COURT FILE NO.: 21-0087
DATE: 2021/07/19
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Ainsleigh Byrne-McLean, Applicant
AND:
Nicholas Beaudin, Respondent
BEFORE: Somji J.
COUNSEL: Kate Anderson, for the Applicant
Respondent, Self-Represented
HEARD: June 17, 2021-Brockville via Zoom
Reasons for decision on uncontested trial
Overview
[1] The Applicant mother brings an application for sole decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and other corollary relief in relation to the parties’ child M.D.B., born […], 2019 (“child”).
[2] The Respondent father was served with the mother’s application materials and failed to respond within the requisite 30 days. The father was in default and the matter was scheduled for an uncontested trial on June 17, 2021. The father was notified of the trial date and failed to attend.
[3] In coming to my decision on the relief requested, I have relied on the mother’s original Application, her Affidavit for an uncontested trial dated June 7, 2021, as well as her testimony under oath on June 17, 2021. I have kept in mind that the father’s failure to file an Answer does not preclude the need to ensure that there is proper and sufficient evidence to order the relief sought by the mother: E.S.R. v. R.S.C., 2019 ONCJ 381, at para. 208; CAS v. J.U. and B.P.-M., 2020 ONSC 3753, 42 R.F.L. (8th) 373, at para. 10.
[4] Based on the evidence presented, the mother will have sole decision-making responsibility. The father will have parenting time on alternate weekends and one overnight a week and will be subject to certain conditions including that he abstains from alcohol consumption while the child is in his care. The father will pay Table Child Support.
Background Facts
[5] The parents started living together while in high school. They had a child. They later moved in with the mother’s parents. They separated when both were 20 years of age, and the child was four months old.
[6] Following separation, the mother remained at her mother’s residence with the child. The father moved into his own mother’s home but was forced to leave due to a conflict with his mother. He moved in with roommates and later to another residence where he now lives alone.
[7] At separation, the parties agreed to parenting schedule with the child alternating with each parent on a week on/week off basis. The mother felt that this arrangement was fair to both parents. The mother feels this arrangement is no longer in the best interests of the child or fair to her. She seeks a different parenting arrangement.
[8] Childcare has varied. Initially the child stayed with the maternal grandmother while the mother was at work or school. The mother alleges that during the father’s parenting time, the child was often left with an assortment of caregivers. Recently, the mother placed the child in a home daycare and after some persuasion, the father agreed to do the same. The mother testified that each parent pays their portion of the childcare costs which are approximately $175/week.
[9] To date, neither party has paid child support to the other. The mother attends St. Lawrence College and works part-time. The father has been working as a roofer since 2020. The mother estimates that his income has been higher than hers since the child was born. She filed a financial statement and her Notices of Assessment for 2018, 2019, and 2020.
[10] The mother has concerns about the father’s excessive drinking. She reported her concerns to Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds, and Grenville (“Society”). The Society verified the concerns and recommended to the father that he seek help for addiction. According to the mother, the father has not followed up on the recommendation.
[11] The Society also recommended to the mother that she take steps to mitigate her concerns about the father through a Family Court Application.
[12] The mother proposed mediation to resolve the parenting issues, but she indicates that the father declined.
Legal framework for uncontested trials and determination of parenting issues
[13] Rule 10(1) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (“FLR”), provides for 30 days in which a Respondent may serve and file an Answer, failing which “[t]he consequences set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of subrule 1 (8.4) apply” pursuant to r. 10(5). One of those consequences is the option to proceed to an uncontested trial of the case.
[14] An “uncontested trial” is defined at r. 2(1) as “a trial at which only the party making the claim provides evidence and submissions.”
[15] Affidavit evidence may be relied on at an uncontested trial unless the court directs that oral evidence be given: rule 23(22) FLR. In this case, I directed the mother to testify under oath about: one, why she is requesting a change in the existing parenting schedule; two, how she has arrived at a determination of the father’s income for calculating child support; and three, how the childcare costs have been addressed to date and her proposal for those expenses in the future. The mother’s evidence regarding these issues is addressed further below.
