COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-38

DATE: 20220914

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: C.C., Applicant

AND:

S.C., Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: C.C., Self-Represented

Ms. J. Ruskin, for the Respondent

HEARD: September 13, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

I. The Background

[1] This case has a long and sordid history. Its most important person is the child, C.M. (“child”). All decisions, including this one, must be made in his best interests.

[2] In C.C. v. S.C., 2022 ONSC 2306, this Court suspended all in-person parenting time between the Applicant mother, C.C. (“mother”), and the child. That suspension took effect on April 19, 2022. During the period of suspension, the mother was to have supervised telephone/computer calls with the child. One of the major reasons for the suspension was that the mother had become intransigent in her chronic complaints and unsubstantiated allegations of serious maltreatment and abuse of the child at the hands of the Respondent father, S.C. (“father”). See, for example, paragraphs 20 and 21 of this Court’s decision referred to above.

[3] In accordance with clauses 2 and 3 of the Order made on April 13, 2022, a hearing has been held to review the matter. This Court was hopeful, as reflected in these comments at paragraphs 41 and 42 of its reasons dated April 13th.

41. This Court’s goal is to have the mother be an active part of the child’s life, with maximum contact that is in accordance with the child’s best interests, all this year, in 2022.

42. If the mother cooperates, and her intelligence and her love for her child mean that she has the ability and the motivation to do so, that goal can be accomplished.

[4] Unfortunately, that hope was dashed by the actions of the mother. Not forever, as I remain firm in my view that the mother has a lot to offer the child and must be given every opportunity to be there for him. For now, though, the hope has vanished.

II. The Mother’s Motion

[5] On September 13, 2022, this Court heard the mother’s motion dated August 22, 2022. She asked, among other things, to lift the suspension of in-person parenting time between her and the child, to end the supervised calls between her and the child, and to order 50-50 parenting time as between her and the father. Despite the wording of clause 3 of this Court’s April 13, 2022 Order, which provision set out very clear expectations of the mother on the review that was contemplated, the mother’s motion was supported only by a very brief affidavit in her name, an affidavit that was bereft of what the Court was clearly expecting.

[6] Moreover, the mother’s motion was hijacked by what she did the very next day after she swore her affidavit. On August 23, 2022, one day after the date of her motion and her affidavit, and two days after she had contact with the child over Zoom on August 21st without any reason for concern for the health and safety of the child, the mother called the police and had them attend at the house of the father and the child. Once again, the child had to endure questioning by the authorities. Once again, nothing was verified. Nothing untoward was discovered. No action was taken.

[7] That call to the police came on the heels of the very first supervised contact that the mother had with the child since this Court’s most recent decision. I repeat, the Court made a decision in April 2022 to suspend in-person contact between mother and child, and that decision was based in large part on a series of frivolous complaints that she had made about the father which resulted in repeated third party investigations that turned up zero, and then the mother elected not to have any supervised contact with the child for months (she has indicated that it was too expensive to pay for the professional supervision), and then the mother had one electronic visit with the child and almost immediately called the police on the father. It is hard to imagine a more stark repetition of what led to the order under review to begin with, but that is the chronology.

[8] Why did the mother take such drastic action on August 23rd? She told the Court that she did so because she received two texts from the child, late in the evening on August 22nd, which texts said “mom”. That’s all they said. She interpreted that, she told the Court, as unusual and a cry for help. When asked by the Court why she would not at least try to contact the father, she gave two reasons – (i) she does not have that type of relationship with the father, and further (ii) she would not have believed him even if she did contact him and he said all was okay.

[9] I find it heartbreaking. So squarely has the mother squandered the opportunity to realize what this Court expressly desired back in April 2022, as reflected at paragraphs 41 and 42 of its earlier reasons. So clearly has the mother demonstrated that this Court was wrong in permitting her supervised calls with the child, a decision that was contrary to the opinion expressed back in April by the expert, Ms. Barclay.

[10] I do not understand it.

III. Decision

[11] The mother’s motion is dismissed. This Court orders that the mother shall have no contact with the child, in-person or by telephone or electronic or otherwise, for a period of three months commencing on September 15, 2022.

[12] The father wanted a much longer suspension period to be imposed. The father also wanted other relief to deter endless proceedings in Court, especially unmeritorious ones at the instance of the mother. That relief is not dismissed but rather deferred to a date to be set by the trial office in consultation with the mother and counsel for the father. The scheduling of that date shall be done forthwith, and the Court asks that Ms. Ruskin ensure that it is done. Ms. Ruskin has been extremely fair and professional with the mother, and so the Court does not hesitate in asking her to do something that is really more the responsibility of the mother. That next Court date shall be as soon as possible after the conclusion of the three-month suspension ordered herein. That next Court date shall be before me. That next Court date shall be treated as a case conference for an update from the parties on how things are going. In advance of the appearance, which shall be by Zoom, the parties shall exchange Case Conference Briefs. It is expected that the appearance will last about one hour.

[13] The father shall receive his costs of the mother’s motion. I agree with the mother that we have to stop litigating costs over and over again. Thus, no submissions are permitted on the costs of the motion but for a simple Bill of Costs which shall be filed by the father’s counsel within fifteen (15) calendar days of September 15, 2022. The Court will review the Bill and endorse the matter as it sees fit.

[14] I will see the mother in a few months. She should continue with her teaching in the meantime. She should get some counselling and therapy. She should focus on her own mental health. She should stop visiting websites where the common denominator is a disdain for and an overwhelming feeling of having been screwed by the justice system. This period of introspection should assist the mother in her efforts to cultivate her faith and to expend her energy more wisely, two things that the mother spoke about during the hearing on September 13th.

[15] I think that this Court is in danger of becoming the person who cries wolf, but the mother must realize that there comes a time when even the most fervent hopes, even those for the sake of a child, are gone forever. There comes a time when the Court has no reasonable alternative but to make a final order that removes one parent completely from the life of her child. No judge wants to do that to C.M.

[16] Some might say it is naïve to think that things will be better in a few months. So be it. The description of a judge could be worse. I look forward to the conference and what we can accomplish for the family then.

Conlan J.

Date: September 14, 2022