COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-30
DATE: 20210611
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Christopher Daniel Bolanos Applicant
– and –
Courtney Christine Chartrand Respondent
COUNSEL: Sydney Bunting, for the Applicant James Battin, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 16, 2021
DECISION ON MOTION
carey j.
[1] Mr. Bolanos brings this emergency motion as a result of the arbitrary withholding of his son by his mother, Courtney Chartrand. The matter was heard on April 16, 2021 and spoken to on May 14, 2021, at the request of the applicant father.
[2] There was also an “emergency” motion brought by the mother subsequent to the father’s request for enforcement of the access order in place in this proceeding.
[3] The mother continues to repeat allegations that the evidence before this court shows to be unsubstantiated. While the affidavits have not been tested, the material relied on by the applicant shows that the allegations of sexual abuse by the father have been investigated and found to be unsupported.
[4] After an interim order was made on April 16, 2021, there was immediately problems with the mother keeping to the terms of that order which necessitated the father requesting a Zoom hearing on May 14, 2021. On that occasion, the mother attended with new counsel from Ottawa who admittedly was unfamiliar with the file and continued to rely on the previous unsubstantiated allegations. In fact, the mother’s actions represent a “doubling-down” on the allegations.
[5] Also concerning here, is the mother’s suggestion that the report of a child psychologist, who briefly saw the child, somehow supported the allegations. It does not. It urges both parents to engage in therapeutic counselling for the child who is displaying sexual conduct and acting out which suggests he has been exposed to conduct and talk not appropriate for a three-year-old, perhaps from older children.
[6] It is also clear and most regrettable that the mother has not only interrogated the child and questioned him suggesting sexual misconduct by his father but has videotaped this and supplied it to the court. There has been clear professional repudiation of these actions by professionals involved.
[7] The courts of this province have set a high threshold for termination of access, see Rifa v. Andrade, 2015 ONCJ 484, at paras 74, 89, 94-95, 97, and R.C. v. L.C, 2021 ONSC 1963, at paras 60-64, 66.
[8] In my view, the mother’s actions are motivated by spite and anger and the reduction of child support as a result of loss of the father’s job during the pandemic. Her messages to him and her previous conduct in granting extended access when it was convenient to her schedule after the time of the supposed sexual misconduct all undermines her credibility. More importantly, it is undermining the parenting order that recognizes her as the primary residence’s parent. Her actions bring into question her fitness as the primary parent and whether she is acting in the best interest of her son. See J.Y. v. L.F.-T., 2019 ONSC 1718 at paras 6, 15, 19.
[9] Accordingly, there will be an order enforcing the existing parenting order and access. Ms. Chartrand’s emergency motion is dismissed as not meeting the criteria as an emergency motion.
[10] There will be an order of costs. If Ms. Chartrand fails to immediately return to following the terms of the order, she should expect further penalties and a review of her continued primary parenting role.
Costs
[11] Costs to the applicant of $2,500 payable forthwith.
“Original signed and released by Carey J.”
Thomas J. Carey Justice
Released: June 11, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-30
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Christopher Daniel Bolanos
and
Courtney Christine Chartrand
DECISION ON MOTION
Carey J.
Released: June 11, 2021