COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-2071

DATE: 20210705

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

TARAS VOLGEMUT

Applicant

– and –

ASHLEE JANNA CARMEN DECRISTOFORO

Respondent

Michael J. Stangarone, Ian Vallance and Vivian Li, for the Applicant

Katherine Cooligan, for the Respondent

HEARD: June 28, 2021

REASONS FOR decision

audet J.

[1] This is a motion to decide the parameters of the applicant father’s in-person parenting time with his two-year old daughter pending trial, which was adjourned to the month of October 2021. More importantly, I was asked to decide where his parenting time would take place and, if abroad, what safeguards would be imposed to ensure the child’s safe return to Canada thereafter.

[2] For the reasons that follow, I have accepted the father’s request for his parenting time to take place in Turkey, but under exceptionally stringent conditions.

Background

[3] The parties met in New York City. The applicant father, Taras Volgemut (“the father), is a Russian citizen with international business interests. It is not disputed that he has access to significant wealth. The respondent mother, Ashlee Decristoforo (“the mother”), is a Canadian citizen who was born and raised in Ottawa. When the parties met, the mother was working in New York as an international model. They lived together for six years in various locations; South Africa, Germany, Turkey and most recently in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). When the parties separated in December 2020, they were living in Dubai.

[4] The parties’ daughter, Aleksandra Nicole Volgemut “Sasha”, was born on October 28, 2018 in Munich, Germany. She will be three years old in October. In December 2020, after an altercation involving the parties and the father’s adult daughter from another relationship, the mother surreptitiously left Dubai with the child and relocated to Ottawa where her parents and extended family continue to reside.

[5] It is not disputed that the mother did not have the father’s consent to remove the child from Dubai to take her to Ontario. It is not disputed that the child’s habitual residence at the time of her removal was in Dubai. In his Application before this court, the father seeks a declaratory order that the child has been wrongfully removed to, and is being wrongfully retained in, Ontario pursuant to s. 40 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”), and that she be returned forthwith to her habitual residence in Dubai.

[6] The respondent mother opposes this relief. While she acknowledges that the child was removed from her habitual place of residence without the father’s consent, she asks the court to exercise its discretion to assume jurisdiction over the child based on ss. 22(1)(b) or 23 of the CLRA. More specifically, she takes the position that the child would be at serious risk of harm if returned to Dubai.

[7] In the context of this proceeding, the mother alleges that the father was abusive towards her, including financially and emotionally, and that on the day she left Dubai with the child, the father had brutally beaten her, dragging her along a dirt road in a remote resort outside of Dubai following an altercation between her and the father’s adult daughter. The father denies all these allegations and asserts that it is the mother, not him or his adult daughter, who was physically abusive that night, and that the mother assaulted his adult daughter while in a state of intoxication.

[8] Given the nature of this case, time is of the essence, and as a result, it quickly moved through the procedural steps otherwise mandated by the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 to ensure a quick and expeditious determination of whether Ontario has jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and whether the child should be returned to Dubai, UAE, for parenting issues to be decided in that country. The two-week trial was originally scheduled to be heard by myself during the weeks of April 12 and 19, 2021. However, on March 18, 2021, I had to adjourn the trial for reasons set out in my Endorsement of March 24, 2021. The trial was then set to commence on June 14, 2021, for two weeks.

[9] On the day the trial was to begin, the mother sought another adjournment of the trial. I was informed that on the Friday preceding the commencement of the trial, the mother’s counsel had obtained an order removing her as counsel of record. Despite everyone’s best efforts to salvage the trial, it ultimately had to be adjourned once again. It is set to proceed in October 2021, for three weeks.

[10] At the time I adjourned this trial for a second time, I made it clear that the adjournment was premised on the father having in-person parenting time with Sasha between now and the month of October 2021. While the father has had virtual parenting time with Sasha, he has not seen her in six months. Given Sasha’s very young age, it is not difficult to conclude that virtual parenting time has not been easy or conducive to fostering the father-daughter relationship. As the parties were unable to reach an agreement on this issue, a motion was set to be heard before me on June 28, 2021 to deal with the father’s interim parenting time.

