COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-71
DATE: 2021-08-10
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: John Richard Ivory, Applicant
AND:
Linda Michelle Ivory, Respondent
BEFORE: Kurz J.
COUNSEL: Fareen Jamal, for the Applicant
Megan Jamieson, for the Respondent
HEARD: August 4, 2021
ENDORSEMENT
Introduction
[1] This motion raises the question of how many wrongs make a right. The Applicant father’s drinking, marijuana smoking, judgment about his excessive noise and his belligerence while under the influence created concerns for the police twice in just about two recent weeks. The mother claims that this was part of a pattern centred on his substance abuse. As a result, she has sought to limit his parenting time.
[2] On the other hand, after the second such incident, the mother unilaterally removed the children from the home and assumed the right to determine the children’s parenting time with their father in the absence of a court order. She did this even though there was no domestic violence in the home and the father had been home with the children, either primarily (as he tells it) or at least a great deal of the time during the last year or more of the pandemic. The father takes the mother to task for “gatekeeping” and argues that she should not be rewarded for that conduct. He reminds the court of the well-known aphorism (at least in legal circles) that that which we permit we promote.
[3] This may be a case where context is everything and how you see the facts depends on where you sit.
Background
[4] The parties were married for about sixteen years before their separation (they do not agree on a date of separation and whether they were living separate and apart in the matrimonial home (“the home”) after their alleged separation). They physically separated on or about June 14, 2021. The mother says that they separated in December 2020 while the father says that they separated on the day of their physical separation. I need not decide that issue today.
[5] The parties have two children, John Richard Gordon Ivory, born June 15, 2010, and Christopher James Ivory, born April 27, 2014 (collectively “the children”).
The Parties’ Positions and Agreement
[6] The Applicant father wishes the court to grant him an equal shared parenting arrangement. But recognizing that the substance abuse concerns raised by the mother make that arrangement difficult at this time, he seeks regular unsupervised parenting time. The Respondent mother has already agreed to expand the father’s unsupervised parenting time. She is willing to agree to a further expansion of that time.
[7] While waiting to argue this motion, the parties agreed to an order that encompasses a number of the parenting issues before me. It appears that the real question between them is one overnight per 14 days and whether I should order the father to pass a breathalyzer test before his beginning his parenting time.
[8] The parties have agreed that I may order:
a. The Applicant and the Respondent shall consult with each other on issues relating to the children’s education, religion, and healthcare and neither party shall make a decision pertaining to the children’s education, religion and healthcare without the other party’s express written consent, or court order.
b. The children’s habitual residence shall be within the Regional Municipality of Halton, in the Province of Ontario.
c. Neither party shall remove the children from the Province of Ontario, without written consent from the other or further Order of this Court.
d. The parties shall communicate using Our Family Wizard (“OFW”) as a communication tool.
e. Neither parent shall discuss the litigation with the children or speak negatively of the other parent in the presence of the children (or within ear shot).
f. The Applicant father shall have one week of summer parenting time with the children from August 9 to 13, 2021, and the Respondent shall have one week of summer parenting time with the children from August 16 to 20, 2021, after which the regular parenting schedule will resume.
g. The children shall be permitted to attend day-camps during the summer months in 2021, during the weeks of August 23 to return to school, if day camps are available. Either parent may suggest day camps for the children through OFW: a failure to respond within 48 hours is a deemed consent for the camp.
[9] Other than as agreed upon, the father seeks the following parenting arrangements:
a. Week 1: The Children shall be with the Applicant father on Monday after school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp) to Wednesday morning drop off at school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp); and Fridays after school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp) to Monday morning drop off at school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp). All other times the Children shall be with the Respondent mother. Week 1 commences August 6, 2021.
b. Week 2: The Children shall be with the Applicant father on Tuesday after school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp) to Wednesday morning drop off at school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp). All other times the Children shall be with the Respondent mother.
