COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-388

DATE: 2022/11/24

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Eric Sauvé, Applicant

AND

Ibomny Cespedes Soto, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice Marc R. Labrosse

COUNSEL: Eric Sauvé, Self-Represented

Eve Theriault, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: October 26, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

Overview

[1] There are two motions before the court.

[2] The respondent, Ibomny Cespedes-Soto, moves for the following relief:

a. To strike the applicant’s pleadings due to noncompliance with para. 2 in Justice Bergeron’s Order dated June 22, 2022

b. An order that commencing August 1, 2022, and on the first date of each month thereafter, the applicant shall pay interim child support to the respondent for the four children in the amount of $2,261 per month based on his income for 2021 of $98,586 pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175;

c. An order providing that the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home located at 368 Quarry Pond Court shall be held in trust with the lawyer acting on the real estate transaction until further order of the court.

[3] The applicant, Eric Sauvé, moves for the following relief:

a. An order re-establishing the applicant’s parenting time to take place every Friday at 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 4:00 p.m.;

b. An order that the applicant will be responsible for transporting the children for parenting time, and that the exchange shall take place in the parking lot at 257 Rideau Street in the City of Kingston;

c. An order that the respondent allow the child Eric to contact the applicant during the week to plan the activities for the upcoming weekend to ensure that the children have adequate clothing during parenting time with the applicant.

[4] At the hearing of the motions, counsel for Office of Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) attended with a social worker who is assisting to determine the wishes of the children. At this point, the interview process with the children is not complete and there are concerns about the children being influenced. The children’s lawyer offered to provide some preliminary views to the court however, this offer was declined by the court in order to allow the children’s lawyer to fully complete the interview process before setting out any partial view which could lead to the children being influenced. As such, the OCL did not make submissions on the subject matter of these motions.

Background

[5] The parties began their relationship in 2009. The respondent is originally from Cuba and the parties met when the applicant traveled to Cuba. They were married on February 14, 2010 in Cuba.

[6] The parties have four children: Eric (born on June 9, 2010), Kevin (born October 23, 2012), Alex (born June 4, 2014) and Jason (born on October 7, 2016).

[7] Shortly after the marriage, the parties moved to Canada and the applicant sponsored the respondent to become a permanent resident of Canada as his spouse. She continues to be a permanent resident to this day.

[8] The parties initially resided in Quebec and moved to Kingston in August 2019 as the applicant was working as a correctional officer with Correctional Services of Canada and was transferred to work at the Millhaven Institution. The applicant purchased the matrimonial home located at 368 Quarry Pond Court, in Kingston and registered it in his name alone. The parties resided in this home as a family unit until their separation.

[9] The parties separated on September 1, 2021. On that date the respondent left the home with the children and went to reside at Interval House. She was able to find suitable housing for herself and the children in Kingston. Since the separation, the applicant has continued to reside in the matrimonial home but it is currently listed for sale.

[10] In October 2021, the applicant commenced Family Court proceedings seeking, amongst other things, sole decision-making for the children, principal residence, parenting time and the sale of the matrimonial home.

[11] On February 22, 2022, Justice Waters heard a long motion by videoconference. The applicant had a motion seeking the involvement of the OCL and seeking an order for shared parenting on a 50-50 basis with the respondent. The respondent also served a notice of motion seeking various relief which included the appointment of the OCL and a temporary without prejudice order that the children be placed in the respondent’s primary care. The respondent was also seeking an order returning the child Eric to the primary care the respondent.

[12] On February 24, 2022, Justice Waters provided reasons for granting the respondent’s request that she have primary care of all four children and that the applicant’s parenting time be supervised at the Kingston Salvation Army Supervised Parenting Center, once per week. Justice Waters’ decision has not been appealed.

[13] Following Justice Waters’ decision, the applicant returned the child Eric to the mother’s care. Supervised parenting time commenced in April 2022 and has continued since that time with a few disputes, including Eric’s opposition at times with his mother and his refusal to attend school and take care of his hygiene.

[14] In June 2022, the respondent brought a contempt motion due to the applicant’s noncompliance with several orders, specifically as they pertain to financial disclosure. On June 22, 2022, Justice Bergeron made a further temporary order for disclosure of much of the same items as ordered by Justice Trousdale in April 2022.

