COURT FILE NO.: FS-14-81793

DATE: 2020-10-22

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

James Scot Thomson

Shawn Philbert, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

Jill Fleming

Faryal Rashid, for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: October 22, 2020 (by teleconference)

RETURN OF MOTION FOR ACCESS (Fourth hearing)

Baltman J

1The parties married in June 2012. Their daughter, Kaelin, was born shortly after, on October 6, 2012. The parents separated in May 2014. Kaelin is now 8 years old.

2Scot was exercising regular access until late June, 2019, when a physical altercation occurred (involving both parents and Kaelin) during an access transition. For some considerable time after, Kaelin – with Jill’s support – refused to see Scot.

3This parenting dispute first came before me in early April, 2020. Since then I have issued 3 decisions on this matter: Thomson v. Fleming, 2020 ONSC 2036 (April 3, 2020); Thomson v. Fleming, 2020 ONSC 3357 (May 29, 2020); and Thomson v. Fleming, 2020 ONSC 4724 (August 5, 2020).

4In my previous decisions I determined that a) Jill had been wrongfully withholding access; and b) the parties needed a parenting mediator who would facilitate a resumption of access.

5After some delay, the parties retained Mr. Steven Cross, who has been working with the family since early May. Access was initially resumed through daily video calls. In his initial progress report (dated August 2, 2020), Mr. Cross observed that while both parents had made some progress (accepting responsibility, apologizing for the June incident that ruptured Scot’s access, and promoting daily video calls), Jill was still projecting her resentment of Scot onto Kaelin and Scot needed to improve how he interacted with Kaelin and respond better to her fears.

6In his most recent report, dated October 13, 2020, Mr. Cross opined that “it is imperative that the momentum needs to speed up such that face to face visits between Kaelin and Mr. Thomson occur more regularly and frequently.” He recommended that such visits occur “weekly”, be of short duration, and that Jill not participate.

7During today’s teleconference both counsel agreed that in person access visits between Scott and Kaelin should resume, as soon as possible.

8One of the complicating features is that Scot’s mother (Dorothy), with whom he resides, was entwined in the physical confrontation that occurred back in June 2019. Another complicating feature is that because of the second wave of Covid, many public locations that would be suitable for access visits (e.g. restaurants, movie theatres, etc.) are now closed. The third complicating feature is that Jill is currently spending much of her time in her parents’ cottage 1.5 hours north of Toronto, which entails significant driving back and forth for access visits.

9After some productive collaboration, for which I commend them, counsel agreed to the following access schedule, going forward:

1. Kaelin will have in person visits with Scot on Saturday October 24, from 1-2 p.m. and Sunday October 25, from 1-2 p.m., both visits to take place at Pheasant Run park (near Scot’s home);

2. Kaelin will have in person visits with Scot on Saturday October 31, from 1-2 p.m. and Sunday November 1, from 1-2 p.m. at Scot’s home but with his mother Dorothy absent from the home;

3. Jill may drive Kaelin to and from these visits but shall not be present or in the immediate vicinity during them;

4. Access visits thereafter - and the anticipated expansion thereof - shall take place in accordance with Mr. Cross’s recommendations.

5. The telephone access calls are temporarily suspended, to be resumed in accordance with Mr. Cross’s recommendations.

10Both counsel raised concerns regarding their respective s. 7 obligations, particularly relating to Ms. Powley’s services. In that regard, I order the following:

1. Scot shall immediately make inquiries through his employment regarding any coverage for Ms. Powley’s fees, specifically as they relate to treatment for Kaelin;

2. Scot shall also provide documentation regarding outstanding fees allegedly owed by Jill for Ms. Barclay’s previous involvement;

3. Jill shall provide a breakdown of any fees owed to Ms. Powley that relate specifically to treatment provided to Kaelin;

4. Jill shall make inquiries through her employment regarding any coverage for Ms. Powley’s fees, specifically as they relate to treatment for Kaelin (separate and apart from any services provided to Jill herself);

5. Going forward, both parties are to pay for Ms. Powley’s treatment specifically of Kaelin in proportion to their incomes.

11This matter shall resume before me by teleconference on Friday, November 20, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. In advance, I require the following:

1. A brief updated progress report from Mr. Cross by noon on Friday November 13^th;

2. Brief written submissions from both counsel (maximum of 5 pages, through email) by noon on November 18, 2020.

12Counsel are to immediately provide a copy of this endorsement to Mr. Scott and Ms. Powley.

Baltman J.