COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-337-1 DATE: 2023/04/26

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

H.C. Applicant – and – J.S. Respondent

Counsel: Peter Hearty, for the Applicant Ralph Lee, for the Respondent

HEARD: January 31, 2023

REASONS ON MOTION RE BREACH OF PARENTING ORDER

SOMJI J.

[1] The parties have a six year old child J.C. who resides in Ontario with the Respondent father. The Applicant mother resides in Nova Scotia. The mother has been frustrated by her inability to have regular virtual and in-person parenting time with the child over the past two years. She seeks a determination that the father has failed to comply with the parenting order and for the court to order two weeks of specified unsupervised parenting time in Nova Scotia this summer. The mother also seeks the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) to conduct an investigation concerning the child.

[2] The father does not oppose the mother having in-person parenting time but argues that the visits should be short and take place only in Ontario. The father does not have the financial means to pay for the child’s travel to Nova Scotia. The father states that he was unable to provide virtual access for several months because he lacked internet and that he has since facilitated calls.

[3] The issues to be decided are:

1. Has the father breached the parenting order to trigger a remedy under r. 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, O.Reg. 114/99 as am, (“FLR”) and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?
2. Should there be an order for the appointment of the OCL?

Evidence

[4] In arriving at my decision, I have relied on the following materials filed by the parties:

1. Notice of Motion dated January 23, 2023.
2. The mother’s affidavits dated January 23 and 26, 2023.
3. Affidavit of paternal grandmother K.C. dated January 26, 2023.
4. Factum of the mother dated January 26, 2023.
5. The father’s affidavit dated January 24, 2023.

Overview

Issue 1: Has the father breached the parenting order, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?

[5] On April 13, 2021, the Honourable Justice James Wilson of the Family Court for the Province of Nova Scotia issued a parenting order that provides the mother with virtual and in-person parenting time (“Parenting Order”). The Honourable Justice Engelking recognized the Parenting Order in Ontario and enforceable as such on July 29, 2022.

[6] The Parenting Order provides for the mother to have virtual parenting time weekly on Sundays at 7 pm. The mother is to initiate the call and the father is to accept the call. If it is impossible for the child to attend the call and it is missed, then the father is to initiate a call to the mother on the following Wednesday at 7 pm and the mother is to accept the call. The mother alleges these virtual visits have not been respected.

[7] Consequently, the mother brought a Motion to Change (“MTC”) filed September 1, 2022, to change the terms of the Parenting Order. She seeks that the child be relocated to live primarily with her in Nova Scotia and for her to have decision-making responsibility. That MTC is proceeding through the courts.

[8] In the interim, the mother seeks a determination pursuant to Rule 1(8) FLR that the father has failed to comply with the Parenting Order, and a remedy for a temporary, without prejudice, order to allow her unsupervised parenting time with the child. This relief was originally sought on an urgent basis on September 26, 2022. On October 7, 2022, Shelston J ordered the matter to proceed to an urgent case conference to see if the parenting time issues could be resolved on a temporary basis. The issues were not resolved, and on December 16, 2022, Shelston J granted the mother leave to bring an urgent motion for immediate enforcement of the Parenting Order.

[9] Rule 1(8) FLR authorizes the court to issue various remedies for a person’s failure to obey a court order. While the listed remedies are largely procedural, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in Bouchard v Sgovia, 2021 ONCA 709 that the rule provides the court with broad discretion to make orders it considers necessary to address a party’s failure to comply with a court order, particularly where the orders address the well-being of children: at para 51. This includes temporary orders that reassign parenting rights: Bouchard at para 54; see also Antunes v Antunes, 2022 ONSC 6450.