[15] On August 16, 2022, Justice Desormeaux made an order for $150,000 from the sale of the matrimonial home be held in trust by the real estate agent until this motion was heard. In the meantime, the matrimonial home has yet to sell and as such there are no funds in trust. Also, it is unclear if there is an actual order for the sale of the matrimonial home or if the applicant has simply voluntarily listed it for sale. Regardless, it is the court’s understanding that the applicant consents to the sale of the matrimonial home.

[16] In the lead up to this motion, the matter came before me on September 12, 2022, and a timetable was set for the filing of the remaining affidavits and factum. On October 17, 2022, the applicant served his reply affidavit for his parenting time motion and also served a new motion, with a lengthy affidavit. In that new motion, the applicant seeks sole decision-making for the children, parenting time every second weekend for the respondent and a sharing of vacation time. The applicant also seeks a police enforcement clause and that this court strike the cost award from the February 22, 2022 motion before Justice Waters and that no cost be imposed against him as a result of the present motion. Clearly, much of this relief is not available nor is it reasonable.

[17] At the commencement of this motion the respondent objected to the filing of the new motion for decision-making as this was contrary to the August 16, 2022, endorsement of Justice Desormeau who allowed the applicant to present a cross-motion for parenting time. The applicant agreed that he was not proceeding with the motion for sole decision-making and that he would limit his argument to the cross-motion for parenting time.

[18] Turning to the issues for these motions, the parties have filed affidavits and have also relied on previous affidavits filed on previous dates. This makes it very challenging for the court to properly grasp and find the evidence that is most relevant to these motions. Such a practice is discouraged.

Issue #1: Striking the Applicant’s Pleading

[19] The respondent’s Notice of Motion claims that the following items of disclosure are outstanding:

a. An appraisal of the fair market value of the matrimonial home on September 1, 2021 completed by a qualified appraiser;

b. An appraisal of the Freedom Express RV and the Dodge Ram 1500 as of the date of separation, completed by an appraiser with experience appraising such vehicles;

c. Documentary proof off all assets and liabilities as at the date of separation. In this regard, the respondent claims that the applicant has not provided the following:

i. Documents to be relied upon at trial for the value of the family computer; ii. Documents to establish the family gift provided on the date of marriage;

iii. Evidence of the judgment obtained in Quebec, the date funds were received and where they were deposited including a bank statement for the deposit.

[20] The first issue surrounding the applicant’s failure to provide disclosure ordered by Justice Trousdale and then Justice Bergeron, is that the applicant has failed to properly respond to the motion by providing evidence of his compliance or his attempts to do so. For example, the appraisal for the matrimonial home was not included in the applicant’s responding affidavit to the motion but was attached to his Financial Statement dated July 12, 2022. While the respondent should have been aware of the attachments to that document, the proper way to respond to the motion to strike is to include the appraisal as an exhibit to the responding affidavit.

Notwithstanding, this disclosure has been provided.

[21] Also, the applicant has contended that he is unable to obtain appraisals for the RV and the RAM truck then relies on hearsay statements that are not corroborated. This is not a proper response to the ordered disclosure and the hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

[22] As for the documents filed for the RV and the RAM truck, neither of those documents are responsive to Justice Bergeron’s order for disclosure. The appraisal for the RV is an online document which is not authored by a qualified appraiser with experience appraising such vehicles. There is no indication if the values are set out in Canadian or US dollars and it is not evidence that would be admissible at trial. Furthermore, it does not set the value as of the date of separation.

[23] As for the appraisal of the RAM truck, it is also inadmissible. The author of the appraisal is not properly identified and there is no way to determine who that person is if they were to be called as a witness at the trial. There is no indication as to that person’s duties within the automobile dealership where he purports to work, and it does not indicate if he has experience appraising such vehicles. Finally, it does not set the value of the truck at the date of separation.

[24] Consequently, the applicant is in default of his disclosure obligations under para. 2(b) of Justice Bergeron’s June 22, 2022 order.

[25] In terms of the documentation relating to the value of the home computer, the $5,000 gift at the date of marriage, and the litigation proceeds from the action in Québec, the respondent acknowledged that he had not provided proper documentation relating to those items and indicated that he would do so. This shall be done in 45 days from the date of this Endorsement.

