OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-1520 DATE: 20210209

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Leslie Bouchard, Applicant and Angela Sgovio, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice J.E. Hughes

COUNSEL: John Schuman, for the Applicant john.schuman@devrylaw.ca Brian Hall, for the Respondent bhall@durhamlawyers.ca Allison McGregor, for the Children’s Aid Society allison.mcgregor@durhamcas.ca

HEARD: September 28, 2020

ENDORSEMENT

Background

[1] The Applicant Father and the Respondent Mother were married approximately 14 years. They separated on March 31, 2017, and entered into a Parenting Agreement, dated June 26, 2019, which, on the same date, was made into the final order of Leef J. on consent (the Leef Order). The Leef Order resolved the parenting issues relating to their two children, Tristen Bouchard, born March 15, 2006, and Siera Bouchard, born September 28, 2009.

[2] The Respondent Mother subsequently brought the matter back before the court on a motion trying to compel the Applicant Father’s compliance with the provisions of the Leef Order, including the shared parenting regime set out therein. On October 23, 2019, I issued an order to compel the Applicant Father’s compliance (the Hughes Order). I adjourned the motion to November 1, 2019 to monitor the Applicant Father’s compliance with the Leef Order and to hear submissions on costs of the motion.

[3] The motion was further adjourned to December 18, 2019, when a temporary consent order was made by McGee J. (the McGee Order), which directed that the Respondent Mother’s care of Tristen resume, and counselling commence with Mr. Jeff Packer and Ms. Nicole Bolotenko. The motion, returnable December 18, 2019, was then further adjourned to April 17, 2020, so that compliance and Tristen’s progress in therapy could be monitored, but the review could not proceed at that time due to the COVID-19 lockdown.

[4] Materials were subsequently amended, in terms of the relief being sought by each party, and the matter was ultimately heard September 28, 2020.

[5] The Respondent Mother sought the following relief from the court to remedy the Applicant Father’s non-compliance with the Leef Order and the subsequent orders issued to compel the Applicant Father’s compliance with the Leef Order:

1. An Order that the Respondent shall have temporary custody of the children, Tristen Marco Bouchard, born March 15, 2006, and Siera Maria Bouchard, born September 28, 2009;
2. An Order that the Respondent shall enroll with the children in Family Bridges: a workshop for troubled and alienated parent-child relationships (Family Bridges), to enable and assist the children in adjusting to living with the Respondent without the consent of the Applicant;
3. A further Order that Tristen will be forthwith brought by the Applicant to the offices of the Durham Children’s Aid Society or such other location as ordered by this Honourable Court where he will be brought by a transportation service as determined by Family Bridges to take Tristen to an undisclosed workshop location. Siera will remain with the Respondent on the day of the transportation;
4. An Order that following the completion of the Family Bridges workshop, and before returning home with the children, the Respondent shall take the children on a vacation of no less than 5 days in duration. The court expects that the children will apply what they learn during the Family Bridges workshop to improve their interactions with their mother during and following their vacation;
5. An order that the Respondent has the right to conceal from the Applicant the location of any intervention sought for the children, in the interests of protecting the children and the intervention from intrusion, interruption and harassment;
6. An order that the Applicant shall ensure that the children’s belongings are delivered by a third party to the Respondent’s home within 10 days, at the Applicant’s expense. For greater clarity “belongings” shall include: i. Children’s sports/hobby equipment; ii. All of the children’s electronic devices in the possession or control of the Applicant including iPhones, iPads and iPods; iii. All of Tristen’s clothes;
7. An Order that the Respondent has sole authority to consent to the children’s travel, and until further order of the court, the Applicant’s consent for the children to travel is hereby dispensed with;
8. An Order that pending further order of this court, the children shall have no contact with the Applicant, his relatives, friends or associates, including his spouse, except as directed by Family Bridges, or the aftercare professional, or any other professional designated by the Respondent or the Court, and none of the above-mentioned individuals shall contact the children. “Contact” includes all forms of contact (direct or indirect) and any communication, including phone contact, text messages, letters, emails, contact through social media, other contact via computer, in person contact and communication via third parties;
9. An Order that the Applicant shall be placed at a school at least 20 kilometers away from Eagle Ridge Public School and Pickering High School to continue working as an educational assistant with the Durham District School Board;
10. An Order that the resumption, timing and nature of contact between the children and Applicant will be based on the cooperation of the children and Applicant with these orders, the Family Bridges Program and with the aftercare specialist;
11. An Order that neither party shall subpoena the records of any of the professionals who assist the Respondent and children in making the transition to the court orders, including Family Bridges team leaders, nor shall either party seek testimony in any future court hearings by Family Bridges team leaders;
12. An Order that the cost of the Family Bridges workshop (estimated at $40,000) shall be paid by the Applicant and shall constitute a section 7 expense. It shall be collected by the Family Responsibility office on behalf of the Respondent;
13. A further Order that all of the aftercare costs shall be the responsibility of the Applicant for the aftercare treatment for himself, the child, Tristen, the child, Siera, and myself;
14. An Order that the non-contact order with the Applicant shall not be varied until a minimum of 90 days have passed from the commencement of therapy recommended by Family Bridges for the Applicant. This 90-day period is a minimum only, the extension of which will be considered by this court based on the Applicant’s progress made in any aftercare therapeutic program recommended by Family Bridges. This court will consider the following prior to ordering resumption of contact between the Applicant and the children: i. The degree of compliance by the Applicant with the requirements of the Family Bridges program; ii. The degree to which the Applicant has promoted the children’s relationship with the Respondent; iii. The degree to which the Applicant’s behaviours and comments are congruent with the promotion of a positive relationship between the children and the Respondent; iv. Such other criteria as recommended by the Family Bridges Program.
15. An Order that the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent $75,000 in costs, which shall be collected and enforced as child support by the Family Responsibility Office. Costs of this motion on a solicitor and client scale plus HST;
16. An Order directing the DRPS, the OPP or any other Canadian Police Force to enter into any dwelling to locate, apprehend and return the child, Tristen Marco Bouchard, or the child, Siera Maria Bouchard into the Respondent’s care;
17. Such further and other relief as counsel should advise or this Honourable Court deems just.

[6] The Applicant Father denies the Respondent Mother’s allegations, opposes the relief sought in her motion and has brought a cross-motion on notice specifically seeking the following:

1. An Order pursuant to section 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act appointing Marcie Goldhar to complete an expedited focused assessment to determine the reasons for the difficulties in the relationship between the child, Tristen Bouchard, and the Respondent Angela Sgovio, and report back to this Court on what treatment plan is most likely to repair that relationship;
2. An Order that the parties and the children shall attend, in person or by telephone conference, at times set by Ms. Goldhar after consulting with the parties, for meetings with Ms. Goldhar for the purposes of conducting the aforementioned assessment;
3. An order that the parties shall sign such consents to release of information as Ms. Goldhar shall require to conduct her assessment;
4. An Order that the parties shall share equally the costs of Ms. Goldhar’s assessment and shall each forward $2,200.00 to her immediately along with a signed retainer agreement executed by each of them in counterpart;
5. An Order that Ms. Goldhar shall complete the above assessment as soon as possible.
6. An Order for the return of this matter to court in one month, to allow Ms. Goldhar to complete her report;
7. An Order that the parties exchange offers to settle temporary parenting issues before the next court date.
8. An Order setting what school Tristen Bouchard shall attend commencing in September 2021 setting out his transportation to and from school and setting out the specifics of how Tristen will attend the online portion of his classes.
9. An Order granting the Applicant his costs of this motion;
10. Such further and other relief as to this court may seem just and appropriate.

The Respondent Mother’s Position and Evidence Filed

[7] It is the position of the Respondent Mother that, since separation, the Applicant Father has systematically alienated the child, Tristen, from her and that she has not had her son in her care, as contemplated in the Leef Order, dated June 26, 2019, since October 2019, despite the Hughes Order, dated October 23, 2019, and the McGee Order, dated December 18, 2019, compelling the Applicant Father to comply with the Leef Order. The Applicant Father’s non-compliance and campaign to alienate Tristen continues unabated to date and he continues to do unspeakable damage to their son, Tristen, and the parent-child relationship she and Tristen share.

[8] All attempts at re-unification counselling have been sabotaged by the Applicant Father, leaving the Respondent Mother no alternative but to seek the relief being claimed.

[9] In support of her position, the Respondent Mother has filed the following: i. Notice of Motion dated August 18, 2020 ii. Affidavit dated October 28, 2019 iii. Affidavit dated August 7, 2020 iv. Affidavit dated August 18, 2020 v. Affidavit September 22, 2020 vi. Reply Affidavit dated September 24, 2020

The Applicant Father’s Position and Evidence Filed

[10] It is the position of the Applicant Father that Tristen’s estrangement from his mother is justified based on the conduct of the Respondent Mother, and that the Respondent Mother’s plan he describes as being based on three pillars: that the Respondent Mother must be proven blameless, that he is evil, and Tristen must be forced to immediately live with his mother and see things her way, has failed. The Applicant Father proposes as the way to achieve the goal of Tristen resuming a positive relationship with his mother is that Marcie Goldhar should be appointed to complete a focused assessment to determine the reasons for the difficulties in the relationship between Tristen and his mother, and then report back to the court on what treatment plan is most likely to repair their relationship.

