Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-111 DATE: 2022/04/13 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Shakira Mandela Penny Hawthorne (Respondent on the Motion, Applicant on Cross-Motion) -and- Robert Chad Williamson (Applicant on Motion, Respondent on Cross-Motion)

BEFORE: Anne London-Weinstein J.

COUNSEL: Elisabeth Sheppard, for the Ms. Hawthorne Elizabeth Midolo, for the Mr. Williamson

HEARD: March 15, 2022

Ruling on Motion and Cross-Motion

[1] This motion was heard on March 8, 2022 after having to be rescheduled on February 15, 2022.

[2] The Applicant Father, Mr. Williamson (hereinafter the Father), seeks increased parenting time with his son who is almost two years old. He also seeks the provision of copies of documents related to the child and disclosure of where the child attends daycare.

[3] The child has always lived with the Respondent Mother, Ms. Hawthorne (hereinafter the Mother). The Mother agrees to the Father having supervised parenting time, but disagrees with the terms proposed to facilitate that parenting time. She is also unhappy with the supervisor at the suggested supervision centre and would like the court to order that another supervisor oversee the visits, or that they be held elsewhere.

[4] The Mother brings a cross-motion regarding child support, retroactive child support, disclosure of income and the baby-proofing of the Father’s home.

History of the Parties

[5] A brief review of the history of the parents’ interactions with each other is necessary for context.

[6] The mother and the child reside in Ottawa. The Mother has another child from a previous relationship who is six years old.

[7] The Mother alleges that the Father abused her verbally, emotionally, psychologically and physically.

[8] The Mother indicates that the Father would often be intoxicated, that he drove when intoxicated and had angry episodes.

[9] The Mother claimed that the Father’s aggression increased when the Mother became pregnant. The Mother and Father lived together but separated before the birth of the child. The Mother invited the Father to the child’s birth.

[10] The Mother and Father lived together briefly after the Mother invited the Father to live with her after the birth of the child. The Mother alleges that the Father became jealous of her other child and she had to ask him to leave.

[11] In June of 2020, the Mother requested that the Father attend parenting classes and an anger management course. He attended a parenting class, but not until June of 2021.

[12] The Mother permitted the Father to see the child about once a week in a public park near her home from May to September of 2020. She supervised the parenting time between the Father and the child.

[13] The Mother alleges that the Father missed some parenting time visits and would demand to see the child at the last minute without notice. The Mother claims that the Father would not follow a schedule.

[14] The Mother accuses the Father of failing to observe safe COVID-19 protocols. She accuses him of screaming and swearing at her during visits. The Mother says he accused her of not taking proper care of the infant.

[15] The Mother indicates that the Father mocked the child’s name. The child is biracial and the Mother is of African heritage. The Mother found these remarks deeply offensive.

[16] After the Father did not disclose that he had contracted COVID-19, the Mother feared that either she, the child, or her other child would contract the virus.

[17] The Father alleges that the Mother threatened to have a restraining order issued against him. The Mother denies this allegation and says that she only advised the Father that he should only contact her for the purpose of arranging parenting time.

[18] The Father claims that the Mother has stonewalled his attempts to bond with the child and has been obstructionist regarding arranging parenting time with the child. The Mother blames the Father for failing to see the child. She points out that after September 2020, the Father had no contact with the child for over 12 months. The Father claims that the Mother told him he was not the Father and continued to maintain this fiction until he sought a paternity test via a court application. The Father maintains that as soon as it was determined that he was the biological father of the child, he sought resumption of parenting time and was open to a progressive schedule.

Parenting Time

[19] Parenting time resumed in September 2021 at the Renew Centre. There were two virtual visits of fifteen minutes and a one hour in-person visit on October 3, 2021. The Mother had a number of complaints regarding the visit on October 3, 2021. She objected to the visit being outside. She claimed the child was not appropriately dressed for an outdoor visit and that the child was recovering from a respiratory lung infection. It is apparent from the fact that the Mother was aware that the visit proceeded outside that the Mother remained present for the child’s visit with the Father.

[20] The Father claims that the Mother berated, swore and screamed at the supervisor who was assigned to supervise the child at the Renew Centre on the October 3 visit. The Mother is critical of the notes taken by the supervisor. The Mother texted and called during the Father’s visit with the child.