[10] An application for a remedy under r. 1(8) does not require a contempt motion. A party seeking enforcement of an order under r. 1(8) may, but need not, bring a contempt motion: Bouchard at para 60. In addition, while the mother has brought a parallel MTC to change the terms of the Parenting Order, she is not required to do so. As stated by the Court in Bouchard at para 56:

“where one parent wrongfully withholds a child from the other, in violation of a court order, r. 1(8) provides quick access to a remedy, including, for example, make up time with the child. The parent entitled to court-ordered time with the child should not be compelled to bring a motion to change the existing order:”

[11] In order to find there has been non-compliance with a court order and issue a remedy pursuant to r. 1(8), the court must undertake a three part inquiry as follows:

a. The court must ask whether there is 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 the triggering event exists, the court should then ask whether it is appropriate 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 its discretion in favour of the non-complying party, it is then left with the very broad discretion as to the appropriate remedy under sub-rule 1(8): Oliver v Oliver, 2020 ONSC 2321 at paragraph 37.

A. Triggering event of non-compliance

[12] I am satisfied that there was a triggering event of non-compliance in this case.

[13] Following the Parenting Order of April 13, 2021, the mother attests that she called J.C. every Sunday evening. She claims that between November 2021 and July 2022, the father neither answered these calls nor arranged a call back on Wednesday as required.

[14] In addition, the father commonly expressed displeasure with the mother’s attempts to communicate with her child. The mother attached the following messages as examples of the father’s responses to her in regards to contact with the child:

November 20, 2021: “you can take me court piss off. Not doing this shit no more. I don’t give to fucks about you or our court shovel it in your ass…Fuck that I am done. Take me to court fuck you.”

December 4, 2021: In response to the mother’s request to visit the child in Ottawa on December 20, 2021, the father stated: “Nope. Take me to court.”

December 13, 2022: When the mother sent the father a tracking number for a Christmas present she sent to J.C., the father replied: “Leave me alone or I will get a restraining order. Piss off.”

[15] The father claims that these responses are taken out of context and were made as a result of the mother threatening to take him to court. The father does not provide any additional text messages preceding or following that would corroborate his claim.

[16] The mother brought an application to obtain recognition of the Parenting Order in Ontario in March 2022. The matter proceeded initially before Justice MacEachern on July 14, 2022, at which time the father requested to file a late Answer. Justice MacEachern granted the adjournment, but noted that the father would be expected to use all of his parental authority to ensure that the mother had contact with the child, and “if he fails to do so, this would reflect negatively on his parenting ability”: Endorsement Justice MacEachern July 14, 2022.

[17] According to the mother, it was only after this proceeding that the father resumed virtual parenting time. However, his compliance was short-lived and by August 25, 2022, the father breached the Parenting Order again. Calls were missed on August 21, 28, September 4, 7, 11, 18, 21, and 25, and October 3, 2022. The mother filed call logs indicating “no answer” following her calls to corroborate her claims.

[18] Furthermore, while the mother was able to have calls in early August 2022, she reports the father’s behaviour disrupted her ability to meaningfully communicate with J.C. On August 7, 2022, the father was repeatedly distracting the child by tickling him during their nine minute call. On August 14, 2022, the mother attests that her eight minute call was largely spent trying to get J.C. to come out from under the bed.

[19] As a result of the father’s on-going non-compliance, the mother re-initiated litigation and the father was served with the MTC motion on September 2, 2022, as well as this urgent motion for interim relief on September 26, 2022. Since then, the father has permitted one video call in January 2023 which the mother states he also interrupted.

[20] Furthermore, at the motion hearing, the mother explained that following a January 2023 visit with the child in Ontario, she purchased a tablet for J.C. so she could communicate with him directly, but the father failed to set it up. The father indicated there was an issue with the charger. However, he agreed that the issue could be fixed. I asked that confirmation be given to me by end of day February 3, 2023. I subsequently received a notice from counsel with a screen shot that the device was set up and the child could now communicate directly with his mother.

[21] Although the issue of ultimate credibility should be left for trial, in this case the MTC, it may still be necessary on interim motions to make find some findings to determine the issues: Wiafe v Afoakwa-Yeboah, 2021 ONCJ 68 at para 167.