Analysis
Issue 1: What were the grounds for proceeding to an uncontested trial?
[16] The father was served with the following, hereinafter collectively the “Application materials”:
➢ mother’s Application dated April 14, 2021 (Form 8)
➢ mother’s Affidavit re decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and contact dated April 7, 2021 (Form 35.1)
➢ mother’s financial statement dated April 7, 2021 (Form 13)
➢ blank forms for the father to complete: Answer, Affidavit Form, Financial Statement, and Acknowledgment of Service
➢ Respondent’s MIP Notice re Mandatory Information program
[17] The mother filed an affidavit of service with the Court confirming service on the father on April 17, 2021, by a process server. The mother understands the father received the materials because he mentioned to her that he was taken aback that he would have to pay child support.
[18] The father did not file an Answer in the requisite time as provided by the FLR nor did he contact counsel for the mother or this Court seeking an extension to file. The mother requested an uncontested trial. The Court assigned a trial date of June 17, 2021, at 11:00. The Court sent an email to both parents confirming the date and time, a copy of which was filed as Exhibit 1 at trial. The father did not contact or inquire the Court or the mother’s counsel about these proceedings. The father did not attend for trial.
[19] I am satisfied that the father was properly served, failed to answer, and was in default. Leave is granted and this matter can properly be dealt with by way of an uncontested trial.
Issue 2: What should the parenting plan be for the child?
[20] In assessing the parenting plan for M.D.B., which involves determining who will be responsible for making significant decisions about the child, where her primary residence will be, and how much time each parent will have with her, I must consider only what is in the best interests of the child: Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 24 (“CLRA”). Section 24 of the CLRA endorses a child-centered approach in determining parenting orders: Young v. Young, 1993 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at pp. 62-63, per L’Heureux-Dubé J.; Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305, at para. 34.
[21] The best interests of the child requires primary consideration of M.D.B.’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being: CLRA, ss. 24(1)-(2). However, s. 24(3) CLRA lists additional factors related to the child’s circumstances that must be considered.
[22] Sections 24(1)-(3) of the CLRA state as follows:
Best interests of the child
24 (1) In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.
Primary consideration
(2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.
Factors
(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,
(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(b) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each parent, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent;
(d) the history of care of the child;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;
(g) any plans for the child’s care;
(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;
(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;
(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and
(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.
[23] In her original Application, the mother seeks sole decision-making responsibility for the child upon reasonable consultation with the father. The mother requests that the child’s primary residence be with her. She seeks to change the parenting schedule from week on/week off to a schedule where the father has parenting time on alternate weekends and one overnight a week. The mother’s draft Order proposes a parenting schedule for statutory holidays and family events such as Halloween and Father’s Day. The mother is agreeable to providing the father with additional parenting time in addition to these specified times.
[24] The mother claims that she has been the primary caregiver for the child since her birth. She has attended to all the child’s medical and developmental needs. She takes the child to her doctor’s appointments. She has kept the father informed of medical reports but claims the father “does not usually respond”. The mother has been making the decisions for the child, and the father has never opposed any of her decisions. She would like to continue making decisions with as little conflict as possible with the father to ensure the child’s needs are met. I also note that the mother arranged for the child to attend a home daycare and then persuaded the father to have the child attend the same daycare which he agreed to.
[25] The mother claims that she has provided the child greater stability by living consistently in her mother’s home, receiving counselling to learn about healthy relationships, and learning positive coping skills. In contrast, the father has not been able to provide the child with the same stability. He has moved three times because of conflicts with the people or excessive drinking.