c. For certainty, the father’s proposed schedule is outlined in the chart below:
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | Saturday | Sunday | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Father | Father | Mother | Mother | Father | Father | Father |
| Week 2 | Mother | Father | Mother | Mother | Mother | Mother | Mother |
d. The parties shall attempt to negotiate a parenting schedule for the Christmas holidays. If the parties cannot settle the Christmas holiday schedule, they may submit the issue to mediation, or return the issue to Court.
e. The father seeks an order for the automatic move to equal shared parenting commencing January 1, 2022 if there are no incidents between now and that date , or in the alternative, for an automatic review that is aimed at his request.
f. During the Applicant’s parenting time, he shall refrain from consuming and/or being under the influence of alcohol or marijuana when the children are in his care. Whether this restriction needs to be adjusted, and how much, shall be reviewed by January 1, 2022. Until an agreement or Court Order adjusting the restrictions, these restrictions imposed on the Applicant outlined in this paragraph shall remain in place. The right of first refusal shall also be reviewed by January 1, 2022.
g. If the Respondent believes there has been a breach of the condition at paragraph 2, the matter can proceed to an urgent motion on 48 hours’ notice to address the issue.
[10] The mother’s revised position regarding parenting time is that the father shall have just one overnight in week 1, from Tuesday - Wednesday. While her draft order includes a requirement that he take a breathalyzer test before any parenting time, the issue was not mentioned until I raised it and even then, not argued at any length. The mother’s counsel also did not raise any arguments in opposition to the request for a review.
Prior Parenting and the Incidents that led to this Motion
[11] Unsurprisingly, the parties have very different views on their parenting roles prior to their separation and even, as set out above, when they separated. Similarly, they differ on what occurred on the two key days in question and what I should take from those incidents. The mothers sees those incidents as evidence of her concern that the children are not safe with their the father when he is drinking and/or using marijuana. Even if the case law frowns upon her self- help remedies, she says that the incidents confirm her perspective and explain, if not fully justify her conduct. The father minimizes the mother’s concerns. He portrays the two events described in greater detail below as isolated incidents, in which he was just “blowing off steam” after a hard Covid year at home with the children.
[12] In reading his materials and hearing his counsel’s argument, I was struck by the notion that he portrays himself as if he were the benign central character in the 1970’s song, Sunny Days. The song’s narrator describes himself in the lyrics as:
Sittin' stoned alone in my backyard Askin' myself why should I work so hard? Sittin' dreamin' 'bout the days to come Half-undressed, just soakin' up the sun
Sittin' here, I hope I don't get fried Two years ago, you know, I almost died And yet, there's nothin' better for your soul Than lyin' in the sun and listenin' to rock 'n' roll
Sunny days Oh, sunny, sunny, sunny days Ain't nothin' better in the world, you know Than lyin' in the sun with your radio
[13] That would all be fine, especially in these days of legalized marijuana, if no children or police were involved.
The Best Evidence of the Incidents
[14] In considering the evidence, I am not convinced that either party’s characterization adequately describes the issues in this motion. The best evidence of what happened on the two days in question is the independent evidence found in the relevant police reports and the affidavit of the disinterested neighbor.
May 30, 2021
[15] The police occurrence report of May 30, 2021 stated that the police received an anonymous complaint from the parties’ neighbor, that a male at the home “was intoxicated and seemed happy” the night before but that day “had been yelling at bugs and birds”. The caller claimed to be concerned for the children of the home. The police attended at 4:30 and spoke with the father. He “appeared very intoxicated while on his property”. He denied yelling at birds but spoke of a person who complained of the noise from his music the night before. The officers “initially had concerns if [the father] had the capability to care for his children due to his intoxicated state” But they spoke to the mother, who assuaged their concerns by stating that she would be looking after the children and did not have any concerns for their or the father’s wellbeing. The police had no further safety concerns.
June 12-13, 2021
[16] Travis Lundy is a neighbor of the parties who provided an affidavit for this motion. He resides in an apartment adjacent to the home. He can see the backyard of the home from his patio. Mr. Lundy states that in the six months since he moved into his apartment, he has heard the father “playing load music, yelling and swearing” in his backyard by day and into the evening at least four or five times.
