion. As the court noted in Hazleton v. Forchuck, 2017 ONSC 2282, 93 R.F.L. (7th) 254, at para. 2, the urgency raised by parental alienation necessitates early and decisive intervention by the court. In A.M. v. C.H., 2018 ONSC 6472, Justice Nicholson held that parental alienation was a legal concept as opposed to a mental health diagnosis, and as such, the court could make a finding of alienation on an elaborate analysis of the facts alone without expert evidence.
[38] In Fielding v. Fielding, 2013 ONSC 5102, 39 R.F.L. (7th) 59, Justice MacKinnon heard expert evidence in the context of a trial in which parental alienation was alleged. According to the expert’s opinion, which was accepted by Justice Mackinnon, parental alienation is established if:
• there was a prior positive relationship with the targeted parent;
• there is an absence of abuse by the targeted parent;
• the alienating parent uses many of the alienating strategies; and
• the child exhibits most of the alienated child behaviours.
[39] The expert listed a total of 17 alienating strategies used by alienating parents to impair a child’s relationship with the other parent. She then provided a list of behaviours usually exhibited by alienated children. I find that this decision provides a comprehensive framework to analyse and detect alienating behaviours on the part of a parent.
[40] In this case, the uncontested evidence before me confirms that the children shared a positive, close and loving relationship with their mother prior to the father’s unilateral withholding of the children in July 2020. The father’s allegations in relation to the children’s disclosures of physical harm by their mother were investigated by the police services through individual interviews with each of the children and were found to be insufficient to keep a file open or lay charges. During its recent involvement with this family, the Society concluded that the children’s allegations and disclosures continued to change and to expand overtime. The children have at times refused to continue to speak to Ms. Roy unless their father was present. There is not a shred of evidence before me that would suggest that the mother’s parenting abilities are deficient in any way. In fact, children have remained in the mother’s sole care since the parties’ separation in July 2017 without any reports ever being made by anyone in the community or by the father himself in relation to potential abuse or even neglect.
[41] There is no rational explanation as to why the children have completely changed their minds about both of their parents in the course of only a couple of months. On the contrary, the evidence before me establishes in a very compelling way that the father has engaged in a number of alienating behaviours that were identified in Fielding, above. Among other things, I make the following findings of facts based on all the evidence before me:
The father has spoken negatively about the mother to the children and has told them that their mother did not love them. This is made clear by the children’s own disclosure to the effect that their mother only wants them to “get the money from the government”, among many other examples;
The father has completely refused to facilitate contact between the mother and the children. I make this finding despite the father’s allegations to the contrary, which are not supported in any way by any objective evidence before me;
The father and his spouse have not only refused contact between the children and their mother, they have refused to allow Ahmad, the children’s older brother, to see them as well. No explanation was given for this;
The father has clearly created the impression in the children (or coerced them to report) that their mother is dangerous and should be feared;
The father has conveyed personal adult and litigation information to the children, which has compelled Ms. Roy to give him clear directions about what he could and could not discuss with the children, and how;
There is enough evidence before me to raise significant concerns about whether the children might have been coerced, including by pressure and threats, to speak badly about their mother and to make false accusations against her;
The children’s unprompted statements to Ms. Roy explaining their refusal to go on visits with their mother, and that it came from them and not from the father, as well Joumaa’s refusal to answer questions unless his father was present, support a finding that the children are afraid of their father and of the reaction he might have if they do not say what he wants them to say;
Shortly after the children were withheld by the father, Ritaj, the parties’ 9-year-old daughter, on a recorded message provided to the mother by the father, stated “we do not need you mom: we only need my new mom and dad”. When asked by Ms. Roy who was in her family, Ritaj did not mention her mother. Both Ritaj and Joumaa told Ms. Roy that their mother was not part of their family;
The father by his testimony and his actions shows absolutely no concern about the fact that the children, who have been in their mother’s primary care for at least the past three years, have had absolutely no contact with her in almost three months;
The father’s failure to ensure the children’s attendance at school since the beginning of the school year, in light of all the evidence in this case, supports a finding that he is consciously limiting the children’s contacts with anyone outside of himself and his wife.
[42] The evidence as a whole makes it clear to me that the children, and particularly Ritaj and Joumaa, are exhibiting the signs of children who have been alienated by their father and/or negatively influenced, including potentially by threats and coercion, in vilifying their mother while idealizing their father, and to refuse contact with their mother and older sibling. Either way, I find that the children’s emotional and psychological well-being is at significant risk if they remain in their father’s care.
[43] In Hazleton, at para. 75, Justice Gray stated:
…where parental alienation exists, it is manifestly important that steps be taken immediately. If they are not, the situation will only get worse. If the alienating parent continues to have unfettered access to the children, there is little doubt that the poisoning of the children’s minds will continue. At some point, the restoration of a relationship with the other parent becomes much more difficult, if not impossible.
