CITATION: P.G. v. L.R., 2021 ONSC 5967 NORTH BAY COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-0073
DATE: 2021-09-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
P.G.
Applicant
– and –
L.R.
Respondent
Self-represented
Dhiren Chohan, for the Respondent
HEARD: September 2, 2021 via Zoom
DECISION ON MOTIONS
Boucher J:
Background
[1] On June 11, 2021 L.R.’s urgent motion for the return of the children was before me. P.G. asked for an adjournment. I granted his adjournment request and ordered the parties to deliver any remaining materials for the motion by June 25, 2021. I also ordered a change to the exchange location for the children and added FaceTime parenting time for P.G. I also made the custody and access provisions of Justice Rivard’s interim Order dated October 28, 2020 police enforceable.
[2] Justice Rivard’s Order provides custody of the children to Ms. Rivard. P.G. has access on alternating weekends from Friday after school to Monday after school.
[3] P.G. delivered his responding materials on time but added his own motion to change the parenting time set out in Justice Rivard’s Order. After the motions were set for argument, he delivered another affidavit dated August 24, 2021 (which is essentially the same as his affidavit dated June 17, 2021 except with the addition of three pages at the end). L.R. delivered her responding affidavit August 30, 2021. Unfortunately, although this affidavit was uploaded to OneDrive, the system did not show it had been added and I was unable to read it prior to the motions.
Positions of the parties
[4] L.R. asks for interim spousal support (ongoing and arrears) and an increase to ongoing child support (and arrears). She opposes any change to the custody and access provisions in Justice Rivard’s Order.
[5] P.G. says he is not required to pay spousal support because L.R. should be able to work full time and support herself. He suggests she is living with her new partner and has not provided proper financial disclosure. He also says he should be credited for assuming the matrimonial debt. He asks that they share the children’s time, that I impute income of $70,000 per year to L.R. and base child support on a shared parenting formula. (He also made several other requests which he did not pursue in argument.)
The children
[6] The parties are the parents of twin girls, C.G. and E.G., born in 2010 and B.G. born in 2016.
[7] The girls have been diagnosed with ADHD and suffer from anxiety. They also have behavioural issues. They are under the care of a paediatrician, who also manages their medication regime.
Issues
[8] Has there been a material change in circumstances that would justify varying the custody and access provisions of Justice Rivard’s Order? If so, what order should be made in the best interests of the children?
[9] Should there be an increase in child support (including retroactively)?
[10] Is there an entitlement to spousal support? If so, what is the proper amount that should be paid (including retroactively)?
Material change in circumstances
[11] The test regarding variation of custody and access orders was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Gordon v. Goertz 1996 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27.
[12] The moving party must first meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating that, since the last order was made, there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the children. The previous order is presumed to be correct. The change must not have been foreseen or reasonably contemplated by the judge who made the original order. The change must be to the condition, needs, means or circumstances of the children and the ability of the parent to meet those needs. If this test is not met, the inquiry goes no further.
[13] If the threshold is met, the court must embark on a fresh inquiry into the best interests of the children, having regard to all the circumstances in s. 16 of the Divorce Act. In this fresh inquiry, both parties bear the evidentiary burden of demonstrating where the best interests of the children lie. The court must consider the matter afresh without defaulting to the existing arrangement.
[14] Gordon v. Goertz involved variation of a final order. In the present case, I am being asked to vary an interim parenting order. Courts in Ontario have urged extra caution in determining if an interim parenting order should be varied. In Samson v. Murphy 2014 ONSC 5353 Justice Minnema provided the following helpful summary:
As noted in Grgurich v. Del Ben (1997), 1997 12390 (ON SC), 35 R.F.L. (4th) 33 at para. 8, “Interim orders are temporary orders which are intended to remain in effect until final disposition of the issues at trial. Interim orders should not be tinkered with or varied save in appropriate circumstances.” As noted in Greve v. Brighton, 2011 ONSC 4996, [2012] W.D.F.L. 506 at para 24, the court should only vary the interim order “… where the moving party has a demonstrated change in circumstances and, as a result of those changed circumstances, there are compelling reasons that the order should be varied to meet the Children’s best interests.”