[17] Mr. Lundy deposed that on June 12, 2021, the loud music in the parties’ backyard was particularly bad. It began in the afternoon and continued until 2 a.m. After some time, the yelling and swearing became worse and sounded aggressive. Mr. Lundy stated that he was concerned for the parties’ children and those in the neighbourhood. He decided to call the police to make a noise complaint. He called twice, at 10:00 p.m. and then 1:00 a.m. “as the music and yelling continued”. He described the noise that he was hearing to the police as “like being at a concert”.
[18] Mr. Lundy later heard the father yelling at the police after they arrived at his home. He did not seem to Mr. Lundy to be “cooperative or agreeable”. He was “slurring his words and appeared to be very intoxicated”. The police attended a number of times. When they left for the last time, Mr. Lundy heard the father yell “I can do whatever the fuck I want”, stating that he was in a provincial park. Of course, the father was in his own backyard. Mr. Lundy said that he also heard loud banging, which sounded like things being thrown around or destroyed. He described the incident as “very alarming”.
[19] The police occurrence report of June 13, 2021 stated that bylaw officers had attended at the home three times for the same reasons that the police attended on May 30, 2021. On the third visit, at 1:12 a.m., the bylaw officers requested police assistance because the father “was extremely intoxicated and belligerent”. Police arrived at 1:17 to assist. They found the father in his backyard with a laptop, extension cord and speakers. He was “heavily intoxicated, slurring his speech, …extremely argumentative”. He stated that he would put his headphones on but would be singing at the top of his lungs. The bylaw officer told him that he would receive a ticket for excessive noise in the mail.
[20] The police stayed to speak to a number of neighbours, who complained about the father’s patten of excessive noise. Those complaints are, of course, double hearsay. But they explain the police officers’ decision to remain at the home for some time. The police could hear the father singing from the street. They spoke to the mother who also stated that this was a regular event.
[21] The police reported that the mother approached the father in an attempt to end the noise and avoid having the by-law officers reattend. He “refused to listen or compromise and began yelling, swearing, singing and blasting his music”. The police then approached the father and cautioned him about a potential mischief charge. That led him to pack up his laptop and proceed inside. After speaking to the mother, the police exercised their discretion not to charge him despite determining that they had sufficient evidence to proceed with a charge.
June 14, 2021
[22] According to the police record of June 14, 2021, the father called the police after a verbal argument with the mother the day before, following which she took the children at 11:00 and did not return. That episode represents the physical separation of the parents. The wife told the police that she had gone with the children to a Holiday Inn. The police met with her there, at which time she told them that the parties had been having marital issues for some time. She added, according to the report, that “she had reached her limit and needed to remove herself from the residence.” This raised no concerns for the police as it related to a verbal argument only. There was no issue of domestic violence. The police did not believe that a safety assessment was required.
[23] On June 14, 2021 the mother spoke to police because she wished to attend at the home to retrieve some items and was unable to get hold of the father. The police attended at the home at some point after 8:00 p.m. They noted that he “had been drinking and appeared intoxicated, but was cooperative with police” in allowing the mother to retrieve her items.
November 17, 2019
[24] The mother also relies on a November 17, 2019 police report regarding a fire in the garage of the home to speak to the father’s drinking. However, the only thing in that report to which the mother can point is the reference to the father having attended at a bar that evening, where he drank and smoked, before returning home. There, he discovered the fire. He could not recall whether he had smoked upon his return home. The police offered no comment about their noticing the father to be intoxicated at the time.
[25] This report is, at its very highest, ambiguous about any connection between the father’s drinking at a bar that night and the fire. The father’s failure to recall whether he had been smoking after his return home from the bar may have been an indication that his memory was affected by alcohol but again, the police made no reference to his intoxication at the time. In the face of any reference to intoxication I cannot say that the November 17, 2019 police report says anything relevant to this motion other than the fact that the father had consumed some unknown quality of alcohol at a bar that evening.