[22] The father’s explanation for the missed calls is that he did not have any internet access for a period. If that was the case, he does not explain why he did not inform the mother of his predicament, suggest an alternate arrangement such as a telephone call rather than an internet based call via Skype, or arrange for virtual parenting time to take place at locations where there is free Wi-Fi such as at libraries or community centers. The mother points out the father participated in some court proceedings virtually suggesting an ability to access the internet.

[23] I find the language of the Parenting Order could not be more explicit as to the date and times for the mother’s weekly virtual parenting time and the procedure for the calls. I find the father’s explanations regarding lack of internet access, even if were believed, does not constitute an adequate justification for the extensive number of missed virtual calls. I find the missed calls from August 21 to October 3, 2022, trigger non-compliance of the Parenting Order.

[24] In addition, the mother claims the father has breached the Parenting Order by failing to facilitate in-person parenting time. The Parenting Order states that the mother would have in-person parenting time with 15 days notice and the visits would be supervised by Family Services Ottawa (“FSO”) or by anyone else agreeable to the parties. To date, the father has not agreed to a suitable third party supervisor or filled out the intake forms with FSO to facilitate a supervised visit at the centre. The FSO website indicates a six month waiting list to access their services and the time does not commence until intake forms are filled out by both parents.

[25] The mother did not see J.C. for a 2 ½ year period between August 25, 2020, and January 13, 2023.

[26] In January 2023, the mother negotiated with the father to see J.C. in Ottawa. She travelled to Ontario with her mother and her other son A.C. The father brought the child to Funhaven for a family visit and the following day, the father permitted an overnight visit where J.C. was able to enjoy time with his mother and her extended family.

[27] The father states that he cannot be held responsible for the mother’s lack of in-person parenting time. He claims the mother did not come in 2021 because she was dealing with her mental health issues. He was also told by FSO that they would not facilitate visits during COVID and that there were long waiting lists. He posits that his support for in-person parenting time is demonstrated by one, his text to the mother on December 8, 2022, indicating round trip tickets were $100 and two, that he recently accommodated a three day visit to Ontario in January 2023.

[28] I find the father’s conduct contributed to the delays in the mother being able to have an in-person visit with J.C. in accordance with the terms of the Parenting Order. Even if the father did send a text message on December 8, 2022, indicating plane fares were $100 and the mother could come see J.C. in Ontario, this text is sent 18 months after the Parenting Order was issued and does not justify the father’s failure to take steps to facilitate in-person parenting time such as filling out the FSO intake forms or approving a third party supervisor so that the mother could make arrangements to see J.C. earlier.

B. Whether discretion should be exercised in favor of non-complying party?

[29] Having found a triggering event exists, I must now consider whether it is appropriate to exercise my discretion in favour of the non-complying party, the father, by not sanctioning him under sub-rule 1(8). The onus is on the non-compliant party to show, on a balance of probabilities, why r. 1(8) should not apply: Oliver at para 39. Upon consideration of the evidence filed to date, I find the father has engaged in wilful non-compliance. I decline to exercise my discretion in favour of the father for the following reasons.

[30] First, J.C. is seven years old and the repeated missed virtual calls with his mother over protracted periods of time has the potential of causing serious emotional and psychological harm.

[31] Second, the August to October 2022 missed calls was not the first time the father failed to comply. The mother has had to institute legal proceedings multiple times to get the father to comply with the Parenting Order, and it is only upon court intervention, that the father appears to cooperate and then only for short periods. The father’s obstruction of the mother’s parenting time was noted as far back as April 2021 when in the transcript leading up to the Parenting Order, Justice Wilson comments on the frustration of the father’s handling of the mother’s parenting time and the father’s challenges with communicating in a rational manner: J.S. v H.C., Transcript of Custody Order, Justice James Wilson, April 13 2021, Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, at page 2.