[26] The mother’s request for a change in the parenting plan relates to the father’s issues with alcohol addiction. Since separation, she has received reports from concerned members in the community, including the father’s own mother, the father’s brother, and mutual friends, that the father drinks while caring for the child, routinely leaves her unattended in his vehicle for extended periods, and has driven the child while impaired. The mother testified on June 17th that she received information from people that the father drank while the child was in the car. She understands that the father drinks every day. She asked the father to get help with his drinking and engaged the Society’s assistance. In addition, the mother learned that the father was recently in a motor vehicle accident when his car rolled over on Highway 401. He presently faces criminal charges for driving while impaired in relation to this incident.
[27] The mother’s concerns were corroborated by the Society which verified an issue with drinking and recommended the father undertake treatment. The Society also refers to the charge of impaired driving. The Society’s letter, which is addressed to both parents, was appended to the mother’s Affidavit of June 7 and states:
FCSLLG has verified the child protection concerns meaning that we believe there is a risk that Mr. Beaudin's use of alcohol will impact his daughter and his ability to care for her in a safe way. We encourage Mr. Beaudin to access Adult Addictions and Mental Health of Leeds and Grenville. Mr. Beaudin committed to not using alcohol in a caregiving role of M.D.B.
[28] The mother testified that she has other concerns with the father’s parenting. She has observed him yelling at the child when she is crying and stating things like “you are giving me a headache”. She testified that the father smokes both inside and outside the house which she does not agree with. In her Affidavit of June 7, 2021, the mother refers to concerns about the father’s failure to seek medical treatment for the child when she had extreme diaper rashes.
[29] During the trial, I questioned the mother about how a reduction in parenting time from week on/week off to alternate weekends would resolve the safety issues around the father’s drinking. The mother explained that she had considered this issue. She testified that she believes that if the father has shorter visits with the child, he may be able to better cope with the child during those times. With shorter visits, the father would be able to focus on the child during the visit but free to do as he pleases on his own time. The mother testified that she knows the father loves the child, but she thinks an entire week of care may be too much for him to handle. The mother wants the child to have a relationship with the father and is not looking to obstruct access. She agreed to the original week on/week off arrangement at the outset because she believed that was fair. However, she now has concerns about his parenting, partying, and alcohol addiction, and hence, her request to change the current parenting plan.
[30] Based on the evidence filed and the mother’s testimony, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child to change the status quo in favour of the parenting plan proposed by the mother for the following reasons.
[31] First, the child has just turned two. She requires stability and care and nurturing that takes into consideration her emotional, physical, and developmental needs: CLRA, s. 24(3)(a). I accept the mother’s evidence that she has been able to provide a more stable home for the child than the father and will continue to do so in the future.
[32] Second, notwithstanding the week on/week off parenting schedule, I accept the mother’s evidence that she has been the primary caregiver for the child and has been attending to the child’s medical and developmental needs more than the father: CLRA, s. 24(3)(d). While the father has not resisted her decisions, I find that it is in the best interests of the child that the mother be able to continue making major decisions, upon reasonable consultation with the father.
[33] Third, the mother comes to this Court with a proposed plan of care whereas the father has not even responded to these proceedings: CLRA, s. 24(3)(g).
[34] Fourth, the mother has taken programming to be a better parent and engaged the Society’s services to verify her concerns about the father’s drinking and parenting. These steps demonstrate that she has the ability and willingness to care for and meet the needs of the child: CLRA, s. 24(3)(h). The mother has identified continued issues with the father’s stability, parenting, and drinking. The father has also not followed up on the Society’s recommendations.
[35] Fifth, I am satisfied based on the mother’s testimony that she will respect the terms of this Court order and will continue to cooperate with the father in meeting the child’s needs: CLRA, s. 24(3)(i). The mother testified that she is supportive of parenting time with the father despite the safety concerns around parenting and drinking. The mother respected the status quo and did not unilaterally deny the father parenting time until the matter was addressed by this Court. She testified, and I accept her evidence in this respect, that she has fostered contact between the child and the paternal family, including the brother and grandmother. This demonstrates that she is focused on the child’s best interests which includes having a meaningful relationship with the father and the paternal family: CLRA, ss. 24(3)(b) and (c).