[15] I have carefully considered the evidence filed by the parties. It largely mirrors the evidence that was before Justice Rivard in October 2020. I find that P.G. is essentially trying to relitigate issues that have already been decided. The arguments he advances in support of his position today are the same ones he advanced before Justice Rivard, and include:
a. His work schedule permits him to care for the children when he is home from work for fourteen days (he works fourteen days at the mine near Kirkland Lake and returns home to Sturgeon Falls for fourteen days). Prior to separation, he suggests he was significantly involved in the children’s lives;
b. It is in the best interests of the children to have maximum contact with both parents;
c. L.R. is unilaterally restricting the amount of time the children can spend with him;
d. L.R. unnecessarily involves the police to the children’s detriment;
e. L.R.’s alleged poor parenting of the children, including displays of anger and emotional outbursts; and
f. The children’s desire to spend more time with him.
[16] Justice Rivard clearly considered these arguments and found L.R. was the custodial parent prior to and after separation. He further held that, in any event, the children’s best interests “require that they remain with their mother until trial.” He noted the parents exposed the children to their arguments and inability to get along and found this had an impact on them. He held that a joint custody arrangement would be “disruptive and harmful” to the children.
The Office of the Children’s Lawyer
[17] The only evidence that was not before Justice Rivard involved the children’s views and preferences (independent of their parents). In fact, he requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) as part of his order.
[18] The OCL appointed Ms. Fitzpatrick as counsel for the children. She asked that a social worker be appointed to assist her with her representation. The social worker, Carol Vaillancourt, and Ms. Fitzpatrick conducted several in-person interviews with C.G. and E.G. They also interviewed the parties as well as several third parties involved with the children. B.G., who is five years old, has so far declined to be interviewed. They will continue in their efforts to speak with him.
[19] In anticipation of this motion Ms. Fitzpatrick delivered Carole Vaillancourt’s affidavit sworn August 30, 2021. The highlights of her affidavit are discussed below.
Social Worker/School counsellor
[20] E.G. and C.G.'s social worker and counsellor at school suggests L.R. is the parent most involved and that has not changed since separation. She says the girls fight a lot and accordingly must be in different classrooms. Although they had a hard time with the separation, in particular in September 2020 this worked itself out and they seemed more adjusted.
Daycare provider
[21] She has cared for the children for “a long time.” She believes the girls behaviour issues existed prior to separation and have not increased. She recalled E.G. saying she missed her father. In her experience, L.R. has the most contact with her.
HANDS counsellors
[22] E.G. and C.G. saw a counsellor for their anxiety approximately 8-10 times prior to the pandemic. She saw them a few more times after separation, and during the pandemic, and said the girls preferred to do their virtual counselling from L.R.’s home rather than P.G.’s.
[23] A second counsellor saw C.G. during a walk-in session and recommended she attend a group for separated children. She had three more virtual sessions with her from her mother’s home. This counsellor also met several times with E.G. regarding property destruction. She said their file was closed in September 2020. Although L.R. asked for more counselling, they had unfortunately closed their file. It is not clear why the file could not be re-opened.
Dr. Corbeil - Paediatrician
[24] She treats the girls mostly with respect to their ADHD and behavioural issues. She confirms P.G. has been involved in this treatment; however, most of the parental involvement is with L.R. She noted, for example, that L.R. contacted her this winter about her concern that the girls’ medication wears off by the evening. She accordingly prescribed a dose that would extend later into the evening.
[25] She sees the girls approximately every three to six months. Due to the pandemic she conducts the appointments over the telephone. Unfortunately, she has a hard time engaging the girls this way.
[26] Although their behavioural issues pre-date separation, she believes the separation has exasperated their anxiety.
