Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FC-18-2201
DATE: 2022/10/24
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Hannah Beth McIntyre
Applicant
-and-
Yohannis Tucker
Respondent
Francis Aheto-Tsegah for the Applicant
David Howard for the Respondent
HEARD: September 15, 2022
Endorsement
Shelston, J.
Overview
[1] The applicant (“mother”) and respondent (“father”) are the biological parents of two children, namely Z.T., 6 years of age and Q.T., 5 years of age. Since their births, the children have resided in the primary care of the mother in Ottawa, with the father having parenting time. On January 21, 2021, the mother and the children left their apartment with the assistance of Ottawa Victim Services and moved to a motel, then a shelter, and by March 2021, she rented an apartment in Smith Falls, Ontario, where the mother had her family’s support. She currently resides with the children in a home purchased by her mother and maternal grandmother in Smith Falls.
[2] The mother did not seek, or obtain, the consent of the father, or a court order, permitting her to move from Ottawa to Smith Falls. Despite leaving her family residence on January 21, 2021, the mother continued with the father’s parenting time with the children every Friday at 6:00 pm to Sunday at 6:00 pm.
[3] Approximately one year after the mother and children had moved to Smith Falls, in March 2022, the father filed a motion to compel the mother to return to Ottawa with the children or, in the alternative, that he be granted with primary residence of the children with the right to make decisions and the applicant having parenting time. The motion was returnable in June 2022, but was adjourned to September 2022, as the mother went into labour with her fourth child.
Position of the parties
[4] The father seeks a temporary order as follows:
a) An order requiring the mother to return to Ottawa with the children.
b) An order to implement the parenting schedule, as per paragraph 3 of the Minutes of Settlement, dated December 16, 2019, or such other parenting schedule that the father may respectfully propose, or this Honourable Court considers to be in the best interests of the children.
c) Further to orders a) and b), an order that the children shall reside primarily with the father in Ottawa until such time that the mother returns to Ottawa. Until the mother returns to Ottawa, the children shall have their parenting time with her, every other weekend from Friday evening to Sunday evening, and remain in the father’s care at all other times.
d) If the mother does not return to Ottawa, an order that the children shall reside primarily with the father in Ottawa and visit the mother every other weekend from Friday after school until return to school on Monday morning; if there is no school, then the mother shall return the children by Sunday evening or, alternatively, Monday at 5:00 pm.
e) If the mother does not return to Ottawa, an order that the father shall have interim sole decision-making responsibility for the children and he shall seek input from the mother prior to implementing decisions, including selecting a school in Ottawa for the children to attend.
f) An order for costs.
[5] In response to the father’s motion, the mother filed her own motion, seeking the following temporary order:
a) An order that the primary residence of the children shall continue to be with the mother.
b) An order permitting the mother to remain in the Smith Falls area with the children and that they continue to attend school in that jurisdiction.
c) An order that the father shall have parenting time with the children, on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:00 pm to Sunday at 6:00 pm.
d) An order that the parties use the Our Family Wizard application for routine communication. Alerts to urgent or time-sensitive communications through Our Family Wizard can be made by text messages. The parties will share equally the subscription costs of the application.
e) An order that the parties shall exchange the children through the Supervised Access Exchange Program, at the Family Services Ottawa (“FSO”), pursuant to the Office of the Children’s Lawyers (“OCL”) report. The parties shall promptly complete the requisite application forms. Alternatively, the parenting exchanges shall take place at the Rose Garden Family Support Center in Smith Falls, or at an agreed-upon public parking lot.
f) An order that the children will be in the primary care of the mother when they are sick. If the children are sick during the father’s parenting time, he shall promptly inform the mother to pick them up.
g) Costs on a substantial indemnity basis including HST.
[6] At the motion, the mother withdrew her claim that the father refrain from using physical discipline on the children and her claim for a restraining order against the father. In addition, at the motion, the parties made a joint oral motion seeking the reappointment of the OCL to conclude their report dated April 11, 2022. I granted that relief.