[11] The Applicant Father maintains that he has done everything he can to get Tristen to comply with the Leef Order and although Tristen refuses to live with his mother 50% of the time, as called for in the Leef Order, their relationship has improved and he is seeing his mother on a more frequent basis.

[12] The Applicant Father argues that there has never been a proper assessment done, and that a proper assessment by a professional qualified to assess parental alienation must be completed before the court has jurisdiction to order the relief sought by the Respondent Mother. The argument has also been put forward by counsel for the Applicant Father that the court has no jurisdiction to make an order for the relief claimed by the Respondent Mother because there is no motion to change before the court, or any other proceeding before the court that would give the court the jurisdiction to make the order sought by the Respondent Mother.

[13] In support of his position, the Applicant Father has filed the following: i. Cross-motion dated August 25, 2020 ii. Affidavit dated August 20, 2020 iii. Affidavit dated August 25, 2020, in response to the affidavits of the Respondent Mother dated August 7 and August 18, 2020. iv. Affidavit dated September 23, 2020 v. Affidavit dated January 21, 2021 vi. Affidavit of Michael Blugerman dated August 25, 2020

Issues

1. Has the Applicant Father brought himself into compliance with the final order of Leef J. dated June 26, 2019, and, more specifically: i. Has he stopped involving the children in adult conversations about the legal issues, and has he stopped discussing with the children disputes he is having with the other party about the legal issues? (Paragraph 3.12 of the Leef Order) ii. Has he taken the children to their counselling as consented to and ordered by the court? iii. Has he facilitated the resumption of Tristen’s parenting time with the Respondent Mother? (paras. 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.8, 4.13, 4.15 of the Leef Order)
2. Has the Applicant Father continued a pattern of vilifying the Respondent Mother to Tristen?
3. What is the appropriate remedy given the findings made and the particular circumstances of this case?

Analysis of the Evidence

[14] The majority of the evidence necessary to determine that the Applicant Father has continued to be in breach of the Leef Order, dated June 26, 2019, and is in breach of the subsequent orders made by myself and McGee J., to compel his compliance, is contained in the admissions made in the materials filed by the Applicant Father, including the notes he produced from the Durham Children’s Aid Society, and communications from the counsellors who have tried to assist Tristen and his family.

Ongoing Non-Compliance with paragraph 3.12 of the Leef Order

[15] In the Hughes Order, dated October 23, 2019, I strongly expressed to the Applicant Father the importance of his compliance with paragraph 3.12 of the Leef Order, which reads:

They (the parents) will not involve the children in any adult conversations about the legal issues. Neither parent will discuss with the children any disputes they are having with the other party about legal issues.

[16] I explained in my order that this term is specifically intended to reduce and protect children such as Tristen from their parents’ conflict. I set out specifically those instances where I found that the Applicant Father had breached that term of the Leef Order. I penalized him for doing so, and I set out clearly in the order the penalty I would impose if he continued to do so (See para. [47] 1b), and 2).

[17] Unfortunately, the Applicant Father has remained undeterred and his materials filed for this motion are peppered with examples of this ongoing and abusive conduct. I will detail a few of the highlights below.

[18] At paragraph 20 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit, dated August 25, 2020, he states:

The children know nothing from me about the court case – only that it continues…

But his statement is contradicted by the admission he makes at paragraph 13 of the same affidavit.

Paragraph 13

[19] At paragraph 13 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit dated August 25, 2020 he states:

I have also conveyed to Tristen that at age 14, his feelings have no weight or importance and will not be considered.

Not only is this a breach of the Leef Order, but the Applicant Father knows it to be untrue.

[20] At paragraph [15] of my order dated October 23, 2020, I explained to the Applicant Father that children have a voice in family court proceedings, but not a veto, and that their views and preferences are just one factor considered in the assessment of what parenting plan is ultimately in their best interest. I then went on at paragraph [16] to set out Section 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, which sets out all of the factors the court must consider.

[21] At paragraph 13 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit dated August 25, 2020, he also states:

I have also conveyed to him (Tristen), that Justice Hughes has said his mother is right and his feelings and memories of his experiences are wrong.

I could not imagine making the statement the Applicant Father swore I did because I have never thought that way about this case. I also scoured the court record and could find no such statement. To be fair to the Applicant Father, I issued a short endorsement dated January 19, 2021 granting the Applicant Father an opportunity to cite precisely when and where I had made that statement.

[22] In response, the Applicant Father filed a two-page affidavit, dated January 21, 2021, which failed to answer the question posed in my endorsement. The contents of the response and the statements he made in his earlier affidavit at paragraph 13 are troubling for a number of reasons:

i) They contain admissions that the Applicant Father continues to breach paragraph 3.12 of the Leef Order by involving Tristen in adult conversations about the legal issues and the dispute that continues with the Respondent Mother; ii) At paragraph 13, the Applicant Father admits making both statements to Tristen, and both statements are patently untrue. Why would the Applicant Father knowingly misstate the law and the facts to his son Tristen? I am concerned that these untrue statements made by the parent Tristen favours and trusts will serve to undermine the child’s respect for the authority of the court; iii) At paragraph 7 of the Applicant Father’s most recent affidavit, he states, “Justice Hughes accepted Angela’s version of events over what the children recalled about the same situations.” This is also untrue, and I would like to remind the Applicant Father that in making the findings I did in my decision dated October 23, 2019 (see para. [18]), I relied on the admissions made in the Applicant Father’s opening statement, the responding affidavit material the Applicant Father filed on the motion, and the filed exchange of written communication between the Applicant Father and the Respondent Mother and her counsel. I did not have to rely on the Respondent Mother’s version of events to make the findings I made, or to make the order based on those findings and the law; iv) The Applicant Father suggests in his affidavit, dated January 21, 2021 (see para 3), that the information contained in paragraph 13 of his affidavit dated August 25, 2020 came to him through the children and suggests that their mother was the source. This contradicts the Applicant Father’s precise wording in paragraph 13 that appears at the beginning of both sentences and reads:

I have also conveyed to Tristen…

v) At paragraph 7 of his affidavit, dated January 21, 2021, the Applicant Father admits that he made the statements to Tristen and lists the reasons he believes that his statements to Tristen are correct. The Applicant Father tries to justify his non-compliance with paragraph 3.12 of the Leef Order by providing reasons for doing so. At paragraph 7a), the Applicant Father misquotes a written statement I made in the Hughes Order. Paragraph 7 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit, dated January 21, 2021, reads:

The reasons I believe that my statements to Tristen are correct are as follows: a) As noted at paragraph 19 of my August 25, 2020 affidavit, both of the children know, again from their mother, that Justice Hughes has said (at paragraph 20 of her October 23, 2019 Order) that Her Honour is of the opinion that I have refused to accept Angela’s terms for resolving our matter …

That is, in fact, not my opinion, and paragraph 20 of my order actually reads, “the Respondent Mother’s refusal to accept his (the Applicant Father’s) terms for resolving the matter…”

[23] The only sensible conclusion I can draw from the foregoing is that the Applicant Father was telling the truth when he swore in his affidavit, dated August 25, 2020, that he made the statements set out at paragraph 13 to Tristen, that he was not being truthful when he made those statements to Tristen, and that he is intentionally misleading the court in his affidavit, dated January 21, 2021, by trying to deflect responsibility for his wrongful behaviour onto the Respondent. This is consistent with his past pattern of denying any responsibility for Tristen’s estrangement from his mother. It also goes to credibility and my determination of the weight I should give to other statements sworn to by the Applicant Father in his materials.

[24] There are no reasons that justify repeatedly involving Tristen in the conflict between the Applicant Father and the Respondent Mother, contrary to the Leef Order, and the Applicant Father appears blind to the damage his non-compliant conduct has caused to his son, Tristen. I find that the Applicant Father’s instinct continues to be to include, rather than shield, Tristen from parental conflict.

Ongoing Non-Compliance with Orders for Therapy

[25] The Leef Order specifically directs that the children Siera and Tristen shall meet with the counsellor, Stacey Rennehan, weekly for closed counselling for so often as Ms. Rennehan deems necessary. Both parties shall alternate/share bringing the children to their counselling sessions.

[26] At paragraph 8 of his affidavit, dated August 25, 2020, the Applicant Father lists the steps he has taken to get Tristen to repair his relationship with his mother, and he includes that he has taken Tristen to, and paid for, a series of counsellors that Angela has selected to work with them both; and he has also followed the recommendations of those therapists. This is contradicted by the written statements made by the therapists involved with this family and filed with the motion materials. The Applicant Father consistently fails to follow their recommendations, which directly leads to a termination of the therapy.