[26] When considering the option to strike the applicant’s pleading, the nature of these defaults does not warrant such a step. The applicant has made minimal efforts to provide some of the required documentation however those efforts are insufficient. It is accepted that pleadings are to be struck as a last resort. Here, the are other steps that the court can take to ensure compliance. For example, the court may decide to order the applicant to pay funds to the respondent to allow her to arrange to value these assets. Also, the court may strike the deductions claimed from the

$5,000 family gift or the judgment in Quebec from the applicant’s net family property statement if he fails to properly disclose those deductions. And finally, the court may prevent the applicant from taking any further steps in this litigation until he complies with the outstanding disclosure.

These are options available to the court short of striking his entire pleadings.

[27] I will continue to case manage the disclosure issues and the consequences for noncompliance will escalate.

Issue #2: Increase in child support

[28] On November 30, 2021, Justice Waters ordered that the applicant pay child support in the amount of $1,745 per month to the respondent. This was the table amount pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines for three children based on the applicant’s 2020 income of $88,789. At that time, the applicant was only paying for three children because Eric was in his care.

[29] As of February 24, 2022, all four children have resided with the respondent. This is clearly a material change in circumstance. In addition, the applicant has now provided is 2021 income which is $98,586.

[30] As part of his materials filed on this motion, the applicant has provided documentation that he is on leave without pay from his employment as a corrections officer as a result of his refusal to disclose his vaccination status. He indicated at the motion that there are grievances pending but no evidence was provided. There is clearly an issue to determine if the refusal to provide vaccination status is adequate reason for the applicant to be unemployed and unable to pay child support. However, there is no motion before the court to reduce the amount of child support determined by Justice Waters in November 2021. As such I need not resolve the issue. The only motion before me is to update the amount of child support for the four children and the applicant’s 2021 income.

[31] I conclude that it is proper to adjust the child support on a without prejudice basis to August 1, 2022 as requested by the respondent. Commencing on that date, the applicant will pay monthly child support in the amount of $2,251.00 per month based on his 2021 annual income of $98,586 as requested in the respondent’s notice of motion.

Issue #3: Proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home

[32] The respondent’s request is for the entire amount of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home to be paid in trust with the lawyer who is retained to close the transaction.

[33] The applicant has advanced the position that his marriage to the respondent is not a valid legal marriage and that it was only a religious ceremony. On the evidence filed on this motion, I am unable to agree. Furthermore, the applicant has pleaded that the parties were married without making a distinction between a civil or religious wedding ceremony. At this point, there is no merit to the applicant’s contention that the respondent need not consent to the sale of the matrimonial home. To the contrary, the provisions of s. 21 of the Family Law Act must be complied with until the court orders otherwise. The respondent’s consent to the sale of the matrimonial home is required.

[34] Neither party could provide a rationale for the previous order that $150,000 be paid into trust with the real estate agent. It seems that this amount was arrived at on consent and then referred to this motion by Justice Desormeau for determination.

[35] The amount to be kept in trust must be principled if not agreed to by the parties. At this motion, the parties did not agree.

[36] In the meantime, the applicant will provide written notice within seven days of the date of this Endorsement to the respondent’s lawyer of the name of the lawyer who will be retained to close the sale of the matrimonial home to confirm that this lawyer is aware of the obligation to hold the funds in trust.

[37] Consequently, I conclude that the entire proceeds of the sale the matrimonial home shall be paid into trust with the lawyer who acts for the applicant on the sale the matrimonial home. Once this is done, the parties may seek a return of this motion with proper evidence for the court to make a principled determination of the amount that should be held in trust. It is also open to them to agree and file an order on consent.

Issue #4: Applicant’s Parenting Time

[38] By order dated February 24, 2022, Justice Waters determined the applicant’s parenting time as being the maximum amount of time available at the Kingston Salvation Army Supervised Parenting Center, once per week commencing immediately.

[39] The applicant now seeks to change that for his parenting time to be every Friday from 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 4:00 p.m. with the applicant being responsible for transportation. He also seeks for exchanges to take place at parking area 257 Rideau Street in the City of Kingston.

[40] Before a court will vary an interim parenting order, the court must satisfy itself that there has been a change in the circumstance of the children since the making of the order as set out by s. 17(5) of the Divorce Act. One such threshold as being passed, the only consideration in making a parenting order is the best interest of the children pursuant to s. 16(1) of the Divorce Act.

