COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-00000491-0000
DATE: 20231222
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
Jessica Ann Laundry Applicant
– and –
Alexander Glen Greystock-Wood
Respondent
Peter Robertson, for the Applicant
Self Represented
HEARD: May 19 and 23, 2023
REASONS FOR DECISION
Nicole Tellier J.
OVERVIEW
Nature of the Case and the Parties’ Positions
[1] This trial entails two issues, namely, the parenting plan for Marshall, born July 15, 2018, now age 5, and his father’s child support obligation, both retroactively and prospectively. This in turn requires an income determination, albeit without the benefit of full financial disclosure from the respondent payor (“Alexander” or “father”).
[2] The applicant (“Jessica” or “mother”) seeks a parenting order under the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (the “CLRA”) granting her sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, control over documentation, the right to travel without the father’s consent and certain rights in relation to relocation. She asks that father’s parenting time be supervised at the Supervised Access Service (“SAS”) in Belleville, or by some other agreed upon person, with terms and conditions before his parenting time is reinstated.
[3] Initially the mother sought to impute an annual income to the father of $38, 900 because he failed to reply to the Request to Admit which imputed income at that amount. At the conclusion of the hearing, the mother asked that the father's income be imputed at $31, 321 annually.
[4] Although present at Trial Scheduling Court, served with the Trial Record and aware of the trial dates, the father did not attend the trial. In his Answer, the father disputed many of the factual underpinnings for the mother’s claims, including that he was uninvolved as a parent. His denials were detailed. He sought joint decision-making responsibility and shared parenting. He sought a child support order in keeping with the Provincial Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg 391/97 (“CSG”).
[5] The Children's Lawyer was appointed and a clinician, Catherine Reid, was assigned. Ms. Reid’s Discontinued Report was completed and filed in early April 2023. Her report indicates she was unable to complete her assignment due to the father's lack of cooperation and because he had ceased participating in his supervised parenting time. Accordingly, the report does not contain recommendations but indicates that the OCL could be asked to provide an update of its investigation should the father resume his parenting time on a consistent basis.
Disposition Summary
[6] For reasons elaborated below, I find that it is Marshall’s best interests that his mother has sole decision-making responsibility, with the requirement that she keep the father informed of Marshall’s progress in terms of his health, education and general well-being. Further, Marshall shall continue to reside with his mother in Madoc. Terms relating to documents, travel and relocation are detailed below. The father shall continue to have supervised parenting time at the Supervised Access Service or by such persons as the parties may agree upon. The father’s continued need for supervision is reviewable, following his consistent exercise of his parenting time and any other terms the motion’s judge may impose. In that event, the OCL shall become reinvolved.
[7] The court declines to impute income to the father for the purposes of his prospective child support because the evidence is that he continues to struggle with substance misuse and has a long history of sporadic employment. He will be required to produce income disclosure annually and should his income reach a level that attracts a corresponding child support obligation, the mother may seek to vary this order by commencing a motion to change to secure child support at that time.
[8] Costs are awarded in the sum of $3800.
BACKGROUND
The Family Circumstances
[9] Jessica, now aged 28, lives in Madoc with Marshall. She remains in the home where the parties resided together, until they separated after four years of cohabitation in late 2020, although the actual month of separation is disputed. The parties have known each other since high school. Jessica’s sworn financial statement estimates that her home is worth $290,000 and she owes a private lender the sum of $193,700 in relation to that property, which she is repaying at a rate of $300 per month. She is self-employed, carrying on a business under the name of Love Wynx. This undescribed business appears to generate a monthly income of $250 or $3000 annually.
[10] Alexander, now aged 30, lived with his father in Bowmanville following separation. He started working for his father in his construction business. At the time of the trial, the business was closed. Also, at the time of trial, Alexander had not seen Marshall since July 2022.