[11] I have received motion materials from both parties in the context of this motion, during which the mother was represented, for the purpose of this motion only, by her former counsel.

[12] The father wishes to exercise in-person parenting time with his daughter in Turkey, where he is currently residing for the summer. To facilitate this, he is prepared to be responsible for the payment of all travel costs associated with the mother’s and Sasha’s travel from Canada to Turkey, including the travel and housing costs of the maternal grandmother, Colleen Decristoforo, if she wishes to accompany her daughter. He is also prepared to consent to a number of orders meant to alleviate the alleged risks that he might wrongfully remove Sasha from Turkey to take her back to Dubai.

[13] The mother strongly objects to Sasha leaving Canada at all. She states that she has always been prepared to allow in-person parenting time between the father and Sasha in Ottawa, and that she is still prepared to do so. However, she says that the father presents a serious risk of flight for Sasha, and she asks that any in-person parenting time between them, in Ontario, be supervised at all times. The mother states that the father has limitless financial means, that he has countless international connections and she is frightened that, if allowed to have unsupervised access with Sasha in Ontario, let alone anywhere else in the world, the father will abduct Sasha and she will never see her again.

[14] Both parties agree that it is very important for Sasha to have an ongoing relationship with her father. Both parties recognize that for this to happen, Sasha and her father must be given an opportunity to spend meaningful time with each other, in person. Since the mother relocated to Ottawa with the child in December 2020, the father has only been able to see Sasha by way of daily Zoom calls (at 9 a.m. each morning) which were ordered by the court on January 5, 2021. The father’s evidence is that the mother has significantly interfered with his virtual parenting time with Sasha, by failing to facilitate calls, failing to ensure that he and Sasha remain visible to each other on the screen, by making disparaging comments during the call, or by abruptly terminating the calls, failing to attend or delaying them for no reason.

[15] The mother disputes the father’s evidence in that regard, stating that she only stops the Zoom calls when they become unproductive, when Sasha disengages or when the father displays inappropriate conduct. In particular, the mother states that connection issues, the father inappropriately bringing third parties on the calls, and the father’s disparaging remarks to her, have frequently resulted in her having to terminate the calls. The mother also adds that the few times Sasha did not attend a scheduled Zoom call, it was because she was scheduled to attend court and simply could not make it; something the father was well aware of.

[16] No one disputes that Zoom calls are no substitute for in-person parenting time, particularly for a two-year-old child. The parties’ evidence makes it clear that virtual parenting time between Sasha and her father has been very challenging, and if this is the only contact Sasha has with her father for months to come, the bond and connection they once shared will need to be repaired and rebuilt.

[17] While the parties’ respective role in Sasha’s life during their relationship is disputed (the mother states that she was Sasha’s primary caregiver while the father was a disengaged, frequently absent parent who never cared for Sasha on his own for lengthy periods of time; the father states that he was an equally involved parent who shared a close, loving relationship with his daughter), there is no suggestion by the mother that Sasha is not safe while in her father’s care or that the father has ever been abusive towards her. The father’s ability to safely and appropriately care for her is not disputed. This has been clearly expressed by the mother’s counsel to the father’s counsel in a letter dated April 13, 2021.

[18] The only concern here, and upon which my entire decision revolves, is that the father may abduct Sasha and bring her back to Dubai if he is afforded in-person parenting time with her outside of Canada, and/or without supervision.

Legal Framework

[19] Although the father does not recognize this Court’s jurisdiction to deal with parenting issues related to Sasha, and specifically does not attorn to its jurisdiction, he brings this motion at my invitation for an order granting him in-person parenting time pending trial. Any order that I make will be made without prejudice to the father’s ultimate position that this Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter, which is the issue to be decided at trial.