The girls’ views and preferences
[27] Both girls love their parents and have meaningful relationships with them. They describe the efforts the parents make to ensure they have fun when they are together.
[28] E.G. and C.G. seem to believe that their wishes are determinative regarding parenting time. Ms. Fitzpatrick and Carole Vaillancourt explained to them a schedule is in place and generally children do not unilaterally decide their schedule.
[29] The girls consistently expressed a desire to spend more time with their father, although they stopped short of ever saying they want equal time with their parents. It is suggested they may have told P.G. otherwise.
[30] Sadly, the interviews with the girls confirmed the exposure to their parents’ conflict and the negative impact this has on them. They report a lot of conflict at their exchanges. They feel stressed when the police become involved. They confirm their parents speak poorly about each other in their presence.
[31] This increased level of anxiety is in line with Dr. Corbeil’s assessment.
Analysis
[32] The children are caught in the middle of this high conflict separation. Both L.R. and P.G. bear responsibility for making this more difficult on them. They both need to stop speaking poorly about each other in the presence of their children. I ask that they carefully consider the evidence and submissions of the OCL which sets out the negative impact their behaviour is having on their children. The love they have for their children needs to include the ability to keep their opinions about each other to themselves. It needs to exclude the children as much as possible from the adult decisions that are being made.
[33] E.G. and C.G.’s anxiety, ADHD and behavioural issues pre-dated separation. I find their anxiety has worsened as a result of their parents’ behaviour.
[34] I am particularly concerned by P.G.’s improper empowerment of these young children. He admits in his materials that he lets the children decide if they would like to stay with him longer. This is also confirmed by the OCL investigation. This necessarily leads to disputes with L.R. because she is trying to follow Justice Rivard’s Order. The police are then called, with the resulting negative impact on the children.
[35] After making my endorsement on June 11, 2021, I asked P.G. to respect Justice Rivard’s Order. I also pointed out that I did not want the police involved in any further exchanges, though I made Justice Rivard’s Order police enforceable. L.R.’s motion had been brought because P.G. was not returning the children, instead allowing them to decide when to return.
[36] Unfortunately, L.R. called the police for assistance when P.G. allowed B.G. to decide that he did not need to return with his mother after an appointment. It seems B.G. got in his dad’s truck and after 30 minutes of refusing to get out of the truck P.G. left with him. He sent text messages to L.R. that day, including the following:
8:21 a.m. Want me to take B.G. to his appointment, I could also meet you there don’t matter to me?
10:42 a.m. You can let me know when you want him back. No one is being held hostage. He wishes to stay with his dad. I’ll be home in 20 mins no need for police. You just have to communicate.
10:43 a.m. You have no problems leaving the girls alone and B.G. locked him self in the truck so…he is safe with his dad
10:52 a.m. I’ve explained to him that he has to go back to your place, he still wishes to stay with me. Let me know what you wanna do?
11:04 a.m. I will bring him back at 12
11:50 a.m. I[sic] will have to be at 1 pm I have someone here giving me an estimate for registration. Let me know if that works for you. At the very least communicate.
[37] The police thereafter attended at P.G.’s home and spoke with him. They left and attended at L.R.’s home, where they waited until B.G. was returned. It is noteworthy that P.G. sent these texts to L.R. despite the requirement to communicate via the Our Family Wizard application set out in Justice Rivard’s Order.
[38] When parents are unable to get along, and one or both seek assistance from the court, orders are made in the children’s best interests. These orders need to be followed. It is not up to the children to decide their best interests, especially ones as young as B.G., E.G. and C.G.
[39] I worry their views are being influenced by the behaviour of the parents but the OCL has not suggested this to be the case. The girls seek an increase in the time they spend with their father. This evidence was not available to Justice Rivard. I am mindful of the need to refrain from tinkering with interim parenting orders. However, I find the girls’ desire to spend more time with P.G. is a material change in circumstances.