[41] Section 16(2) of the Divorce Act directs the court to give primary consideration the children’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. Section 16(3) provides a list of factors to be considered in the best interest analysis.

[42] It has long been recognized by our courts that supervised parenting time is not a long-term solution. It is usually meant to address a specific concern such as the potential for non-compliance, violence, the potential for removal of the jurisdiction or to allow a parent to address issues such as lack of housing which may prevent parenting time from taking place.

Change in the circumstances of the children

[43] In the present case Justice Waters provided her analysis of the reasoning behind ordering that the applicant have supervised parenting time. In large part those reasons are that she had concerns that the applicant would not respect the terms of the temporary order, that there had been a history of family violence and that the applicant had been choosing to undermine the respondent’s parental authority.

[44] Since the date of that decision, there are relevant facts that the court must consider. Particularly, that the applicant is spending time online gaming with Eric when he should otherwise be in school. This allegation was made in the respondent’s affidavit and the applicant did not respond to it. As such the court is concerned that the applicant continues to undermine the respondent’s parental authority as the primary care parent.

[45] Also relevant is the fact that the respondent does not have transportation and that immediately following Justice Waters decision, the respondent allowed the applicant to be responsible for transporting Alex to his medical appointments. The applicant estimates that he did so 23 times and that he spent over 60 hours with Alex, unsupervised. In addition, the respondent has allowed Eric to spend time with the applicant virtually and in person, again unsupervised. She has allowed Eric to attend overnight visits at the applicant’s residence on at least two occasions.

While the respondent contends that the children’s behavior has been affected after spending time with the applicant, she has continued to allow parenting time between Eric and the applicant as recently as this past weekend.

[46] It is apparent to the court that the mother is having challenges parenting alone and as a result allowing the parenting time between the applicant and Eric may well be to appease Eric. The court is not criticizing the respondent for doing so and for utilizing the applicant as support for Alex’s medical appointments. In addition, the applicant reports that he has been permitted to attend the respondent’s residence and play in the front yard with the children in proximity to the respondent.

[47] While these exceptions to supervised parenting time are likely well-intentioned by the respondent and it may be appropriate to continue, they are undoubtedly inconsistent with the continued need for supervised parenting time.

[48] I have also reviewed the supervised parenting time notes and assessed the quality of the parenting time between the applicant and the children. Overall, that parenting time has been positive and I conclude that the children enjoy spending time with their father after initially being reluctant to do so.

[49] The respondent has pointed out that despite the rules of the supervised access center, the applicant has been unable to refrain from making negative comments about the respondent during his visits. The respondent pointed out three instances where the applicant has been directed to stop speaking negatively of the respondent. However, in the overall review of the supervised parenting time notes, those instances have been the exception. I conclude that overall, the applicant’s parenting time with the children has been child focussed and that he has maintained the ability to separate his relationship with the children from the matrimonial dispute.

[50] This is contrasted with the applicant’s behavior during this motion where he was warned by the court to focus on his relationship with the children and avoid focusing on is allegations of parental alienation and kidnapping. The applicant maintains this position despite the fact that there is a proper court order which determines that the children are in the primary care of the respondent.

[51] During this motion, the applicant was unable to refrain from such outbursts directed towards the respondent and demonstrated an inability to control his emotional response to the parenting situation. The court recognizes that this is not an easy thing to do for a parent who is self-represented and involved in contentious litigation. However, this has raised concerns for the court in assessing whether there has been a change in circumstance since the date of Justice Waters order.

[52] After considering the totality of the evidence before me, I conclude that there has been a change in the circumstances of the children. The reasons behind Justice Waters order for ongoing supervised parenting time are no longer the same. The applicant has reconnected with the other three children. He has demonstrated an ability to respect the court order and return the children after he has been allowed to spend time with them. In addition, the applicant has demonstrated the ability to have child focussed parenting time with the children, albeit during supervision.

Best Interest

[53] This conclusion leads the Court to consider the children’s physical emotional and psychological safety security and well-being and the other factors involved in assessing the best interest of the children.

[54] My consideration of the best interest of the children is limited to what I am prepared to consider in terms of expanded parenting time for the applicant. Specifically, I am not prepared to entertain expanded parenting time as sought by the applicant which would include overnight parenting time. My consideration of the best interests of the children is to either maintain the status quo with supervised parenting time at the supervised access centre or to allow limited unsupervised daytime parenting time to evaluate the applicant’s ability to ensure that the parenting time continues to be child-focussed and that the children are sheltered from the applicant’s negative feelings towards the respondent and the matrimonial dispute.