[20] Any decision I make on interim parenting time for Sasha is made pursuant to the CLRA, the relevant provisions of which are as follows:

Application for parenting order or contact order

Parenting order, application by parent

21 (1) A parent of a child may apply to a court for a parenting order respecting,

(a) decision-making responsibility with respect to the child; and

(b) parenting time with respect to the child.

Parenting orders and contact orders

28 (1) The court to which an application is made under s.21,

(a) may by order grant,

i. decision-making responsibility with respect to a child to one or more persons, in the case of an application under clause 21 (1) (a) or subsection 21 (2),

ii. parenting time with respect to a child to one or more parents of the child, in the case of an application under clause 21 (1) (b), or

(b) may by order determine any aspect of the incidents of the right to decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact, as the case may be, with respect to a child and,

(c) may make any additional order the court considers necessary and proper in the circumstances, including an order,

i. limiting the duration, frequency, manner or location of contact or communication between any of the parties, or between a party and the child,

ii. prohibiting a party or other person from engaging in specified conduct in the presence of the child or at any time when the person is responsible for the care of the child,

iii. prohibiting a party from changing the child’s residence, school or day care facility without the consent of another party or an order of the court,

iv. prohibiting a party from removing the child from Ontario without the consent of another party or an order of the court,

v. requiring the delivery, to the court or to a person or body specified by the court, of the child’s passport, the child’s health card within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act or any other document relating to the child that the court may specify,

vi. requiring a party to give information or to consent to the release of information respecting the child’s well-being, including in relation to the child’s health and education, to another party or other person specified by the court, or

vii. requiring a party to facilitate communication by the child with another party or other person specified by the court in a manner that is appropriate for the child.

[21] Any decision that I make in relation to the father’s parenting time must, pursuant to s. 24(1) of the CLRA, be in keeping with Sasha’s best interests, having regard to the many factors listed in s.24(3) and (4).

The Father’s Proposal

[22] The father is seeking for Sasha to travel with her mother to the Six Senses Resort located in Kaplankaya, Turkey, for a period of three months. During those three months, the father would have gradually increased daily parenting time with Sasha, ranging from 2 hours to 4 hours, eventually including up to 6 hours on one weekend day, and one overnight per week. The rest of the time, Sasha would be in her mother’s care.

[23] The mother did not dispute the father’s evidence in relation to the amenities available at the Six Senses Resort. It is a world class resort on the Aegean Sea located approximately 50 kilometers from the Milas Bodrum Airport. The property hosts 141 residences – ranging from villas to hotel rooms – and has private beaches, restaurants, a library, a boutique, flower and vegetable gardens, as well as many other activities, including for young children of Sasha’s age.

[24] In the summer of 2020, the parties spent the months of June to September at the Six Senses Resort with Sasha. The Resort is mostly comprised of a small, tight knit community of people, some of whom are permanent residents, and many of whom are families that return each summer. It offers a family friendly environment which is familiar to Sasha. Turkey is well known to both parties, as they had previously resided there (in Bodrum) from June 2018 to August 2018 (before Sasha was born and while the mother was pregnant with her). There is no suggestion by the mother that Sasha would not be safe at the Six Senses Resort, other than the risk associated with her possible wrongful removal from Turkey.

[25] As stated earlier, the father is prepared to pay for all travel costs to have the mother, Sasha and her maternal grandmother travel to this resort to spend time there with her while allowing him to exercise parenting time with her. The father indicates that they would have a separate residence from his, located within walking distance to his residence. Depending on availability at the time of travel, he intends to rent two separate two-bedroom suites with private pools, one for Sasha and her mother, the other for the maternal grandmother if she decides to accompany Sasha and her mother.

[26] The uncontested evidence before me confirms that Turkey has no travel restrictions in place preventing Sasha and her mother from visiting, and there is no burdensome visa application process prior to entry (visas can easily be obtained online). The father says that because most of its guests are either long-term or permanent residents, Six Senses is an extremely safe place to be during the pandemic. The Resort has testing and medical facilities on site, and a strict quarantine system in place for anyone who tests positive for COVID-19 upon their arrival.