[11] Jessica commenced these proceedings in December 2020. At the first case conference before Malcolm J. in June 2021, a temporary without prejudice consent order was made granting the father supervised access two times per week, on Saturdays and Tuesdays for one hour, at the SAS in Belleville. A temporary without prejudice child support order was also made for the payment of table support in the monthly sum of $346 based on an estimated annual income of $38,900. The parties were granted leave to conduct a questioning which neither of them did. This is regrettable given the many disputed facts and credibility issues raised by both parties. Neither party proceeded with the scheduled motion.
[12] A settlement conference was held on November 10, 2021. It was agreed that the parties would reattempt to get the Children’s Lawyer involved. The prior referral did not materialize because the father failed to complete the necessary forms on time. It was noted that the father was missing some of his parenting time without providing notice to the mother in advance. The SAS is quite some distance from where both parents reside. The child support order was continued to June 2022, at which time it was anticipated the father's 2021 NOA would be available for a child support determination based on actual evidence, rather than estimates. The parties agreed to a buy out of the father's interest in the family residence by the mother. The court directed both parties to take steps regarding specific disclosure.
[13] A combined settlement conference and trial scheduling court event took place on October 18, 2022. Neither party had pursued obtaining the disclosure the court had identified as being likely necessary, so there was insufficient information for the court to conduct a settlement conference or to provide any recommendations or opinions. For that reason, the court focused on getting the matter ready for trial and a Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form was completed jointly. Since I did not conduct a settlement conference where offers to settle were reviewed or provide any opinion, all agreed I was not disqualified from hearing the trial.
[14] The Trial Record consisted of two affidavits, including one sworn by Jessica on April 18, 2023 and one sworn by a former friend of the father, David Libby, sworn May 16, 2023. Jessica and David both adopted and augmented their written evidence with oral evidence at trial and were available for cross-examination, had the father attended and wished to do so.
[15] Catherine Reid, RSW, was the assigned clinical investigator with the Office of the Children's Lawyer. The court had the benefit of her Discontinued Report dated April 11, 2023. Ms. Reid also testified at trial but did not bring any documents with her, such as the SAS note or the police records. She explained those records were readily available to either party, upon written request to the OCL’s Records Department. Neither party made that disclosure request to the OCL.
ANALYSIS
Parenting
Decision-Making
[16] The law is clear that effective communication between parents is a pre-condition to granting a parenting order that provides for joint decision-making. The parties here have virtually no communication and there is a history of family violence. Therefore, it is in Marshall’s best interests that Jessica has sole decision-making authority. The father’s statutory right to receive information from the child’s service providers is confirmed in this ruling, coupled with the mother’s obligation regarding the sharing of information.
Alexander’s Parenting Time and the Best Interest Factors
[17] Section 24 of the CLRA directs the court to consider a variety of factors when crafting a parenting order that serves the child’s best interests. No single factor is given pre-eminence; the factors which figure more prominently or are given more weight in any given case depends on the unique factual matrix of each family. Here the uncontroverted evidence reveals the father’s challenges with substance misuse, mental health issues and anger, all of which adversely impact his parenting abilities and well-being of the child.
[18] Jessica’s evidence details Alexander’s long-term alcohol and cocaine misuse. In 2019 he was convicted of driving under the influence. Ms. Reid was able to verify through Ms. Summers, Alexander’s probation and parole officer, that his conditional discharge arising from fraud and theft charges in 2021, included a requirement that he attend counselling for substance misuse and participate in a psychiatric evaluation. According to the OCL Discontinued Report, a referral to Pinewood to address the alcohol misuse was not pursued. Nor was the psychiatric evaluation. Instead, Alexander sought the assistance of his family physician for a mental heath assessment and addiction counselling. Details about this were not in evidence.
[19] Alexander reported to Ms. Summer and his father reported to Ms. Reid that his family physician adjusted his medication and his mental health issues, which were described as depression and anxiety, had stabilized. Alexander refused to consent to the release of health information or records from his family physician so that the OCL clinician could verify the history of Alexander’s mental health and substance misuse problems as well as his current health status, for the purpose of making recommendations in relation to his parenting time with Marshall. Jessica did not seek production pursuant to Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules, O.G.114/99, (“FLR”) for this relevant health information.