Background
[7] The parties were in a relationship that ended in June 2018. The parties never cohabitated. After the separation, the children remained, and continue to remain, in the primary care of the mother.
[8] After separation, the mother alleges that the father was physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive to her while in the presence of the children. The mother alleges that in September 2018, the father walked into her home without invitation in a rage. The mother alleges that the father threw her into a wall while holding the youngest child and broke the inside door off its hinges. The mother was a resident of Interval House, in Ottawa, as a temporary emergency shelter from September 24, 2018, to November 7, 2018.
[9] On November 9, 2018, the mother commenced this proceeding and brought an urgent motion seeking a restraining order, sole decision-making responsibility, and primary residence of the children with police enforcement, as the father had withheld the children following his parenting time. On November 22, 2018, Justice Corthorn granted, with the consent of the parties, an interim order that, the mother would have sole decisions-making responsibility of the children, the father would have parenting time with the children on alternate weekends from Friday at 6:00 pm until Sunday at 6:00 pm, and an order enforcing the custody and primary residence provisions of the order by the police service of the local jurisdiction where the children were.
[10] On December 2, 2019, the parties attended a case conference before Justice MacKinnon, where she made the following temporary order which addressed, inter alia, the following issues:
a) The father was ordered to pay table child support in the amount of $597, starting January 1, 2019, based on an estimated annual income of $40,000.
b) The father shall commence overnight parenting time, every Wednesdays with both children, starting December 4, 2019, from 5:30 pm until 8:00 am to the mother’s home and every alternate weekend from Fridays at 6:00 pm until Sunday at 6:00 pm.
c) The parties to register in Parenting Through High Conflict program, as soon as possible.
d) The respondent shall obtain the application “Two Houses” for both parents to use for their communications.
e) The mother was granted with final decision-making responsibility, following consultation on major issues with the father.
f) A Legal Aid mediation as the next step.
[11] On December 16, 2019, the parties attended a mediation session with Legal Aid Ontario, resulting in Minutes of Settlement (“Original Minutes”), resolving decision-making responsibility, the father’s parenting time, including holidays’ schedule, child support, financial disclosure, agreement to communicate regarding the children through the application Two Houses and other provisions. The main provisions regarding decision-making responsibility, parenting time and relocation are set out in the agreement as follows:
When any major decision is required to be made regarding the children, including all major decisions relating to their health, education, religion and general well-being, the parties shall discuss those decisions and fully consult with each other. In the case of an unresolvable disagreement on any such major decision, the mother shall have final say.
On an interim, without prejudice basis:
a) The children’s primary residence shall continue to be with the mother.
b) The father shall continue to parent the children according to a regular parenting schedule, as follows:
i. Every week from 6:00 pm on Wednesday until 8:00 pm on Thursday.
ii. Every second weekend thereafter, from Friday at 6:00 pm until Sunday at 6:00 pm.
Neither party shall change the children’s residence to a location outside of Ottawa, without the express written consent of the other party or a court order. A party contemplating such a move shall advise the other party of their intention at least 90 days in advance of the intended move.
Both parties consented to a court order, incorporating the terms of this agreement.
If the parties continue to be unable to resolve the remaining issues (namely, restraining order, ongoing child support amount payable, primary residence/regular parenting schedule), they may proceed to court.
[12] On January 21, 2021, the mother left her apartment with the children and by March 2021, had relocated to Smith Falls.
[13] The parties attended a case conference on April 8, 2021, before Justice Summers, where the issue of the mother’s moving to Smith Falls was discussed and for that reason, the mother was obligated to provide a copy of the email from the Ottawa Police Detective dated March 6, 2021, recommending that the mother move from her residence, a copy of the letter from Victim Services confirming their involvement in the mother leaving the family residence and her current address. Additionally, the parties agreed to appoint the OCL. The father states that he sought the involvement of the OCL prior to bringing a motion to compel the mother or the children to return to Ottawa.
[14] On September 28, 2021, the parties entered into an interim and without prejudice Minutes of Settlement (“Variation Minutes”), varying the Original Minutes dated December 16, 2019, such that the father would have parenting time with the children on every weekend from Friday at 6:00 pm to Sunday at 6:00 pm.