[36] Finally, and most importantly, the father’s alleged drinking gives rise to concerns for the child’s safety and his ability to properly care for her: CLRA, s. 24(3)(h). While I appreciate that some of the information about the father’s drinking is hearsay, it is corroborated by the Society’s letter. Based on the mother’s evidence about the extent of the father’s drinking and reports that the child has possibly been in the car while the father is drinking, I have considered whether it is in the best interests of the child to require the father to have only supervised contact with the child. However, counsel for the mother has indicated that the mother does not seek such a severe restriction. Counsel submits that the safety concerns identified may be met if conditions can be ordered to limit the father’s alcohol consumption while the child is in his care, to shorten the period in which the child is his care, and to require third party caregivers to be approved by the mother to prevent the child being left with arbitrary persons.
[37] Having regard to counsel’s submissions, to the mother’s testimony, and to the fact that the father has himself committed to the Society that he will not drink while the child is in his care, I am satisfied that parenting time without supervision can be ordered for the father. However, there will be an order that the father will abstain from the consumption of alcohol while the child is in his care and in the 12 hours preceding the time the child is in his care. A term requiring the father from abstaining from alcohol while the child is in his care is consistent with the father’s own commitment to the Society.
[38] Counsel for the mother proposed the wording for a condition that the father “shall not consume alcohol or marijuana to an extent that would compromise his ability to legally operate a motor vehicle responsible for the child’s care.” The mother testified that the father has been previously ordered to abstain from alcohol in other circumstances and she is uncertain that he can abide by an absolute abstention clause. However, I find the proposed wording would be hard to enforce as it would be difficult to determine what the permissible threshold of drinking would be in such circumstances in the absence of a breathalyzer. Therefore, there will be a condition that the father will abstain from alcohol altogether while the child is in his care. It is always open to the father, particularly if he attends the recommended treatment for addiction, to return to this Court to request that this condition be lifted.
[39] I will not order a clause requiring the father to abstain from the use of marijuana. While implied, no evidence was provided in the affidavits or at trial about the extent of the father’s use of marijuana and how it has impacted his parenting. There is also nothing in the Society’s letter about the father’s use of marijuana. While the mother states in her affidavit that some of the father’s proposed caregivers were inappropriate due to a “history of drug use” and there was reference in her testimony about “partying”, the mother does not provide sufficient information about the father’s history and present drug use and if it impacts care of the child. I find that there is insufficient evidence upon which I can fairly order the father to abstain from the consumption of marijuana: Verma v. Di Salvo, 2020 ONSC 850 at paras 48-50.
[40] Having said this, I take judicial notice of the fact that second-hand smoke can be very dangerous for both children and adults. Consequently, while I have not ordered the father to abstain from the consumption of marijuana, he should refrain from exposing the child to tobacco and cannabis smoke: R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863, at para. 48, R. v. Spence, 2005 SCC 71, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 458, at para. 53, Fleming v. Wright, 2020 ONSC 1411, at para. 48, H.L.P. v. C.L.C., 2006 NSFC 43, at para 21, and B.(G.) v. B.(D.), 1997 CarswellOnt 1947 (C.J. (Prov. Div.)) at para. 24. There will be an order that the father not expose the child to tobacco or cannabis smoke in the home or vehicle or at locations reasonably avoidable while the child is in his care.
[41] For all these reasons, I find that the mother’s proposed parenting plan is in the best interests of the child. There will be an order that the mother have sole decision-making responsibility for the child and that the child’s primary residence will be with her. The father will have parenting time on alternate weekends, one overnight per week, and shared time on statutory holidays and family events, and as the parties may agree. To ensure the child is not arbitrarily exposed to different caregivers, there will be a condition that the father informs the mother gets her consent for third party caregivers.
[42] Birthdays are special moments in a child’s life that should not be missed if it can be helped. For this reason, there will be an order that regardless of whose parenting time the child’s birthday falls on each year, each parent will have a minimum of two hours of time with the child on her birthday unless both parents agree in advance of seven days to an alternate arrangement for the child’s birthday.
