NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-18-56811-00
DATE: 20221124
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
MS
Applicant
– AND –
KA
Respondent
D. Bourque
Self-represented
HEARD: November 21, 2022
AMENDED REASONS FOR DECISION
MacPherson J.
Relief Requested
[1] The Applicant brings a motion, at the commencement of trial, requesting an Order:
(a) declaring the Respondent in breach of the following Orders: i) paragraphs 1(b), 1 (d), 2 (b), and 3 (b), of my Order dated December 3, 2022; ii) paragraph 1 (c) of my Order dated February 16, 2022; iii) paragraph 8 of my Order dated February 28, 2022; iv) paragraph 6 of my Order dated October 22, 2022; v) paragraphs 1 and 2 of my Order dated February 22, 2022; vi) paragraphs 1 and 2 of my Order dated April 19, 2022; and vii) paragraph 6 (d) of the Order of Justice Himel dated April 14, 2022;
(b) an Order that the Respondent’s Answer be struck, that the Respondent’s trial affidavit be struck, and that the Respondent not be permitted to participate in any way in the trial proceeding uncontested; and
(c) an Order that, until the Respondent complies with all previous Orders with respect to costs, child support, section 7 expenses, and reunification therapy the Respondent is not permitted to bring any motions including Motions to Change.
Factual Background
[2] The Applicant was born in 1980.
[3] The Respondent was born in 1978.
[4] The parties met in or about September 2010 and started dating.
[5] The parties were never married.
[6] The parties never lived together.
[7] The relationship ended in or about November 2011.
[8] The parties each have one child, MA-S born in 2012.
[9] The Applicant resides in Toronto.
[10] The Respondent resides in Richmond Hill.
[11] In November 2021 I heard a nine-day trial. In that trial I finalized all issues outstanding save and except for parenting time. On December 3, 2021 I made the following final Orders:
a) Pursuant to the CLRA, the Applicant shall have exclusive authority over major decision-making for MA-S in the areas of religion, health, school, and extra curricular activities.
b) The Applicant shall immediately arrange for reunification therapy to occur between the Applicant, Respondent and MA-S. The Applicant shall pay the full cost of the reunification therapy, which is a section 7 expense, and the Respondent shall contribute to her proportionate share of the cost as is set out below. The Applicant shall provide a copy of this decision to the reunification therapist.
c) The Respondent shall obtain counselling to understand the value of MA-S having a relationship with the Applicant. The Respondent shall provide a copy of this decision to her counsellor;
d) MA-S shall reside with the Applicant primarily, subject to the Respondent’s parenting time.
e) The Applicant and the Respondent are entitled to request and receive information about MA-S’s well-being including obtaining information directly from health and education service providers.
f) The Respondent shall not disparage the Applicant in any way in front of MA-S nor shall she permit anyone else to speak to MA-S about the Applicant in a disparaging way.
g) Commencing December 1, 2021 and on the first of every month thereafter, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $222 in monthly child support for MA-S based on her 2020 income of $26,978.
h) Section 7 expenses for MA-S shall be shared by the parties proportionately in accordance with their incomes. The Applicant shall pay 80% of section 7 expenses ($105,170) and the Respondent shall pay 20% of section 7 expenses ($26,978).
[12] In my decision of December 3, 2021, I also made the following temporary Orders:
a) From the release of this decision, until December 24, 2021, there shall be no face-to-face contact between MA-S and the Respondent. During this period, MA-S shall have Facetime (or other suitable and agreeable electronic App) with the Respondent, supervised by the Applicant, on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays at 6:00 p.m. for no longer than one hour.
b) From December 24, 2021 until there is a further court order, face-to-face parenting time shall be at the discretion of the Applicant in consultation with the reunification therapist.
c) The parties shall return to court on April 14, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. for a Trial Management Conference before Justice Himel on the sole issue of the Respondent’s parenting time. The reunification therapist is requested to attend. If the parties are able to agree on parenting time between the Respondent and MA-S, a final Order can be made. If the parties are not able to agree on parenting time between the Respondent and MA-S, the issue will proceed to a continuation of the trial on that issue alone, before me, for 1 day, on May 16, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.
[13] The following excerpts were contained in my trial decision released December 3, 2021:
[34] This case is troubling.
[35] MA-S, just shy of 10 years old, has never experienced an overnight with the Applicant, independent of the Respondent. For the past two and a half years, MA-S has missed out on the opportunity to have any sort of meaningful relationship with the Applicant and the paternal side of her family.