Counselling/Therapy provided by Stacey Rennehan

[27] Both the Applicant Father and the Respondent Mother produced email communication with Stacy Rennehan for the court’s consideration. At paragraph 43 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit, dated August 25, 2020, the Applicant Father states as follows:

Angela refers to an email from Ms. Rennehan from November, 8,2019 and has provided that email at Exhibit “A” of her August 18 th Affidavit. The email she did not include is the October 1, 2019 email from Ms. Rennehan where she herself suggested Tristen see a different counsellor. This email is Exhibit “E”.

[28] The email attached as Exhibit “E” to the Applicant Father’s affidavit, dated August 25, 2020, is not actually from October 1, 2019 as he suggests, but from November 7 and 8, 2019. I believe this is the email he intended to make his point that it was Ms. Rennehan herself who suggested that Tristen see a different counsellor, because in Ms. Rennehan’s email dated November 7, 2019 she stated in her last sentence, “I do feel that securing a new counsellor (she is referring to Tristen, and not Siera, who she continued to counsel) is ideal.”

[29] From this chain of emails produced by the parties between themselves and the counsellor Stacey Rennehan, I was able to glean some insight into the clinical issues for this family, and the reasons Ms. Rennehan determined that she could no longer provide an effective therapeutic intervention for Tristen as directed in the Leef Order.

[30] Ms. Rennehan explains:

My sessions ended with Tristen when he refused to come into sessions and it was communicated to me that he was concerned that I was believing his mother over him.

[31] Ms. Rennehan then addresses the Applicant Father directly in the email:

Les, I requested a meeting with you as the first step in exploring the possibility of resuming counselling with Tristen was for me to assess your level of confidence in my ability to work with Tristen in an unbiased manner. When you attended that session and asked to record that discussion, it was apparent that the level of trust I required was not present. Also, you suggested that the only way Tristen wished to proceed was with you attending sessions with he and Angie I advised you that this was not a direction that I believed was clinically appropriate at this time. I then advised that based on these factors, my working with Tristen was not going to work.

If something has changed, and Tristen is interested in continuing therapy with me, and you are able to trust my therapeutic approach, we can discuss this further. However, it should be known that given the current issues between Tristen and Angie, and with a goal of improving this relationship, moving forward without seeing her and hearing her perspective on things would not be possible.

[32] And then Ms. Rennehan sets out the necessary therapeutic approach:

When perspectives are presented in session, it is not to suggest that one person is being dishonest, but to attempt to reflect both sides of the same story that is being presented from different perspectives and to determine how to move forward given the differing perspectives.

[33] It is clear from the Applicant Father’s material that this was not the approach he wanted taken. In his email to Ms. Rennehan on the same date (November 8, 2019), the Applicant Father writes:

Both ‘orders’ say counselling for Tristen and Siera in terms of supporting them through their struggles/needs as a result of the separation/divorce. It no where stipulates reunification.

[34] The Applicant Father boldly stated to the counsellor that reunification between Tristen and his mother was not part of her mandate as directed in the court orders. To understand the significance of this statement by the Applicant Father, it is necessary to go back and follow closely the chronology of events that unfolded following the making of the Leef Order.

[35] The Leef Order was made on June 26, 2019, and in accordance with that order, the parents followed a 50/50 shared parenting schedule until the continuing settlement conference held on August 1, 2019, which Leef J. had scheduled to deal with property issues only. In his affidavit sworn August 20, 2019, the Applicant Father expressed his extreme disappointment at the outcome of that settlement conference, and he declared in his opening statement (See para [21] of the Hughes Order):

Last week, on Friday August 16 th , which was exactly 14 days after his estrangement from his mother began, I provided the Respondent three third-party professional names for her to choose from, to complete the VOC report.

[36] In the first part of the sentence, the Applicant Father pinpoints the commencement of Tristen’s estrangement from his mother as August 2, 2019, which is the day following the last settlement conference. It would be reasonable to conclude that the Leef Order, which was made in June 2019, makes no mention of the “estrangement” when it speaks to the children’s need for counselling, because the “estrangement” had not happened yet. Surely, the statement that the counselling was intended to support the children through their struggles/needs as a result of the separation/divorce is broad enough to include reunification counselling.

[37] The second part of the sentence makes no mention of seeking professional help to repair the relationship between Tristen and his mother and is focused on obtaining a Voice of the Child report.

[38] I find that the Applicant Father did not support the counselling goal espoused by Ms. Rennehan of repairing the relationship between Tristen and his mother, and actively sought to undermine the process by:

i) Insisting that the only way Tristen wished to proceed was with the Applicant Father attending sessions with Tristen and Angie, which Ms. Rennehan advised was not a direction that she believed was clinically appropriate at the time and was not going to work; ii) Insisting that Tristen meet with Ms. Rennehan to explain what he, as the client, wanted and needed out of therapy. In other words, Tristen would dictate the goals and the direction the process would take; iii) Suggesting to Ms. Rennehan that she was not mandated by the court orders to set reunification as a goal in Tristen’s therapy; iv) Accusing Ms. Rennehan of having private conversations with the Respondent Mother from which he was excluded; and v) Requesting he be permitted to record their meeting, signalling that he did not trust Ms. Rennehan to be unbiased.

[39] I find that all of these behaviours on the part of the Applicant Father led to Ms. Rennehan making the following statement that the Applicant Father produced at Exhibit E of his affidavit, dated August 25, 2020, and that he wishes to rely on:

Hello Les, and Angie I have not spoken to Angie about this matter outside of the group emails. As I have shared with you both, the issue is the lack of trust in my ability to be unbiased. I am concerned that this can not be regained. So, if there is some change and there is trust in my ability to provide unbiased counselling we can discuss moving forward. If this is unchanged, I do feel that securing a new counsellor is ideal. Stacey.

Counselling/therapy provided by Ms. Nicole Bolotenko and Jeff Packer

[40] I accept the Applicant Father’s evidence that Tristen had a good relationship with his next therapist, Ms. Nicole Bolotenko, who worked under the direction of Jeff Packer. I also accept the Applicant Father’s evidence that after Tristen’s appointment on December 14, 2019, the Applicant Father forgot to book the next appointment and did not follow-up with Ms. Bolotenko until December 30, 2019, by which point she was not available until January 11, 2020. I also accept the Applicant Father’s evidence that he had to cancel that appointment because Tristen was ill. I accept the Applicant Father’s evidence that Tristen’s appointment was rescheduled to the first available date, being January 25, 2020.

[41] What I do not accept as correct is the Applicant Father’s rejection of the two-pronged approach to the therapeutic intervention pursued by Mr. Packer with this family. More specifically, one therapist working with the parents to address the obstacles in their dysfunctional relationships that need to be identified and resolved in order that the child’s relationship with each parent is genuinely supported and encouraged in both households, and one therapist working to establish a firm foundation of trust with the child. These initial steps are absolutely necessary to a successful and long-lasting reunification process.

[42] Support for this process was echoed by Ms. Rennehan in her email to the parties, which is attached as Exhibit A to the affidavit of the Applicant Father, dated August 25, 2020. Ms. Rennehan is referring to her ongoing work with Siera, but her comments are equally applicable to Tristen, and she writes:

I do hope that the co-parenting group that was begun will continue, as well as clinical intervention with you as co-parents, as the presence of respect and support for each other, along with an ability for children to feel fully able to express themselves in each home and their love and care for each parent at all times is essential for the most optimal long term outcome for Siera.

[43] At paragraph 52 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit he makes the following comments criticizing the process:

I know that co-parenting is important, but I also know that the most important thing right now is the relationship between Tristen and Angela, not me and Angela. The cost per session with Angela and I was $720. This is a lot of money. It’s not something I can afford on a regular basis, especially when it isn’t a priority. This opinion is shared by DCAS worker, Cathy Bugden…

[44] Ms. Cathy Bugden’s case note from February 4, 2020, reads:

I do not see the need for Jeff to continue seeing her and Les for 2-4 sessions when his role is not co-parenting but reunification. I understand co-parenting is important, and meeting parents, however at $700 a session, he needs to focus on the relationship between her and Tristen. Les and Angela are completing co-parenting programs and Jeff was not hired for that.

[45] This displays a profound failure on the part of the Applicant Father and the Society worker, Ms. Bugden, to understand the complexity of the clinical issues this family is facing, and the process necessary to achieve a successful reunification without resort to techniques that are far more disruptive to families. I agree the cost is significant, but it is the cost to repair many months of damage done to Tristen. You cannot place a value on the relationship between a mother and a child that will otherwise be lost. Also, the co-parenting group program the parties were engaged in is an educational program only. There is no therapeutic aspect to the group program, which is absolutely essential to a successful reunification in this case.

[46] I find that the misguided support from the Society of the Applicant Father’s uninformed and negative views of the therapeutic approach taken by Mr. Packer completely undermined the process. I have had many families before me who have had Mr. Packer successfully assist them through counseling, and never had any complaints raised about the professionalism exercised in the course of that therapy.

