Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 21-011942-0000 Date: 2021/03/01 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: SUZIE SOPHORN SENG, Applicant And: SEAN MICHAEL PATRICK DOWLING, Respondent

Before: Justice I.F. Leach

Counsel: Jena Wagner, for the Applicant The Respondent self-representing, but assisted in relation to these motions by Alisa Williams, acting as the Respondent’s agent.

Heard: February 26, 2021

Endorsement

Introduction

[1] While notionally sitting in Woodstock on Friday, February 26, 2021, I was presented with an urgent motion brought by the Applicant mother herein, and an urgent cross-motion brought by the Respondent father herein. Each of the two motions sought immediate relief in relation to the parties’ two children.

[2] Because of the pressing need for an immediate decision, I orally indicated, at the conclusion of the hearing, the specific relief I was ordering, (which I will reiterate in detail below once I have provided more context), for written reasons to follow.

[3] These are those reasons.

Further background

[4] At the outset, I will note that the evidentiary record before me was far from perfect, owing to the urgent basis on which the Applicant’s motion and Respondent’s cross-motion were brought. For example, the Applicant swore her supporting affidavit four days before the hearing, (i.e., on February 24, 2021), the Respondent was able to swear his responding affidavit and serve his responding cross-motion only the day before the hearing, (i.e., on February 25, 2021), and the Applicant had no opportunity to respond to the evidence filed and relied upon by the Respondent.

[5] However, by way of initial further background, I begin by noting certain underlying facts which generally seem undisputed. In particular:

a. The Applicant is currently 32 years of age, and the Respondent is currently 49. They began cohabiting in or around July of 2010, moved to Hamilton together in 2011, married in March of 2018, and separated in March of 2020. b. In the course of that relationship, two children were born; a daughter named Victoria who is currently nine years old, and a son named Michael who is currently five years old. c. While the parties cohabited with the children, the Respondent assumed primary financial responsibility for the family; e.g., working as an aerospace engineer administrator for an air ambulance company in Hamilton. For at least seven years, the Applicant did not work outside the matrimonial home. d. It seems clear that the parties’ relationship was troubled insofar as it included substance abuse issues and disputes about financial matters; e.g., with the Respondent expressing concerns about the Applicant’s spending and not obtaining remunerative employment outside the home. e. When the parties separated on or about March 28, 2020, the Applicant left the matrimonial home with the children, while the Respondent continued to live in the matrimonial home and work in Hamilton. f. Immediately after the separation, the Applicant and the children relocated to the residence of the Applicant’s brother and his family in Woodstock, Ontario. That family includes the Applicant’s brother, his wife, and that couple’s two children; i.e., a daughter who is currently 18 and a son who is currently 13. g. Following relocation of the Applicant and the children to Woodstock: i. the Applicant obtained employment as a welder with a business located in nearby Stratford, Ontario, where she generally works the “midnight shift” from 11:00pm to 7:00am; and ii. the parties’ two children were enrolled at Hickson Central Public School, which is located a short distance away from the Applicant brother’s home in north Woodstock. h. While the children continued to live primarily with the Applicant in Woodstock, the Respondent enjoyed a measure of parenting time with the children. In that regard: i. There seems to be no dispute that the Respondent’s exercise of “in person” parenting time was delayed until at least June and perhaps as late as 2020, (for reasons that are disputed, but which included the Applicant initially taking a position that there should be no in-person parenting time between the Respondent and the children until the COVID-19 pandemic was over), although the Respondent does seem to have enjoyed at least some degree of telephone contact with the children before the summer of 2020. ii. In any event, the Applicant alleges and the Respondent apparently does not dispute that the Respondent began exercising overnight parenting time with the children on alternating weekends from at least the end of July of 2020 into January of 2021. iii. It apparently also is not disputed that the Respondent assumed responsibility for transportation in relation to such “in person” parenting time between the children and the Respondent; i.e., picking the children up in Woodstock, taking them back to Hamilton, and returning them to Woodstock. i. Although the onset of their relevant symptoms and complaints may be in dispute, there is no question that the children also have experienced certain health difficulties. In particular: i. By at least early December of 2020, (although the Respondent says both children were reporting various aches and pains starting as far back as April of 2020), the parties’ son Michael was complaining of intermittent abdominal pain, in respect of which he was seen by the children’s family doctor; i.e., Dr Henry Siu, who practices at a family health centre in Hamilton. Assessment, examination and subsequent testing eventually confirmed that Michael has a genetic blood disorder identified with the HbE Trait, and referred to as “Hemoglobin E”; a condition which apparently results in those who have the condition experiencing anemia and lower levels of body oxygen saturation. Michael also tested positive for “H pylori”, which Dr Siu describes as “a common bacteria around the world that lives in the stomach and can predispose patients to ulcers”; a bacteria which “can be spread by the sharing of food, utensils or cups, or by fecal-oral contamination”. ii. Similar assessment, examination and subsequent testing carried out in relation to the parties’ daughter Victoria resulted in her also testing positive for H pylori. iii. Dr Siu nevertheless has confirmed that there currently is no evidence-based guideline recommending against car travel for children with H pylori. j. While the children were residing with the Applicant in Hamilton, the Respondent admittedly did not pay any child support per se, although the Applicant acknowledges that the Respondent has continued to pay at least some of the Applicant’s ongoing expenses. [^1] k. On January 17, 2021, towards the contemplated end of a parenting time visit between the children and the Respondent, the Applicant sent the Respondent a text message asking him to let the Applicant know when he and the children were on [their] way”; i.e., returning to the Applicant in Woodstock. The Respondent responded with a short text saying “The kids are staying with me now. Thank you.” That was followed by further exchange of messages, referring in part to intervening telephone conversation between the parties. They include: i. a message sent by the Respondent on January 17, 2021, indicating that it was “not acceptable” for the Applicant to threaten that she would come to the Respondent’s residence and “take the children”; ii. a message sent by the Respondent on January 18, 2021, asking the Applicant to mail the Respondent their son’s health card to “save [him] a trip to Service Ontario”; iii. a message sent by the Respondent on January 18, 2021, telling the Applicant “Please do not come to the house - You are not allowed”; iv. further messages sent by the Respondent on January 18, 2021, repeatedly instructing the Applicant to call the children at 7pm on a “take it or leave it” basis; and v. messages sent by the Respondent to the Applicant on January 19, 2021, indicating that, if he did not receive their son’s health card by the following Tuesday, “it will be considered stolen”, and he would obtain an “emergency new card”. l. On or before January 26, 2021, the Respondent was arrested and charged with assault, (apparently associated with an Applicant complaint that she was assaulted by the Respondent on the day of their separation), and disobeying a court order. The Respondent was released on an undertaking that included conditions requiring him to have no direct or indirect communication with the Applicant and a number of her relatives, and not to attend any known places of residence, work, worship, recreation or other locations frequented by those specified individuals. The Respondent denies the Applicant’s allegations of assault, and is defending the relevant criminal charges in ongoing proceedings. m. On January 27, 2021, the Respondent sent an email to Hickson General Public School, indicating that the children were in Hamilton under his care, and that he would like both children formally transferred to Buchanan Park School in Hamilton as soon as possible. The Respondent’s affidavit indicates that the children thereafter began attending school “remotely fulltime” through the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. n. The Applicant thereafter took steps to retain and instruct counsel, filing a formal application with the court on or about February 22, 2021, seeking various interim and final orders, including interim and final orders returning the children to the primary care of the Applicant in the County of Oxford, and continued attendance of the children at Hickson Central Public School, with the Respondent to enjoy parenting time on alternating weekends and one half of the children’s holidays as agreed upon by the parties. The first court date available and assigned to the matter was April 15, 2021; i.e., the date of a scheduled case conference. o. On the same date, (i.e., February 22, 2021), the Applicant brought her urgent motion herein, returnable on February 26, 2021. p. As noted above, the Respondent responded to the Applicant’s motion, and initiated his own urgent cross-motion on February 25, 2021, returnable on the same date as the Applicant’s motion. q. Both motions accordingly were brought in advance of a case conference.