[27] Again, were it not for the risks associated with Sasha’s possible removal from Turkey by her father, it is undisputed that the Six Senses Resort is a perfectly appropriate and safe environment which is known to Sasha and in which in-person parenting time with her father would be highly enjoyable for her.

[28] The father states that it is crucial for work purposes that he remain in a time zone no more than 2 hours plus or minus from that of Moscow, the UAE and Europe. The father is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Aurum Leasing Limited (“Aurum”), a UAE based company which leases aviation and commercial shipping assets. He states that almost all of Aurum’s clients and partners are located either in Moscow, the UAE or Europe. Given the nature of Aurum’s business and the present global context, which has hit the aviation industry quite hard, the father explains that his business in undergoing significant challenges at the moment and it needs his attention and dedication. Living in a country, such as those in North America, where the time difference is significant for an extended period of time would make it impossible for him to work while at the same time spending meaningful time with Sasha. The parenting time schedule that he has proposed reflects the father’s need to dedicate a significant portion of each day to his work.

The Mother’s Concerns and Her Proposal

[29] As stated earlier, the mother’s only concern is that, if given the chance, the father will wrongfully remove Sasha from any country he is permitted to exercise in-person parenting time with her, and bring her back to Dubai at the first opportunity.

[30] The mother maintains that she did not abduct Sasha, as alleged by the father. She said that she left scared and came to the only place she felt safe; in Ottawa to be with her family. The mother states that the father is a billionaire, as demonstrated by the lavish lifestyle that she had access to while living with him. She points to the army of lawyers and experts that he amassed to prosecute the most aggressive legal battle in this proceeding. She says that the father has endless financial resources and endless power, and that he has proven at every step of the way that he will stop at nothing, and take the most extreme positions, all to punish her for leaving him. She states that she has exhausted all her financial resources, and her parents have exhausted all of their credit, for her to try to keep up with the pace of the father’s very expensive and excessive litigation, and that if the father was to take Sasha back to Dubai, she would not have the means to fight to get her back.

[31] The mother expresses that she fears for her safety if she were to meet the father outside of Canada. She indicates that she suggested to the father, as early as January 2021, that he travel to Ottawa to see Sasha. She says that he has the means to take as many weeks off as he wants, as he has done consistently in the past, to come to Canada to see Sasha. She questions why he has been unable to obtain a visa to travel to Canada, since he has done so on a few occasions during their relationship and she expresses concerns about his alleged inability to obtain one this time around.

[32] The mother says that she has never denied in-person visits between Sasha and her father, but that the father failed to ask for an order for in-person parenting time until March 2021, which she immediately agreed to. She maintains that any in-person parenting time between the father and Sasha needs to be supervised because the father could very easily abduct Sasha, given his power and unlimited financial means, even if parenting time was to take place in Canada. Given that the father maintains that she has abducted Sasha, and that she should be returned to him in Dubai, the mother is of the view that the father would not see his wrongful removal of Sasha back to Dubai as anything but righting a wrong that she created.

[33] The mother maintains that she has been Sasha’s primary caregiver since she was born, and that she never spent more than one overnight away from her. If the father was to successfully abduct her and bring her back to Dubai, she would never see her again, which would be devastating and extremely harmful to Sasha.

[34] Finally, the mother states that it would be absurd for this Court to order her and a two-year old to travel to Turkey, where they have no support in the middle of a global pandemic when the reason she left a foreign land to return to Canada was her safety. She states that the father is well-known and well-connected in Turkey. The law there is unknown to her, and she suspects that the father has lawyers and experts to advise him of his rights in that country. The risks to her and Sasha of going to Turkey are insurmountable, in her view, even if not fully known or understood at this time.