OCL report
[15] At the motion, the parties agreed to request the OCL to resume its investigation to complete the report dated April 11, 2022. In that report, the OCL discontinued the investigation without making any recommendations, due to the fact that information from the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”), and the Ottawa Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”), had not been received, despite their requests for its release. At the time of the writing of their report, the OCL clinician indicated that the CAS had been conducting an active investigation into protection issues with respect of the children. With the consent of the parties, the court requested the OCL to complete its investigation, as there are no longer any investigations regarding protection issues. This information will be of assistance to the trial judge in determining the best interests of these children.
[16] By report dated April 11, 2022, the clinician found that the parties have reported conflicting information about the other, including placing blame on the other for their ongoing adult issues. The history of the parties indicates that there have been ongoing conflicts since separation and that the children have been exposed to these conflicts, which resulted in them being sad and upset by their parents arguing. Records from the Ottawa Police Service and the CAS indicate the concern that the children have been exposed to a very conflictual relationship and there is no history of positive co-parenting.
[17] On the issue of relocation, the clinician confirmed that the children are attending a public school with a lot of friends. Additionally, the clinician reports that the mother moved to Smith Falls following an advice of a police officer and Victim Services worker. While initially the mother made allegations against her present partner, they reconciled and the allegations were not verified, her partner then signed releases for the clinician to obtain information from the Ottawa Police Service and the CAS in Ottawa and Lanark, Leeds, and Grenville. Finally, the clinician notes that the mother is requesting to have some weekends time with her children. At this juncture, the clinician cannot provide final recommendations. Hopefully, the OCL will reengage in this file and be able to provide the court with more recommendations.
Legislative and jurisprudential framework
[18] The Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 12 provides:
24(1) In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section.
Primary consideration
(2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.
Factors
(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,
(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 parent, each of the child's siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child's life;
(c) each parent's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other parent;
(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 co-operate, 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.
Change in residence, person with decision-making responsibility or parenting time
39.1(1) A person who has decision-making responsibility or parenting time with respect to a child and who intends to make a change in residence, or in the child's residence, shall notify any other person who has decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact under a contact order with respect to the child of the intention.
Notice requirements
(2) The notice shall be in writing and shall set out,
(a) the date on which the change is expected to occur; and
(b) the address of the new residence and contact information of the person or child, as the case may be.
Exception
(3) On application, the court may in any circumstance provide that subsections (1) and (2) do not apply, or apply with any changes the court specifies, if the court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to do so, including if there is a risk of family violence.
[19] In Plumley v. Plumley, 1999 CarswellOnt 3503 (Ont. Fam. Ct.), the court dealt with an interim motion seeking to have the mother return with the children to Glencoe, Ontario pending a variation application. At paragraph 7, the court stated:
[7] It appears to me that the following factors are or ought to be important in deciding the mobility issue on an interim basis:
A court will be more reluctant to upset the status quo on an interim basis and permit the move when there is a genuine issue for trial.
There can be compelling circumstances that might dictate that a judge ought to allow the move. For example, the move may result in a financial benefit to the family unit, which will be lost if the matter awaits a trial or the best interests of the children might dictate that they commence school at a new location.
Although there may be a genuine issue for trial, the move may be permitted on an interim basis if there is a strong probability that the custodial parent’s position will prevail at trial.
Analysis
[20] The sole issue for this motion is what temporary order is in the best interests of these children. Is it in the children’s best interests to move them from the primary care of the mother and be placed in the primary care of the father? Is it in the children’s best interests that the mother be compelled to return back to the city of Ottawa because she did not give the father notice as required under the Original Minutes or she did not obtain a court order permitting such a move?