[47] On February 19, 2020, Mr. Jeff Packer reported to the Durham Children’s Aid Society as follows (See Exhibit A to the affidavit of the Respondent Mother, dated September 22, 2020):

Tristen was referred to counselling as his parents expressed concerns for their son’s increased frustration, emotional dysregulation and reduced coping capacity. One fairly obvious factor was the self-reported high conflict interaction between the parents before, during and after their separation. The writers informed both parents of our protocol and common procedures for assisting children and families in counselling as supported by the research and practice of family systems theory.

Following a parent intake session, Tristen completed four individual sessions on November 16, November 30, December 14, 2019 and January 25, 2020. During these sessions, Tristen was assisted in learning stress management, relaxation and cognitive behavioural shifting to begin to assist him with developing improved emotional regulation and a more balanced perspective of both of his parents. It was also found that Tristen had gone several months refusing to see his mother and despite court orders for Mr. Les Bouchard to follow custody orders, he continued to remain in Mr. Les Bouchard’s custody. Tristen seemed to show signs of parental alienation given the research completed by Gardner on Parental Alienation Syndrome. These writers also wish to make clear, however, that a full assessment of parents with regard to parental alienation has not yet been completed.

It was recommended in a report created by the writers dated December 18, 2019 that family reunification counselling and possibly cooperative parenting counselling be effectively engaged in to support Tristen’s counselling goals and wellbeing. At that time, the Applicant Father and the Respondent Mother reported going back to family court and creating a court order (the McGee Order) that included reunification counselling for Tristen and his mother to be led by the counsellor they engaged. Before reunification counselling began, the parents agreed to attend two sessions with Jeff Packer in order to assess and determine parents’ readiness, level of commitment, and ability to engage in reunification counselling and cooperative parenting coaching. During these two sessions (January 17 and 31, 2020) and subsequent correspondence, this writer found that the Applicant Father continued to engage in blame and put downs of his co-parent rather than agreeing and committing to treatment plans set out by the writer for the improvement of the Respondent Mother’s relationship with their son. Facing these enduring high conflict patterns of behaviour, this writer offered alternatives such as individual sessions, parallel parenting or parent co-ordination approaches. The parents were also provided knowledge on how a lack of improvement of engagement in their sessions would undermine and effect Tristen Bouchard’s motivation and faith in his own individual counselling within the same organization. The Applicant Father put up further barriers to continued treatment with threatening and inappropriate behaviour towards both the Respondent Mother and the writers. On February 8, 2020, the Applicant Father and the Respondent Mother were informed (via email) by the writers that they could not continue to provide service for ethical and safety reasons:

It is our concern and impression, given the several hours of documentation read from court, email correspondence and sessions with the writers that Mr. Les Bouchard continues to ignore court orders for shared custody and is unwilling and unmotivated to participate in Tristen Bouchard having a comfortable, healthy and meaningful reconnection with his mother. The writers are concerned that Mr. Les Bouchard is directly and indirectly contributing to Tristen Bouchard’s sense of hostility, dislike and aggression towards his mother. It is our assessment that, at this time, Mr. Les Bouchard struggles with his responsibility as a parent to encourage the development of a healthier relationship between Tristen and his mother. Finally, in keeping with a family systems approach, we are concerned with the health and wellness of both children should exposure to such high-level parental/caregiver conflict continue. [emphasis added]

[48] The correspondence is signed by Nicole Bolotenko, MEd, CCC, Tristen’s direct counsellor with whom the Applicant Father admitted Tristen had a good relationship, and by Jeff Packer, MSW, RSW, RP, (Registered Social Worker and Registered Psychotherapist).

[49] It is the opinion of both signatories of this report to the Society that it was the Applicant Father’s behaviour that led to the abandonment of this therapeutic intervention which was intended to assist Tristen in reunification with his mother.

Counselling/Therapy with Gary Brooks

[50] The next counsellor, Gary Brooks, was suggested by the DCAS worker, Ms. Bugden, and, in my opinion, was a very good suggestion. I accept the Applicant Father’s evidence that Tristen seemed to be making a lot of progress in the therapy with Gary Brooks, and that he saw Gary Brooks for six sessions. I also accept his evidence that the Applicant Father commenced taking Tristen to Gary Brooks as soon as the Respondent Mother agreed. I accept that the Applicant Father noticed a marked change in Tristen when he began therapy with Gary Brooks. He seemed happier overall, he would smile and be in a good mood before his sessions and he always went voluntarily, and that all changed in June 2020.

[51] Mr. Brooks’s email to the parties and to the Society, dated June 22, 2020, is very clear on the reasons his assistance to this family was terminated, and it reads:

Subject: Re: Tristen Hello Les, first please note that I do not conduct therapy using email. As you recall from our first telephone meeting with you and Tristen’s mom Angie, we discussed that I would only agree to do reconciliation/reintegration therapy on four conditions of which you both agreed.

1. You both agree that it is in your sons best interest to have a healthy relationship with both parents despite your own feelings towards each other.
2. It is your (Dad) responsibility to use your parental authority to make sure your son attends all therapy sessions.
3. Parents are not to discuss adult or court related issues for any reason.
4. Under no circumstances is either parent to interrogate, ask questions, discuss, inquire as to how the therapy session went; even if Tristen initiates the conversation as it will undermine the therapeutic process.

Les, You failed to bring Tristen to the last appointment and did not call to cancel or reschedule 24 hours prior to the appointment even though I sent you a reminder the day before. Angie and I both attended. You still owe for that appointment.

Les your email clearly demonstrates that you did everything you agreed you would not do which effectively sabotaged the therapeutic process. Your actions further alienated Tristen from his mom. At this point, given your actions as witnessed by your detailed email, I do no feel reconciliation therapy can be effective while Tristen remains in your care, under your direction and influence. Regretfully, Tristen and his mom will have to seek out the services of yet another therapist. I will not respond to further emails. If you wish to make an appointment to discuss further please feel free to do so. [emphasis added]

[52] Ms. Bugden tries to get Gary Brooks to resume providing the parties and Tristen therapeutic support. It appears that in her discussions with Mr. Brooks to this end she acquired some insight into the complex process of reunification, and the importance of the parties’ ability to co-parent in that process. In her email date September 1, 2020, she states:

I just got off the phone with Gary Brooks and he was initially reluctant to start any counselling as he feels unless there have been changes with everyone’s position it is not helpful. He did however agree to meet with Les and Angela ONE time and if it goes well then he will move forward with it. Initially it will be Angela and Les to discuss co-parenting; then Les and Tristen followed by Angela and Tristen.

I along with Gary want to stress that parents are there to discuss how to EFFECTIVELY co-parent and decision make together. It is not about their history or past. It has to (sic) how to parent together which I feel can be successful because after bridging a relationship with both I know that you have the same values and fundamental parenting style.

[53] It is unfortunate that the Society could not have provided this kind of support for Tristen when his family first began counselling with Mr. Packer. This is not the worker’s fault. It is imperative for Society workers assigned to work with high conflict families where parental estrangement is an issue to have adequate training in the area of estrangement/alienation and reunification. Otherwise, the Society is inadvertently perpetuating a situation that is causing the child significant emotional harm and squandering the Society’s precious resources. There seems to be no end to these extremely high conflict cases. Training needs to be provided to workers assisting these families so that they recognize quickly the common patterns of behaviour and manipulation characteristic of parents with alienation tendencies and can put in place the therapeutic supports necessary to protect the children caught in their parents’ battleground.

[54] There is no reason for Ms. Rennehan, Mr. Packer, Ms. Bolotenko, or Mr. Brooks, to be inaccurate in their account of interactions with Tristen and his family. They have “no skin in the game” as it were, and I find it probable that they have accurately documented events, as that is an integral part of their profession. As such, wherever their account of events differs from those of the Applicant Father, I prefer the account provided by the therapists.

Manipulation of the Durham Children’s Aid Society by the Applicant Father

[55] It takes many years of training and experience to be able to identify the sophisticated nature of the manipulation typically engaged in by parents with tendencies toward alienating their children, and it takes considerable insight and discernment to differentiate between those cases that present as possibly justified estrangement vs. alienation. In order to do so, it is often necessary to scrutinize parental behaviour over many months, even years. It is not possible to accurately do so by observing what amounts to a snapshot in the family’s lifetime, or by giving the dominant parent more audio time. We must guard against our human nature to start to believe a certain narrative simply because we hear it repeated often. Hence the encouragement from our Court of Appeal for judges to seize ourselves of these high conflict and excruciating cases.

[56] In the Applicant Father’s materials, he highlights the Society’s support for his position, and the Society has made it clear that they do not support the plan proposed by the Respondent Mother. I am going to walk through the Durham Children’s Aid Society’s notes produced by the parties and point out the manipulation of the worker by the Applicant Father that causes me concern, and I would ask the Society to reconsider their position on the motion, taking into account all of the concerns identified in this decision, including the Applicant Father’s credibility and apparent struggle to recount numerous historical facts accurately.