Analysis

[35] The mother’s plan, unfortunately, would result in Sasha having no in-person parenting time with her father in the foreseeable future. She has not offered any alternative to her position that the father should only have in-person, supervised parenting time in Canada. Although, at the very end of her counsel’s submissions, she expressed the possibility that she might be agreeable to the father seeing Sasha in New York; I have been provided with no concrete plan and no evidence as to how the risks of abduction from the United States might be less than those present in Turkey; how they could be alleviated; and whether there are any requirements or restrictions for the father to enter the U.S.

[36] The evidence before me convinces me that the father has made significant efforts in trying to secure a visa to come to Canada. Ms. Shoshana Green, the father’s immigration lawyer, swore an affidavit confirming that, as a citizen of Russia, the father is required to make an application for a temporary resident visa to enter Canada. She described all the steps taken by her on the father’s behalf since the end of January 2021 to obtain this visa, as well as the Canadian authorities’ responses so far. As of June 21, 2021, the father still has no response from the Canadian authorities and has not yet been granted the visa. At this moment, it is unknown whether the father will be granted a visa at all, and if so, when.

[37] Therefore, if I were to require that the father’s in-person parenting time with Sasha take place in Canada, as the mother asks, there is a real possibility that Sasha will not see her father for a very long time. I find that this would not be in Sasha’s best interests, and as such, the mother’s only proposal is not acceptable to me.

[38] I find that the father’s proposal for in-person parenting time to occur in Turkey, aside from the risks of abduction that it presents, makes ample sense. I am also of the view that there are many very good incentives for the father not to attempt to wrongfully remove Sasha from Turkey during her stay there, and that with very stringent safeguards to ensure the father’s compliance with this court order, the alleged risks of abduction are sufficiently mitigated to give me confidence that Sasha will be safely returned to Canada at the end of her stay in Turkey.

[39] Firstly, it is important to note that Turkey is a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Child Abduction Convention”) since August 1, 2000. As such, it is presumed equipped to determine the merits of parenting disputes in accordance with the principles that are at the foundation of the Convention, and to guarantee the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children to their country of habitual residence.

[40] I accept that there are significant power imbalances between the father and the mother. It is not disputed that the father is an international businessman with ties and business relationships in many countries around the world, including Russia, South Africa and the UAE. It is also not disputed that he is a multi-millionaire with what appears, at this stage, to be unlimited financial resources. The mother’s financial resources, compared to the father’s, are non-existent. She has not worked in four years and has no post-secondary education that would allow her, at this time, to earn significant income and fund an international litigation. The legal fees associated with this highly disputed litigation has exhausted any savings she might have had, and she has had to borrow large sums from her family to continue to fund it.

[41] I am of the view that, while it will never be possible to “level the playing field” between the parties from a financial perspective, the financial power imbalance that might result from a potential abduction of Sasha by the father can be addressed in other ways. In this particular case, requiring the father to post security to guarantee the child’s safe return to Canada achieves this goal.

[42] I am not able to determine with any degree of certainty, based on the untested written evidence before me, whether the father has been abusive towards the mother as she alleges, including emotionally, financially and (at least on one occasion) physically. Likewise, I am not able to determine whether the mother is the hot-tempered, capricious and cunning person that the father describes, who assaulted his adult daughter on the night she fled to Canada with Sasha. The question as to whether the mother indeed abducted Sasha from her habitual residence, or whether she had very good reasons to flee Dubai in the middle of the night, will be one of the main focusses of this trial. In the end, I must balance the risks of a further “abduction”, the consequences of which would be catastrophic for this child, with the need for Sasha to have an ongoing relationship with her father pending trial.

[43] In assessing the risks to which the mother herself might be exposed if required to travel to Turkey, it is important to note that only a few weeks ago, the mother was willing to travel with Sasha to accommodate in-person contact between Sasha and her father, provided she could travel close by with her parents accompanying her. In her affidavit filed in the context of this motion, the mother states that she is no longer willing to do that because “what she has seen from [the father] over the last week is a double down on his intention to punish me”.