[6] Beyond those essentially undisputed facts, the affidavit evidence contains a great deal of conflicting evidence, reflecting the parties’ widely divergent perspectives and positions in relation to this matter.

Party positions

[7] From the perspective of the Respondent, his efforts to keep the children with him in Hamilton, from mid-January of 2021 onwards, were entirely justified and appropriate. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

a. The Respondent says that, during the parties’ relationship, he actually was the primary caregiver for the children, despite the Applicant’s refusal to seek gainful employment for many years. b. The Respondent essentially emphasizes that the Applicant was the first to resort to self-help in relation to this family dispute when she unilaterally left the Hamilton matrimonial home with the children and relocated with them to Woodstock, after which she denied the Respondent any parenting time for months, (initially using the pandemic as an excuse in that regard), before the Respondent was able to exercise only the irregular visitation the Applicant grudgingly would dictate/allow. c. The Respondent says that, since separation, the Applicant has engaged in other contact demonstrating an intent to alienate the children from the Respondent, including asking the parties’ daughter to change her surname, instructing the children not to speak with the Applicant again, and advising the children that the Respondent has no right to see them again. d. The Respondent says the Applicant suffers from serious and longstanding problems with alcohol and drug abuse. These are described in some detail in his affidavit, which includes allegations: i. that the Applicant has a severe recurring issue with use of alcohol and drugs, (e.g., routinely consuming a case of beer within a two day period, and regularly using a variety of drugs including marihuana, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine), and consistently has refused treatment for her addictions; ii. that the Applicant, from the time the children were young, frequently has abused substances and/or been intoxicated while the children have been in her care; iii. that resulting child neglect and abuse by the Applicant has included her leaving the children unattended, and her infliction of physical abuse through the Applicant shaking the children and/or yelling when the Applicant was angry; iv. that the Respondent spent most of the final two months of the parties’ relationship “drinking alcohol heavily and using illegal drugs”; v. that the incident precipitating the parties’ separation was the Respondent coming home to discover the Applicant and her niece using cocaine and alcohol in the matrimonial home, which in turn led to a quarrel and the Applicant (rather than the Respondent) becoming violent; vi. that the Applicant has displayed similar concerning substance abuse and child neglect post-separation, including:

1. an incident where the Applicant and the children paid a visit to a residence near the matrimonial home in Hamilton, without intending to visit the Respondent as well, in turn leading to an altercation when the intoxicated and impaired Applicant and her friend attended at the matrimonial home to violently retrieve the parties’ son Michael, after Michael had wandered to his former home to see the Respondent; and
2. reports that the children are frequently left alone and unattended at night while the Applicant is working; vii. that since the children have returned to the Respondent’s care, they have been working with a counsellor to address the “negative events that occurred while they were in their mother’s care”, which in turn is said to have led to the counsellor indicating that she has concerns she now intends to report to the Children’s Aid Society. e. The Respondent says the Applicant also has failed to pay adequate attention to the healthcare of the children post-separation; e.g., ignoring the children’s longstanding complaints of physical discomfort, and the Respondent’s corresponding requests to have the children seen by a physician in that regard, until the Applicant belatedly agreed to let the Respondent take the children to their Hamilton doctor in December of 2020, at which time the conditions described above were discovered. f. According to the Respondent, the Applicant’s behaviour was becoming “more and more erratic” in January of 2021, prompting him to contact the Ontario Provincial Police and request a “wellness check” on the children. Although the officer conducting the check is said to have reported that the Applicant would not permit the children to call or pick up the phone when the Respondent would call them, the officer indicated that the children otherwise “were okay”. g. The Respondent nevertheless says he was “under the impression”, after speaking with members of the Ontario Provincial Police, Hamilton Police Services and Children’s Aid Society, that he should keep the children with him. h. The Respondent says that, since his retention of the children since January 18, 2021, the children have been healthy, happy and thriving. He denies that the Applicant has been denied access to the children, pointing to his text messages offering to let the Applicant speak to the children by telephone. i. The Respondent says he nevertheless is now willing to agree to an arrangement whereby parenting time of the children is divided equally between himself and the Applicant going forward, with the children continuing to attend Hickson Public School in person or remotely, at least to the end of the current school year. In that regard: i. The Respondent says he has concerns that the Applicant does not have adequate supports to help her care for the children, (especially given their health challenges and current ability to contaminate others), and that the Applicant’s challenges in that regard will only increase with changes, (predicted by the Respondent), involving relocation of the Applicant’s brother and his family, and/or the Applicant’s niece pursuing post-secondary studies and/or employment. ii. The Respondent also argues that his caring for the children, at least half of the time, will help and encourage the Applicant to maintain sobriety while the children are in her care.