Needs of the children

[55] The evidence before the court suggests that the respondent is meeting the needs of the children and that they are doing well in her care. The applicant spent a long period of time away from three of the four children to the extent that at the start of supervised parenting time, there was indication that Kevin may not have recognized him and that this was in part due to the applicant having grown a beard. The applicant’s absence from the lives of three of the four children was a factor in Justice Waters’ decision.

[56] However, the respondent has made it evident that she needs support from the applicant to facilitate Alex’s treatments for leukemia. Also, she has allowed for parenting time outside of the supervised access centre. These are all factors that point to the children having a need to have their father in their lives.

[57] In terms of Alex and Jordan, the attachment is evident from the supervised parenting time notes and they clearly enjoy their visits with their father.

[58] Also, the supervised parenting time notes have demonstrated the evolution of the applicant’s parenting time and it has progressed to the point that by July 2022, all four boys willingly attended parenting time. The supervised parenting time notes also suggest that the respondent was supportive of the applicant’s parenting time and encouraged Kevin to attend when he was reluctant.

Nature and Strength of the Children’s Relationship

[59] Both Jason and Alex appear to enjoy their time with the applicant as they run to him at the start of parenting time and are very affectionate. The applicant’s relationship with Eric is different and at times he resists the applicant’s attempts to get close to him. This appears to be because Eric is more aware of the parental conflict and is aware of the applicant’s inappropriate comments that he is brainwashed. With Eric, the applicant seems to want to make him feel guilty and this is clearly inappropriate.

[60] There is evidence that the applicant showed better patience with Kevin and gave him space to warm up to the applicant. By July 2022, it seemed that Kevin willingly attended the supervised parenting time. The applicant should show the same level of patience with Eric as he is much more aware of the matrimonial conflict.

[61] It is apparent to the court that the applicant does have a role to play in the children’s lives and that they would benefit from positive contacts with him. However, the court is of the view that the applicant’s negative views of the respondent are always present and there is concern that he will be unable to resist the temptation to criticize her in the presence of the children. It is on this last point that the court continues to be concerned given the applicant’s apparent inability and unwillingness to move forward within the matrimonial litigation and avoid making references to the respondent having kidnapped the children, that she brainwashes them and that she is alienating them. These comments only do more harm that good to the applicant’s case.

Support for the relationship of the other parent

[62] The respondent has demonstrated a willingness to support the children’s relationship with the applicant. She has encouraged Kevin to attend supervised parenting time even though Kevin was clearly agitated and did not want to go. She has also allowed the applicant to attend at her residence, despite his attitude towards her, and allowed the children to see their father.

[63] As for the applicant, he shows no support for the respondent, continues to attack her with allegations of kidnapping and alienation when the record simply does not support it. However, no clear finding can be made on alienation at this point.

[64] As stated by Justice Waters, the applicant continues to prioritize his interest to fuel the conflict as opposed to the interest of the children in being sheltered from the matrimonial dispute.

History of care

[65] Once again, the analysis does not turn on the respondent’s relationship with the children. The court views her relationship with the children and the history of care as positive based on the record. She has allowed the applicant to remain in the children’s lives despite the current order limited to supervised parenting time. These are not the actions of an alienating parent.

[66] As for the applicant, he should be afforded an opportunity to re-build the relationship with his children and possibly participate in their care, to the extent that he is able to do so without undermining the respondent’s current role as the primary caregiver. This is particularly the case as the OCL investigation is ongoing to allow his time with the children to be assessed in a more natural setting.

[67] This criteria favours the applicant in being able to spend time with the children away from the supervised access centre provided that he will shelter the children from the matrimonial dispute and his personal feelings for the respondent.

Views and Preference

[68] The OCL has not yet provided its position to the parties. This process must be allowed to continue. As previously stated, it would be beneficial if the applicant could participate in the OCL investigation in a more natural setting, away from the supervised access centre.

[69] The court appreciates the respondent’s view that the OCL investigation should be completed before changes are made. However, there are challenges to doing such an assessment and not being able to evaluate the applicant outside of supervised setting. This should be avoided where possible.