[21] The Mother cancelled the next visit on October 11, 2021, as she claimed the child had bronchitis. She offered a virtual visit.

[22] On October 15, 2021, the mother offered that the visits be held at an alternative centre. This centre had no wait times and she also offered to permit the Father to deduct the cost of opening a new file from his child support payment.

[23] The Mother does not wish to provide the Father with the name of the daycare centre attended by the child.

[24] The Mother agreed to reattend the Renew Centre, albeit with a different supervisor. She alleges the Father failed to follow up. The Father indicates that the Renew Centre would not change the supervisor merely because of the Mother’s dissatisfaction.

[25] The Father is employed as a plumber in Smiths Falls. He was laid off work for an extended period due to the lack of work available in his trade during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Mother is employed for around 30 hours per week. She was on social assistance. The Mother is concerned that the Father’s house is not baby-proofed, or that he does not have a car seat for the baby. She is concerned that the Father has a German Shepherd that could pose a threat to the child’s safety.

[26] The Mother complained that the Father brought his own Mother to the supervised visit on February 6, 2022, which she claimed demonstrated a lack of focus on his own bonding with the child.

[27] I must admit that I found this criticism to be unwarranted. I found that it was appropriate for the child’s grandmother to accompany the Father to visit the child. The child will be spending parenting time with his father at the grandmother’s home. I found that the Father’s decision to bring the child’s grandmother not only demonstrated a commitment to strengthening his bond with the child, but also demonstrated insight into the fact that the child will have to become reacquainted with the grandmother, as he will be attending her home when he spends time with the Father.

[28] I am of the view that the Father should have three supervised visits with his son at the Renew Centre. I do not agree that the Mother’s dispute with the supervisor should warrant holding the supervised visits elsewhere. I appreciate that the Mother is understandably concerned about the welfare of the child.

[29] However, this court will not order the Renew Centre to assign a different worker to supervise the visits between the Father and the child. If the Mother has ongoing concerns regarding the quality of supervision provided at the Renew Centre, such concerns should be put in writing in a polite and civil manner and delivered to the Centre.

[30] If the Mother’s concerns are not resolved regarding the supervision at the Renew Centre, the matter can be re-addressed before me on an informal basis in a case conference, without the need to bring a formal motion.

[31] I am not anticipating that there will be ongoing conflict between the Mother and the staff at the Renew Centre. The Mother is not to interfere with the supervised parenting time between the child and the Father.

[32] At the conclusion of the three supervised visits, the Father shall have parenting time with the child on alternating days of the weekend. On the first weekend, the Father shall have the child on Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. On the next weekend, the Father shall have the child on Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The exchange shall occur at a place mutually agreed upon by the parties.

[33] If the parties cannot agree on a mutually agreed upon place for the exchange, they can bring the matter before me on an expedited basis. It would be hoped that the Mother and Father can agree on an exchange location, as it is certainly in the best interests of the child that the parties both facilitate contact with the child.

[34] I declined to rule on the retroactive child support issue, as in my view there are issues in dispute that require a full evidentiary hearing properly the subject of a trial. The Father claims that for a period of time he was advised that he was not the child’s Father. The Mother denies making this claim. The Father disputes the amounts claimed by the Mother in retroactive support.

Cross-Motion Regarding Child Support

[35] The Mother brought a cross-motion regarding increasing child support. The Father was unemployed due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Counsel for the Mother notes that he is an experienced plumber and “needs to be working on a full-time basis. There is no justification if he is not.”

[36] The Mother notes that the Father’s disclosed incomes were $63,659 for 2018, $60,892 for 2019 and $61,663 for 2021.

[37] The Mother seeks arrears in child support. The Mother claims that based on the documentation provided by the Father, his income will be around $80,000, which yields a child support payment of $751 monthly. However, in the amended notice of motion, child support in the amount of $573 per month is sought. The Father maintains that he has just started this job, he is uncertain as to what his eventual income will be and his union dues should be deducted from his income calculations. At this point, on a temporary and without prejudice basis, I am ordering that $573 per month in child support be paid. This amount is subject of course, to an adjustment once the Father’s income is confirmed, and the issue of retroactive support owing is determined.

[38] Despite not being employed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Father paid some child support. In June of 2020, he paid $200. In July of 2020, he paid $526 and in August of 2020, he paid $400. The Father argues that his union dues should be taken into consideration when calculating his income. He points out that he has only recently resumed work. He is currently working on a plumbing contract in Smiths Falls.