[8] Even without having an opportunity to reply to the claims and concerns set forth in the Respondent’s affidavit, the Applicant’s perspective on events is markedly different from that of the Respondent, to say the least. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

a. The Applicant says that, consistent with the Respondent’s role as the party financially responsible for the family through work done outside the home, and the Applicant being a stay at home mother for seven years, (i.e., until the parties’ son Michael was two years of age), she always has been the children’s primary caregiver. Moreover, the Applicant emphasizes that, before the Applicant refused to return the children in January of 2021, the children had never been separated from the Applicant for any period of time longer than a weekend. According to the Applicant, she was the one who effectively addressed and met all of the children’s needs before and after separation, until they were taken and withheld by the Respondent. b. The Applicant says that the parties separated, with her and the children leaving the matrimonial home, because the Respondent physically assaulted her on March 28, 2020; e.g., grabbing, dragging and pushing her while they were “fighting over finances”. c. According to the Applicant, the children adapted well to their new life in Oxford county after she and the children moved there, to begin living with her brother’s family, in late March of 2020. In particular: i. the children have their own accommodations in that residence, which I understand to mean that the children have their own rooms; ii. the children have been attending the nearby Hickson Central Public School; and iii. the children are not only comfortable in their new residence, but now have friends in their neighbourhood and at their school. d. The Applicant also emphasizes that the children not only had stability and adequate care in Oxford county, but also had settled into an established routine in terms of parenting time with the Respondent; a routine that was working well for the children until it was unilaterally disrupted by the Respondent. In particular: i. As noted above, the Applicant has obtained substantial employment as a welder in nearby Stratford, where she works midnights from 11:00pm to 7:00am; i.e., periods of time when the children are likely to be asleep. ii. The Applicant has made arrangements for care of the children while she is working; e.g., insofar as there are other adults in the residence, including not only her brother and sister-in-law, but her niece, (currently 18), who is now charged with primary responsibility for looking after the children overnight while the Applicant is working. iii. The Applicant says that she and the children had no intentions of moving. iv. The Applicant says that, from June of 2020 to January of 2021, the Respondent was exercising in person parenting time with the children, typically from Friday evening at 5:00pm to Sunday afternoon at 3:00pm. e. The Applicant says that the Respondent has fabricated and/or exaggerated concerns in an effort to justify his resort to unilateral self-help, and disruption of the post-separation status quo enjoyed by the children. In that regard: i. The Applicant candidly acknowledges that she has struggled with substance abuse in the past. However, she emphasizes that both she and the Respondent struggled with such issues; e.g., with both parties being addicted to Oxycontin prior to the birth of their first child, and both parties being enrolled in a methadone program when their first child was born, before completing their treatment in 2011. The Applicant denies that she has any ongoing substance abuse issues, and says that she has been “clean and substance free” since 2011. ii. The Applicant has obtained and produced reports from Dr Sui, noted above, emphasizing that, while both children currently have H pylori, it is a “common bacteria” of the stomach, and there are no medical guidelines recommending that children with H pylori not travel by car. iii. The Applicant emphasizes that the Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County opened a file in relation to this family “due to the Respondent’s false allegations and his outstanding criminal charges”, but has since supplied written confirmation, (dated February 12, 2021, and produced by the Applicant), indicating that the Society has concluded its involvement. f. The Applicant expresses concern about the parenting ability of the Respondent; e.g., noting not only the Respondent’s alleged past history of violence towards the Applicant, (resulting in the ongoing criminal charges against him), but emphasizing that the Respondent inappropriately has taken the children to political protests in the past. In that regard, the Applicant notes that a protest in September of 2019 involved violence, and resulted in the Respondent facing a charge of assault that was resolved by a peace bond. [^2] g. The Applicant takes the position that the post-separation status quo enjoyed by the children since March of 2020 should be restored immediately; i.e., with the children being returned immediately to the primary care of the Applicant, and to their residence and school in Oxford county, with a corresponding return to the parenting time arrangement that was working well before the Respondent’s unilateral efforts to disrupt that status quo.

Assessment

[9] As noted in my introductory comments, because both parties were seeking relief on an urgent basis, I indicated, at the conclusion of the hearing before me, the relief I was granting for reasons to follow.

[10] That ordered relief, (incorporating modified elements of relief sought in the Applicant’s notice of motion and Respondent’s notice of cross-motion), was as follows:

a. The Respondent was granted leave to file his Answer without the necessity of filing his Notice of Assessment in relation to 2017, 2018 and 2019, subject to his production of those documents thereafter by agreement or pursuant to further order of the court if necessary. b. Pursuant to Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules, leave was granted for the Applicant’s motion and Respondent’s cross-motion to be heard before the case conference for this matter, currently scheduled for April 15, 2021. To the extent necessary, the time for service and filing of the motion material tendered by the parties also was abridged pursuant to Rule 3(5) of the Family Law Rules. c. On an interim without prejudice basis, an order was made whereby: i. The children, (i.e., Victorian Ann Dowling and Michael Nathaniel Dowling, having the specific birthdates indicated in the parties’ motion material), were to be returned to the primary care of the Applicant in the County of Oxford, with their initial return to be effected at 6:00pm on Sunday, February 28, 2021, by the Respondent dropping the children at the Woodstock Police Station located at 615 Dundas Street in the City of Woodstock, Ontario; ii. Pending further order of the court, the children are to continue their education at or through Hickson General Public and the Thames Valley District School Board, either through “in person” attendance, (to the extent that is permitted generally during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and having specific regard to each child’s health and the advice of treating health care professionals), or through such other arrangements as the Thames Valley District School Board may permit. iii. Pending further order of the court, the children are to remain in the primary care of the Applicant except when they are in the care of the Respondent pursuant to the following parenting time arrangements:

1. The children shall enjoy parenting time with the Respondent on alternate weekends from Friday at 5:00pm to Sunday at 6:00pm, with the first such weekend taking place from Friday, February 26, 2021, to Sunday, February 28, 2021;
2. The children also shall enjoy parenting time with the Respondent during one half of their holidays, as agreed upon by the parties in writing and in advance of such holidays through a mutually agreed third party, or by court order if the parties are unable to reach such an agreement.
3. The Respondent shall continue to have responsibility for all transportation arrangements associated with the exercise of his parenting time with the children.
4. Following initial return of the children to the Applicant’s primary care on Sunday, February 28, 2021, in the manner specified above, (and subject to the parties agreeing in advance and in writing to a specific deviation from the following provisions addressing the location at which any specified exchange of the children is to take place), the default location for all further exchanges of the children shall continue to be the Woodstock Police Station except to the extent such transfers are capable of being effected at the Merrymount facility at 476 Peel Street in the City of Woodstock; i.e., to the extent that facility agrees to facilitate such exchanges, and is open at the time a particular exchange is to take place.
5. Both the Applicant and the Respondent shall adhere strictly to providing the children with their prescribed medications and any further treatments prescribed by the children’s treating physicians, including Dr Henry Siu of the Stonechurch Family Health Centre in Hamilton, Ontario. Both parents also shall adhere to pandemic-related advisories, recommendations and restrictions during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
6. While in a caregiving role in relation to the children, and for 12 hours immediately prior to exercising such a role, the Applicant and Respondent each shall refrain from the use of intoxicating substances, including but not limited to alcohol, marihuana, and all substances listed in schedules to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. iv. Members of the Woodstock Police Service, the Hamilton Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, and any other police service having jurisdiction, are authorized, (subject to the time and date limitations that follow), to locate, apprehend and deliver the children in accordance with the provisions of this order, and for the purposes of locating and apprehending the children, are authorized to enter and search any place in respect of which there are reasonable and probable grounds for believing the children may be located there, with such assistance and such force as may be reasonable in the circumstances. However, pursuant to subsections 36(6) and 36(7) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.12, such an entry and/or search may be effected only between the hours of 7:00am and 9:00pm, and the interim without prejudice order provisions granting such authority shall expire on a date six months from February 26, 2021, unless they are extended by further order of the court.

[11] My reasons for granting that without prejudice interim relief included the following:

a. The relief being requested by the Respondent, in relation to the filing of his Answer, was not opposed. b. I was satisfied that the relief sought by the two motions stemmed from a situation of urgency and/or hardship for the purposes of Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules, at least in relation to issues concerning the children’s primary residence, schooling and parenting time with each parent. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing: i. As noted above, a case conference had been scheduled for the matter, but could not take place until April 15, 2021; i.e., the first date for such a conference then available. The hearing of any motion thereafter likely would not be possible for at least two or more additional weeks after April 15, 2021. ii. Considerable uncertainty and conflict obviously had been created by the Respondent’s unilateral decision to retain the children after his agreed parenting time session in mid-January of 2021; a decision which, (it was not disputed), effectively had brought an end to the de facto residential, schooling and parenting time arrangements experienced by the children since their parents’ separation in late March of 2020. iii. It also was not disputed that the children had not experienced any in-person parenting time with the children since the Respondent’s retention of the children in January of 2021, undoubtedly because of reasonable expectations on the part of the Respondent that the Applicant would then be reluctant to return the children to the Respondent, or provide the Respondent with any further parenting time, unless and until a court order was in place governing interim arrangements in relation to the children’s residence, schooling and parenting time. iv. In my view, the best interests of the children called for the making of an immediate interim without prejudice court order to lend stability and order to the situation, until such time as the court could entertain requests for further relief by way of motions brought in a more orderly and detailed manner. c. As for the substantive issues raised by the motions: i. It is, of course, always less than desirable for the court to decide important issues of child residence, schooling and parenting time – even on an interim basis - based on conflicting affidavit evidence that has not been tested by cross-examination, or any meaningful opportunity for the court to hear such evidence presented by the parties themselves through viva voce testimony. However, such are the inherent limitations surrounding necessary urgent interim court decisions in family law litigation. At best, courts are required to make such determinations based on reasonable inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts and the competing affidavit evidence. ii. The court’s jurisdiction to entertain and make such orders is set forth in section 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3, which similarly outlines the considerations which must govern exercise of the court’s jurisdiction and discretion. In particular, pursuant to s.16(8), the court is directed to consider “only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child”. However, other legislative guidance includes a direction, pursuant to s.16(1), that “the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child, and for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact”. iii. The authorities in this area confirm that determinations pursuant to these broad provisions of the Divorce Act are inherently a very fact specific exercise, in respect of which Ontario courts frequently have structured analysis by reference to the expanded legislative definition of the “best interests of [a] child” set forth in s.24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990; see, for example, K.A.T. v. J.T. (1989), 23 R.F.L. (3d) 214 (Ont.U.F.C.), at paragraphs 25-26. Those provisions outline eight broad categories of a child’s “needs and circumstances”, consideration of which should be included in determining the best interests of a child. Having regard to those enumerated considerations in the circumstances of this case:

1. Love, affection and emotional ties: In my view, this is a consideration which militates in favour of the relief sought by the Applicant. In that regard: a. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the feelings between the children and each parent are not equally strong. While each parent emphasizes that she or he has a loving bond with the children, neither suggests that the other parent does not have such a bond. b. I nevertheless also think it reasonable to infer that the children have emotional bonds with their maternal uncle, aunt and cousins with whom they have resided, without any evidence whatsoever of domestic strife within the residence, from March of 2020 to January of 2021. That bond is likely to be even stronger in relation to the Applicant’s teenaged niece, (and children’s cousin), who was entrusted with primary responsibility for looking after the children overnight while the Applicant was working outside the home. c. In contrast, the Respondent apparently lives alone. In any event, I was presented with no evidence of the children’s possible contact with other paternal relatives, whether living in the Hamilton area, (to which both parties moved in 2011), or otherwise.
2. Child views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained: This currently is a somewhat neutral factor, the exact import of which is difficult to discern from the available evidence. Apart from each parent referring to the children being happy in her or his care, there is no objective evidence, (e.g., evidence not presented through the filter of subjective parental reports), as to the children’s views and preferences. Moreover, children of relatively tender years, (e.g., ages 9 and 5 in this case), reasonably cannot be expected to express informed and responsible views as to what might be in their overall best interests in terms of residence, schooling and parenting time arrangements.
3. Length of time a child has lived in a stable home environment: This consideration addresses the court’s understandable reluctance to uproot a child from familiar surroundings, with simultaneous exposure to considerable change and inherent instability through the need for important adjustments. Such changes must not be undertaken lightly. In this case: a. It seems the actions taken by the Respondent in January of 2021 have resulted in the children returning to a residence with which they were familiar prior to the parties’ separation in March of 2020. However: i. I was provided with no evidence as to how long the children had lived in that particular residence prior to the parties’ separation, (as opposed to the children living in Hamilton generally), nor any evidence of other attachments, (e.g., in terms of friendships or activities), the children may have formed in the Hamilton area prior to their relocation to Woodstock in March of 2020. ii. I am mindful of the reality that, while the children may have resided in Hamilton from the time of their birth, they also may have little memory of time spent there during their early infant years. iii. I also am mindful of the reality that, to the extent the children had a stable home environment in Hamilton prior to March of 2020, that stability may have been fostered by the presence of both parties living together in the same home, allowing for simultaneous or sequential parenting by both parties. b. In relation to schooling of the children in Hamilton: i. I was not provided with any evidence relating to the parties’ schooling prior to March of 2020, although Victoria’s age suggests she likely was attending school somewhere in the Hamilton area before her move to Woodstock. Michael’s age is such that he may or may not have started school prior to his move to Woodstock. ii. As noted above, the Respondent has indicated in his affidavit that the children have embarked on fulltime remote learning through the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, following their retention by the Respondent in January of 2021. In the circumstances, it seems unlikely that the children will have formed any meaningful school friendships through that process, over however many weeks that short-lived process has taken place. iii. As also noted above, the Respondent now agrees, in any event, that the children should at least complete this school year at or through Hickson Central Public School in Woodstock. c. In contrast, the evidence seems relatively clear that, from March of 2020 to January of 2021, the children enjoyed a stable home, regular school attendance at or through nearby Hickson Central Public School, (although that may have been subject to periodic interruptions and adjustments all elementary schools have experienced to some degree during the pandemic), and have enjoyed the natural corresponding formation of friendships in their Woodstock school and neighbourhood. Moreover: i. Although the Applicant now is working outside the home, the presented evidence of her work schedule, indicating that such work requires her to be absent from the home only at nights, (i.e., at times when the children are likely to be asleep), would have helped to ensure the Applicant’s availability to the children if and as necessary during their waking hours. ii. The availability of at least three other adults beyond the Applicant, in the children’s Woodstock residence, undoubtedly would have facilitated their appropriate care at all times; e.g., as indicated by the evidence of the Applicant’s niece being specifically charged with responsibility for looking after the children at night, while the Applicant was at work. d. On balance, I think this factor favours the Applicant’s position, based on the available evidence.
4. Ability and willingness of each person applying for custody to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child: The motions before me were focused primarily on interim determinations regarding the children’s residence, schooling and parenting time the children were to enjoy with each party, rather than overall decision making authority in relation to the children. However, there seems to be little doubt, (subject to the specific parenting concerns addressed below), that each parent currently has the ability and willingness to provide the children with guidance, education and the necessaries of life. Certainly, the Applicant demonstrated, from March of 2020 to January of 2021, that she had the ability post-separation to provide the children with a residence, schooling and shelter, and the Respondent has been doing so post-separation since January of 2021. Generally, this seems to be a neutral factor.
5. Plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing: Although the motions before me inherently were focused on the immediate future, I effectively was presented with a measure of insight regarding each party’s vision for the future care and upbringing of the children. In that regard: a. The Applicant made it clear that, for the foreseeable future, she contemplates primary residence of the children with her in Oxford county, with the children continuing to attend school there, while the children enjoy parenting time with the Respondent on alternating weekends and one half of the children’s holidays. Again, the Applicant emphasizes that she and the children have no intention of moving from their current residence. The Applicant has buttressed her stated intentions and plan of care by the filing of a sworn Form 35.1 “Affidavit in Support of Claim for Custody or Access”. The remaining affidavit evidence tendered by the Applicant makes it reasonably clear that her work schedule allows her to be available to the children if and as necessary except during hours when they are likely to be asleep, and similarly makes it clear how the children have been and will be cared for, (e.g., by the provision of care through other maternal relatives living in the same residence, and by overnight care provided by the Applicant’s niece in particular), while the Applicant is working. b. The Respondent has instead proposed an equal parenting time arrangement, whereby the children would divide their time between life with the Applicant in Woodstock and life with the Respondent in Hamilton on a “week about” basis, (with exchanges occurring on Sunday evenings), and the children continuing to receive their schooling at or through Hickson Central Public School and the Thames Valley District School Board at least to the end of this school year. However: i. In contrast to the Applicant, the Respondent did not file a Form 35.1 Affidavit in Support of Claim for Custody or Access. ii. The Respondent also has not provided details of his work schedule, nor any indication of how the children have been or will be cared for when the Respondent is required to work during periods when the children have been and may be staying with the Respondent in his Hamilton residence and are not at school. iii. While the motions are focused on the immediate future, I am mindful of the reality that the “week about” arrangement being proposed by the Respondent probably is incapable of being sustained on a long-term basis. In particular:
6. While I think I can take a degree of judicial notice that the ongoing pandemic currently may have led to extraordinary arrangements, wherein remote schooling may be provided from time to time for elementary students enrolled with the Thames Valley Board of Education, during periods when all in-person school attendance by elementary students has been suspended, I am not aware of remote learning programs being providing for elementary school students when the authorities have determined that prevailing pandemic conditions are sufficiently safe to permit in-person attendance at elementary schools. Nor was I provided with any evidence in that regard.
7. When the pandemic subsides, (and I think I can take a further degree of judicial notice that public authorities now are hopeful that much if not most of Ontario’s population will have received vaccinations by this summer, substantially helping to prevent the further spread of COVID-19), there almost certainly will be a return to in-person learning as the primary and generally expected form of formal schooling in Ontario. When that happens, children no doubt will be expected to register at, and attend, only one school at a time – and do so on a full-time basis; i.e., as opposed to attending a school only every other week. Those realities effectively will prevent the children from dividing their time equally between Woodstock and Hamilton without a significant adverse impact on their schooling. c. On the whole, I think this consideration favours the Applicant’s position, based on the currently available evidence. In saying that, I do not preclude the possibility that the court, on a further interlocutory motion or final disposition, might find it appropriate for the children to relocate their primary residence to Hamilton, with the Respondent, and thereafter attend school in Hamilton. However, based on the currently available evidence of what plan of care has been working, and whether it has the potential to continue without interruption or practical complications into the foreseeable future, the Applicant’s plan of care currently seems more promising.
8. Permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live: On balance, I think this consideration favours the Applicant’s position. In that regard: a. It obviously needs to be remembered that the appropriate focus is on the permanence and stability of such “family units” moving forward; i.e., as opposed to any situation that may have existed prior to separation. b. In that regard, I think the stability of the Applicant’s current family unit arguably is more stable than that of the Respondent, insofar as it is supported not only by the Applicant but by three other adult maternal relatives living in the same residence. In contrast, the current family unit of the Respondent seems entirely dependent on the Respondent’s continued ability and availability to provide financial support and care.
9. Ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent: As noted above, this is an aspect of the matter where the presented affidavit evidence is conflicting. On balance, however, I think this is a somewhat neutral consideration. In that regard: a. I have difficulty accepting the Respondent’s assertion that he was the children’s primary caregiver during the parties’ relationship, given the apparently acknowledged realities that the Respondent has always assumed primary financial responsibility for the family, and that the Applicant, for many years, remained at home without pursuing any formal employment outside the home. In such circumstances, I think it likely that the Applicant is correct in her assertion that she generally was the children’s primary caregiver up until the Respondent’s refusal to return the children to the Applicant’s care in January of 2021. b. I also have difficulty accepting the Respondent’s assertion that the Applicant is intent on complete parental alienation, when it is not disputed that the Applicant willingly agreed to implement a schedule of alternating weekend parenting time in the absence of a court order. In that regard, I am mindful of the Respondent’s emphasis on the reality that the commencement of such parenting time arrangements was delayed, based on the Applicant’s initial position that in-person parenting time with the Respondent should await the end of the pandemic. However: i. A host of reported decisions made in this court, in the wake of the pandemic’s onset, (an onset which roughly coincided with the parties’ separation), makes it abundantly clear that there was considerable uncertainty – especially in the early stages of the pandemic – about the extent to which parenting time arrangements should continue during the pandemic, especially if it involved children travelling back and forth between more distant communities. ii. Those decisions, and the extraordinary hearing arrangements implemented in the Southwest Region and elsewhere, make it clear that the Respondent had the ability to bring an urgent motion for a court order ensuring a measure of parenting time prior to June or July of 2020, if the Respondent felt the Applicant’s position was unreasonable and/or that the lack of immediate in-person parenting time with the children was inappropriate and a pressing concern. He nevertheless took no steps in that regard. c. I am not persuaded that there are any serious concerns about the Respondent’s current ability to parent the children, apart from the concerns already noted about the evidence of who might care for the children if the Respondent is unable or unavailable to do so; e.g., for work related reasons. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing: i. Although the Applicant says the Respondent has had substance abuse issues in the past, her evidence does not suggest any recent or current concerns in that regard; e.g., since the Respondent’s alleged completion of the methadone treatment that was ongoing in 2011. ii. Although the Applicant says the Respondent has been violent in the past, (e.g., leading to earlier criminal proceedings involving an assault that took place at a protest, and the ongoing criminal charges relating to the Respondent’s alleged assault of the Applicant on the date of separation), the evidence tendered by the Applicant does not suggest that the Respondent has ever been violent in relation to the children. iii. Although the Applicant suggests that the Respondent has placed the children at risk by taking them to political protests and rallies in the past, the clarifying evidence provided by the Respondent indicated that such concerns are unfounded; e.g., insofar as the children were taken to peaceful assemblies, and the violent incident referred to by the Applicant occurred at a particular rally where the children were not present. iv. Obviously, the concerns raised by the Applicant are not of a magnitude that makes her unwilling to entrust the children to the Respondent’s unsupervised care on alternate weekends or during half of the children’s holidays. d. I similarly am not persuaded that there are any serious concerns about the Applicant’s current ability to parent the children. In particular: i. I was not persuaded by the Respondent’s assertions that the Applicant has serious and ongoing problems with the abuse of alcohol and drugs, impairing her ability to care properly and safely for the children. In that regard:
10. I was impressed by the candour of the Applicant in pro-actively indicating, (prior to any evidence being tendered by the Respondent), that she has struggled with substance abuse issues in the past. Such candour, (along with indications made during the course of submissions that the Applicant was perfectly content with the imposition of conditions obliging each parent to refrain from intoxication, or the consumption or use of alcohol or drugs, while in a caregiving role), made me more inclined to accept the Applicant’s further evidence indicating that she generally has been “clean and substance free” since 2011.
11. In saying that, I am mindful of the Applicant’s text message sent to the Respondent on April 23, 2020, (and highlighted by counsel speaking for the Respondent in these proceedings), saying “I have been sober for these past few weeks”. Of course, that provides an indirect indication and/or admission that the Applicant was not sober immediately prior to that three-week period. However, there is no indication as to how long the relevant period of insobriety may have lasted.
12. More importantly, I think, the concerns now being raised by the Respondent about the Applicant’s use of alcohol and/or drugs apparently were not of a magnitude that made him unwilling to entrust the children to the Applicant’s unsupervised care prior to the parties’ separation; e.g., when the Respondent was working outside the home. Nor did they motivate the Respondent to bring any court proceeding to address any such concerns between the time of the couple’s separation in March of 2020 and his unilateral retention of the children in January of 2021, during which time the children remained in the primary care of the Applicant.
13. Similarly, the Respondent’s current emphasis on the supposed seriousness of the Applicant’s alcohol and drugs use seems inconsistent with his stated position that he has “no difficulties” with the children remaining in the Applicant’s unsupervised care on a week-about basis. In that regard, I note again that it was the Applicant, rather than the Respondent, who suggested a term restricting the parties’ use of intoxicants before or while in a caregiving role. ii. I was not persuaded by the Respondent’s assertions, (said to be based partly on information provided to the Respondent by the parties’ nine-year-old daughter, and partly on information said to have been provided to the Respondent by an unnamed Children’s Aid Society worker), that the children frequently were being left alone and unattended at night while the Applicant was working, and that the Applicant’s niece only began “visiting” the children at night in the wake of Children’s Aid Society involvement in December of 2020. In that regard:
14. The possibility of the children being left completely alone and unattended at night seems unlikely to me, having regard to the undisputed reality that, apart from the Applicant, no less than three other adult relatives of the children, (i.e., their maternal uncle, aunt and eighteen-year-old cousin), have been residing full time in the same residence as the Applicant and the children.
15. I also think the parties’ nine-year-old daughter inherently would not have much awareness of what adults might be present and looking after the children at times when they are likely to be asleep.
16. To the extent a Children’s Aid Society worker may have received an express indication from the Applicant and/or other adults in the household that no one was checking on the children at all while the Applicant was absent from the home, that would be more concerning. However, the hearsay evidence of the Respondent does not go that far, and indicates in any event that arrangements have been made to address any such concerns since late December of 2020. iii. Although the Respondent says the Applicant’s parenting ability also is drawn into question by her alleged failure to take sufficiently prompt measures to have the children examined by a physician, in order to explore, confirm and address their now documented health-related concerns, I did not find those assertions very persuasive either. In that regard:
17. The Respondent relies in part on information, said to have been provided to the Respondent by the parties’ young children, that the Applicant refused to provide the children with medical care because it was “too expensive”. Such assertions seem non-sensical having regard to the realities of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, and I therefore think it unlikely that the Applicant ever made such statements.
18. The objective medical evidence, represented by the letters provided by Dr Siu, contains no indication of when the children’s diagnosed conditions may have become symptomatic, or any suggestion that their conditions inappropriately went without notice or treatment for any sustained period of time. Nor does it contain any suggestion that the Applicant has failed or is failing to address those conditions, (e.g., by neglecting the administration of prescribed medication to the children, or by failing to take measures to prevent further spread of the H pylori bacteria), now that the children’s conditions have been diagnosed.
19. Although the Respondent alleges that the children began complaining of aches, pains and not feeling well as long ago as April of 2020, and that the Applicant should be faulted for seeking no medical treatment in that regard before the Respondent took the children to Dr Sui in December of 2020, I once again find it difficult to accept that the complaints represented a serious concern until relatively recently, based on the Respondent’s own conduct. In particular: a. It is not disputed that the Respondent began enjoying in-person parenting time in June or July of 2020, at which point he was seeing the children on alternating weekends and taking them back to Hamilton. b. There has been no court order or formal agreement in place, since the parties’ separation, giving the Applicant exclusive decision-making authority when it comes to health care decisions regarding the children. At any time from June or July onward, the Respondent accordingly had the ability to have the children seen by a physician if either child was presenting with serious health complaints. Indeed, it arguably was easier for the Respondent to do that rather than the Applicant, as Dr Sui remained the children’s family doctor and was located in Hamilton. c. To the extent the Respondent did not have immediate access to the children’s existing health cards, it seems difficult to believe that would have represented any serious impediment to the Respondent having the children seen by their regular family doctor to address any urgent health concerns. Certainly, after the Respondent kept the children in January of 2021, he indicated his readiness and intention to take whatever steps might be necessary to obtain emergency health cards for the children within days, even when there appeared to be no pressing health emergency at that point. d. The Respondent himself nevertheless apparently did not think any complaints of physical discomfort being made by the children were sufficiently serious to warrant the children being seen by a physician on an urgent basis until December of 2020. iv. To the extent the Respondent raises concern about the children potentially being exposed to the COVID-19 virus while in the Applicant’s care, insofar as the Applicant’s Woodstock residence is located in the countryside and two neighbours there have been seen “occasionally” during periods of recommended social-distancing, (according to information also said to have been provided to the Respondent by the parties’ young daughter), it seemed to me that such indications of occasional visitation, by a very limited number of neighbours in such an admittedly isolated setting, was not necessarily indicative of serious and worrisome “social bubble” violation. [^3] v. Although the Respondent says that recent counselling sessions with the children have revealed additional concerns about the Applicant’s parenting, and that the counsellor intends to notify the Children’s Aid Society of her concerns, that information self-evidently is hearsay upon hearsay for the time being. Moreover, I am mindful of the correspondence sent by the Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County to the Applicant, just two weeks ago, indicating that the Society has decided that it is appropriate to conclude its involvement with this family. In my view, it would be surprising if the Society arrived at that decision, even though the possibility of the Applicant having further unsupervised care of the children remains in dispute and undecided, if the Society had any serious concerns about the Applicant’s parenting ability following its earlier investigations.
20. Relationship by blood or through an adoption order: This is largely a neutral consideration in this case, insofar as the children stand in equal proximity to each of the parties. However, the factor arguably favours the position of the Applicant to some extent, insofar as the children also have blood ties to their maternal uncle, aunt and cousins with whom they also reside and spend considerable time while in their mother’s care.

