Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-18-1839 DATE: 2021/03/03 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Anik Michelle Paquette, Applicant AND David Robinson, Respondent

BEFORE: Mackinnon J.

COUNSEL: Applicant, Self-Represented Elizabeth Kabesh for the Respondent

HEARD: March 2, 2021

Endorsement

[1] The respondent father brings this motion for parenting time, in increasing increments so that after 20 weeks he would have equal residential time with the parties almost 7 year old daughter, and for shared decision making in respect to all major decisions for her.

[2] The facts in the case are disputed. There is also considerable conflict between the parents. Additionally, there has been some involvement of the police and the Children’s Aid Society although no charges have been laid nor protection application commenced. Both parents agreed today that the court should ask for the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. An order shall issue requesting the OCL to conduct a clinical investigation to assist the court in its determination of the child’s best interests.

[3] The parents separated on a final basis in July 2018. Since then the child has resided primarily with her mother, who has also been the de facto decision making parent. The father’s parenting time has changed over the intervening time. At present it is pursuant to an order made on July 24, 2020 and consists of Tuesday and Thursday evening video conferences and Saturdays from 10:30 in the morning until 12:30 in the afternoon, supervised in a community location. The order also provided that when the CAS closed its file these arrangements could be revisited.

[4] The reference to the CAS harkened back to August 2018 when the Society became involved due to a physical altercation between the parents in the child’s presence. The Society attempted to engage with the father, but he did not co-operate, and the file closed in January 2019. The mother allowed video contact between father and child but did not agree to in person contact until he had addressed various concerns with the Society. Then in October 2019 the mother discontinued the video contact after another disagreement between the parents. She had already issued her Application. The father had not delivered an Answer but did appear on March 5, 2020, the date set for an uncontested trial. He was allowed to late file within 15 days and did so.

[5] At a case conference in June 2020 the father agreed he would co-operate with the Society if it would re-open its file. The Society did so; on November 13 wrote that there were no protection concerns with respect to the father’s contact with the child, and again closed the file. The mother maintains the father merely denied various allegations. Her view is that the fact that no new concerns had arisen in the intervening period of time, combined with the father’s current living relationship in a stable environment with his new partner led the Society to close its file. Her concerns about the father still persist. She is willing to see his parenting time move forward but not to the extent that he is asking.

[6] The father’s view is that the mother has wrongfully restricted his contact with their daughter, and at times has completely cut off in person contact. That said he did not co-operate with the Society in 2018/19 and was slow to participate in the mother’s court application. In the hope that the OCL will conduct a clinical investigation that will assist the court in determining the disputed factual issues between the parents I have decided not to set out the competing versions in this endorsement. Rather I have taken the approach that given the in person contact only resumed in July on a limited basis the father’s parenting time should continue to increase gradually pending either receipt of an OCL report or their notice declining to take on the case.

[7] For these reasons the order made is on a temporary basis until further order of the court which may be sought by either party after the position of the OCL is known one way or the other. Commencing on Saturday March 6, 2021 the father’s parenting time shall be as follows:

• By video call on Tuesdays at 7:00 pm.
• On Fridays from after school until 7:00 pm.
• On Saturdays, from noon until 7:00 pm for a period of 8 weeks only.
• After 8 weeks one Friday visit will continue as set out above and the alternate Friday shall be extended to an overnight basis ending on Saturday at 5:00 pm. For clarity at this time the father shall not have parenting time on the other Saturdays.
• There is no requirement for formal supervision, but the father shall exercise his parenting time from the home base of himself and his partner, and the overnight parenting time shall take place in that home. The father shall notify the mother forthwith in the event he and his partner separate and are no longer residing together.

[8] Both parents shall complete the online parenting program available at Family Services Ottawa which assists separated parents experiencing conflict to communicate on parenting issues. Pending further order of the court the applicant shall only make a major decision for the child that must be made for reasons beyond her own control and shall notify the respondent before making any such decision. She shall consider his input in reaching a decision and shall advise him of her decision once made. She shall advise the father of the names and contact information for third party service providers to the child, including day care, school, and physicians, all of whom he is entitled to contact directly without her consent and to receive information from pertaining to the child. The mother shall also notify the father forthwith in the event of any emergency pertaining to the child.

[9] Costs of this motion are deferred until the next court event following either the receipt of the OCL report or the decision of the OCL to decline the file, as the case may be.

Mackinnon J. Date: March 3, 2021