[20] It was Jessica's evidence that Alexander has anger and aggression problems.
She believes that he may have past charges for animal abuse and stated that she witnessed him kicking the family dog in the face and throwing the dog in anger.
[21] Jessica’s affidavit describes that when she intervened in one instance of animal abuse, Alexander grabbed her by the throat and forced her into a seated position. This violent incident took place in front of their son. Her affidavit goes on to state that there were numerous instances when Alexander would get angry and become verbally or physically abusive towards her. She explained that he became violent when intoxicated and sometimes the violence was directed at family friends. Also troubling, was Jessica’s evidence that Alexander slapped Marshall when he gets frustrated with him, marking his legs and buttocks. She testified about an incident when he failed to supervise Marshal properly when she left him in is sole care.
[22] Jessica decided to leave the relationship after she inadvertently discovered Alexander’s phone search history, which revealed he had been looking for “dark web porn”, “dark web child porn” and “kid pussy”. This led to a police report and a file being opened in October 2021 by the Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society. The Society investigated the questionable online sexual activity. The investigation was deemed inconclusive, so their file was closed. Alexander denies the allegation that he viewed child pornography. No criminal charges were laid.
[23] Jessica's affidavit also reveals that she became aware, through her counsel, that Alexander had been charged with a sexual assault against his half-sister. The OCL’s Discontinued Report states that Alexander reported to Ms. Summers that he was facing sexual assault charges involving his sister. According to Alexander, his sister, who was 19 years old, had just been accepted into a police foundations program and he gave her a hug. Her boyfriend believed that he touched his sister's bottom inappropriately, a fight between the boyfriend and Alex ensued and the police became involved. Jessica believes that Alexander pled guilty to assault and his plea was entered in March of 2022.
[24] According to the OCL’s Discontinued Report, Alexander was to be supervised by Ms. Summers on the offence for which he was charged and the offence for which he was convicted. He was originally supposed to be supervised by Probation and Parole as a sex offender but in June 2022, Ms. Summers emailed Ms. Reid to advise that she had conducted a sexual risk assessment and concluded that Alexander was at low risk to reoffend. Therefore, he would not be supervised as a sex offender nor referred to the in-house sexual psychologist. Notably, Alexander was not forthcoming about his criminal history in his 35.1 affidavit in these proceedings.
[25] Given the history of family violence and other concerns, Malcolm J.'s temporary order dated June 23, 2021, provided that Alexander's parenting time would be supervised at the Belleville SAS. It was supposed to occur twice weekly on Thursdays and Saturdays. Alexander was not attending his parenting time regularly and ultimately cancelled his Thursday visits altogether. His Saturday visits were rescheduled purportedly to accommodate his work schedule but he continued to miss many of his visits even after this accommodation. More particularly, Alexander would frequently cancel his scheduled supervised parenting time on short notice or not show up at all.
[26] In Ms. Reid’s Discontinued Report, she analyzes the data provided from SAS and notes that from June 2021 to October 2021 Alexander attended 70% of his parenting time with Marshall. Of the cancelled visits, 2 were cancelled by the mother and 8 were cancelled by the father. There was one “no show”. From October 27, 2021 to May 3, 2022 50 parenting times were scheduled for the father with only 15 taking place. Of the 35 parenting times that were missed, 24 were cancelled by Alexander and 4 were cancelled by Jessica, including on Mother's Day.
[27] Alexander contacted the SAS for a Father's Day visit, which they agreed to facilitate but he did not show up or cancel the visit. He contacted the centre once again to have a visit for Marshall's birthday which was his last visit on July 17, 2022. He contacted the SAS on July 26, 2022 to arrange a visit on July 31st, but he cancelled the morning of the visit. Alexander has not seen his son Marshall since his birthday in July 2022.