[44] I have reviewed the mother’s evidence in relation to this statement, as well as the text messages upon which she relies to support her contention that the conflict between her and the father has significantly escalated over the past week or so. While I acknowledge that the past few weeks must have taken a significant toll on both parties, given the events which led to the scheduled trial being adjourned, I do not find that the father’s communications to the mother are abusive or that they show an escalation of the conflict between them. While the father expresses his bitterness towards the mother for having wrongfully removed Sasha from her habitual residence, against his will, and his frustration with being unable to see his daughter, all of which he blames on the mother, his communications are not abusive. The father’s feelings about the events of the past year are also hardly new; they have been expressed to the mother and to this Court on countless occasions since December 2020.

[45] In my view, the risks associated with the potential wrongful retention of Sasha by her father in Turkey are less concerning than the possibility that he might wrongfully remove her from Turkey to take her back to Dubai. I cannot ignore the fact that I do not have the same level of confidence in the mother’s ability to seek the protection of the UAE’s courts, should Sasha be wrongfully removed there by her father, than if she had to seek the protection of the Turkish courts if he were to retain Sasha there against the mother’s will.

[46] The UAE is not a signatory to the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Their laws and legal system are completely foreign to ours, and given that its courts are not bound to enforce the principles enshrined in the Convention to ensure the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children to their country of habitual residence, the mother would be at a significant disadvantage to have any order of this court recognized and respected.

[47] The geographical configuration between Canada and the UAE is also quite different from the one between Turkey and the UAE. Canada and the UAE are separated by an entire ocean and the only means to travel from one to the other is by air, with stringent border control at the airport. Turkey is adjacent to many other countries which can be accessed by land, and possibly, with less border controls.

[48] Despite these risks, in my view, the father has a lot to lose by attempting to wrongfully remove Sasha from Turkey, against the clear terms of this Court’s order. As already stated, the father has international business interests in addition to his responsibilities as Aurum’s CEO. As such, his work and business interests require frequent international travel throughout Europe and elsewhere in the world. The mother’s own uncontested evidence confirms that the father travels extensively for business purposes, almost weekly, and as much to pursue his personal passion for golf, hunting, fishing and travel. During the six years they lived together, the parties lived in Cape Town (South Africa), Munich (Germany), Bodrum (Turkey) and Dubai (UAE). This does not include the extensive international vacations they enjoyed all over the world. Criminal charges related to the abduction of a child would have a serious impact on the father’s ability to continue to travel internationally in the future, which in turn could have a dramatic impact on his ability to pursue his business endeavours.

[49] I also have no evidence whatsoever, nor is it even alleged, that the father is not a law-abiding citizen. I have no evidence to suggest that he has ever been involved in some form of criminal activity. Although he disputes this Court’s jurisdiction over Sasha, the father has fully engaged in this court process and abided by the orders made by the court. Since January 2021, he has made significant efforts to try and obtain a visa allowing him to travel to Canada to see his daughter. The mother’s allegation that the father “can make visits in Canada work” and that “his motive is to get Sasha out of Canada” is difficult to reconcile with the above.

[50] For all these reasons, I have decided to allow the father to exercise in-person parenting time with Sasha in Turkey as he seeks. However, I am of the view that his request for Sasha to remain in Turkey for a period of three months is not reasonable or realistic. Nobody disputes the fact that at this moment at least, the mother is Sasha’s primary caregiver. Any international travel for this child to spend time with her father will necessarily involve her mother travelling with her (although it is entirely up to the mother to send Sasha with someone else if she so choses).

[51] While I acknowledge that the mother does not currently work, and while I do not accept that her physical presence in Canada is necessary to allow her to pursue the interior design course that she states she has started (by her own evidence her course is offered online), it is simply not reasonable to require her to facilitate Sasha’s presence in Turkey for a period of three months. In my view, a four-week stay is sufficient at this stage, given that the father will be able to spend time with Sasha every day during this 30-day period. It is my hope that the father will be able to obtain a visa to travel to Canada and, if he does, additional in-person parenting time will be possible here as well before the trial is held.