[36] From the beginning, the Respondent has imposed restrictions on the Applicant’s parenting time.
[86] In her interim report, the clinician from the Office of the Child’s Lawyer, Ms. Gardner expressed concerns about the ‘marginalization’ of the Applicant in MA-S’s life and strongly encouraged the Respondent to seek out assistance to allow her to understand the value of MA-S having a relationship with both parents as well as extended family members.
[87] In her interim report Ms. Gardner reports MA-S as saying:
“There is nothing good about her father”;
“She is sad that her father did not want a family and did not want her.”;
“Her mother told her that her father did not want a family.”;
“Everyone in her family loved her except her father, who she calls ‘Daddy M’; and
“MA-S states that her mother does not like her father.”
[88] In her interim report Ms. Gardner noted:
“There is urgency for a therapeutic intervention in this matter to address the break in child-parent contact. The therapist would need to have the skills to address the many facets of the situation, as well as the skills to implement an access strategy such as: Understanding Child-parent contact problems, factors contributing to and sustaining parent-child contact problems, and continuum of child-parent problems and impact of loss of parent relationship.”
“It is important for each party to commit to the therapeutic process as there is concern about participation given nothing has moved forward to date. Therapeutic access should be a priority for Mr. S and Ms. A and they should not delay attending meetings or sessions.”
[89] In her interim report Ms. Gardner noted:
“It is alarming when a child articulates that it is her choice whether or not to see a parent.”
[90] In terms of recommendations the interim report states:
“It is recommended that Ms. A attend individual therapy/coaching to assist her in developing a healthier, disengaged/parallel, co-parenting relationship with Mr. S.”
“It is recommended that Mr. S. engage in therapy/coaching to assist him in developing a healthier, disengaged, co-parenting relationship with Ms. A.”
[91] Ms. Gardner recommended therapeutic reunification intervention and recommended one of three therapists: Diana Polak, Ricardo Theoduloz or Joanna Seidel.
[92] In her final report dated September 24, 2020, Ms. Gardner noted that MA-S had no contact with the Applicant. Therapeutic reunification therapy never commenced because the Respondent stated she did not have the financial means and the Applicant was not able to cover the cost independently.
[93] In her final report, Ms. Gardner also states:
“There remains an urgency for a therapeutic intervention for all family members to address the parent-child rejection. It is concerning that the therapeutic recommendations made by the OCL in the previous report have not been followed. The delay and the passage of time are obstacles in ameliorating the resist-refuse dynamic. MA-S’s attitudes are becoming increasingly entrenched as they remain unaddressed over time with no contact with Mr. S. The unjustified parent-child contact problems will require various combinations of all family member’s participation in an intervention. The clinical intervention may need to encourage Ms. A to support a relationship between MA-S and Mr. S while at the same time requiring Mr. S to change behaviours.”
[94] In terms of recommendations, Ms. Gardner made four broad recommendations:
(a) that MA-S remain in the sole custody (now decision-making) and primary care of the Respondent;
(b) that access (now parenting time) between the Applicant and MA-S occur every Sunday with further contact as recommended by the therapist;
(c) that communication between the parties occur by Our Family Wizard; and
(d) that both parties engage in a therapeutic reunification process to address the resist-refuse dynamics in the new family. It was recommended that each party attend individual therapy/coaching and that MA-S obtain counselling (as recommended by the CAS in 2020).
[95] When asked if she had concerns regarding alienation, Ms. Gardner stated that the Respondent’s actions lead her to conclude that the Applicant is being marginalized. She further testified that many of Dr. Fidler’s behaviours indicative of parental alienation were present in both the actions of the child and the actions of the Respondent.
[96] In terms of an alienating parent’s behaviours, I concluded from the evidence, and Ms. Gardner agreed, that the Respondent engaged in the following behaviours on Dr. Fidler’s list of behaviours indicative of parental alienation:
(a) permitting MA-S to make decisions about contact with the Applicant;
(b) refusal to hear positive comments about the Applicant;
(c) refusing to speak directly to the Applicant;
(d) discouraging the Applicant from attending school events and activities;
(e) treating gifts from the Applicant to MA-S in a negative light;
(f) portrayal of the Applicant as dangerous; and
(g) observing that there were no photos of the Applicant on display in the Respondent’s home.