[32] Third, the father’s non-compliance is not limited to just virtual parenting time but includes failure to take the necessary steps to facilitate in-person parenting time.

[33] Fourth, the father’s adversarial and disrespectful text messages in response to the mother’s attempts to communicate with him about the child demonstrate his utter disregard for the terms of the Parenting Order.

[34] Finally, the father’s conduct in legal proceedings shows a tendency to engage in continuous delays that further contribute to the mother’s ability to resolve these issues in a timely manner and see her child. For example, the father was late in filing an Answer on the mother’s motion to have the Parenting Order recognized in Ontario. While Justice MacEachern granted the adjournment, she noted it was unclear what the father’s argument would be for not recognizing the order in Ontario. The father engaged in similar delays in his failure to respond to the Ottawa Trial Coordinator when the mother’s counsel was attempting to schedule the urgent motion in September and October 2022 and the father would not provide his availability.

C. Remedies for breach of a parenting order under r. 1(8)?

[35] Having found that the father’s conduct does not warrant the exercise of discretion in his favor, the next step is to determine an appropriate remedy for a breach of the Parenting Order. As already noted, this court has jurisdiction to order a remedy in the form of an interim order that modifies the current parenting schedule on a temporary basis: Bouchard at para 51. In determining any parenting order, including an interim order, the primary consideration is the best interests of the child.

[36] Sections 24(1), 24(2), and 24(3) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.12, as am., set out the factors to be considered as follows:

Best interests of the child

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. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

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. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

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 co-operate 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. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

[37] While I have considered all the best interest factors, I have focused below on the most pertinent factors that have informed my decision, not necessarily in the order that they are listed in the legislation, and sometimes collectively.

24(3)(d) the history of care of the child and 24(3)(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;

[38] The parents never lived together. From birth to April 2019, J.C. lived with his mother and four siblings who range in age from 11 to 15. On April 23, 2019, the Nova Scotia Child Protection Services (“Society”) apprehended the mother’s children including J.C. and placed them in Society care. On August 25, 2020, J.C. was placed with his father and this placement was confirmed in the Parenting Order of April 13, 2021. The father also has decision-making responsibility for the child.

[39] The mother’s situation has improved since 2019. While the Society was previously involved in the apprehension of the mother’s children, there is no indication that there are any present child protection concerns. In fact, in December 2022, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ordered that the mother’s child A.C. is to reside primarily with her and that she is responsible for all major decisions for him.

[40] The father makes reference to the mother’s past mental health issues but does not substantiate what the present day concerns are. The mother denies she has any mental health issues. The mother presently lives with the maternal grandmother, K.C., who provided an affidavit attesting that her daughter does not have a drug addition. Her daughter takes prescription medication to deal with pain following an accident. K.C. keeps the medication locked and provides it to her daughter in compliance with her prescription.

[41] There is evidence that the mother has previously cared for J.C. for a four-year period and is in a position to care for him again. I find this factor favours the mother.

24(3)(a) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

[42] J.C. is seven years of age and requires stability in care. The mother’s proposal to have specified parenting time for a two-week period in Nova Scotia during his summer vacation does not disrupt his schooling schedule. This factor favours the mother.

24(3)(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;

[43] I find there are concerns about how the disruption to J.C.’s life in 2019 has impacted him. At the tender age of four, J.C. went from living with his mother to not seeing her for 2 ½ years. Notwithstanding the gap in time where he did not see his mother, the evidence of the most recent visit in January 2023 as attested to in the mother’s affidavit indicates that J.C. experienced a very positive reunion with his mother and extended family. It is in J.C.’s best interest to continue to develop his relationship with his mother, his siblings, and his maternal extended family, most of whom live in Nova Scotia.

[44] Furthermore, it is too costly for the mother to have all her family members travel to Ontario. Even the most recent trip was financed largely by the maternal grandmother.