[21] The father submits that the mother intentionally left Ottawa without notice and without his consent, and that she must either return to Ottawa with the children or the children must be placed in his primary care. The mother submits that her situation was extraordinary and that she did what was needed to protect herself and her children from threats of domestic violence from the father, as well as from the people who were breaking into her residence. Furthermore, she submits that she did not attempt to eliminate the father from the children’s life as she arranged to have the children delivered and picked up from the father’s home since January 21, 2021. The mother enlisted her mother, the children’s maternal grandmother, as the driver to deliver and pick up the children to the father for his parenting time, as she was afraid to disclose where she was living, until compelled to do so at the case conference on April 8, 2021. The mother indicated that she was fearful due to being subjected to domestic violence by the father, which he denies.
[22] Since their birth, Z.T. and Q.T. have always lived in the primary care of the mother. Both children have had specific medical needs. Z. T. has reactive airway disease and obstructive sleep apnea and requires Puffer’s daily and a humidifier. Q.T. has a gastrointestinal problem. She recently contracted had a kidney infection and contracted Covid-19. In February 2022, Q.T. was hospitalized for a kidney infection and severe dehydration. Currently, the only health issue affecting the children is constipation for Q.T. The parties differ as to what the current medical needs of the children are, which cannot be resolved in the evidence before me.
[23] The parties’ evidence differs on many facts, including whether they lived together or not. The evidence discloses that the parties have had a very conflictual relationship, including the involvement of the Ottawa Police Service on eight occasions, from September 9, 2018, to January 21, 2020, and numerous contacts with the Children’s Aid Society.
[24] The mother alleges that the father has committed domestic violence, that he does not properly care for the children and that he is either not interested, or does not understand, their medical needs. The father alleges that the mother is involved in drug trafficking, that she participated in an attempted robbery, that she consumes cocaine/marijuana/pills, that she was an escort, that the children have bad body odour when they come to the father for parenting time and that the mother is unable to properly care for the children.
[25] The allegations are denied by both parties and there is little, if any, corroboration to allow a court to make a finding at this juncture of the litigation. There has been no cross-examination of the deponents of the affidavits and many of the allegations raised by the father are based on inadmissible hearsay evidence. In addition, many of the allegations raised by the parties have been investigated by the CAS but they were not verified. However, the threats to the mother from the breaking into her residence were deemed credible by a police detective and there is evidence that the father has committed domestic violence against the mother resulting her being in a shelter from September 24, 2018, to November 7, 2018.
[26] Both parties have acted unilaterally. The father withheld the children from the mother, following a parenting visit of November 3-4, 2018, and from April 6 to June 5, 2020. In both instances, the father returned the children. In or around, February and March 2022, the mother withheld the children from the father, alleging that he was failing to take care of their medical needs. The matter was resolved on consent, on March 24, 2022, without the necessity of a scheduled motion proceeding.
[27] In her affidavit dated September 8, 2022, at paragraph 18, the mother alleged that she informed the father of her intention to leave Ottawa, and that they were discussing it, as she was afraid after the last break-in in her home. She indicates she told the father that she had every intention of honoring his rights for parenting-time but the because of him, and her recent experience, she did not feel safe in close to him or anyone from her old neighborhood. She understood from the Ottawa police officer that the specific group that was targeting her home, was sprawled all over Ottawa and had no specific known location. Additionally, the father had formed an unfounded belief that she was an active member of the drug trade and that he convinced other people to continue to target her and her home. The father filed a reply affidavit dated September 12, 2022, responding to the allegations made in the mother’s affidavit sworn September 8, 2022. In his reply affidavit, the father stated that there are many statements made in the mother’s affidavit that he disagrees with but that he will address the most pertinent ones. Despite that statement, the father does not deny any of the allegations made by the mother in paragraph 18 of her September 8, 2022 affidavit. I conclude that the father was aware that the mother was planning on moving and the reasons for her departure, including her fear of him, as well as the people conducting the breaking and entering into her apartment.
[28] On March 6, 2021, Detective Tereschuk, of the Ottawa Police Service, sent an email to the mother as follows:
To whom it may concern,
Hannah McIntyre is unable to reside at her previous address due to a credible threat to her safety and that of her children. If there are any questions regarding this, please contact me at the extension listed here above or by email.