[97] In terms of an alienated child’s behaviours, I concluded from the evidence, and Ms. Gardner agreed, that MA-S’s behaviours, taken from Dr. Fidler’s list of behaviours indicative of an alienated child, include:
(a) MA-S views the Respondent as all good and the Applicant as all bad;
(b) MA-S has, to some degree, vilified the Applicant;
(c) MA-S’s justification of her hatred of the Applicant is trivial, false or irrational;
(d) MA-S talks openly to extended family members about the Applicant’s shortcomings;
(e) MA-S experiences no guilt or ambivalence over her treatment of the Applicant;
(f) MA-S has a stronger bond with the Respondent;
(g) MA-S has exhibited anger directed at the Applicant because he did not want her;
(h) some of MA-S’s stories lack detail; and
(i) MA-S has no desire for reconciliation.
Reunification Counselling
[98] In terms of counselling, the Respondent was uncooperative. The Applicant contacted Linda Popielarczyk in April 2019, as she was considered an expert in reunification therapy. When asked, the Respondent would not permit MA-S to participate in reunification therapy with Ms. Popielarczyk.
[99] In September 2019 the OCL interim report recommended reunification therapy and that the process commence by end of September 2019. Three therapists were recommended: Diana Polak, Ricardo Theoduloz and Joanna Seidel.
[100] The Applicant submitted an intake form for Diana Polak right away. The Applicant paid 1/3 of the retainer. The Applicant had his first appointment on October 22, 2019.
[101] The Applicant testified that the Respondent refused to pay her 1/3^rd^ share. As a result, the Applicant proposed to pay the full retainer and deduct the Respondent’s share from child support. The Respondent refused.
[103] On October 28, 2019 the Respondent’s counsel wrote:
“I am writing at this time to advise you that my client is currently unemployed and as a result, she is not able financially to contribute towards the cost of the reunification therapy at this time.”
[104] The September 24, 2020 OCL final report again recommended reunification therapy. Individual counselling was recommended for MA-S, the Applicant and the Respondent.
[105] On January 26, 2021 Justice Jarvis made an Order that the parties engage in reunification therapy with Ms. Lowenstein and Ms. Kavoukian. In terms of the cost, the Respondent was ordered to pay for her own individual therapy as well as 50% of the costs of any joint sessions. If the Respondent failed to pay her share, Justice Jarvis ordered that the cost be deducted from the child support payable and for the cost to be covered by the Applicant. The Applicant attended five individual sessions with Ms. Kavoukian. The Respondent attended two individual sessions. There were three joint sessions. In June 2021 the Respondent refused to attend further joint sessions stating that she was verbally abused by the Applicant so she cannot be in joint sessions with him. She also alleged that the closed therapy session agreement was breached when the progress was addressed in court. Therapy stopped.
[107] The Respondent testified that she would agree to reunification therapy but requested that it be closed therapy. The previous closed therapy reunification therapy, she states, was breached by the Applicant, the therapist and by both counsel.
[129] Based on all of the evidence, I conclude that the Respondent alienated MA-S from the Applicant by engaging in a process which unnecessarily limited, restricted, devalued, criticized and minimized the role of the Applicant in MA-S’s life. I further concluded that the Respondent had no insight into her alienating behaviours.
[140] I note that the Respondent is not an evil person. She is, to the contrary, a very engaging and likeable individual. The Respondent loves MA-S and would do anything for her. However, the Respondent has been unable to separate her feelings of anger and rejection by the Applicant from MA-S’s entitlement to have a relationship with the Applicant. The Respondent, currently, has no insight into how her actions have negatively impacted MA-S and the relationship MA-S has with the Applicant. In 2019 the OCL ‘strongly recommended’ the Applicant seek out assistance to understand the value of MA-S having a relationship with the Applicant. She has not done so. The Court is hopeful that through counselling and the reunification therapeutic process that the Respondent will begin to gain an understanding of her role in the alienation process. I believe that she can and I believe that she will. However, that is to be determined. For these reasons, however, I am not finalizing the Respondent’s parenting time today. I am making an Order for reunification and will finalize the Respondent’s parenting time 6 months hence.
Orders and Updates Since Dec 3, 2021
[14] On February 16, 2022 I varied my temporary parenting Order permitting the Respondent to have:
a) supervised video parenting with MA-S once per week with supervision to occur by Renew Supervision Services; and
b) in person parenting with MA-S once per week for two hours with supervision to occur by Renew Supervision Services.