[28] On page 9 of the OCL report, Ms. Reid describes her “impressions” of her virtual observation visit which took place on May 1, 2022 at the Belleville SAS as follows:
Mr. Greystock interacted well with Marshall who responded very well to him. Marshall was well engaged, smiling and happy throughout the visit. They appear to share a comfortable relationship, there was good energy, and he was polite and responsive to his father's direction. Mr. Greystock spoke in a gentle tone and overall, the visit was positive. Mr. Greystock was playful and there were many laughs and giggles together.
[29] Alexander’s decision to stop seeing his son is most regrettable, particularly in light of this evidence that when he did spend time with Marshall, it was positive. His lack of steady contact and commitment is one of the reasons the court’s final parenting order stipulates that his parenting time in the future must be supervised, as it was throughout these proceedings.
[30] The mother submits the longstanding concerns about the father’s largely untreated health issues warrant on-going supervision, on a final basis. The court concurs. Further, in light of the interruption of the parent-child relationship, a professional supervised setting will not only ensure Marshall’s safety, it will also maximize the chances for any possible parent-child reunification to be successful.
[31] The mother asks the court to impose conditions on the father before reinstating contact or parenting time, including demonstrated sobriety and attention to his mental health. I decline to make such an order. For Marshall’s sake, it is hoped that Alexander gains sufficient stability and insight to become motivated to reinstate his supervised parenting time. To do so he will have to contact the Supervised Access Centre, who will oversee the intake process. Additionally, the court is aware that access to addiction and mental heath services and resources are limited. The court declines to impose conditions that systemic barriers may make it impossible for the father to fulfill. If extra conditions or measures beyond supervision are required, those can be reviewed and determined by the court, at the material time, if necessary. This might well include the requirement that the father attend a parenting course, like Caring Dads, in addition to a mental health evaluation or course of treatment.
Child Support
Determination of Income
[32] Sections 16 to 20 of Provincial Child Support Guidelines direct the court on how to determine income for child support purposes and section 19 specifically provides a list of circumstances where the court may impute income, such as deliberate under-employment. Jessica initially sought an order that father’s annual income be imputed at $38,900 annually. This is the income Malcolm J. used to make a consent temporary without prejudice order, based on the father’s estimate of income in his May 2021 financial statement.
[33] An income of $38, 900 is the income figure set out in Jessica’s Request to Admit, which went unanswered. She originally submitted that on the basis of Rule 22(4) of the FLR, the court was mandated to accept it as fact and make an order for monthly table support in the sum of $346. But this level of income does not accord with Jessica’s evidence that Alexander had unstable employment throughout their union because of his various mental heath challenges. The court invited submissions on the question of whether the operation of the mandatory language in the rule is overridden, when the trial evidence does not support the deemed finding of fact.
[34] Notably, it was Jessica’s own evidence that contradicted the income admission she sought in her Request to Admit. She testified that Alexander had an unstable work history and only worked intermittently. She testified she could not rely on his income to support the family. The couple relied heavily on the support of the mother’s family, who advanced substantial sums of money to permit them to purchase a family home. Alexander was largely unemployed in 2020, as were many people due to the impact of the pandemic. According to what the father told the OCL clinician, he was working in his father’s construction business at the time of her investigation.
[35] In closing written submissions the court was asked to make a finding that father’s annual income is $30, 321. These submissions noted that the business continues and the contact information links to Alexander and his father but on the last day of trial, Jessica testified that she had gone online and saw that Alexander’s father’s website indicated that his business, located in Bowmanville, was closed. She did not know whether Alexander was still living with his father, since he stopped seeing their son in the summer of 2022.