[40] This is clearly having a negative impact on the children. The desire to spend more time is causing conflict between their parents. P.G. is improperly empowering the children, including B.G. L.R. does not trust P.G. to return the children and is trying to follow the order. She calls the police when there is an over-holding.
The Best Interests of the Children
[41] What order should be made in the children’s best interests? s. 16 of the Divorce Act sets out the following guidance:
Best interests of child
16 (1) The court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in making a parenting order or a contact order.
Primary consideration
(2) When considering the factors referred to in subsection (3), the court shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.
- 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.
Factors relating to family violence
(4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall take the following into account:
(a) the nature, seriousness and frequency of the family violence and when it occurred;
(b) whether there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to a family member;
(c) whether the family violence is directed toward the child or whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence;
(d) the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child;
(e) any compromise to the safety of the child or other family member;
(f) whether the family violence causes the child or other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person;
(g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
(h) any other relevant factor.
Past conduct
(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.
- Parenting time consistent with best interests of child
(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
- Parenting order and contact order
(7) In this section, a parenting order includes an interim parenting order and a variation order in respect of a parenting order, and a contact order includes an interim contact order and a variation order in respect of a contact order.
[42] The views and preferences of the children are only one factor to consider. The OCL investigation otherwise confirmed findings Justice Rivard made almost a year ago: that L.R. has been the primary caregiver and the parents are unnecessarily involving the children in their dispute. The lack of trust between the parents makes any sort of joint decision making or joint parenting impossible. Quite simply, there would be constant disagreement which would lead to deadlock. The children need decisions to be made in their best interests. This is heightened by the special care required for the girls.
[43] I have also considered the fact P.G. has unilaterally refused to pay the full court ordered child support since at least May of this year. This decision is linked to his belief that when he is home from work the children should be with him, despite Justice Rivard’s Order. He has accordingly deducted from child support payments what he believes L.R. has paid for daycare when he is at home. This is another example of why joint decision making cannot work. Despite an order for child support, P.G. is second-guessing L.R.’s decisions and voicing his displeasure by paying her less child support.
[44] On the record before me I find that the children’s best interests require L.R. continue to be the decision-maker. They require that they primarily reside with her.
[45] The girls enjoy their time with P.G. His work schedule prevents any in person parenting time for two consecutive weeks at a time. There should be an increase in the time the children spend with him when he is home, but this should not take away from L.R.’s decision-making role. They need decisions to be made, not deadlock. They need stability, not constant requests for extra time and the arguments that ensue.
[46] I have considered L.R.’s position that the children could spend blocks of five days with P.G. when he is home from work. I do not find this is in their best interests. It would be too disruptive to their routines, in particular during the school year. I find that starting their parenting time on Thursday after school, rather than on Friday, is the appropriate increase.
Child Support
[47] In her June 2021 motion L.R. asks for retroactive child support, based on P.G.’s annual income of $160,000. In his financial statement filed in June in response to her motion, P.G. revealed he earned $210,849 in 2020. During argument of the motions he suggested this increase is based on goals met during the year, as well as the fact he worked some overtime to help pay the bills. He said this income is not guaranteed.
[48] L.R. asks that I adjust ongoing child support and arrears based on this increased income. Although it is not claimed in her motion, it is clear she was not aware of the increased income at the time. She included a request for “other relief” which I consider sufficient to consider the issue of ongoing child support.
[49] Based on his financial statement sworn August 24, 2021 P.G.’s income for the last several years is as follows:
a. 2018 - $136,319
b. 2019 - $165,657
c. 2020 - $210,849
d. 2021 - $115,937 earned in the first 27 weeks
[50] Part of his taxable income includes an allowance of $2,240 per month because he does not primarily reside in Kirkland Lake, the location of the mine where he works. His financial statement shows $1,000 per month of rent for an apartment in Kirkland Lake. The Guidelines do not allow for a reduction of income based on taxable allowances received. (Watson v. Watson 2017 ONCJ 24). I will not reduce P.G.’s income for this live away expense. I am, however, able to consider his Kirkland Lake living expenses when determining the issue of spousal support.