[44] I am encouraged by the fact that the father’s alienating behaviours have only been going on for less than three months. With swift action, I am hopeful that the children’s relationship with their mother will be repaired and restored, although it is difficult to see how this will happen without significant mental health support being available to the children. It is crucial, in my view, that the children be shielded from their father’s toxic influence for a period of time to allow the children to heal, and to repair their relationship with their mother. Before the father can resume contact with the children, this Court needs to be reassured that he has accessed programing and counselling to help him gain insight into his behavior, and that he no longer represents a risk to their emotional and psychological well-being.
[45] Although, in her Notice of Motion, the mother only sought the return of the children and the suspension of access, as well as a police enforcement clause, I find on the evidence before me that these orders are insufficient to ensure the children’s safety and well-being. I, therefore, use my parens patriae jurisdiction to make the following detailed temporary order:
1- The Respondent mother, Ayyouch Al-Jammou, shall have sole custody of the children, Ahmed Hajji, born on January 1st, 2005, Joumaa Hajji, born on April 1st, 2006, Ritaj Hajji, born on January 1st, 2011, and Mohamad Hajji, born on May 16, 2015 (“the children”).
2- Effective immediately, the children shall reside exclusively with their mother.
3- The father shall deliver the three youngest children, namely, Joumaa Hajji, born on April 1st, 2006, Ritaj Hajji, born on January 1st, 2011, and Mohamad Hajji, born on May 16, 2015, at the office of the Children’s Aid Society located at 1602 Telesat Court, Gloucester, Ontario at 12 noon on Thursday, October 22, 2020. Both parents shall respect COVID -19 safety recommendations throughout the exchange. A copy of this decision shall be delivered electronically by the court to the Children’s Aid Society, attention Julie D’Aoust with the request that the CAS facilitate the transition of the children to the mother.
4- If the father fails to deliver the children in the manner and by the time set out in para. 3 above, and upon request by the mother and receipt of this order, pursuant to s. 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, the police force having jurisdiction in any area including but not limited to the Ottawa Police and/or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.) and/or any border services where it appears that the following children, namely, Joumaa Hajji, born on April 1st, 2006, Ritaj Hajji, born on January 1st, 2011, and Mohamad Hajji, born on May 16, 2015, may be, shall locate, apprehend and deliver the children to the Applicant mother, Ayyouch Al-Jammou, at the office of the Children’s Aid Society or at the mother’s residence at 1240 Donald St., Apt. 1214, Ottawa, Ontario, in a manner that is sensitive to the children.
5- For the purpose of locating and apprehending the children, a member of a police force having jurisdiction in any area including but not limited to the Ottawa Police and/or the R.C.M.P. may enter and search any place where he or she has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the children may be, with such assistance and such force as are reasonable in the circumstances and such entry or search may be made any time.
6- The Applicant father, Aref Ahmad Hajji, shall have no access to the children until further order of the court.
7- The father shall not communicate directly or indirectly with the children in any way, including in writing, by telephone, through social media or by in any other form of communication, until further order of the court or unless specifically consented to by the mother.
8- The father shall not attend the children’s school, the mother’s home or any place where he knows the children to be.
9- As the sole custodial parent, the mother is permitted to retain the services of any mental health professional of her choosing to provide the children, or any one of them, with counselling as she or they may deem appropriate in the circumstances, without the father’s consent.
10- This motion shall return before me at a date to be fixed by the parties through Trial Coordination in 45 to 60 days, for the purpose of providing the court with an update as to the children’s overall well-being and progress. At that time, the issue of the father’s access to the children and the need for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to be re-appointed will also be reviewed. Evidence from any professionals involved with the children shall be provided to the court at that time.
11- The continuation of the motion shall be based on affidavit material. The affidavit material shall be restricted to events occurring after each party’s last affidavit filed was sworn (i.e., October 14, 2020 for the mother and September 8, 2020 for the father) and exhibits arising from the production of any third-party records that were not already available on those dates. The mother’s materials are to be delivered ten days before the motion date, the respondent’s materials five days after service, and a brief reply two days after service of the responding materials.
12- If the Society is agreeable to do so, this Court would greatly benefit from another update on their investigation my letter to both parents prior to the motion, if it is still not completed by then.
13- I remain seized of any and all motions in this matter. Justice Engelking shall be seized of any case conferences, settlement conferences or trial management conferences.
Madam Justice Julie Audet
Released: October 22, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: FC-18-954
DATE: 20201022
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
AREF AHMAD HAJJI
Applicant
– and –
AYYOUCH AL-JAMMOU
Respondent
REASONS FOR Decision
Audet J.
Released: October 22, 2020