COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-44033

DATE: 2021 11 19

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: T.E., Applicant

AND: G.E., Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan, J.

COUNSEL: Mr. T. Charuk for the Applicant, T.E.

Mr. E. Vine for the Respondent, G.E.

HEARD: November 18, 2021

ENDORSEMENT on motions

The Issue

[1] L. is just two years old and has not seen his father in person in many months. What should be done about that?

The Positions of the Parties

[2] The Applicant father, T.E., moves for an order for specific parenting time – initially six hours per week on Saturday, Tuesday, and Thursday, and then extending the Saturdays further over time. The Respondent mother, G.E., moves for an order for supervised contact between father and child, twice per week, with some conditions attached including regular drug testing for the father. The supervised contact would occur at a professional facility.

The Background Facts

[3] I have focussed below on the father because his circumstances are really what matter for the purposes of the within decision.

[4] This was a very short relationship of about two years. The father works as a school bus driver. He lives with his parents at their home in Burlington, Ontario. He currently sees his son on a video screen, via FaceTime, three times per week for about twenty minutes on each occasion. It is silly, in my view. Imagine FaceTime with a two-year old who lives in the same town.

[5] The paternal grandparents fostered many children over the course of about thirty years. They have four of their own children, including T.E. The paternal grandfather is a retired police officer. The paternal grandparents, in their seventies, are prepared to have L. spend time with his father in their home, and they are prepared to commit to being present during that parenting time.

[6] T.E.’s sister is herself a mother, a graduate of Sheridan College’s early Childhood Education program, a graduate of Humber College’s Advanced Studies in Special Needs program, and the Director of Program Development at Parkview Children’s Centre, with three locations in Halton Region. She, too, is willing to be present for T.E.’s parenting time with the child.

[7] The parties have agreed to the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. That process has barely started. The order was only very recently made.

The Law

[8] I agree with Justice Pazaratz that “[s]upervised access is not intended to be a long-term solution to access problems”, but that it may be an appropriate intermediate step in situations where, for instance, there are substance abuse issues that need to be addressed and/or where the child is being introduced or reintroduced to a parent after a significant absence. Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2015 ONSC 3684, at paragraphs 52-53.

[9] At the same time, however, it must be remembered that supervised access is a short step away from complete termination of any relationship between a parent and a child, and thus it should be seen as the exception and not the norm, as a last resort and not as a knee-jerk reaction to one parent’s allegations against the other. There is a very helpful article on the subject written by Nicholas Bala, Michael Saini and Sarah Spitz, found at 2016-085 of the December 2016 edition of the Queen’s Law Research Paper Series, titled Supervised Access as a Stepping Stone Rather Than a Destination: A Qualitative Review of Ontario Services & Policies for Assisting Families Transitioning from Supervised Access, 2016 Docs 4597.

The Law as Applied to Our Case

[10] I am of the view that supervised access is required here, temporarily. This father was not the primary caregiver for the child during the short-lived union. He has barely seen the child since separation. He has not been with the child in the flesh since March 2021. Regardless of who is to blame, this is unquestionably a situation of a very young child being reintroduced to his father after a significant absence, or near-absence.

[11] The best interests of the child do not depend on an assessment of fault for why that is. It is a fact. Father and son are essentially strangers to each other. A level of supervision will provide the mother with some assurance that the boy is not being thrown to the wolves and will, I bet, permit the father to gain some confidence in his ability to parent the child. It is a good way to start, in my view.

[12] Thus, I cannot accede to the relief being sought in the father’s motion. It is too aggressive.

[13] I am not in agreement with the mother, however, that supervision at a professional centre is required.

[14] That, in my opinion, should be reserved for the clearest of cases – those where the degree of supervision required is so strong that only a professional supervisor could reasonably do the job. Then it may be necessary to have parent and child interact in such an artificial, stilted environment. I am not at all being critical of the professional supervision services; they are invaluable. They are sometimes necessary. But clearly not here, with these family supports available to T.E.

[15] That the paternal grandparents are in their seventies does not concern me at all. They have a lifetime of experience with children. They have been put on notice of the mother’s serious concerns, and they know (especially the grandpa who had a career in law enforcement) that the surveillance is on, so to speak. Their health is not perfect, of course, as nobody can stop the passage of time, but they are able to do the job, I am sure.

[16] Thus, this Court orders that T.E. shall, commencing without delay, have in-person contact with the child. That contact shall take place at the home of T.E. and his parents. That contact shall be in the presence, at all times, of at least two of the following three persons – the paternal grandfather, the paternal grandmother, and the sister of T.E. who works for Parkview Children’s Centre. That contact shall be for six hours per week, subject to review at a later date. The division of those six hours (whether three times per week for two hours each time, or twice a week for three hours each time, for example), and the schedule of the contact (on what days of the week and at what times) shall be worked out between the parties. This Court is not going to micromanage the family quite yet.

[17] There are some ancillary orders as well. I agree with the mother’s request for an order that all exchanges of the child shall take place at a neutral location, as there are allegations here of past domestic violence, as that term is now understood in the amended legislation. The parties shall agree on that neutral location.

[18] I also concur with the mother’s request that the father shall not consume any drug not medically prescribed for him and shall not consume any alcohol during his parenting time and for 24 hours beforehand. There is no doubt in my mind that this man either has or had a love for marihuana. The photographs of the drug paraphernalia and the videos of the FaceTime encounters speak a thousand words. He cannot stay awake in the middle of the day. I realize that he works, and screen time is not exactly scintillating, but this is his son we are talking about. There is valid reason to be careful about the suspected drug use.

[19] I am not ordering any drug testing. It is unnecessarily impractical given the close and steady supervision that is being required.

[20] I am not ordering that T.E. never drive with the child in the vehicle. The man is a professional school bus driver. The abstinence order referred to above includes the transportation as that is part of the parenting time.

[21] Clause number 8 in the mother’s prayer for relief is granted – an order that the father shall place all weapons, syringes, and tools in child proof storage and create a child-proofed environment in advance of any parenting time and provide the mother with pictures of same once per week. The mother suggested once per month for the pictures, but that it too long given the photos that I have seen already.

[22] The business about the father being required to produce letters from his therapist and family doctor is dismissed. I think that is overkill. The goal is reintegration between child and father, safely and gradually and with supports in place. The order made herein will accomplish that objective.

The Result

[23] The father’s motion is dismissed. The mother’s motion is allowed in part.

[24] If costs are not resolved between the parties, I will hear brief oral submissions by Zoom. Counsel may contact the trial office to arrange an appointment for that purpose.

“C.J. Conlan”

Conlan J.

Date: November 19, 2021