The Mother’s Post Separation Control of the Father’s Parenting Time
[26] After the mother unilaterally left the home with the children and assumed primary care of the children, she did not proceed to court. Rather, she limited the father’s contact with the children until he brought the matter to court. Until then, she allowed the children in-person contact with the father only 30 minutes on one child’s birthday and again on Father’s Day. She insisted on supervising the father’s visits as well. On Canada Day, the father attended at the home unexpectedly with a friend who was about to move to Alberta. The mother allowed 15 minutes for a visit.
[27] At an early case conference in this matter on June 16, 2021, the parties agreed to expand the father’s parenting time to every Tuesday evening for four hours and every second weekend from Friday at 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. That arrangement has remained in place ever since. That is the arrangement that the father seeks to change.
Applicable Law
[28] The issues in this motion are governed by s. 16.1(1), (2) and (4) of the Divorce Act. They state:
16.1 (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may make an order providing for the exercise of parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of any child of the marriage, on application by
(a) either or both spouses; or
(b) a person, other than a spouse, who is a parent of the child, stands in the place of a parent or intends to stand in the place of a parent.
Interim order
(2) The court may, on application by a person described in subsection (1), make an interim parenting order in respect of the child, pending the determination of an application made under that subsection.
Contents of parenting order
(4) The court may, in the order,
(a) allocate parenting time in accordance with section 16.2;
(b) allocate decision-making responsibility in accordance with section 16.3;
(c) include requirements with respect to any means of communication, that is to occur during the parenting time allocated to a person, between a child and another person to whom parenting time or decision-making responsibility is allocated; and
(d) provide for any other matter that the court considers appropriate.
[29] The Divorce Act codifies the primacy of best interests as the sole factor in determining parenting issues: s. 16(1). In determining a child’s best interests, “the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being: s. 16(2). The best interests factors for the court’s consideration are set out in s. 16(4) as follows:
Factors to be considered
(3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, including
(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 spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;
(c) each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
(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 cooperate, 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 cooperate 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.
[30] The only past conduct that is relevant to the determination of a parenting order is the part’s conduct which is “relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order”: s. 16(5). Courts allocating parenting time are required to adhere to the principle that “a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child”: s. 16(6), Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305, at para. 34.
- Neither parent has the right to create a unilateral parenting status quo, even if there is an alleged safety issue. As Charney J. wrote in Gray v. Canonico, 2020 ONSC 5885:
49 The cases are abundantly clear, however, that, contrary to the assertion of the respondent, the status quo cannot be established or altered by the unilateral "self-help" conduct of one parent. A parent cannot be permitted to gain a litigation advantage by unilateral action: See Rifai v. Green, 2014 ONSC 1377, at para. 25:
The starting point, of course, is that at the outset both parents are presumed to have equal status, equal rights, and equal authority over decisions in a child's life. In the absence of a formal agreement or court order, neither parent has the right to unilaterally impose major changes in a child's life. Neither parent has the right to unilaterally interfere with or impede the other parent's contact or role in the child's life.
50 Even if there is an alleged safety issue, a parent taking steps to ostensibly protect the child must still come to the court at the earliest opportunity on an urgent basis: Skitch v. Hiscock, 2018 ONSC 5581, at para. 15.
Analysis
[31] I am not convinced by the attempts by the father to paint himself as simply a fun-loving everyman who was just smoking a little dope, drinking a few beers and listening to a few tunes on the days in question. The police attended at his home three times in about two weeks only to find him intoxicated. The limited objective evidence points to at least the possibility of a serious substance abuse problem. The father’s solo backyard carousing took place during the day as well as late into the night. The children were home on one day that he was seriously drunk and/or stoned. What if the mother became ill that day and he had to care for the children? On June 12-13, his judgement was so impaired that he displayed little self-control, even in the face of three visits from bylaw officer and one from police.