iv. Beyond the above considerations, I think the implications of parties resorting to “self help”, and regard to “status quo” concerns, have considerable importance here. In that regard:

1. Even if one accepts that the Applicant exercised a measure of self-help in the immediate wake of the parties’ separation, (e.g., by relocating to Woodstock with the children and enrolling them in school there without the Applicant’s initial involvement or consent, and/or by dictating when and how the children should enjoy in-person post-separation parenting time with the Respondent), it seems reasonably clear to me that a new post-separation status quo was created in relation to residential, schooling and parenting time arrangements for the children, with the Respondent’s acquiescence if not his active consent. In particular: a. The Respondent apparently was immediately aware, in the wake of the parties’ separation, that the Applicant had assumed primary care of the children, that the Applicant and the children had relocated to the residence of the Applicant’s brother in north Woodstock, and that the children thereafter began attending school in Oxford county. b. The Respondent similarly was aware that commencement of his in-person parenting time was delayed until June or July of 2020, and thereafter took place up until January of 2021 on an alternating weekend basis, with the Respondent bearing responsibility for all associated transportation arrangements. c. From March of 2020 until January of 2015, the Respondent nevertheless initiated no legal proceedings, by way of application or urgent motion, (although the court had the ability to entertain such motions even during the pandemic), to seek an order altering that newly established post-separation status quo. In the meantime, the children understandably would have become accustomed to their new primary residence, school and parenting time arrangements.
2. I am mindful of what has been referred to variously as a “working rule” or “principle” that a “status quo” in relation to decision making authority, residence and associated parenting time arrangements for a child generally should not be disrupted or altered significantly on an interim basis, unless there are good and compelling reasons for the change. See, for example, Papp v. Papp, [1970] 1 O.R. 331 (C.A.), and Samson v. Samson, [2006] O.J. No. 5108 (S.C.J.). As I indicated in Peet v. Zolob, 2014 ONSC 5748, I nevertheless think it is important to keep such comments in perspective. In particular: a. Cases turning on preservation of a status quo actually reflect exercise of discretion by motion judges in the circumstances of the cases actually before them, and do not elevate the maintenance of status quo into “an immutable principle”. The overall concern is for a child’s best interests, changes to the status quo may be justified, and concerns about stability - reflected in concerns for disruption about the status quo, and already somewhat factored into the considerations suggested by s.24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, supra - must be weighed against competing considerations. Preservation of the status quo on an interim motion should not be seen as a goal in and of itself. b. Concerns about disturbing status quo have more force when that status quo is reasonably clear, and especially when it has been clearly defined by express party agreement or a court order. Such arguments have less resonance in circumstances where there is evidence that arrangements have remained somewhat unsettled, and the subject of ongoing disagreement and negotiated changes, without any prior court determination of what arrangement might be in the best interests of a child. c. Not each and every proposed change, and corresponding alteration in the status quo, will be of equal magnitude and concern.
3. Having said that all that, I do think, (for the reasons outlined above), that a post-separation status quo evolved in the present case, and that it remained effectively undisputed and accepted until the Respondent took unilateral action to change that post-separation status quo in January of 2021. I also think the resulting sudden change in the children’s primary residence, schooling and parenting time arrangements, brought about by the Respondent’s unilateral actions, represented a fundamental and significant break with the prevailing status quo.
4. Having regard to such considerations, I think it was incumbent on the Respondent, if he had serious concerns about the welfare of the children, and felt that such concerns justified a significant change in the residential, schooling and parenting time arrangements to which the children had become accustomed, to refrain from unilateral action and instead bring the matter before the court in an orderly way for formal determination; e.g., by way of an urgent motion if necessary. Our courts repeatedly have emphasized that self-help in relation to the determination of such fundamental child-related disputes must not be condoned or effectively encouraged.
5. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, I think the evidence in this case undermines any suggestion of any emergency situation warranting the Respondent’s unilateral decision to keep the children in Hamilton, and refuse their return to the Applicant in Woodstock. The Respondent himself acknowledges that an objective wellness check carried out by the Ontario Provincial Police, less than two weeks before the Respondent unilaterally decided to retain the children, confirmed that the children were okay and in no immediate danger while residing with the Applicant in Woodstock.