[52] In the meanwhile, given the serious consequences that would flow from a potential retention of Sasha in Turkey or, even worst, a potential abduction from Turkey to Dubai, I feel that very stringent safeguards must be put into place to alleviate those risks. I realize that from the father’s perspective, some of the safeguards imposed below may seem overly burdensome. However, the consequences for this child of being wrongfully removed from Turkey are so extreme that the terms of the order that I make below are the only ones that offer me the level of comfort that I need to allow parenting time to occur in Turkey, as the father requests.

Order

[53] For all these reasons, I make the following order:

1. The court declares that this Order is without prejudice to the applicant father’s position, taken in the context of this proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, that the child’s habitual residence is in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) and that he does not attorn to the jurisdiction of this Court.

2. On an interim and without prejudice basis, and for the purpose of allowing temporary in-person parenting time (access) between the father and the child pending trial, this Court declares that the habitual residence of the child, Aleksandra Nicole Volgemut, born October 28, 2018 (“the child”), shall be Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, for the purpose of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and for the purpose of the Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act.

3. The applicant father shall have in-person parenting time with the child in Kaplankaya, Turkey at the Six Senses resort located at Bozbük, Merkez Sokak No:198, 48200 Milas/Muğla, Turkey (“Six Senses Resort”) for a period of four weeks during the month of July, August or September 2021, in accordance with the Parenting Plan attached as Schedule “A”.

4. The respondent mother shall do all such things necessary to facilitate the child’s travel to Turkey and her in-person parenting time with her father at the Six Senses Resort, in Turkey, in accordance with this Order.

5. The applicant father shall be responsible to pay for all expenses (including airfare, transportation to and from the airport, housing, food and reasonable expenses) related to the trip for the child, the respondent mother and one family member of the respondent mother’s choice to accompany them on the trip. The flight (both ways) shall be a direct flight from Canada (Montreal) to Turkey (Bodrum), with no stopover.

6. The parties and their counsel shall coordinate the dates of the child’s departure and the date of her return, including travel itinerary and housing reservation, all of which shall be confirmed and secured no later than 7 days in advance of the child’s date of departure for Turkey.

7. During the child’s stay in Turkey, neither parent shall remove her from the Six Senses Resort, Kaplankaya, Turkey.

8. Leave is granted to the parties, or either one of them, to provide a copy of this Court Order to the Canadian, United Arab Emirates and/or Turkish authorities (located in Turkey), including the police force having jurisdiction in Kaplankaya, Turkey, at any time prior to the child’s arrival in Turkey, or at any time during her stay in that country, for the purpose of alerting the authorities of each country of the parties’ rights and obligations in relation to the child pursuant to this Court Order, and to take any steps as might be deemed necessary to prevent the child’s wrongful retention in or removal from the country of Turkey by either parent during the child’s stay there.

9. The applicant father shall, prior to the child’s scheduled date of departure to Turkey, complete the following:

a. File with this Court an originally signed agreement/consent and approved draft final order in the form prescribed by the laws of the United Arab Emirates, by virtue of which he consents to the immediate issuance by the relevant court in the United Arab Emirates of the following Final Order:

i. Granting the respondent mother sole decision-making authority, sole custody, and primary residence (or their equivalent in the UAE) of the child;

ii. Confirming that the child’s habitual residence is Canada;

iii. Allowing the respondent mother to remove the child from the United Arab Emirates and return to Canada with her at any time.

b. Pay $200,000 as security for the child’s safe return to Canada following her four-week stay in Turkey. The funds shall be held by his counsel in trust, in an interest-bearing account, not to be released without a further order of this Court or written direction from both parties;

c. Provide the respondent mother with proof that she, the child and any third party accompanying them on the trip to Turkey, are covered by health insurance during their entire stay in Turkey.