[32] The father’s well-prepared materials include avowals of remorse for the incidents set out above. Yet those contrite assertions ring somewhat hollow when he also goes to great pains to minimize his behaviour. He goes so far as to disparage the mother’s legitimate concerns and blame his predicament on her. Rather than truly accepting the blame for those incidents that is his due, his factum is full of attacks on the mother’s conduct and denials of the severity of his impaired behaviour.
[33] Based on the limited materials before me, I cannot say for certain that the father has a significant substance abuse problem. But I must find that it is at least a concern. If the father is to be allowed to parent without the backup of the mother, his behaviour must substantially change. While the objective evidence points only to two incidents where his impaired misbehavior attracted police attention, the fact of even two such incidents cannot be ignored. Furthermore, the father was intoxicated as well when the mother and the police arrived at the home on June 14, 2021. I also note that the neighbour, Mr. Lundy, spoke of at least four or five incidents of the father “playing load music, yelling and swearing”
[34] That being said, there are a few ameliorating factors at play for the father here. The incidents occurred at a time of great marital strain, which led to the parties’ separation. They were confined to an approximately two-week period. There is no evidence of further substance abuse since the father agreed to abstain from the use of either alcohol or marijuana during his parenting time at the early case conference. Further, he is now engaging in individual counselling; although I know little of the form or substance of that process. He must give serious thought to substance abuse counselling, if that is not already part of his counselling. The court would benefit from direct evidence of the form of counselling that he is receiving and its progress.
[35] On the other hand, the mother’s unilateral behaviour cannot be condoned either. It cannot on its own be allowed to create a status quo with her in charge. I do not have clear evidence that she was the children’s primary caregiver while the parties were together. I am open to the idea that it was the father who was the primary caregiver. It may be that the stress of marital problems caused the father to excessively rely on alcohol and marijuana to handle his stress. As stated above, it was lucky that the mother was parenting the children during the two times in May and June that his substance use and consequent behaviour attracted police intervention.
[36] At the present time, based on the limited evidence before me, I accept that both parents are capable of meeting the children’s best interests. But the father’s behaviour with alcohol and marijuana throws a shadow on his parenting role. He must now demonstrate that he is able to avoid substance use in connection with his parenting and that the events of May 30 and June 12-13, 2021 were isolated incidents rather than representations of a larger problem. He must realize that he does not have the mother to protect them when he is unable to do so himself.
[37] However, while it is a close call, at this time, I will not require the father to use a breathalyzer before he begins his parenting time. I say that for the following reasons.
[38] First, despite my concerns, I am not at this time convinced that the father’s substance abuse is so problematic that resort to such a remedy is necessary at this time. Any other incident of substance abuse misbehavior, including any evidence of being under the influence of any non-prescription drug or alcohol while in the presence of the children would change the circumstances under which this order is made.
[39] To be clear, it is my intention that the father is forbidden from having even one drink of alcohol or one toke of marijuana while with the children. He is further forbidden from doing so in the 12 hours preceding that parenting time. If he is unable to so control his substance use, then his problem will require further court intervention.
[40] Second, if there is any evidence of impairment at a changeover, the mother will have the right to withhold the children pending a further court date. While she has been guilty of assuming parenting control of the children, the positions taken before me in this motion make me believe that she is no longer attempting to arrogate sole parenting rights to herself. Thus, I will allow her to take that step if necessary, pending a further court date.
[41] Third, the mother has agreed to full weekends and one full week this summer. The breathalyzer proceeding the parenting changeovers for those extended times will do little for the issue of substance abuse during those parenting times. Again, my calculus would change if there is any evidence of impairment during the father’s parenting time.
[42] Finally, the mother did not strongly argue this position during the course of the motion.
Conclusion
[43] I have accepted the father’s position regarding a breathalyzer, but I agree with the mother regarding parenting time at this time. As she did not object to the review terms requested by the father, I adopted them in a slightly modified form.