[45] The father has not provided any reasonable explanation for refusing J.C. to go to Nova Scotia other than cost. His reference to the mother’s past mental health issues are not borne out by any present day evidence. His fear that the mother will say negative things to J.C. about him is contested by the mother and maternal grandmother who reported in their affidavits that they do not speak ill of the father in front of J.C. K.C. reported that she has been present for all video calls and the recent Ontario visit between the mother and J.C. and reports that no negative comments were made towards the father.

[46] I find this factor favours the mother.

24(3)(c) each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent and 24(3)(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;

[47] There is no evidence that the mother does not support J.C.’s relationship with the father or that she would not abide by a temporary order.

[48] Notwithstanding the 2023 January visit, I find the father’s non-compliance with the Parenting Order to date suggests he is not supportive of J.C.’s relationship with the mother and has little respect for the terms of the current order. His text messages cited above suggest that he is not able to communicate and cooperate with the mother on matters affecting the child. Justice Wilson also referenced challenges in people’s ability to communicate with the father in his 2021 decision. The father has yet to fill out the FSO forms. I find the father’s lack of cooperation and communication challenges call out for a parenting order that stipulates specified parenting time for the mother and thereby minimizes the need for continuous negotiations.

24(3)(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

[49] The court has no information about J.C.’s views and preferences. For this and other reasons discussed below, I find it is critical to have the OCL involved in this case.

24(3)(j) family violence

[50] There is no evidence that J.C. is presently at risk of violence while in the mother’s care.

D. Conclusion re Remedy

[51] Upon consideration of all the best interest factors, I find that it is in J.C.’s best interest to have supervised specified in-person parenting time with the mother. This parenting time will commence with a summer visit by J.C. to Nova Scotia. Given the time it takes to travel to Nova Scotia and back to Ontario, the parenting time will be for two weeks if he travels by plane or up to three weeks if he travels by car or train. This will allow J.C. to have a full two weeks with his mother and extended family outside of travel time.

[52] The mother requests that the parenting time be unsupervised. However, I find this request should be decided as part of the MTC where there can be a full vetting of the issues. However, given the father’s lack of cooperation in approving a third-party supervisor, there will be a temporary, without prejudice order, that the parenting time will be supervised by an adult third party that need not be approved by the father. In short, the mother shall have another adult present for all parenting time, but that adult may be her mother or another adult friend or family member of her choosing. This condition should not impose too much of a burden on the mother given that she presently lives with the maternal grandmother.

[53] To be clear, this additional order for specified in-person parenting time constitutes a temporary modifications to the Parenting Order pursuant to r. 8(1) and does not vary the Parenting Order: Bouchard at para 54; Antunes at para 48.

[54] Finally, the mother seeks that the costs of J.C.’s travel be shared. The father argues he cannot afford travel costs, and points out he is not receiving any child support. Both parties are of limited financial means. The Parenting Order does not address travel costs, but Clause 9 does stipulate that “Supervision costs for in-person visits shall be paid for by the mother.” I find the issue of travel costs should be decided at the MTC where there can be a full vetting of the parties’ financial means and obligations. In the interim, the mother shall be responsible for all travel costs related to her parenting time.

Issue 2: Should there be an order for the appointment of the OCL?

[55] The mother seeks an order pursuant to ss. 89 and 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43, as am., for the involvement of the OCL. Based on the evidence filed to date, I find there are grounds for such an order.

[56] First, given the pending MTC, it is important that the court obtain some information directly from J.C. about his present views about the current parenting regime. As already noted, this was a situation where J.C. went from living with his mother for four years to not seeing her or his extended family for 2 ½ years. The court can benefit from some insight into how this family dynamic has emotionally impacted him and what the child’s views are.

[57] Second, there are concerns about J.C.’s psychological and emotional well being given his current school report cards. J.C.’s June 2022 report card indicates that in the 2021/2022 school year, he missed 23.5 days of school and was late 102 times which his teacher reported had a substantial impact on his social, emotional and academic learning. His November 2022 report card shows that for the 2022/2023 school year, he missed five days of school and was late 16 times in the fall months. The father provides no explanation for why there are challenges to having J.C. attend school or in a timely manner.