Pickering High School

[57] It was a term of the Leef Order, as agreed to by the parties, after the Applicant Father had already relocated to Port Perry, that Tristen would attend Pickering High School once he graduated from eighth grade. The Applicant Father suggests in his affidavit materials that once Tristen became estranged from his mother and was residing with his father in Port Perry (August 2, 2019), he no longer wanted to attend Pickering High School. This does not appear to be entirely true. Tristen confirmed his intention to attend Pickering High School in Ajax to the Society worker even after the problems developed in his relationship with his mother and he had been residing solely with the Applicant Father for many months at his home in Port Perry.

[58] The Durham Children’s Aid Society notes produced by the Applicant Father and attached to his affidavit sworn August 25, 2020 disclose the following:

March 5, 2020 the worker met privately with Tristen. (the second to last sentence reads) Next year Tristen will be attending Pickering HS, and he said his friends are attending there.

[59] The issue of Tristen changing schools came up not long after Tristen began counselling with Gary Brooks. I accept the Applicant Father’s evidence at paragraphs 65, 66 and 83 of his affidavit dated August 25, 2020 that Tristen had begun to make good progress once he began therapy with Mr. Brooks, and then something changed. The Applicant Father’s affidavit reads:

65. Tristen seemed to be making a lot of progress in the therapy with Gary Brooks…
66. Tristen spoke positively of Gary Brooks to me. He seemed to enjoy it. He was finally going to therapy willingly and seemed to be less angry at Angela…
67. I noticed a marked change in Tristen when he began therapy with Gary Brooks. He seemed happier overall, he would smile and be in a good mood before his sessions and he always went voluntarily… that all changed on June 3 rd .

[60] The Applicant Father goes on to make a number of statements in his affidavits which are contradicted by a careful scrutiny of the Society worker’s notes, which he produced. Paragraphs 68, 69, and 70 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit, sworn August 25, 2020, read:

68. Angela and I have known for quite some time that Tristen wants to go to Port Perry High School. He’s talked about it for quite a while. On June 3, 2020, I understand he brought it up in therapy with Angela and Gary. From what Tristen told me about that session, Angela refused to listen to him and Gary was insistent that Angela make the call on this issue as he is the child and she is the parent (Gary is right on this but it deeply upset Tristen, a fourteen year old boy).
69. The above is confirmed by private meetings between Tristen and the DCAS worker.
70. Tristen appears to have initially brought up this issue with his case worker on June 25, 2020.

[61] The statements made at paragraphs 69 and 70 are untrue. The first time the change of schools issue is raised with the worker is on June 5, 2020, just two days after the session at which it was raised with Gary Brooks, and it was not at a private meeting between Tristen and the worker, as sworn to by the Applicant Father. The worker’s notes from June 5, 2020 confirm that both the Applicant Father and his partner (it is reasonable to assume that the redacted name is the Applicant Father’s partner, given her participation in the meeting) were present at that meeting. It appears from the worker’s notes that shortly after the meeting began she raised concerns that a discussion had already been had with Tristen (contrary to the Leef Order, and contrary to the instructions given by both Gary Brooks and the Society), but Ms. Bugden does not insist on meeting with Tristen privately, and unfortunately carries on with the meeting. The majority of the notes do not deal with the issue of school, only the last six lines, and they read:

Tristen said he also discussed high school for next year with his mother. He is living with his dad and has been thinking about attending Port Perry High School. He said that he brought it up and his mother would not even talk about it and said he was going to Pickering High School Tristen said there was no discussion and that upset him because he would like to go to school and make friends where he is living. According to Tristen his mother said “we have an agreement”. I asked les what the agreement says and he said that Tristen would attend Pickering high school unless changing schools is in Tristen’s best interest.

[62] What is particularly troubling about this meeting between the worker, the Applicant Father, his partner, and Tristen, is that afterwards it is clear from the worker’s notes specifically cited in the Applicant Father’s affidavit that she has become an advocate for a change in schools. Without the necessary training, the worker would not have been aware that parents with alienating tendencies want their children to remain angry and hostile toward the other parent, and will instigate events for that purpose, especially where the children seem to be making some progress. Ms. Bugden did not question the Applicant Father further and it is clear she did not suspect that she was being manipulated by the favoured parent. Ms. Bugden may not have appreciated that changing the parenting plan in such a fundamental way would make the likelihood of a return to the shared parenting terms set out in the Leef Order less likely, rather than more likely.

[63] It must be remembered that the status quo is irrelevant if the evidence shows that a parent is being prevented from parenting their child.

[64] Although the issue of where Tristen would attend school was resolved on the eve of this motion, I reviewed the evidence on this issue in order to make two points:

i) The Applicant Father’s lack of acquaintance with the truth. I find that he is no longer struggling to recount events accurately, and is now intentionally trying to mislead the court; ii) The ease with which a parent intent on alienating a child can manipulate a Society worker, who sincerely has the best interests of a child at heart, but has not had the necessary training and is unfamiliar with the patterns of behaviour common to parents with alienating tendencies.

Reunification Counselling

[65] After Tristen’s counselling ended with Nicole Bolotenko, but before counselling commenced with Gary Brooks, Tristen had a virtual meeting on April 1, 2020 with the Society worker, and the Applicant Father was present at that meeting. The worker confirms that it was her recommendation to use Gary Brooks for counselling, and the worker’s notes go on to say:

I told Tristen that I understood that changing [counsellors] again must be difficult. I told him that Gary is a great (at) counselling and works primarily with teens. They connect with him and everyone lieks (sic) him. I asked him to be open with it and see what can happen. I told him having a male be what he needs to get that perspective. I did tell Tristen I am concerned about his anger and how he is still so upset and cutting ties with him (sic) mother. It has been a long tim (sic). Les said he has told Tristen that and told him during the call that in life people get angry but you need to deal with things.

I told Tristen that he is being very quiet. Les asked if he wanted him to leave and Tristen said he did not. Tristen said he doesn’t know why he gets so angry. Les and Tristen told me about the incident on his birthday. Tristen was at the door and Angie wanted him to come out, and Tristen got very anxious. I asked why and he again said he does not know. Les shared that Tristen did text Angie once. I told him that I did hear that and told Tristen I was so happy and proud when he did. I told Tristen that I understand that after he got angry and told mom not to text and [s]he hasn’t since. Les told me and Tristen that he has been discussing it with his counsellor and he told Tristen to send a text each day, and if mom responds don’t look at it. Tristen said it is hard because he uses his phone so sees it. I told him I will tell mom to not continue texting. Just acknowledge and wait fo (sic) him. Tristen agreed. Tristen again said he does not know why he gets upset or angry. I told him that some level he needs to resolve it as when he gets older he will be mad at many people and how to deal with that is important.

[66] I note that Tristen made the comment that he does not know why he gets upset, anxious, or angry three times during this conversation with the Society worker, and with his father present.

[67] The very next meeting with the Society worker is via Skype on April 23, 2020 (this note is produced by the Applicant Father at Exhibit B of his affidavit, sworn August 25, 2020) and the Applicant Father is present with Tristen on the call again. The worker’s notes read:

…Les wanted to discuss the last meeting with him and Tristen. After the call Tristen made the comment to his dad and (blank) that he feels that although the thing that upsets him with his mother could be worse(as I said) he said that he feels very angry and hurt of the years of his mother and (blank) talking negatively about his dad and (blank) along with lying about issues. Tristen felt I was minimizing his feelings around the issues. Les said it was the first time Tristen has really spoke about that and (blank) asked why he did not address it with me. Tristen does not like conflict, Les said, so he wanted to bring it up.

[68] Not only does the worker not interrupt the Applicant Father’s monologue and the messaging to Tristen that these are the grievances against the Respondent Mother and they are not to be forgotten, but she does not recognize the Applicant Father’s performance for the manipulation that it is. Alienating parents want their child to remain angry at the other parent. The worker did absolutely nothing wrong, there is nothing in the prior note that suggests that she acted or said anything inappropriate, and yet she goes on to apologize. The note reads:

I thanked him (Les) and I apologized to Tristen for the words I used. I told him that I should never have minimized it and if I made him feel that way I am sorry. That was never my intention and I would like him to tell me if I upset him or get it wrong…

[69] By apologizing for her insensitivity toward Tristen in the manner she did, the worker unknowingly was reinforcing the Applicant Father’s version of events, reinforcing Tristen’s sense of victimization, and strongly reinforcing Tristen’s sense that his father’s statements are true. I question why Tristen’s interviews with the worker did not remain private, given that Tristen was living with the favoured parent, and the Society’s goal was reunification between the child and his mother.

[70] The worker’s note goes on to state:

Les said that Tristen was not mad about what was said, (last day), and Les feels it worked out well…

[71] I disagree. This was a huge setback for Tristen, and it would make Gary Brooks’s mandate extremely challenging. Tristen had begun to question why he got so angry – perhaps this was the result of the groundwork Ms. Bolotenko had started with him previously. Regrettably, not only was the Applicant Father permitted to monopolize this session to reinforce his messaging to Tristen, but by extracting an unwarranted apology from the Society Worker, he was able to recruit her to his cause.