[36] Although Jessica abandoned the argument that the higher income in the unanswered Request to Admit should prevail, it is instructive to site the law on point. In Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v F.M., 2021 ONCJ 184 at paragraphs 26-27 the court held:
The Request to Admit is only a litigation device that opens the evidentiary gate to allow entry to the fact that is either admitted or not denied. This is only entry to the pool of potentially admissible evidence however, the fact still has to pass other evidentiary tests to have evidentiary value. It must be relevant. It must be factual. It must be reliable. In this case, there is also the determination of against whom the fact is to be waived. However, those are matters for the trial judge to deal within his or her ultimate decision. From the standpoint of the ruling on admissibility, it is a very easy matter. Any fact on which any denial or refusal to admit is made, regardless of who made it, does not meet the requirement that leads to a deemed admission of the truth of the fact for any evidentiary purpose. The fact will have to be proven to be true by the party seeking its admission into evidence in some other manner, not by way of Request to Admit. [Emphasis added in the original]
[37] Likewise, in Jama v. Basdeo, 2020 ONSC 2922, where the respondent also failed to respond to the Request to Admit, the court concluded:
Whenever Ms. Jamas’ own evidence (which is not restricted to her testimony, but includes any evidence adduced by her counsel during trial) contradicts facts set out in Request to Admit, I have not deemed those facts to be admitted by Mr. Basdeo. In those instances, I have made factual determinations based on the totality of the relevant evidence.
The underlying principle in both these cases is well established beyond the context of the operation of this subrule; any finding of fact must be made on the totality of the evidence before the court at trial, including undefended trials.
[38] Child support is the right of the child and all parents have a duty to support their child to the best of their ability. The CSG include many provisions that direct the court’s analysis in arriving at a fair determination of income, including adjustments under Schedule III, averaging income over multiple years, and imputing income when a payor is under-employed or unemployed or has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so, to name a few. The court’s exercise of this broad discretion must be grounded in the totality of the evidence before it.
[39] The only financial statement sworn by the father was dated May 2021, wherein he indicated that he and his father had just recently started a construction business and he provided an estimate of income. According to his notices of assessment and reassessment, his historical income is as follows: in 2017 his income was $19,924; in 2018 his income was $9317; and in 2019 his income was $13,776.
[40] The father’s failure to provide adequate, current financial disclosure is an enumerated basis for imputing income under section 19(1)(f) of the CSG. But the father’s post-separation estimates of his income derived from a new business, now closed, must be considered along with the mother’s evidence that he always struggled to maintain employment and did not meaningfully contribute to the family's material needs. In the two years prior to separation his income was well below an amount that would attract a child support obligation.
[41] In Hutchinson v. Gretzinger, 2007 57089 (ON SC), [2007] 48 RFL 6th 167 (Ont. S.C.J), the court held that it is wrong in law, and contrary to public policy, that a parent be exempted from his or her child support obligations because of drug addiction. The court concluded a person acts “intentionally” within the meaning of section 19(1)(a) of the CSG, when they first begin using drugs. Drug use is characterized as voluntary conduct, that may be equated with self-induced under-employment or unemployment, within the meaning of that subsection.
[42] Since that case was decided some 16 years ago, our understanding of addiction has evolved. Addictions are now understood as mental heath disorders rather than voluntary or blameworthy conduct. The inclusion of substance use disorders in the DSM- 5, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders[^1], supports this approach.
[43] In Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, [2011] SCR 134, the Supreme Court was called upon to determine, among other issues, whether the Minister of Health’s decision to discontinue the exemption of Insite, a Vancouver safe injection facility, from the application of criminal drug laws violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[^2]. In concluding that a failure to continue the exemption was an unjustifiable violation of section 7 of the Charter, the court considered and accepted the trial judge’s findings of fact that addiction is a disease, in which the central feature is impaired control over the use of the addictive substance. It recognized that many intravenous drug users have histories of physical and sexual abuse as children, family histories of drug abuse, early exposure to serious drug use and mental illness. The Court recognized that persons with addictions form a vulnerable, marginalized population.
[44] Within this social context framework, the court must reject an analysis based on voluntary or blameworthy conduct on the part of the support payor who suffers from substance misuse, and then characterize this conduct as deliberate under-employment, within the meaning of the Child Support Guidelines. Rather the court must determine the degree to which the support payor’s addiction impedes earning capacity, on a case by case basis.
[45] While it is true that Alexander admits to his own struggles with substance misuse and has declined to pursue all recommended referrals for treatment, I am not prepared to impute income to him on the basis that he is free from any health impediments that impair his ability to work steadily and therefore ought to be earning minimum wage for a full working week, or some similar income. There is no evidence before the court that he has ever been able to do this on any consistent basis; the evidence is to the contrary. Based on the foregoing, the court declines to impute any income to Alexander at this time.