[58] More concerning, however, is J.C.’s lack of engagement. His June 2022 report card indicates he is a kind and caring child but can rarely complete tasks independently. His year end grade one report card shows him needing improvement with his behaviour, poor academic results, and concerns about inconsistent engagement. His November 2022 report card shows a further downturn in his behaviour and academic performance. It indicates that J.C. needs improvement in almost all learning skills and work habits and is progressing with difficulty in almost all subjects. J.C.’s teaches states the following about him in the November 2022 report card:

…He seems to have a varied attitude towards school and he joins in our lessons and discussions very sporadically. When in the classroom, he often needs prompts to focus on the lesson and participate fully in our discussions. Due to this lack of engagement, J.C. requires one on one support to complete almost all of his academic assignments….

….He often becomes very angry and it is not aways clear why. He often leaves the classroom and refuses to join the lesson or activity. When he is disregulated, this behaviour can sometimes be unsafe….

[59] These behavioural concerns are not discussed by the father in his affidavit. The father acknowledges at there are issues with J.C.’s attention span and explains that is why J.C. hid under the bed during one of the mother’s calls. The father does not explain what steps he has taken to address any of these behavioural issues home or at school.

[60] The mother tried to discuss J.C.’s behavioural issues at school with the father and suggested that J.C. obtain some therapy. The father’s response was “Leave J.C. out of you’re a BS ideologies. Kid is great in Gym an Drama.” The mother also attempted to make a request though the father’s counsel that J.C. attend for counselling but has never received a reply to this request. Father’s counsel indicated that J.C. is obtaining help or therapy in school, but no such evidence has been presented to the mother or the court.

[61] For all these reasons, I find the involvement of the OCL is warranted in this case.

[62] Finally, the parties will contact the trial coordinator to schedule a date before me in September 2023 for a case management conference to review the fulfillment of the parenting time obligations, determine the outcome of the OCL’s involvement, if any, in this matter, and address the status of the MTC proceeding.

Order

[63] Upon finding that the father has breached Justice Wilson’s Order of April 13, 2021 (“Parenting Order”), as recognized by the Order of Justice Engelking dated July 29, 2022, and pursuant to r. 1(8) FLR, there will be a temporary, without prejudice, Order as follows:

1. The mother shall have in-person supervised parenting time with the J.C. for two to three consecutive weeks in the summer of 2023 in Nova Scotia. a) The mother will inform the father by May 15, 2023, of the dates and form of travel and provide him with a copy of the travel itinerary at least one week before travel. b) The parenting time will be for two weeks if J.C. is travelling to Nova Scotia by plane or three weeks if J.C. is travelling to Nova Scotia by train or automobile. c) The father shall cooperate with all necessary steps to facilitate the child’s travel to and from Nova Scotia. d) Supervision of the mother’s parenting time may be by any adult third party of the mother’s choosing and need not be the same adult at all times.
2. The mother shall pay for J.C.’s travel costs to and from Nova Scotia.
3. While J.C. is in Nova Scotia during the mother’s parenting time, the father will have, at minimum, two weekly virtual calls at times as agreed upon by the parties.
4. All remaining conditions of the Parenting Order continue to apply.
5. Pursuant to sections 89 and 112 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer is appointed to conduct an investigation concerning the child.

Costs

[64] The mother is the successful party on this motion and presumptively entitled to costs. The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs. If the parties cannot resolve the issue of costs for this proceeding, they may file brief written submissions not exceeding two pages exclusive of Bills of Costs. The mother shall file her submissions by May 9, 2023. The father shall file his submissions by May 23rd and the mother will have until May 30th for a brief reply. Costs submissions are to be sent to scj.assistants@ontario.ca and to my attention.

Justice N. Somji

Released: April 26, 2023