[44] Accordingly, order to go as follows:
a. The Applicant and the Respondent shall consult with each other on issues relating to the children’s education, religion, and healthcare and neither party shall make a decision pertaining to the children’s education, religion and healthcare without the other party’s express written consent, or court order.
b. The children’s habitual residence shall be within the Regional Municipality of Halton, in the Province of Ontario.
c. Neither party shall remove the children from the Province of Ontario, without written consent from the other or further Order of this Court.
d. The parties shall communicate using Our Family Wizard (“OFW”) as a communication tool.
e. Neither parent shall discuss the litigation with the children or speak negatively of the other parent in the presence of the children (or within ear shot).
f. The Applicant father shall have one week of summer parenting time with the children from August 9 to 13, 2021, and the Respondent shall have one week of summer parenting time with the children from August 16 to 20, 2021, after which the regular parenting schedule will resume.
g. The children shall be permitted to attend day-camps during the summer months in 2021, during the weeks of August 23 to return to school, if day camps are available. Either parent may suggest day camps for the children through OFW: a failure to respond within 48 hours is a deemed consent for the camp.
[45] The father shall have parenting time with the children:
a. Week 1: The children shall be with the father on Monday after school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp) to Tuesday morning drop off at school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp); and Fridays after school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp) to Monday morning drop off at school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp). All other times the children shall be with the mother. Week 1 commences August 6, 2021.
b. Week 2: The children shall be with the Applicant father on Tuesday after school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp) to Wednesday morning drop off at school/camp (or 3:00 p.m. if there is no school/camp). All other times the children shall be with the Respondent mother.
c. For certainty, the father’s schedule is outlined in the chart below:
| Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday | Saturday | Sunday | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Father | Mother | Mother | Mother | Father | Father | Father |
| Week 2 | Mother | Father | Mother | Mother | Mother | Mother | Mother |
d. The parties shall attempt to negotiate a parenting schedule for the Christmas holidays. If the parties cannot settle the Christmas holiday schedule, they may submit the issue to mediation, or return the issue to Court.
e. During the father’s parenting time, he shall refrain from consuming and/or being under the influence of alcohol or marijuana or any other non-prescription drug when the children are in his care or within 12 hours of his parenting time commencing. Whether this restriction needs to be adjusted, and how much, shall be reviewed anytime after February 1, 2022. Until an agreement or Court Order adjusting the restrictions, these restrictions imposed on the Applicant outlined in this paragraph shall remain in place. The right of first refusal shall also be reviewed by February 1, 2022.
f. If the mother believes, based on substantial evidence, that the father displays clear symptoms of impairment at a parenting changeover, she may withhold the parenting time until the matter returns to court. In that event, either party may bring an urgent motion regarding parenting time and the necessity of a breathalyzer preceding the commencement of that time and during that time.
g. If the mother believes there has been a breach of the non-consumption/influence terms of this order or of she withholds parenting time from the father based on such a belief, either party may bring an urgent motion on 48 hours’ notice to address the issue.
[46] The arrangements set out above may be reviewed at any time after February 1, 2022 without need for a material change in circumstances. The review will consider whether:
a) there is any evidence of the father’s continued substance abuse;
b) if so whether it is affecting the children;
c) whether it is in the best interests of the children to expand the father’s parenting time and if so to what extent.
Costs
[47] It appears that success in this motion is divided and that costs need not be awarded. However, without knowing more, I cannot say whether either party obtained the more favourable result in comparison to their offer. The parties should attempt to resolve the issue of costs on their own. If they are unable to do so, the father may submit his costs submissions of up to three pages, double spaced, one-inch margins, plus and bill of costs/costs outline and offers to settle within 14 days of release of this endorsement. He need not include the authorities upon which he relies so long as they are found in the commonly referenced reporting services (i.e. LexisNexis Quicklaw, or WestlawNext) and the relevant paragraph references are included. The mother may respond in kind within a further 14 days. No reply submission will be accepted unless I request it. If I have not received any submissions within the time frames set out above, I will assume that the parties have resolved the issue and make no costs order.
“Marvin Kurz J.”
Electronic signature of Justice Marvin Kurz
Date: August 10, 2021