[51] It seems that based on 27 weeks of income in 2021 P.G. will likely earn an income in the range of what he earned in 2020. Child support in Justice Rivard’s Order is based on an annual income of $160,000 which is slightly less than he earned in 2019. P.G. would have known by January 1, 2021 that his income had increased. In response to L.R.’s June motion he delivered a financial statement that set out his new income. I am accordingly ordering that child support be payable based on an annual income of $210,849 effective July 1, 2021.
[52] Justice Rivard’s Order did not address the issue of child support arrears from separation until the motion was argued. I see no reason why I would go behind his order on this record. The issue of retroactive child support, including from January 2021 to July 2021 is one that is best determined at a full hearing.
Spousal Support
[53] L.R. asks for interim spousal support from June 2020. P.G. disputes her entitlement to support, suggests she is capable of being self-sufficient, and is living with her new partner.
[54] The test at this stage regarding entitlement is not the same as at trial. In most cases there are facts in dispute that cannot be resolved at this early stage. Interim spousal support is often called a holding order, one that tries to maintain the pre-separation lifestyle, if possible, if there is a triable case regarding economic disadvantage, for example, or need. Simply put, interim support is focused on the parties’ needs and means, assuming a triable case exists.
[55] Courts in Ontario have confirmed that interim support awards are by their nature imperfect. As Justice Sachs said in Chaitas v. Christopoulos 2004 66352 (ON SC), [2004] O.J. No. 907 (SCJ) they are "a reasonably acceptable solution to a difficult problem until trial." Courts have also held that absent exceptional circumstances interim orders should be within the SSAG range.
[56] Has L.R. demonstrated a triable case for entitlement at this interim stage? For the following reasons, I find that she has. I will review the facts supporting her entitlement at this stage and then will move on to the issue of quantum of support.
[57] The parties started living together in 2007. The twins were born in 2010. The parties married in 2013. Three years later, B.G. was born. They separated in May 2020.
[58] L.R. is a dental hygienist. Her evidence is that it was a family decision for her to work two days per week starting in 2010. She took two maternity leaves to care for the children. She did not return to part-time work until the children were old enough to attend school. She suggests that the pandemic and the needs of the children prevent her from presently working full-time.
[59] Her financial statement sworn November 16, 2020 shows a budget of $4,482 per month. Assuming P.G. pays his child support, this budget is in line with her total monthly income.
[60] P.G. has worked in the mining industry for over 14 years. During that time, he worked away from the family home for extended periods. He has been at his current employment since October 2019 working two weeks and staying in Kirkland Lake, followed by two weeks at home. This by necessity resulted in L.R. being primarily responsible for their home life.
[61] P.G. suggests L.R. is living with her new partner, which is disputed. He believes her budget should reflect the contributions made by this person. He also believes she could be earning more income in her chosen field as well as in a side business she had prior to separation. L.R. filed documents suggesting her most recent side business earned her less than a few hundred dollars per month, and that this stopped in 2020.
[62] The arguments raised by P.G. are best resolved at a full hearing. It is clear on this record that prior to separation the parties enjoyed a lifestyle that included a joint income of close to $190,000 per year. They had a camper and a boat and a matrimonial home that sold for almost $550,000 in August 2020. In the brief time since separation P.G.’s income has continued to increase. L.R.’s has remained the same.
[63] Keep in mind that prior to separation L.R. spent half the year alone with the children. This has continued since separation and yet the income available to her and the children has significantly dropped because no spousal support has been paid.
[64] Disparities in income after separation will not alone amount to a compensatory claim. At this interim stage, however, when I consider the lifestyle enjoyed by the parties prior to separation, and when I consider their current situations, L.R. clearly has a triable case regarding entitlement, be it a compensatory or a needs’ based claim.
[65] This leaves the issue of the proper amount of spousal support to be paid at this interim stage.