[72] At paragraph 9 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit, dated September 23, 2020, he states:

I am (and always have been) committed to co-parenting with Angela in a positive way. Angela will not make any attempt to co-parent with me and actively undermines all my attempts at co-operation. This is not only making it impossible to repair her relationship with Tristen, but is harmful to the children.

[73] The following Durham Children’s Aid Society notes, as well as the report from Jeff Packer dated February 19, 2020, and Gary Brooks dated June 22, 2020, contradict the Applicant Father’s statement of his commitment to co-parenting. Perhaps the Applicant Father is committed to co-parenting as long as it does not risk reunification between Tristen and his mother.

[74] At paragraph 10 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit, dated September 23, 2020, he admits:

…our failure at co-parenting, and its harmful effect on the children…

[75] But, the heading above that paragraph reads, Angela continues to be Strongly Opposed to Even Attempting to Co-Parent With Me, and the Applicant Father continues the same pattern identified in the Hughes Order of blaming the Respondent Mother for the dysfunction and accepting no responsibility for his role in the family’s difficulties.

[76] At paragraph 24 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit, dated September 23, 2020, the Applicant Father states:

Mr. Brooks has stopped providing counselling to Angela and I. His mandate was to work on co-parenting between Angela and I. He sees that effort as futile…

This statement is correct, but the Applicant Father fails to admit that it was his own behaviour and not that of the Respondent Mother that caused Mr. Brooks to terminate his services on the basis of futility.

[77] At paragraph 22 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit, dated August 25, 2020, he states:

I have heard what the professionals have said. I have done everything within my power to facilitate Tristen’s relationship with his mother and I have encouraged all the professionals involved with the family to do the same.

The Applicant Father simply ignores the facts when they are not consistent with his narrative.

Parent Coaching

[78] I commend the Applicant Father for seeking out independent professional support to help him more fully engage in the counselling process. I reviewed in detail the affidavit of Michael Blugerman, dated August 25, 2020, and attachments. I scrutinized the material closely and point out the following concerns:

i) Mr. Blugerman’s primary expertise and the areas where he has been qualified as an expert by the court are as follows (see page 6 of his CURRICULUM VITAE – Complete August 23, 2020:

October 2014 Ontario Court of Justice: qualified as an expert in Adoption and in the Impact of Openness Orders June 2014 Ontario Court of Justice, Criminal Division, qualified as an expert witness in psychotherapy August 2013 Child and Family Service Review Board; qualified as an expert witness in attachment issues and adoption November 2013 Ontario Court of Justice: qualified as expert witness in adoption and permanency planning. October 2011 Children’s Service Review Board: qualified as an expert witness in attachment issues June 2010 Ontario Court of Justice: qualified as expert witness in child welfare and adoption issues

No mention is made of Mr. Blugerman being an expert in parental estrangement/alienation and reunification.

ii) Mr. Blugerman recounts at page 4 of his letter to the Applicant Father’s counsel, Mr. Schuman, undated and delivered by email:

I supported Mr. Bouchard’s attendance (at) the re-unification meetings with Mr. Jeff Packer of Jeff Packer associates. Mr. Bouchard painted a picture of a very unusual process in that series of contacts. At one of our sessions, I listened to a recording of a phone contact, following Mr. Bouchard’s leaving the meeting and on making a call to Ms. Sgovio, found that she was still in the meeting with Mr. Packer. Based on what I heard, I suggested that he abandon the reunification thinking that any working alliance between Mr. Packer and Mr. Bouchard would be futile.

[79] Mr. Blugerman’s failure to recognize, in the Applicant Father’s description, the two-pronged approach to reunification therapy being utilized by Mr. Packer, may speak to Mr. Blugerman’s lack of expertise in the field of parental estrangement/alienation and re-unification. I was surprised that Mr. Blugerman did not extend some professional courtesy and contact Mr. Packer with any questions related to the reunification method being utilized, prior to counselling the Applicant Father to abandon the re-unification process. I am sure Mr. Packer would have welcomed any professional support for the Applicant Father moving through the process.

[80] In all fairness to Mr. Blugerman, I think he was setup by the Applicant Father, who failed to tell him that he had walked out of the meeting with Mr. Packer and the Respondent Mother before the meeting was scheduled to conclude. The fact that the Applicant Father surreptitiously recorded the telephone call he made back to the Respondent Mother was a red flag that Mr. Blugerman seems to have missed. The Applicant Father also framed his discussion with Mr. Packer about Tristen’s ongoing therapy with Ms. Bolotenko as if it was a threat made by Mr. Packer. Mr. Blugerman’s account reads (from the same paragraph on page 4):

I was told that Jeff Packer had told Mr. Bouchard that if Les didn’t cooperate and do the reunification program with him, that Jeff Packer and Associates would not allow Tristen to continue counselling with Nicole (Bolotenko). Shortly after that meeting, Mr. Bouchard received an email from Nicole confirming the fact that she could not continue with her services to Tristen.

[81] If Mr. Blugerman was an experienced practitioner in the area of parental estrangement/alienation and reunification, he would have recognized Mr. Packer’s statement, not as a threat, but for what it was – the reality is that it would be pointless for counselling to carry on with Tristen without the necessary therapeutic work being done between the parents. Mr. Blugerman is also unaware of the Applicant Father’s struggle to recount facts accurately, and at that time would have no basis to question the genuine nature of Mr. Bouchard’s apparent concern. He had never met the Respondent Mother, and never spoken to any of the family’s counsellors: Ms. Rennehan, Ms. Bolotenko or Mr. Packer.

[82] Like Mr. Blugerman, Mr. Packer is a Registered Social Worker. Mr. Packer is also a Registered Psychotherapist and he provides an account of the sessions with the parents somewhat differently than the Applicant Father. Mr. Packer’s email to the parents and to Ms. Bolotenko dated February 3, 2020 reads as follows:

Thank you Nicole for forwarding the initial message from Mr. Bouchard today. I have been reflecting upon this painfilled email and have taken the day to formulate my response which I hope is helpful to parents’ decision-making ahead.

This worker can certainly attest to the tension in the co-parent session with Mr. Bouchard and Ms. Sgovio this past Friday evening. The writer also does respect their reports that tension has been characteristic in the interactions between them over the past few years. Both parents have acknowledged prior hurtful actions toward the other and the writer believes they both have a genuine sense of how high conflict behaviour hurts child and family development. It is also noted that they both recall healthier parenting experience together and both want the best for their children.

In the two initial, consultation/assessment sessions (January 17 th and 31 st ), The writer has been clear that parents are meeting with this worker to assess and determine whether they can reach an agreement for working together on reunification, as written in their mutually developed court order from December 19 th 2019. In addition, this worker has clearly stated that our clinic follows a teamwork approach which is, in part, based upon family-systems and developmental theories. Our approach is designed to assist parents, caregivers and their family members with healing and healthy adjustment after separation and divorce. We also draw upon the work of Boyan and Termini which is outlined in their work titled Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: Shielding Your Child from Conflict. Both parents report having purchased a copy for use in this work as well as in their parenting -after-separation groupwork at the John Howard Society.

As stated, parents acknowledged historical hurtful actions toward the other and, in spite of this insight, both reveal a predisposition to blame the other seemingly in an effort to build a case against their co-parent. The writer did normalize and validate how finger-pointing can be a well-developed behavioral pattern that requires their time and effort to adjust co-parent communication toward a healthier interactional style. Attempts to develop and build a more cooperative, accepting and compassionate way to communicate was framed as quite challenging for parents entering into reunification and cooperative parenting coaching. In the initial session, a brief overview of parallel parenting and parent coordination approaches was provided should they not want or be able to develop an effective co-parenting and reunification plan. From a family systems vantage point, this worker shared that cooperative parenting is seen as an integral component of effective parent-child reunification.

Many challenges potentially threaten reunification, some of which were identified in the initial consultation process; including but not limited to emotional pain from past hurt and losses, doubts about the reunification process, doubts and interference from others outside the process, projections or assumptions of how reunification support should go, lies and deception, costs to having counselling, court proceedings simultaneous to reunification coaching, blaming thoughts and actions as well as each persons’ personal preparedness and strength to work together. In response to tensions expressed last Friday, this writer offered individual sessions to provide a more relaxed opportunity to share concerns and goals and even for each parent to begin this work with the children on change strategies once they are included. Mr. Bouchard appeared unwilling to engage in a mutual discussion, despite numerous requests to do so, having brought in a prepared statement he wanted to read. He presented a case for postponing reunification support, suggesting until May, and was not too open to any alternate ideas. Once it did not appear the writer was agreeing to postpone, mr. Bouchard began to accuse the writer of over-billing or double-billing for this first session and mis-interpret this worker’s direct requests to be polite and listen to others as unprofessional.