[15] On February 16, 2022 MA-S snuck away from school during recess and called the Respondent. The Respondent went to collect MA-S from the stranger’s home rather than contacting the Applicant.
[16] On February 27, 2022, following the first supervised visit, the Respondent left the restaurant where the supervised visit was taking place with MA-S and refused to return her. The Respondent put MA-S in her car and left with her.
[17] On February 28, 2022 I made an Order, following an urgent motion:
a) That the Respondent immediately return MA-S to the care of the Applicant;
b) that police enforce the Order; and
c) suspending all parenting time.
[18] When the police enforced the Order, MA-S said she would self-harm if she was removed from the care of the Respondent. Consequently, the police brought MA-S to Southlake Hospital. MA-S remained in hospital until she was discharged to the care of the Applicant on March 1, 2022. On discharge the Respondent was present in the lobby of the hospital resulting in yet another altercation requiring police assistance.
[19] On March 7, 2022 MA-S snuck out of the home at 3:30 a.m. and went to a stranger’s home just down the street from the Applicant. The Applicant has alarms on the front door and he heard her leave and went after her. Despite living 30 minutes away, the Respondent was present when the Applicant located MA-S. The Applicant called the police who managed to remove MA-S from the Respondent.
[20] On March 7, 2022 I made an ex parte Order restraining the Respondent from communicating directly or indirectly with MA-S and restrained the Respondent from attending within 500 metres of the school, the Applicant’s home or any location where MA-S was. The motion was brought without notice and the matter returned before on March 16, 2022 following service.
[21] On March 8, 2022 I dismissed an urgent motion brought by the Respondent to have MA-S reside with her.
[22] On March 16, 2022 the ex parte restraining Order returned before me. I granted the request for a restraining Order and all parenting time was suspended.
[23] On April 14, 2022 Justice Himel made an Order that included:
a) varying the restraining order to permit cards to be sent from the Respondent to MA-S as long as they were first vetted by the reunification counsellor, Mr. Cross; and
b) ordering the Respondent to engage in counselling with a new counsellor whose expertise was children who resist contact with a parent.
[24] On July 5, 2022 the counsellor for the Respondent, Ms. Dolson, attended court and was given, for the first time, according to the endorsement, my December 3, 2021 ruling. It is noteworthy that the Respondent was ordered to provide the decision to the counsellor in December 2021 and she failed to do so. Ms. Dolson advised the court that she had not understood her role based on the information provided by the Respondent. The counsellor’s expertise is still unknown. The Respondent states that she had 14 sessions with Ms. Dolson although in her affidavit she states that in October 2022 Ms. Dolson became ill and was unable to provide therapy.
[25] On September 27, 2022 Justice Himel made an Order organizing the trial of this matter. Included in the Order, the counsellor, Ms. Dolson, was to provide an affidavit of the Respondent’s progress in counselling. Today the Respondent stated that she decided not to call Ms. Dolson as a witness. The Court was not provided with Ms. Dolson’s qualifications. Ms. Dolson is not currently providing counselling.
[26] On August 2, 2022 the Respondent called the police and stated MA-S was at risk of self-harm. There was no foundation for the call.
[27] On August 8, 2022 the Respondent wrote to the reunification therapist, Mr. Cross, who she had last seen in April 2022. The Respondent withdrew her consent to permit Mr. Cross to speak with her or her counsellor and she indicated she would no longer be working with him.
[28] In terms of parenting Orders, the Respondent has breached them consistently and continuously since the trial.
[29] It is noteworthy that, in addition to the above breaches of Orders, the Respondent has not paid any of the outstanding cost Orders and is deficient in her section 7 expenses.
[30] Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules states:
Failure to Obey Order
(8) If a person fails to obey an order in a case or a related case, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including,
(a) an order for costs;
(b) an order dismissing a claim;
(c) an order striking out any application, answer, notice of motion, motion to change, response to motion to change, financial statement, affidavit, or any other document filed by a party;
(d) an order that all or part of a document that was required to be provided but was not, may not be used in the case;
(e) if the failure to obey was by a party, an order that the party is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise;
(f) an order postponing the trial or any other step in the case; and
(g) on motion, a contempt order.