[29] By a letter dated May 31, 2022, Ms. Megan Sesely, Victim Safety Coordinator of Ottawa Victim Services, stated the following in the second and third paragraph of her letter:
This letter is in support of Ms. McIntyre having to flee the city of Ottawa for her safety. Ms. McIntyre first sought the help of our agency in September 2018 after experiencing domestic violence and criminal harassment by her ex-partner Mr. Yohannis Tucker. She had expressed having significant safety concerns after her ex-partner breached his no contact order conditions and showed up at her home unannounced. Ms. McIntyre was extremely fearful and had to call the Ottawa police service to escort him off the property. Due to the lengthy history of breaking and enters, the Ottawa police service recommended that Ms. McIntyre relocate for her personal safety.
Ms. McIntyre would have remained at risk of re-victimization if she stayed at her residence where her location was known to and frequented by her ex-partner. Ottawa Victim Services provided Ms. McIntyre with a safe accommodation at a hotel until VAW shelter space became available. Our agency at also assisted Ms. McIntyre with her peace bond application and safety planning.
[30] Based on this evidence, I find that the mother was justified in moving immediately out of her residence without notice to the father. I find that there were two issues confronting the mother. Firstly, the breaking and enters by unknown parties and secondly, the threat of domestic violence by the father.
[31] The father states that he did not move immediately to seek the return of the children to the City of Ottawa but rather, sought the appointment of the OCL. The abbreviated report was only produced on April 11, 2022, approximately one year later. The report was not completed because of missing documentation. Despite not having the recommendations in the OCL report, the father seeks to proceed for the temporary order returning the children to Ottawa.
[32] Since March 2020, the status quo for these children is that they live with their mother during the week and are with their father on weekends. While the mother has physically moved her principal residence from Ottawa to Smith Falls, these changes had no effect on the father’s parenting time with his children.
[33] The Original Minutes required the mother to provide the father with notice if she intended to move her residence. The mother submits that because of domestic violence committed by the father against her, the court may exempt her from such notification requirement. Section 39.1(3) of the Children’s Law Reform Act provide the court with the power to dispense with the notice requirements if the court finds it is appropriate to do so including cases of domestic violence. In this case, there are serious allegations of domestic violence as well as the mother’s allegations that the unknown parties breaking into her residence in Ottawa were still a risk if she stayed in the city of Ottawa.
[34] The mother’s obligation is to protect her children. She was advised that there was a risk to their personal safety and for that reason she moved away. I find that the mother has made a prima facie case that the notice provisions contained in the Children’s Law Reform Act do not apply as the threats to the mother and children’s personal safety were sufficient grounds for her to move the children without notice to the father and without a court order. While the court does not condone self-help remedies, the circumstances of this case are extraordinary.
[35] My sole focus is what is in the best interests of these children. I see no reason why the children should be removed from their mother’s care. The only change in circumstances since the order of Justice Corthorn, as amended by the Original Minutes and the Variation Minutes, is that the mother moved from Ottawa to Smith Falls based on alleged threats from the father and unknown third parties towards her personal safety. I find that the father’s parenting time has not changed since March 2020 despite the mother moving to Smith Falls. Finally, I find that the mother had discussed with the father her intention to move prior to January 21, 2021. The father was aware of the mother intended to move out because of his conduct and the breaks and enters to her residence.
[36] I order that the children’s primary residence shall continue to be with the mother in Smith Falls and that they shall continue to attend school in Smith Falls.
Parenting schedule
[37] The mother has requested that the current parenting time schedule be changed so that the father have the children every second weekend and, in the alternative, that the mother have the children at least one weekend per month. The father opposes this request.
[38] The status quo since March 2020 is that the children spend every weekend with their father. The children now live in Smith Falls, attend school, and have many friends in that neighborhood. The mother has no weekend time with her own children. However, the issue of which parent will have the decision-making responsibility and the parenting time schedule will be issues to be discussed with the trial judge.
[39] Based on the evidence filed, I do not find that there has been a material change in circumstances to justify such a departure in the children’s normal parenting time with their father. I order that the father continue to have parenting time with his children from Friday at 6:00 pm to Sunday at 6:00 pm.