Both parents remained in the session, yet Mr. Bouchard continued to demand he read over his prepared document. The writer clarified that he did not say this process could not continue if parents were still involved in a court matter, rather each process may disrupt or be disrupted by the other. He added that high conflict negotiations outside the reunification process may undermine reunification/co-parenting efficacy, suggesting parents may choose to prioritize efforts (energy expenditures) over the months ahead. The writer did go as far as to suggest that, given the existing severity of mother-son access restrictions and concerns about their son’s verbal attacks toward his mother, they may want to focus on reunification currently and resume separation efforts at a later date. Ms. Sgovio became teary and upset after hearing her co-parent’s suggestion to put off reunification until May (when they potentially reach a separation agreement). Tristen’s father continued to accuse her [Respondent Mother] of fraud, lying and being untrustworthy. The writer redirected both, asking them to use deep breathing (coached in the first session) and/or a time-out/walk around the building to calm and better regulate their emotions and expression.

While I can see how the rising tensions in last Friday’s session contributed to discomfort and frustration for all , the writer categorically refutes Mr. Bouchard’s allegations of unprofessional conduct made in emails and in the phone call Mr. Bouchard made to Ms. Sgovio after exiting last Friday’s session. If the rumours and allegations were an accurate account of this workers consultation approach, it is quite perplexing that Mr. Bouchard would twice offer to come in again. This level of accusation and rumour may simply be a previously developed pattern, however, this worker’s confidence to return to assisting parents with reunification hinges upon developing a working relationship based upon mutual respect and trust. Hearsay and comments about other people’s view of this worker are certainly detrimental to the development of a healthy and effective level of trust.

In light of Mr. Bouchard’s accusations and rumours, both in these emails and during his phone call to Ms. Sgovio and this writer Friday evening, the worker is apprehensive to re-enter negotiations about taking parents on as clients . In the absence of a full and complete retraction of Mr. Bouchard’s unfounded claims about this worker, it appears this reunification process has reached an unfortunate impasse. Tristen’s father’s decision, as stated on Friday, can potentially also disrupt Tristen’s attendance for counselling at this office. This outcome may be in accordance with Mr. Bouchard’s plan to postpone, however, the writer is concerned for the ongoing harm, cost, and disruption to the children and parents. [emphasis added]

Finally, if Mr. Bouchard is open to retraction as stated above, the writer may agree to Mr. Bouchard’s request to participate in a meeting with his new partner and Ms. Sgovio to, firstly agree upon rules and roles for working together in a mutually respectful process. Further, if Mr. Bouchard wishes to have Ms. Nicole Bolotenko join in that session, the writer is agreeable and welcomes associates’ feedback and assistance.

I find that the Applicant Father’s vilification of the Respondent Mother has expanded to include professionals trying to provide support for reunification.

[83] The material filed by the Applicant Father himself contradicts his statement at paragraph 22 of his affidavit, dated August 25, 2020:

I have heard what the professionals have said. I have done everything within my power to facilitate Tristen’s relationship with his mother and I have encouraged all the professionals involved with the family to do the same.

I find that it is within his power to follow the Leef Order and he has failed to do that. I find, based on the evidence, that his litany of excuses for being non-compliant have no merit, and that he has continued to undermine the professionals trying to resolve the co-parenting issues that obstruct any progress in therapy intended to support Tristen’s reunification with his mother.

[84] I think that the assessor proposed by the Applicant Father, Marci Goldhar, who is well qualified in the area of parental estrangement/alienation and reunification, would be an ideal choice to provide the Applicant Father therapeutic parenting support through the Family Bridges Program and prepare him for the resumption of the shared parenting plan laid out in the Leef Order. For Ms. Goldhar to provide effective therapy to the Applicant Father, she must be provided with the following:

i) A copy of the Leef Order; ii) A copy of the Hughes Order for compliance; iii) A copy of the McGee Order for compliance; and iv) A copy of this order for compliance.

Ms. Goldhar must also be permitted to speak freely with all of the counsellors who have tried to provide assistance to Tristen and his parents.

Law and Analysis

[85] This is a proceeding to compel the Applicant Father to comply with the Leef Order and orders made subsequent, and to monitor the Applicant Father’s compliance. The Family Law Rules provide the court sufficient discretion to consider the relief claimed by both parties. Ultimately, the test remains what disposition is in Tristen’s best interest.

[86] Section 24 (2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act states:

Best Interest of the Child

24 (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 or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing; (e) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live; (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.

[87] Where a party to the proceeding has failed to obey an order, Section 1(8) of the Family Law Rules provides this court with a very broad discretion to make an order the court considers necessary to compel that party into compliance. The section provides in part as follows:

Failure to Obey Order

1(8) If a person fails to obey an order in a case or a related case, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including,

(a) an order for costs; (b) an order dismissing a claim; (c) an order striking out any application, answer, notice of motion, motion to change, response to motion to change, financial statement, affidavit, or any other document filed by a party; (d) an order that all or part of a document that was required to be provided but was not, may not be used in the case; (e) if the failure to obey was by a party, an order that the party is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise; (f) an order postponing the trial or any other step in the case; and (g) on motion, a contempt order. (emphasis added)

[88] This has been a compliance matter, and not a contempt matter, since I first became involved with this family on August 22, 2019. This approach is consistent with the direction provided to judges in the Family Court Branch of the Superior Court of Justice, by our Ontario Court of Appeal. The Rule includes the type of orders listed from (a)-(g), but the court is not limited to the orders specified. The court’s jurisdiction is extremely broad – the court may deal with the failure (to obey an order in a case) by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter. The caveat in this case being that it must be determined to be in Tristen’s best interest.

[89] I have tried to compel the Applicant Father’s compliance with the Leef Order by making orders under Rule 1(8)(a), (b), (c), and (e) to no avail. The rationale for doing so is set out in detail in my order dated October 23, 2019. It was hoped that a combination of these sanctions and non-invasive therapeutic supports would provide the Applicant Father the motivation and attitude adjustment necessary to bring himself into compliance with the Leef Order voluntarily. However, the Applicant Father has continued his past patterns of manipulating Tristen and sabotaging any therapeutic intervention that would undermine his narrative that he has been a perfect parent throughout the separation and Tristen’s estrangement from his mother is justified by her own bad behaviour.

[90] Contrary to the Leef Order, the Applicant Father has had Tristen in his primary care since August 2, 2019, and without exception, every time it appeared that Tristen was beginning to make some progress, his father would cause the reunification process to be discontinued.

[91] I do not accept the suggestion that it is improper to make an Order containing the relief sought by the Respondent Mother without an assessment of the children and the parents that supports both that the children meet the criteria for admission for the program and that the treatment program is likely to be successful and not harmful. The Applicant Father, by his conduct, has already delayed this matter well beyond any reasonable period, and his past pattern of committing fully to the process only to subsequently undermine any progress is unlikely to change. The Applicant Father has had three opportunities to engage with experienced professional therapists to help him with Tristen. Not one of them have terminated their services to Tristen and his parents because of the Respondent Mother’s behaviour. This is not a coincidence – this is a pattern.

[92] It is not necessary to wait for a fourth counsellor to advise me that the Applicant Father continues to actively alienate his son Tristen from the child’s mother. It is not necessary for a fourth counsellor to advise me that the therapeutic process whereby Tristen has been left primarily residing with his father has not been effective. The Applicant Father has had ample time to embrace the therapeutic process and thereby bring himself and Tristen into compliance with the Leef Order, and I find, based on the evidence presented to the court on this motion, that he is simply unwilling or unable to do so. Time has become of the essence precisely because of the Applicant Father’s failure to engage in the reunification process in good faith. The past is an excellent predictor of the future, and I find that there is therefore no point to including the Applicant Father in the process any further, except as directed by the Family Bridges Program.

[93] I find that I do have jurisdiction to place Tristen on an extended visit with his mother on a temporary basis, and to authorize her to obtain the treatment for herself and the children necessary to reverse the harm that has been caused to Tristen as a result of his father’s refusal or inability to remain compliant with the Leef Order.

[94] The penalties under my order dated October 23, 2019 shall continue to accrue, and are intended to:

i) Penalize the Applicant Father for his non-compliance with the Leef Order; ii) Deter the Applicant Father’s future non-compliance with the Leef Order; iii) Incentivize the Applicant Father’s resumption of compliance with the Leef Order; and iv) Incentivize the Applicant Father’s ongoing compliance with the Leef Order.

The Claim Against the Durham District School Board

[95] One of the requests for relief sought from the court by the Respondent Mother to remedy the Applicant Father’s non-compliance with the Leef Order was to order that the Applicant Father shall be placed at a school at least 20 kilometers away from Eagle Ridge Public School and Pickering High School to continue working as an educational assistant with the Durham District School Board. There are two primary reasons I am unable to grant this relief:

i) The Durham District School was not properly served with the Respondent Mother’s notice of motion, and although they had counsel attend on their behalf to make oral submissions, no responding material was filed; ii) The Durham District School Board is not a party to this action, and I have no jurisdiction to interfere with the contractual terms of the collective agreements that govern the terms of employment with their teachers and educational assistants.