Issue 3: Should the father pay child support, and if so, how much?
[43] In her original application, the mother indicates she was seeking child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97. The father has not responded, and the Court has no information from him to determine his actual present income.
[44] Child support may be ordered on imputed income: Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, s. 19(1). However, there must be some evidentiary basis for the imputation as well as a rational basis for the amount chosen: Drygala v. Pauli (2002), 2002 41868 (ON CA), 61 O.R. (3d) 711 (C.A.), at para. 44. To impute anything more than a minimum wage income the court needs to have some evidence upon which to make such a finding: Dassin v. Perpignan, 2021 ONSC 1066, at para. 8.
[45] The mother seeks Table Child Support in the amount of $460 per month based on an imputed annual income of approximately $49,920. The mother filed a screenshot of the father’s Facebook page which indicates that the father has been working in roofing since March 2020 and started a new job as a roof shingler for Competitive Renovations Inc. on April 26, 2021. The father told the mother that he earns $24 per hour. The mother testified that the father’s hours vary between 8 to 10 hours a day. At 40 hours per week, the mother estimates his annual income at $49,920. While this work is normally seasonal, the mother understands that the company also does renovations and there is prospect of continued work for the father.
[46] The mother also completed an internet search on Indeed.com on the wages and salaries for roofers in the Brockville area, the results of which were attached as an exhibit to her Affidavit of June 7, 2021. It reports an average annual salary of $52,547 for a roofer in Brockville but does not provide an average annual salary for a shingler. It reports an average hourly rate of $22.73 per hour for a roofer and an $24.66 for a shingler in Brockville. The mother’s income estimate falls well within the range of annual salaries for roofers.
[47] I am satisfied that there is some evidentiary basis upon which the father’s annual income can be imputed at $49,920. Based on imputed income, there will be an order that the father will pay Table Child Support in the amount of $460 per month effective the date of this decision. The child support order will be enforced by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.
[48] In addition, there will be an order that the parties provide proof of their gross annual income earned from all sources by submitting to each other by May 1st of each year a copy of their Income Tax Return and Notice of Assessment.
[49] There will be an order that the father will provide a copy of his 2020 Income Tax Return and Notice of Assessment to the mother by July 302021.
Issue 4: What is the father proportionate share of s. 7 special and extraordinary expenses for the child including daycare?
[50] The mother is presently attending a hairstylist program at St. Lawrence College and expects to graduate in the next few months. However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may take her some time to obtain her apprentice hours and be gainfully employed in this field. In addition to school and parenting, the mother earns income of about $300 per month doing deliveries for a variety of food companies. The mother has no medical benefits.
[51] The mother filed a Financial Statement including her Notices of Assessment for the last three years. Her income was $6,651 in 2018, $10,674 in 2019, and $15,220 in 2020. Relying on the father’s imputed income of $49,920 and her own income of $15,220 for 2020, the mother calculates the father’s contribution for special and extraordinary expenses at 77%. I am satisfied that the father’s proportion to income share of s. 7 special and extraordinary expenses is 77% and the mother’s share is 23%.
[52] At present, the only special expense is the cost of childcare. While the parties have been dividing this cost equally, each paying approximately $350 per month, the father will be responsible for 77% of the costs of childcare effective the date of this decision. The mother is agreeable to paying childcare costs upfront to the caregiver and the father reimbursing within 30 days of the mother delivering proof to him of the expense.
Issue 5: Should the mother be granted her request for other corollary relief?
[53] The mother does not have any medical benefits. She seeks a clause ordering the father to maintain the child as a beneficiary of any medical or dental coverage should it become available to him through his employment. There will be an order for this relief as requested.
[54] The mother calculates that based on the father’s imputed income of $49,920, the child supports up to the time the child is 18 would be $92,099. On this basis, the mother requests that the father obtain a life insurance policy of a minimum of $150,000 and designate the mother as the irrevocable beneficiary as security for his child support obligations.