Retroactive and Prospective Child Support
[46] Jessica seeks arears in the sum of $3114.00 based on unpaid support of $346 for 9 months. That is the amount payable on an annual income of $39, 800. That order was made on a temporary without prejudice basis which means that it could be adjusted retroactively upward or downward, once full income information is known.
[47] While I have concluded that Alexander’s current income, if any, is insufficient to trigger a prospective child support obligation, I am not prepared to rescind arrears arising from the operative temporary order for two reasons. First, Alexander took no steps to provide the court with fresh, more accurate income. Second, he received a lump sum payment of $45, 000 from Jessica as consideration for an inter-spousal property transfer and his waiver of his interest in their family residence. These arrears shall be repaid at a rate of $250 per month, commencing January 1, 2024.
[48] Based on the court’s finding and analysis set out above, there is no ongoing obligation for table support, at this time. This is without prejudice to Jessica’s right to seek a variation by commencing a Motion to Change should there be fresh evidence regarding Alexander’s income or employability or employment. She shall be entitled to seek retroactive support back to June 2023, the first full month following the date of trial, if supported by that fresh evidence. Alexander shall provide financial disclosure annually in accordance with section 24.1 of the Provincial Child Support Guidelines.
Costs
[49] In the spirit of Rule 2 the court directed that cost submissions be made at the conclusion of the trial. A Bill of Costs was not submitted. In support of her request for costs in the sum of $6, 258.42, Jessica submitted four invoices between April 2021 and May 2023, for total fees in the sum of $8808.18, all incurred prior to the trial.
General Principles
[50] As set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Mattina v. Mattina 2018 ONCA 867 at paragraph 10, modern family costs rules are aimed at fostering four fundamental purposes, namely: to partially indemnify successful litigants; to encourage settlement; to discourage and sanction inappropriate behavior by litigants; and to ensure cases are dealt with justly.
Rule 24(1): Success
[51] The cost analysis begins with a consideration of the outcome. Pursuant to Rule 24(1) of FLRs the successful party is entitled to costs of a motion, enforcement, case or appeal. The applicant mother was successful on all of the parenting issues, except for the imposition of certain terms prior to the father being able to resume supervised parenting time. She was successful in receiving the claimed arrears. She was not successful in imputing income. Accordingly, her success on the two issues before the court was divided.
Rule 24(4) and (5): The Conduct of the Successful Party
[52] Rule 24(4) operates to disentitle a successful party to costs if that party behaved unreasonably during the case. Not only might the successful party be deprived of some or all of his or her costs but may also be required to pay all or part of the unsuccessful party’s costs. Here the mother acted reasonably. She was challenged by the lack of fulsome disclosure from the father. And when the court expressed concern about imputing income in the face of her own evidence, she resumed her testimony by informing the court that the paternal grandfather’s construction business was now closed and she did not have current information about the father’s whereabouts or current employment, if any.
[53] Rule 24(5) directs the court in assessing reasonableness to review the successful party’s offers, their reasonableness and any offer they withdrew or failed to accept. The court was not provided with any offers to settle so this aspect of the costs rule as well as rule18(4) are not engaged.
Rule 24(12): Setting the Amount
[54] Rule 24(12)(a) requires the court to consider the reasonableness and proportionality of a list of non- exhaustive factors as they relate to the importance and complexity of the issues. In Beaver v. Hill 2018 0NCA 840 at paragraph 12, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that proportionality and reasonableness are the touchtone considerations to be applied in fixing the amount of costs. The OCA goes on to reject the notion that full recovery or a close to full recovery approach is appropriate in most cases.
[55] The parenting issues were important but not complex. The determination of the child support obligation had some measure of complexity.