[31] “Family Court proceedings are intended to be a means by which aggrieved parties can have their disputes arising after separation adjudicated upon by the court in a just, efficient and timely manner. Unfortunately, they all too often become a destructive tool which one party wields and manipulates in order to create further financial and emotional hardship for the other party. The frequency with which Family Law litigation degenerates into an abusive game of delay tactics, stonewalling, and dodging of judicial authority is a concern which must remain at the forefront of the judge’s mind in considering remedies for a party’s failure to participate as required in court proceedings or to comply with court orders. Family Law litigants who come to the court for assistance must come with a strong sense of assurance that the process will be an effective means of mending and stabling the family fabric, rather than a futile money pit of failed justice. The Court has a critical responsibility and role to play in ensuring that proceedings which are intended to protect families and lead to resolution of pressing and emotionally divisive issues are not hijacked by a party and transformed into a process for further victimizing the other party and the children in their care.”[^1]
[32] The Court of Appeal held that on a motion to strike in a family case due to non-compliance with a court order, the court must consider whether the default is wilful and whether an order to strike is the only appropriate remedy.[^2]
[33] The following framework and considerations apply when assessing whether a party’s pleadings should be struck for failure to comply with Court Orders:
a) Was there a triggering event of non-compliance with a court order that would allow it to consider the wording of sub-rule 1(8);
b) If there is a triggering event, is it appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying party by not sanctioning that party under sub-rule 1 (8);
c) In the event the court determines it will not exercise wide discretion in favour of the non-complying party, it is then left with very broad discretion as to the appropriate remedy under sub-rule 1 (8).[^3]
[34] In my ruling of December 3, 2021, I heard nine days of evidence. While there was sufficient evidence from both parties to make final parenting Orders, the court recognized that placing MA-S in the care of the Applicant, a person with whom she never even had an overnight, would likely be difficult for MA-S and the Court was desirous that MA-S have some sort of contact with the Respondent.
[35] The Court was hopeful that, following the release of the decision and the reasons set out, the Respondent would, as ordered, engage in counselling to gain insight into her role in the alienation process. Further, the Court was hopeful, that with all parties engaging in reunification therapy, as ordered, the Respondent would gain insight into her role in the alienation process. The court thought she would engage and thought she would gain insight. That did not happen.
[36] Rather, the Respondent continuously and consistently breached the court Orders that were designed to give her an opportunity to gain insight and become a positive parent in MA-S’ life. The Respondent:
(a) disengaged from reunification therapy despite the court Order;
(b) did not provide any evidence that she was engaged in counselling with a counsellor whose expertise is children who resist contact with a parent despite the court Order;
(c) breached the Order that all contact be supervised; and
(d) refused to return MA-S, as court ordered, requiring police enforcement.
[37] I am satisfied there has been significant non-compliance with many court Orders, as set out above, and that the Respondent’s non-compliance was willful and consistent.
[38] In cases that involve parenting Orders, and particularly, like here, following a nine-day trial where the well-being and best interests of MA-S were at the forefront, compliance is essential.
[39] I am mindful that striking pleadings in parenting cases is a measure of last resort and should be exercised with caution. However, the Respondent actively participated in the parenting trial that lasted nine days. The Court has sufficient evidence upon which to make a parenting Order in MA-S’s best interest and is, perhaps, in an even better position now then it was in December 2021 given the lack of compliance with reunification and counselling.
[40] I will not put the Applicant through the time and expense of a further parenting trial when the Respondent is in flagrant breach of those court Orders specifically designed to give her an opportunity to demonstrate insight and a change in trajectory as it relates to parenting. I will, however, permit the Respondent to make submissions.
[41] I am satisfied that the most appropriate remedies here are:
(a) to strike the Respondent’s Answer and her trial affidavit sworn November 7, 2022; and
(b) to put in place conditions precedent for any Motion to Change to ensure that while the Respondent’s participation in these proceedings is limited, she does not have an unfettered ability to make the same requests in another proceeding.
Parenting Time
[42] What parenting Order is in MA-S’s best interests?
[43] The Applicant requests an Order that parenting time be at his discretion.
[44] The Respondent requests a step-up parenting regime in 1 – 1 ½ monthly increments leading, ultimately, to unsupervised overnights on weekends.
[45] In December 2021 the Court faced a dilemma in respect of parenting time. The question, unknown at the time, was whether the Respondent would follow the court Orders of counselling and reunification therapy to assist MA-S’s transition to the Applicant’s home and where the Respondent could, ultimately, exercise parenting time free of alienating behaviours and support of MA-S living with the Applicant. The Court now has the answer. Rather than supporting MA-S in the transition, the Respondent attempted, on many occasions, to sabotage the transition to MA-S’s detriment.