[55] While this court has authority to order the father to obtain a life insurance policy, it is a discretionary decision that requires consideration of several factors: Katz v. Katz, 2014 ONCA 606 at paras 66-74. These factors include evidence of the payor’s insurability, the amount and cost of insurance, whether the amount sought is consistent with the support likely payable over the duration of the support award, and its impact on other support obligations. Courts are not inclined to make such orders where there is insufficient evidence: Oschisor v. Oschisor, 2018 ONSC 3306. In this case, I find there is insufficient evidence about the father’s insurability, the cost to him of obtaining a $150,000 policy, and how such premiums will impact his ability to pay table child support which he will now be required to pay. For these reasons, I decline to make an order requiring the father to take out a life insurance policy to secure payment of child support.
Costs
[56] The mother is the successful party on this application. The mother seeks costs payable to Legal Aid Ontario. The amount of costs has not been specified. Costs of this case shall be paid by the father to Legal Aid Ontario in an amount to be fixed by the Court after receipt of a very brief written submission and a Bill of Costs from the applicant, to be filed within 30 days.
Order
[57] There will be a final Order as follows:
The mother will have decision-making responsibility for the child following reasonable and meaningful consultation with the father.
The primary residence of the child will be with the mother.
The father will have parenting time with the child on alternate weekends starting at 5:00 pm on Friday until 5:00 pm on Sunday, and if Monday is a statutory holiday, until 5:00 pm on Monday.
In addition, the father will have parenting time with the child one night a week on Wednesday at 5:00 pm up to Thursday morning before the start of daycare/school.
The parents will share holidays and special dates as agreed between the parties:
a. One half of each Easter Weekend and Thanksgiving Weekend;
b. Each Father's Day with the Applicant having each Mother's Day;
c. Each parent will have a minimum of two hours of time with the child on the child’s birthday […];
d. Alternating Christmases with the Applicant having care from Christmas Eve at 12:00 noon to Christmas Day at 12:00 noon and the Respondent having care from Christmas Day at 12:00 noon to Boxing Day at 12:00 noon in odd-numbered years, and the reverse in even-numbered years;
e. Alternating Halloween evenings with the Applicant having care in even-numbered years, and the Respondent in odd-numbered years; and
f. And such other times as the parties may agree.
The father shall abstain from the consumption of alcohol while the child in his care or within 12 hours of the child coming into his care.
The father shall not expose the child to tobacco or cannabis smoke in his home or vehicle or at locations reasonably avoidable while the child is in his care.
The father will provide the mother with 24 hours notice if he is unavailable to care for the child during his scheduled parenting time and will provide her the first opportunity to care for the child during that time. If during the father’s parenting time he finds he is unable to care for the child, the father will first contact the mother and offer her the opportunity to care for the child or suggest an alternative third-party caregiver approved by the mother.
If the father seeks to place the child in the care of a third-party caregiver, he will first seek approval of the mother for the third-party caregiver.
The father will pay child support in in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines tables the amount of $460 per month based on an imputed annual income of $49,920 payable commencing July 1, 2021.
The father shall pay 77% of the special and extraordinary expenses as defined at section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines. This includes the cost of childcare.
An Order requiring the parties to maintain and make available extended health care benefits for the child, as may be available through their employment.
On or before May 1st of each year, each party shall deliver proof of his or her gross annual income earned from all sources in the previous calendar year by way of Income Tax Return and Notice of Assessment.
Somji J.
Date: July 19, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: 21-0087
DATE: 2021/07/19
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Ainsleigh Byrne-McLean, Applicant
AND:
Nicholas Beaudin, Respondent
BEFORE: Somji J.
COUNSEL: Kate Anderson, for the Applicant
Respondent, Self-Represented
reasons for decision on uncontested trial
Somji J.
Released: July 19, 2021