Ability to Communicate and Cooperate

[70] This is where the applicant has shown no ability to communicate and cooperate with the respondent in the interests of the children. Any reference to the respondent is made with such aggression and disdain that this could be the factor that may prevent the applicant from spending significant parenting time with the children.

[71] However, there is some indicia that this may not always be the case. While the respondent has identified that she associates her problems with Eric with the applicant, the same cannot be said for Alex. There is no evidence that the applicant’s significant time spent with Alex has translated to challenges for the respondent to parent him. This suggests that Alex may be more sheltered from the conflict than Eric is.

[72] This criteria will have to be reviewed as changes to parenting time are contemplated by the court.

Summary on Best Interests

[73] I conclude that the circumstances that existed when Justice Waters ordered supervised parenting time are different. The applicant has now re-connected with Kevin, Alex and Jordan and he seems to be re-integrated into their lives through his supervised parenting time.

[74] In addition, he has shown the ability to respect the court order that the respondent is the primary caregiver given his frequent contacts with Alex and Eric since February 24, 2022. He seems to respect the terms of the additional parenting time that the respondent has allowed him to have.

[75] In terms of the applicant’s behaviour, he has maintained child-focussed parenting time but for a few exceptions. This was easier when all his communications were supervised. It remains to be seen how the applicant will behave if he is given additional parenting time. To date, the respondent’s challenges are with Eric and the applicant could clearly do more to support the respondent. The supervised parenting time notes do make reference to times when the applicant has asked Eric if he is going to school.

[76] Also, as previously stated, there is no indication that the applicant has involved Alex in the parental conflict. This may be due to the fact that Alex is younger. It is essential that the applicant shelter the children from the parental conflict. This will likely be the key to the applicant seeing an expansion of his parenting time.

[77] I conclude that the supervised parenting time at the Salvation Army Parenting Centre should continue so that the applicant’s behaviour with the children can be assessed through the supervised parenting time notes. In addition, the applicant will have two additional hours per week of unsupervised parenting time and the parties will re-attend before me in mid-January to assess how things are progressing. The court will then determine if any further changes are warranted leading into the winter and the holiday season.

[78] I am unable to determine the specifics of the unsupervised parenting time on the record before me. Should it be in the community, in a public park, in a shopping centre or at the applicant’s residence? I am not aware of the available facilities and possible transportation issues. I would hope that the parties can agree and submit an order on consent. If they cannot do so within 7 days of this Endorsement, they will re-appear before me virtually at a 9am time with motion confirmation forms and I will adjudicate on how the unsupervised parenting time will transpire.

Conclusion

[79] As for the relief sought in the respondent’s Notice of Motion, I conclude that:

a. The applicant continues to be in breach of the production orders in that he has not provided proper valuations for the RV and the RAM truck. This shall be done within 45 days;

b. Child support will be adjusted to $2,261.00 per month as of August 1, 2022 for the four children based on the applicant’s 2021 income of $98,586.00; and

c. The full amount of the proceeds of sale will be held in trust by the Applicant’s real estate lawyer pending further adjudication by the court. The applicant will notify his real estate lawyer within 7 days of this requirement and provide proof of same to the respondent’s counsel.

[80] As for the applicant’s cross-motion for increased unsupervised parenting time, the applicant’s parenting time shall increase with two additional hours of unsupervised parenting time per week. The details of how and when that parenting time will take place will be agreed to by the parties failing which the parties will reattend before me and I will further adjudicate that issue.

[81] The applicant’s parenting time motion is further adjourned to mid-January 2023 at which time the court will re-assess if further changes should be made to the applicant’s parenting time.

Costs

[82] The parties are encouraged to agree on costs or leave them in the cause as there has clearly been some divided success. If not, both parties may make written submissions on costs within 30 days of this endorsement and each party will have 10 days to respond to the submissions of the other party. Each submission to be a maximum of three pages, excluding attachments.

JUSTICE MARC R. LABROSSE

Date: November 24, 2022

COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-388

DATE: 2022/11/24

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: Eric Sauvé, Applicant

AND

Ibomny Cespedes Soto, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice Marc R. Labrosse

COUNSEL: Eric Sauve, Self Representing

Eve Theriault, Counsel for the Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

Labrosse J.

Released: November 24, 2022