[39] After careful review of the factums, affidavits and submissions of counsel in this matter, I order the following on a temporary and without prejudice basis:

• Both parties shall observe appropriate COVID-19 safety measures as recommended by Ottawa Public Health.
• Both parties shall be civil with one another and refrain from swearing, yelling, or speaking disparagingly of one another in the presence of the child.
• The Mother is ordered to provide to the Father the names of all of the individuals who reside in her home with her and the child, along with confirmation of their vaccination status.
• The Father is to provide to the Mother the names of all of the individuals living in his home who will be present when the child is present, along with their vaccination status.
• The Mother is to provide to the Father a copy of the child’s birth certificate and health card. The Father will pay any costs associated with obtaining these documents.
• The Mother shall provide to the Father the contact information for the child’s doctor and other medical professionals who treat the child.
• The Mother shall provide to the Father the name of the child’s childcare provider.
• The Mother shall provide to the Father a list of any classes the child is currently enrolled in.
• Neither party shall remove the child from the country without the other parent’s written consent. Notice of intention to travel outside of Canada shall be provided no less than 30 days prior to the intended departure. The travelling party shall provide information on where they will be travelling, proposed dates of travel, flight information if applicable and contact information.
• Given the acrimonious history between the Mother and Father, it is apparent to me that at this point at least, the parties may have significant difficulty in reaching agreement on major decisions about the health and well-being of the child. The child is just two years old and has always resided with the Mother. She is required to consult with the Father regarding any major decisions regarding the health and well-being of the child. However, in the event of disagreement, the Mother’s decision shall be determinative.
• The Father is to ensure that his house is appropriately baby-proofed. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring that there are safety gates installed at staircases, that there are not things that the child can pull over himself, and that electrical plugs are provided with a safety guard device to prevent the child from poking a finger inside the outlet.
• I am advised that the German Shepherd lives outside. The child is not to ever be left unsupervised in the presence of the dog. A child of this age can move quickly and unexpectedly and even a good-natured dog can react in unexpected ways and inflict serious injury.
• The Father shall ensure he has an appropriate car seat that is properly installed in whatever vehicle is used to transport the child.
• The Father shall pay child support in the amount of $573 per month.
• The Father shall provide whatever financial disclosure remains outstanding within 30 days of this decision being released.
• The parties shall communicate through a free parenting app of their choosing. Communications shall remain civil and focused on the child.
• The Mother is ordered to not interfere with the three supervised visits, which will take place at the Renew Centre.
• Visits shall be one day per week for two hours per visit for a maximum of three supervised visits. Days and times are to be arranged between the parties and the Renew Centre in advance.
• The Father is not to consume alcohol nor smoke marijuana when parenting the child.
• Upon conclusion of the third and final supervised visit, the Father shall have unsupervised parenting time alternating Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I appreciate that the Mother wishes to have every Saturday with the child. However, in my view, it is more equitable that the parents alternate the day that is spent with the child on the weekend. It also may benefit the child to attend church with the Mother and his sister on the Sundays he is not with the Father.
• Exchanges shall occur at a mutually agreed upon location in North Gower, being the halfway point between both parties’ residences, unless agreed in writing and in advance by the parties.
• I appreciate that this arrangement poses an inconvenience for the Mother. While she points out that the Father chose to move back to Smiths Falls, he also is employed full time as a plumber in the city of Smiths Falls. This job enables him to financially support the child. Given that the Mother has more parenting time with the child, in my view, it is more equitable to split the travel time. As a result, I have ruled that the exchange shall occur at a mutually agreed upon place at North Gower.

[40] If there remain issues that must be immediately resolved as a result of my ruling, I can be reached directly through my assistant Tina.Gloyn@ontario.ca.

Costs

[41] If the issue of costs cannot be agreed upon, I shall determine it by written submissions. These shall not exceed three pages plus attachments of Bills of Costs and Offers to Settle the motions. The applicant’s submissions are due by April 26, 2022 and the respondent’s by May 11, 2022. If necessary, the applicant may deliver a brief reply by May 15, 2022. Costs submissions are to be sent to my attention and emailed to scj.assistants@ontario.ca.

Anne London-Weinstein J. Date: April 13, 2022