[96] I do find, however, that in order to ensure, to the extent possible, the success of the Family Bridges Program, it is necessary to prevent the Applicant Father from sabotaging the program and to do so, I find it necessary to control his contact with the children until his involvement is required by the leaders of the program.

[97] I find that a restraining order pursuant to s. 35 of the Children’s Law Reform Act will be more effective than the Applicant Father’s reassignment to a different school as requested by the Respondent Mother. Also, the ultimate goal here remains to resume the shared parenting plan pursuant to the Leef Order, and I find that the Applicant Father’s continued employment in the Ajax area remains conducive to that plan.

Conclusion

[98] The parents in this case confirmed and acknowledged in their Parenting Agreement that the shared parenting of their children on a 50/50 basis was in the best interest of their children. It remains inappropriate to relieve the Applicant Father from his obligation to comply with the Leef Order, which incorporated on a final basis the terms of that Parenting Agreement.

[99] In my order dated October 23, 2019, I detailed at length the many instances I found in the Applicant’s own materials where he manipulated Tristen without regard for its negative impact on what was in Tristen’s best interest. I will not repeat the multiple examples except for one: Tristen’s estrangement from his mother commenced on August 2, 2019 (this date was pinpointed by the Applicant Father), the day after Leef J. held a settlement conference on property issues only. Offers to settle were exchanged by the parties, but the property issues remained unresolved. I find that the commencement date of Tristen’s estrangement from his mother makes no sense from a child’s perspective. It only makes sense from the perspective of an adversary trying to put pressure on an opposing party to accept their terms of surrender. As stated at paragraph 18 of the Applicant Father’s affidavit, dated August 25, 2020:

There has to be a winner and a loser in family court.

[100] Sadly, it is Tristen who is losing out on precious time with his mother, in what his father seems to perceive as a contest. I find that it is clearly in Tristen’s best interest to resume the loving, supportive, and healthy relationship he had with his mother prior to his parents’ separation, and that his father be provided the therapeutic assistance he needs to be able to support Tristen’s relationship with his mother and recognize the importance of Tristen’s mother’s role in the child’s life in order that Tristen may enjoy fully the 50-50 shared parenting plan set out in the Leef Order, which both of his parents recognized as being in his best interest.

[101] When I crafted the Hughes Order, it was my intention to compel the Applicant Father’s compliance with the Leef Order without causing undue collateral damage to Tristen’s relationship with his mother. I was reasonably confident that the quantum of the penalty and vigilant monitoring of the Applicant Father’s compliance by the court would affect the desired result without engaging the police, so I declined to include a police enforcement clause in that order, as was requested by the Respondent Mother, because I considered it premature. Sadly, for Tristen, a number of administrative misadventures and the COVID pandemic served to disrupt the court’s oversight of compliance with the order, while his father has failed to act in his best interest by engaging in the therapy ordered in a meaningful way. Despite ample time to correct his course, the Applicant Father’s ongoing non-compliant conduct has remained undeterred by both the Hughes Order and the McGee Order, and I find that it is not in Tristen’s long-term best interest that his current circumstance continue further.

[102] The Applicant Father has ably listed the potential dangers to Tristen of engaging the assistance of the police to enforce the terms of this order, but I warned him at paragraph 38 of the Hughes Order that I would review the necessity of such a clause at a subsequent compliance review, and here we are. It is the Applicant Father who must take responsibility for his failure to pursue the other options directed by the court in good faith, which has left the court little alternative but to pursue a more invasive approach. The Applicant Father was given a clear pathway back to compliance and based on his own behaviour, as found herein, has actively undermined that option. It is the Applicant Father who must take responsibility for his failure to pursue the other options in good faith, which has left the court little alternative but to make the following order.

Order

[103] Accordingly, temporary order to go as follows:

1. The terms of my order dated October 23, 2019 shall remain in full force and effect and shall be further reviewed at the next compliance review set for June 10, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. It is anticipated that the penalties accruing for the period of time the children are in the exclusive care of the Respondent Mother and are participating the Family Bridges program shall be extinguished;
2. The Respondent Mother shall have temporary custody of the children, Tristen Marco Bouchard, born March 15, 2006, and Siera Maria Bouchard, born September 28, 2009, until further order of the court;
3. The Respondent Mother shall enroll with the children in Family Bridges: A Workshop for Troubled and Alienated Parent-Child Relationships (Family Bridges), to enable and assist the children in adjusting to living with the Respondent Mother, without the consent of the Applicant Father;
4. Tristen will be forthwith brought by the Applicant Father to the offices of the Durham Children’s Aid Society, where Tristen will be brought by a transportation service, as determined by Family Bridges, to an undisclosed workshop location. Siera shall remain with the Respondent Mother on the day of the transportation;
5. Following the completion of the Family Bridges workshop, and before returning home with the children, the Respondent Mother shall be entitled to take the children on a vacation of no less than five days in duration. The court expects that the children will apply what they have learned during the Family Bridges workshop to improve their interactions with their mother during and following their vacation;
6. The Respondent Mother has the right to conceal from the Applicant Father the location of any intervention sought for the children in the interest of protecting the children and this therapeutic intervention from intrusion, interruption, and harassment;
7. The Applicant Father shall ensure that the children’s belongings are delivered by a third party to the Respondent Mother’s home within 10 days, at the Applicant Father’s expense. For greater clarity, “belongings” shall include: i) Children’s sports/hobby equipment; ii) All of the children’s electronic devices in the possession or control of the Applicant Father including iPads, iPhone, iPod, laptops; and iii) All of Tristen’s clothes; This provision shall not constitute a violation of the restraining order at paragraph 9 hereof.
8. The Respondent Mother has sole authority to consent to the children’s travel, and until further order of the court, the Applicant Father’s consent for the children to travel is hereby dispensed with;
9. Pursuant to s. 35 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the Applicant Father is restrained from directly or indirectly contacting or communicating with the children, Tristen Marco Bouchard, born March 15, 2006, and Siera Maria Bouchard, born September 28, 2009, and from coming within 1000 metres of any location where they are likely to be, including, without limitation, the Respondent Mother’s residence, their schools (Eagle Ridge Public School and Pickering High School), the Durham Children’s Aid Society offices, the offices out of which the Family Bridges Program operates, except as directed by the leaders of the Family Bridges Program or the aftercare professional, or any other professional designated by the Respondent Mother or the court. Indirect contact shall include contact from the Applicant Father’s relatives, friends, associates, and includes his spouse. “Contact” includes all forms of communication, including, without limitation, by phone, text, written letters, email, social media, via computer, in person, or via any third parties. For clarity, this restraining order does not impact contact between counsel relating to the ongoing litigation. The restraining order against the Applicant Father shall not be varied until a minimum of 90 days have passed from the commencement of therapy recommended by Family Bridges for the Applicant Father unless the court orders otherwise. This 90-day period is a minimum only. The extension of which will be considered by the court based on the Applicant Father’s progress made in any aftercare therapeutic program recommended by Family Bridges. This court will consider the following factors prior to ordering resumption of contact between the Applicant Father and the children: i) The degree of compliance by the Applicant Father with the requirements of the Family Bridges Program; ii) The degree to which the Applicant Father has promoted the children’s relationship with the Respondent Mother; iii) The degree to which the Applicant Father’s behaviours and comments are congruent with the promotion of a positive relationship between the children and the Respondent Mother; iv) Such other criteria as recommended by the Family Bridges Program.
10. The resumption, timing, and nature of contact between the children and the Applicant Father will be based on the cooperation of the children and the Applicant Father with these orders, the Family Bridges Program, and with the aftercare specialist;
11. Neither party shall subpoena the records of the professionals who assist the Respondent Mother and children in making the transition to the court orders, including Family Bridges team leaders, nor shall either party seek testimony in any future court hearings by Family Bridges team leaders;
12. The cost of the Family Bridges workshop (estimated at $40,000), shall be paid by the Applicant Father and shall constitute a s. 7 expense. It shall be collected by the Family Responsibility Office on behalf of the Respondent Mother, or taken into account when the net family property of the parties is ultimately equalized;
13. All of the aftercare costs shall be the responsibility of the Applicant Father for the aftercare treatment for himself, the child Tristen, the child Siera, and the Respondent Mother;
14. Oral submissions on costs shall be made at the next compliance review set for June 10, 2021, at 3:00 p.m.;
15. Pursuant to s. 36(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the Durham Regional Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP, or any other Canadian police service, are directed to enter into any dwelling at any time to locate, apprehend, and return the child, Tristen Marco Bouchard, born March 15, 2006, and Siera Maria Bouchard, born September 28, 2009, into the Respondent Mother’s care. This provision shall be reviewed at the compliance review set for June 10, 2021, at 3:00 p.m.;
16. Given the Applicant Father’s substantial non-compliance with the Leef Order and the compliance orders of Hughes J. and McGee J., as confirmed in the findings of this court, his request for the relief claimed in his cross-motion is dismissed.

Justice J.E. Hughes Released: February 9, 2021