[66] I have considered the financial statements filed by the parties. I understand that prior to November 2020 P.G. looked after the payment of many of the debts that arose during the marriage. He eventually sold the camper and the boat. In November 2020 funds from the sale of the matrimonial home were used to pay most of the balance of these debts. He is currently left with only a TD line of credit with an approximate balance of $34,900. Although the monthly interest of $375 is the minimum payment, he pays that as well as an additional $1,256 toward the debt. In argument he said he is doing this to pay it down quicker.
[67] In his August 24, 2021 financial statement, he reports almost $36,000 in credit card debt for legal fees (VISA $26,201) and new home furnishings (MC $9,423). He currently pays $1,200 per month toward the VISA and $200 toward the MC debt, both of which post-date separation.
[68] Although his financial statement shows a budget that surpasses his monthly income, it is clear to me that P.G. is voluntarily making debt payments of almost $3,000 per month to pay it down in a timelier fashion. L.R.’s entitlement to spousal support must be prioritized over this debt.
[69] I find at this interim stage that L.R.’s annual income is $27,000. I accept the pandemic and her caregiving role are currently limiting her ability to earn more income.
[70] I also believe P.G.’s monthly living away income of $2,240 should be deducted from his annual income for the purposes of spousal support. I find that this money is used for his Kirkland Lake living expenses. It is not unreasonable for him to keep his primary residence in Sturgeon Falls. I therefore determine his annual income at this stage for spousal support to be $184,000.
[71] After inputting his child support obligation ($3,586 per month based on annual income of $210,849), and the parties’ incomes of $27,000 and $184,000 respectively, the SSAGs produce the following range for spousal support: $270 (low), $935 (mid) and $1,603 (high).
[72] Having considered the means and needs of the parties at this stage I am satisfied that the appropriate award of spousal support is $935 per month. I have also considered P.G.’s contributions toward joint debts, as well as the fact the motion for spousal support was brought back for argument originally in June 2021. Accordingly, this spousal support shall be payable starting July 1, 2021 without prejudice to L.R.’s request for arrears.
Conclusion
[73] For these reasons, I order on an interim basis as follows:
a. The access provisions in Justice Rivard’s Order dated October 28, 2020 are varied as follows: P.G. shall exercise parenting time with the children two extended weekends per month, from Thursday after school until Monday after school, in the two weeks when P.G. is home from work.
b. The child support provisions of Justice Rivard’s Order dated October 28, 2020 are varied as follows: Starting on July 01, 2021 and on the first day of each month thereafter P.G. (the payor) shall pay to L.R. (the recipient) the sum of $3,586 per month as support for the children, E.G. (born in 2010), C.G. (born in 2010) and B.G. (born in 2016). This amount is based on the payor’s annual income of $210,849 and is in accordance with the Guidelines. This is without prejudice to the recipient’s claim for retroactive child support.
c. Starting on July 1, 2021 and on the first day of each month thereafter P.G. (the payor) shall pay to L.R. (the recipient) spousal support in the amount of $935 per month. This is without prejudice to the recipient’s claim for retroactive spousal support.
d. On or before June 01 in each year, starting in June 2022, the parties will exchange their income information for the previous year, including their Notices of Assessment. The parties will also notify each other of any change to their employment within fourteen days of such change, provided the change impacts their annual income.
e. The parties are free to proceed to questioning if they so wish.
f. This matter should be scheduled for a settlement conference to move it forward.
g. If the parties cannot agree on costs, L.R. may deliver written submissions of no more than 5 pages, not including a costs outline, within 14 days of the date of this order. P.G. may thereafter file written submissions of no more than 5 pages, within 30 days of the date of this order.
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.J. Boucher
Released: September 9, 2021
CITATION: P.G. v. L.R., 2021 ONSC 5967 NORTH BAY COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-0073
DATE: 2021-09-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
P.G.
Applicant
– and –
L.R.
Respondent
DECISION ON MOTIONS
Boucher, J.
Released: September 9, 2021