[56] It is readily apparent that counsel for the mother provided his client with a discounted rate, having regard to his years of call. It is difficult to assess whether the time spent is reasonable and proportionate because there is no indication what portion of these fees might be exempt from costs, because they relate to prior attendances. That said, the overall amount claimed in the sum of $6, 258.42 is reasonable.
[57] This leaves a determination of the appropriate discount for lack of success and the appropriate recovery rate. It is impossible on the materials before me to determine what portion of the fees can be allocated between the parenting and monetary issues. And while the mother was not successful on all of her monetary claims her ability to advance them was frustrated by the father’s lack of disclosure. Having considered her partial success and all of the factors, including partial recovery, I fix costs payable by the father in the sum of $3800. As these costs relate mainly to the parenting outcome, and the costs relief requested does not apportion the work in relation to the child support issues, for which there was only partial success by fixing arrears, they are unenforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.
CONCLUSION
[58] Based on the foregoing, I make the following parenting and child support order.
Marshall shall reside with his mother, Jessica, in Madoc.
Jessica shall have sole decision-making authority regarding Marshall’s health, education, activities and general well-being.
Jessica shall keep the father, Alexander, fully informed regarding where Marshall attends school, the identity of and contact information for healthcare providers and any other service providers, such as camp counsellors or coaches.
Alexander shall be entitled to make inquiries and be given information by Marshall’s educators, healthcare providers, camp counselors or others service providers directly, subject to applicable laws.
Alexander shall have supervised parenting time with Marshall, as can be arranged through the Supervised Access Service in Belleville. Should he decide to resume his contact with Marshall he shall contact this service and provide this order and ask for the visits to resume on a schedule that is feasible for both parents. The resumption of this parenting time shall be for a minimum of 1 to 2 hours weekly, if this can be accommodated by the service.
With the mother's consent, an alternate supervisor may be agreed to.
Before these supervision provisions can be reviewed, the father must demonstrate consistent attendance for his parenting time and comply with any other terms a judge reviewing this parenting order may impose.
If a motion to change is brought, the reinvolvement of the OCL shall be sought.
Jessica shall retain Marshall’s government issued documentation including his birth certificate, his health card and his S.I.N. card. Jessica shall be entitled to apply for and renew Marshall’s government issued documentation, including a passport, without Alexander’s consent.
Jessica shall be entitled to travel with Marshall to the United States for up to 3 weeks, without having to obtain a travel consent or authorization from Alexander, provided there are no adverse travel advisories for their destination and there is no lengthy interruption in his schooling.
If Jessica seeks to relocate outside Madoc, she shall notify Alexander in writing of her intention to do so 60 days before the expected date of the move. That written notice shall include the date on which the move is expected to occur, the address of the new residence, her contact information and any proposed amendments to these parenting provisions.
No later than 30 days after receiving written notice of Jessica's proposed relocation, Alexander shall notify her in writing of any objection to the proposed relocation or bring an application under section 39.1 of the CLRA. His written objection shall include his reasons for the objection as well as his views on any proposal made by Jessica for changes to his parenting time or for amending this order, having regard to the proposed relocation.
If notice is given by Jessica to Alexander of her intention to relocate move with Marshall, she shall be permitted to do so if Alexander does not object in writing to the proposed move within 30 days of receiving her written notice or if the move is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Alexander’s child support arrears are fixed at $3114 up to December 31, 2023 and shall be repaid at a rate of $250 per month, commencing January 1, 2024.
Alexander's income is found to be insufficient to generate a child support obligation from June 1, 2023.
Should Jessica bring a motion to change this child support order based on a material change in circumstances, she may claim retroactive child support back to June 1, 2023, the first full month following trial, if warranted on the fresh evidence.
Alexander shall pay costs in the sum of $3800, payable at a rate of $250 per month commencing January 1, 2024.
Released: December 22, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-00000491-0000
DATE: 20231222
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Jessica Ann Laundry
- and -
Alexander Glen Greystock-Wood
REASONS FOR DECISION
Nicole Tellier J.
Released: December 22, 2023
[^1] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed (Washington, DC, London, England) American Psychiatric Association.
[^2] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K) 1982, c.11.