d. All concerned agreed that the Respondent should continue assuming responsibility for transportation of the children between the parties, and that exchanges should take place at the Woodstock Police Station, unless and until they could take place at the Merrymount facility in Woodstock once the appropriate intake information had been completed successfully. In particular, exchanges currently are difficult, and need to take place in controlled conditions, having regard to the communication and attendance restrictions currently placed on the Respondent in connection with the ongoing criminal proceeding.

Conclusion

[12] For the reasons outlined above, the without prejudice interim order was made on February 26, 2021, and a formal order reflecting that order should be prepared, issued and entered as soon as possible.

Costs

[13] At the conclusion of the hearing before me, and after I had indicated the substantive relief I was granting, I sought submissions from the parties in relation to costs.

[14] In that regard, Ms Williams indicated a desire on behalf of the Respondent to proceed with cost submissions immediately, as she was appearing in relation to the motions only as Mr Respondent’s agent, and it was uncertain how long her limited involvement in the matter would continue.

[15] However, I decided that it was more appropriate to address costs by way of written submissions, having regard to:

a. time constraints of the day; b. the advisability of giving the parties an opportunity to read and consider the written particulars of the relief being ordered, and my reasons for granting that relief; c. submissions by counsel for the Applicant requesting an opportunity to prepare and/or deliver further material relating to costs, including a detailed Cost Outline and evidence in relation to the exchange of one or more settlement offers; and d. the advisability of giving the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome in relation to costs of the motions.

[16] On the latter point, it is always preferable that parties negotiate and agree upon an appropriate cost disposition in relation steps in a proceeding, or the proceeding itself.

[17] However, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement on costs relating to the Applicant’s motion and the Respondent’s cross-motion, the following arrangements are hereby directed in relation to the tendering of written cost submissions in relation to the two motions:

a. Within one week of the date on which this endorsement is released, the Applicant may serve and file written cost submissions no longer than five pages in length, not including any Cost Outline or settlement offers. b. Within two weeks of the date on which this endorsement is released, the Respondent may serve and file written costs submissions no longer than five pages in length, not including any Cost Outline or settlement offers. c. Within one week of receiving any responding written cost submissions served and filed by the Respondent, the Applicant may serve and file written reply cost submissions no longer than two pages in length. d. If no cost submissions are received within two weeks of the date on which this endorsement is released, no costs shall be ordered in relation to either motion.

Justice I.F. Leach Date: March 1, 2021

[^1]: The quantum of such expense contribution is nevertheless in dispute. In that regard, the Applicant says the Respondent has continued to pay the Applicant’s cellular phone bill since the date of separation, at a cost of $100.00 per month. The Respondent says the relevant phone charges he has been paying for the Applicant are approximately $250.00 per month. The Respondent says he also has been paying additional post-separation expenses such as the cost of insurance on the Applicant’s vehicle, and the purchase of clothing and groceries for the children; assertions which apparently will be disputed when the Applicant has an opportunity to provide further evidence in reply. [^2]: In his responding affidavit, the Respondent says the “protests” to which he took the children were “Peace rallies” and “Pro-Diversity rallies”, attended by Members of Parliament and other regional officials, and that the incident resulting in the assault charge took place during a gathering where the children were not in attendance, and an associate of the “Proud Boys” terrorist entity took issue with a placard the Respondent was carrying. [^3]: The Respondent made reference in his affidavit to “breaking the quarantine act”, offered no further information or details to suggest that any individual involved in such limited visitation was under an obligation to abide by quarantine restrictions.