[46] The evidence presented to the Court is that MA-S has transitioned into the care of the Applicant, and she is doing well. The transition was not without its challenges. The Respondent, having gained no insight into her alienating behaviours and having withdrawn from reunification therapy, exacerbated the challenges. It is not in MA-S’s best interests to have a step-up parenting plan as requested by the Respondent. Indeed, her request is an illustration of her lack of insight.
[47] As stated, the Respondent has a lengthy history of non-compliance with court Orders.
[48] Supervised parenting time with a supervising agency was tried and failed miserably. On the very first supervised visit, the Respondent left with MA-S and refused to return her. This resulted in police enforcement and MA-S being hospitalized.
[49] In submissions the Respondent confirmed, unequivocally, her refusal to consider returning to reunification therapy with Mr. Cross. It is noteworthy that, in submissions, the Respondent stated that she should have made different decisions. When pressed, the Respondent was unable to articulate which decisions she should have made differently other than acknowledging that on March 7, 2022 she should not have gone to pick MA-S up.
[50] The parties have been in litigation for four years. Litigation is a time consuming and expensive proposition. A lengthy trial focused primarily on parenting issues has occurred. Following the trial the Respondent was provided a road map to gain insight and to modify her alienating behaviour. The Court cannot, after a lengthy trial and active case management, continue to provide the Respondent with opportunities that she does not embrace. A final resolution is required.
[51] The only remaining realistic option available to the court is to entrust the Applicant with the discretion to decide parenting time and, in particular, the discretion as to frequency, duration, location and supervision. I believe that the Applicant will appropriately discharge that responsibility focusing entirely on MA-S’s best interests.
[52] The Applicant requests an Order that the Respondent be precluded from contacting MA-S’s service providers. The court is not prepared to make this Order on the evidence submitted. The evidence required to remove the Respondent’s statutory right to information from service providers should, at the very least, be received directly from the service providers and not by way of broad stroke hearsay.
Final Order
- The Court makes a declaration that the Respondent is in breach of the following Orders:
(a) paragraphs 1 (d), 2 (b), and 3 (b), of my Order dated December 3, 2021;
(b) paragraph 1 (c) of my Order dated February 16, 2022;
(c) paragraph 8 of my Order dated February 28, 2022;
(d) paragraph 6 of my Order dated October 22, 2021;
(e) paragraphs 1 and 2 of my Order dated February 22, 2022;
(f) paragraphs 1 and 2 of my Order dated April 19, 2022; and
(g) paragraph 6 (d) of the Order of Justice Himel dated April 14, 2022.
The Respondent’s Answer is struck and the Respondent’s affidavit sworn
November 7, 2022October 28, 2022 is struck.The Respondent’s participation in this trial is limited to making submissions on parenting time on the evidence filed.
The Respondent is not permitted to bring a Motion to Change before the Court without:
(a) leave obtained from the Court following a motion served on the Applicant;
(b) payment of all outstanding cost Orders, and
(c) evidence from a counsellor whose expertise is children who resist contact with a parent that the Respondent has engaged in extensive therapy and has insight into her role of alienation.
The Respondent’s parenting time with MA-S is in the sole discretion of the Applicant in respect of frequency, if any; duration; place; and supervision.
The Restraining Order made on March 16, 2022 and modified on May 2, 2022 shall continue in effect, subject to any parenting time determined by the Applicant in the exercise of his discretion.
If the parties cannot agree on the issue of costs regarding this trial, I shall consider the request for costs. The Applicant shall serve on the Respondent and file electronically, through the Trial Coordinator, written submissions, limited to five pages, exclusive of the Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle within 20 days of the date of this decision. The Respondent shall serve on the Applicant and file electronically, through the Trial Coordinator, written submissions, limited to five pages exclusive of the Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle within 10 days thereafter. There shall be no right of Reply.
Justice G.A. MacPherson
Date: November 24, 2022
[^1]: Levely v. Levely, 2013 ONSC 1026 (S.C.J.) at p. 12 [^2]: Kovachis v. Kovashis, 2013 ONCA 663 at para 33 [^3]: Oliver v. Oliver, 2020 ONSC 2321, paragraph 37