Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC 1387/13-05 DATE: 2023/01/09

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO FAMILY COURT

RE: C.T., Applicant AND: M. M. M., Respondent

BEFORE: MITROW J.

COUNSEL: Erin O’Leary for the Applicant William R. Clayton for the Respondent Paul Van Meppelen for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: December 14, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1] This is the motion of the applicant, C.T., (“the father”), for an interim parenting order. The motion was heard in person for one full day.

[2] The evidentiary record consists of affidavits and transcripts of the oral questioning of the affiants, as was permitted by court order. All persons who filed an affidavit attended for oral questioning.

[3] The father and the respondent, M.M.M. (“the mother”), are the parents of two children, A. (their daughter), and K. (their son), at times collectively referred to as “the children.” Each child is currently age 13 and each child will turn 14 years of age in March 2023.

[4] The father alleges the children have been “alienated” from him as a consequence of the mother’s conduct. This allegation is denied by the mother.

[5] The primary relief sought by the father is an interim order that removes the children from the mother’s primary care. The father seeks an order for sole decision-making responsibility and primary care to enable the father to enroll the children into a therapeutic program, the purpose of which would to be to repair his fractured relationship with the children. During this period, parenting time with the mother and maternal relatives would be suspended for a period of time to allow this process to move forward. The father further requests a police assistance order as an aid to implement this parenting plan.

[6] The mother’s reaction to this plan is succinct. She submits that the relief sought by the father is inimical to the children’s best interests and asks for the motion to be dismissed.

[7] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) accepted this case and appointed counsel, Mr. Van Meppelen, to represent both children. A clinician, Mr. John Thompson (“Mr. Thompson”), was appointed by the OCL to assist the children’s counsel. Mr. Thompson provided two affidavits regarding his meetings with the children. The OCL submits that the father’s motion should be dismissed and that any interim order for parenting time should be subject to the children’s wishes and preferences.

[8