[40] The trial judge will determine, based on receiving the totality of the evidence filed by the parties, what parenting time schedule is in the best interest of the children. At this juncture of the litigation, I do not find it appropriate to make a change in the father’s parenting time schedule.
Mother’s request that the father returned the children if they are ill
[41] The mother requests that if the children are ill while in the father’s care, that he must deliver them back to her. Upon a review of the evidence, there have been historical issues regarding the children’s physical health. The mother raises the issue where the youngest child was hospitalized from February 2 to February 16, 2022, for a kidney infection and severe dehydration. The mother believes the father neglected and inadequately cared for the child to have a urinary track infection, which led to an infection of her kidney and that the father has not read the child’s hospital records. The father denies these allegations.
[42] The burden of proof is on the mother to provide evidence that if the children are ill and that the father is unable to care for them. I do not find that the mother has met her burden of proof and deny this claim for relief.
Location for the exchange of the children
[43] Since moving to Smith Falls in 2021, the exchange of the children has been at the father’s residence in Ottawa. The mother requests that the exchange be at the Supervised Access Program of FSO, the Rose Garden Family Support Center in Smith Falls, or at an agreed-upon public parking lot halfway between Ottawa and Smith Falls.
[44] After the motion, counsel confirmed that the services at FSO are only offered on Saturdays and Sundays from 9:30 am to 4:00 pm. As the father’s parenting time starts on Friday night at 6:00 pm until Sunday night at 6:00 pm, this option is not a viable one. Based on the allegations of domestic violence, I do not find it is appropriate that the parties meet at a public parking lot halfway between Ottawa and Smith Falls.
[45] Since moving to Smith Falls in 2021, the mother has done all the driving. Despite allegations that the mother is concerned about the father’s behaviour, at the beginning of this motion, she withdrew her claim for a restraining order. I find that she shall continue to drive the children to have their parenting time with their father. However, I recognize that the parties’ relationship is strained and for that reason, I order that when the mother, or her designated person, drops off or picks up the children, the father shall not approach the mother’s or designated persons’ vehicle. The children shall exit the vehicle and walk to the father. At the end of the parenting time, the father will deliver the children to the lobby of his residence and allow the children to walk to the mother’s or designated persons’ vehicle.
Our Family Wizard – communication application
[46] The mother seeks an order that the parties communicate through the Our Family Wizard application. The parties were unsure if the court had previously ruled on such communication. Subsequent to the motion, counsel provided the court with a copy of an endorsement by Justice MacKinnon at a case conference dated December 2, 2019, where she ordered the father to obtain the application “Two Houses” for both parents to be used for their communications. As there is an existing order in place, I see no need to change the method of communication.
[47] However, the father alleges that the mother ceased using Two Houses as their method of communication. I make no finding that either party ceased using the application for communication at this time. However, to avoid any confusion, I order the parties to use the application Two Houses for communications, which must be respectful and child focused. The parties are to respond within a reasonable period of time.
[48] The father alleges that the mother has not communicated any information to him about the children. Both parties have the right to be informed on all major issues regarding the children, such as education, medical and activities. As the primary parent, it is incumbent upon the mother to inform the father of any such issues in a timely manner. The father is entitled to make reasonable inquiries and to receive a response within a reasonable period of time. I order the mother to email the father regarding major issues on the children’s education, medical or activities.
[49] I order the parties to share the cost of the subscription for the Two Houses application.
Costs
In my view, the parties have had divided success. However, if the parties seek to make cost submissions, I order the mother to provide her cost submissions, not to exceed three pages, plus a detailed bill of costs and any offers to settle by November 2, 2022, and the father to provide his costs submissions not to exceed three pages plus a detailed bill of costs and any offers to settle by November 14, 2022.
Shelston J
Released: October 24, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: FC-18-2201
DATE: 2022/10/24
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Hannah Beth McIntyre
Applicant
-and-
Yohannis Tucker
Respondent
BEFORE: Shelston J.
ENDORSEMENT
Shelston J.
Released: October 24, 2022