10. As a precondition to the applicant father’s parenting time taking place in Turkey in accordance with the within Order, the applicant father shall, no later than 7 days before the child’s scheduled departure to Turkey, deposit all of his valid passports as well as any travel documents currently in his possession for the child (if any) with the Canadian Embassy in Turkey (if this is possible), in the physical care of a Turkish lawyer retained jointly by the parties for this purpose (and whose legal fees shall be paid by the father in advance), or by a third party agreeable to both parties.

11. The respondent mother shall, at least 7 days prior to the child’s departure from Canada to Turkey, provide the holder of the father’s passports (as per para. 10 above) an irrevocable direction allowing them to release to the applicant father all of his passports and travel documents the day immediately following the day of the child’s scheduled departure from Turkey.

12. The father shall not apply for citizenship documents, birth certificates, social insurance cards, or any travel-related documents for the child without an order from this Court.

13. If the applicant father fails to return the child to her mother’s care at the end of his parenting time on any given day in accordance with the terms of Schedule “A” attached, the mother may bring an urgent motion to my personal attention on notice to the applicant father (but notice may be as short as the circumstances require), to obtain the following orders:

a. An order that the applicant father’s security for costs in the amount of $150,000, currently held in trust by his counsel in accordance with Justice Mackinnon’s Order dated May 14, 2021, and the additional security in the amount of $200,000 required to be paid to his lawyer in trust in accordance with para. 9 b) of the within Order, shall be immediately released to her;

b. A Final Order granting the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence of the child pursuant to the laws of Ontario;

c. That the signed agreement/consent and draft approved final order filed with the court in accordance with para. 9 a) above be released to her.

14. The respondent mother shall not remove the child from the country of Turkey before the child’s scheduled date of departure without my prior leave, which may be sought on an emergency basis, with notice to the father (but notice may be as short as the circumstances require).

15. Upon the child’s return from Turkey to Canada, the security in the amount of $200,000 held by his counsel in trust in accordance with para. 9 b) above shall be released back to the father.

16. In addition to the above, the applicant father shall have in-person parenting time with the child in Canada whenever he is able to obtain a visa from the Canadian authorities allowing him to travel and stay in Canada. If the parties cannot agree on a parenting schedule, the parties are granted leave to seek a further motion date before me and I will decide.

17. The applicant father shall provide the respondent mother with bi-weekly updates directly from his Canadian immigration lawyer as to the status of his request for a visa to travel to Canada. The Applicant father shall immediately notify the respondent mother upon being notified that his visa has been granted by the Canadian authorities.

18. In the event that any issues arise with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the within Order, leave is granted to the parties to return before me, including on an emergency basis, to address the matter.

19. The costs for this motion are reserved for trial.

SCHEDULE “A” TO THE ORDER OF JUSTICE J. AUDET DATED July 5, 2021

PARENTING SCHEDULE

1- The applicant father shall have in-person parenting time with the child in accordance with the following parenting schedule:

Week one

a. daily: for 2 hours at a time, extended to 3 hours on one day of the weekend.

Week two

b. daily: for 3 hours at a time, extended to 4 hours on one day of the weekend.

Week three

c. daily: for 4 hours at a time, extended to 6 hours on one day of the weekend.

Week four

d. daily: 4 hours at a time, extended to 6 hours on the last day before the child’s scheduled departure from Turkey.

2- The applicant father’s parenting time with the child need not be supervised, but any person accompanying the mother to Turkey, or any other third party that the mother may appoint, shall be permitted to check-in on the father during his parenting time at every one-hour intervals, to satisfy themselves of the child’s continued physical presence on the Resort. The person designated to do the check-ins shall remain as discreet as is possible so as to not disrupt the father’s parenting time with the child unduly.

Madam Justice Julie Audet

Released: July 5, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-2071

DATE: 20210705

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

TARAS VOLGEMUT

Applicant

– and –

ASHLEE JANNA CARMEN DECRISTOFORO

Respondent

REASONS FOR decision

Audet J.

Released: July 5, 2021