Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-23-38839 DATE: 20240419 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Benjamin Philip Harlow, Applicant AND: Ariell Laurenn Gertel, Respondent

BEFORE: M. Kraft, J.

COUNSEL: Stephanie Brooks, for the Applicant Will Hutcheson, for the Respondent

HEARD: April 18, 2024.

Nature of the Motion

[1] The applicant, Benjamin Philip Harlow (“the father”), seeks an order that the parties’ two children, C., age 15 months, and M., 3 months old, be immediately returned to his primary care in Ontario, following self-help measures taken by the respondent, Ariell Laurenn Gertel (“the mother”) in moving the children to British Columbia. The father also seeks an order that the children reside primarily with him and that he have sole decision-making responsibility for them.

[2] The mother seeks to dismiss the father’s motion; an order that the children are ordinarily resident in British Columbia; that pending more information being gathered, C. only see the father on a supervised basis; that the paternity of M. be determined and if the father is the biological father of M., he only have parenting time virtually until M. is 6 months old, at which time the parenting time be supervised only; an order that she continue to have sole decision-making responsibility in relation to both children; and that if she is ordered to return the children to Toronto that she be given six months to do so as that would be reasonable, taking into account the ages of the children and her health.

[3] Given that the parties are not married, the legislation which governs this case is the Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”).

[4] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the children are habitually resident in Ontario and that this Court has jurisdiction under the CLRA. I am not satisfied that there is a sufficient basis for this Court to decline jurisdiction in favour of a court in British Columbia. I order that the children be returned to Ontario within 15 days, and fix an interim parenting schedule, subject to variation where the best interests of the children can be assessed in making final parenting orders.

Issues to be Determined on this Motion

[5] The issues to be determined on this motion are as follows:

a. Whether the children are habitually resident in Ontario?

b. If the answer to a. is yes, whether the return of the children to Ontario should be immediate or follow some other time frame?

c. If the answer to a. is yes, what interim parenting time arrangements are in the best interests of both children when they return to Toronto?

Issue One: Whether the children are habitually resident in Ontario?

[6] By way of brief factual background, the agreed upon facts are as follows:

a. The father was born and raised in Australia. The mother was born and raised in Toronto. They met in October 2019, when the mother was working in Australia on a holiday visa. The parties moved in together in Wentworth Falls, NSW in January 2020.

b. In July 2021, the mother returned to Ontario. The mother underwent government funded IVF treatment in Toronto. C. was conceived by IVF. The parties are the biological parents of C.

c. The father came to Toronto in January 2022 and went back to Australia in March 2022. The mother became pregnant in April 2022. She went to Australia from August through to September 2022. The father came to Toronto in November 2022.

d. C. was born in Toronto on January 17, 2023.

e. The doctor who cared for the mother during her pregnancy with C. and afterwards, was Dr. Arthur Zaltz at Sunnybrook Hospital. The mother had severe complications after C. was born, including Septic Shock and HELLP Syndrome, causing her to be hospitalized for about a month after C. as born, starting on January 23, 2023.

f. The father obtained his permanent residence status in Canada on March 23, 2023.

g. The parties applied for C.’s Australian citizenship in March 2023 and he was granted this citizenship on November 1, 2023. It is in dispute as to whether C. has an Australian passport.

h. On April 30, 2023, the father returned to Australia. The father was struggling with his mental health, in particular, his PTSD and anxiety. The mother and C. were scheduled and had plane tickets purchased to come to Australia on August 24, 2023.

i. On May 7, 2023, the mother told the father that she was pregnant with their second child via text message. Both parties were concerned given the traumatic birth she experienced when C. was born. The father attached text messages to his affidavit, sworn on March 25, 2024, as Exhibit “E”, in which the mother tells the father the baby is a girl.

j. When in Australia, the father voluntarily underwent treatment at a psychiatric hospital in June 2023, to undergo a change in his medication to address his PTSD which presents as anxiety, stemming from his time in the Australian Army from 1997 to 2009.

k. At some point, the mother relocated with the children surreptitiously with the children. The mother submits that as much as she would have liked to communicate with the father about her desire to relocate to Vancouver for employment and better quality of life for their son, C., the father made it impossible. The evidence on record, however, is that the parties were messaging regularly in the months of June and July 2023.

l. The mother deposes that she drove to Vancouver and has been living there since June 2023. The mother deposes that she lives with her mother and two children in Vancouver and that her partner lives in his own condominium. She admits that she and the father were still in a relationship when she relocated to Vancouver with the children. She swears in para. 42 of her affidavit that “C.’s only family in Canada – his grandmother – permanently relocated to Vancouver from Toronto to be an active participant in his life.”

m. She also deposes that the relationship with the father ended on July 11, 2023.

n. The father came to Toronto to spend time with C. in Toronto in September 2023. The mother admits, on the record, that she lied to the father and did not tell him that she had relocated with the children to Vancouver. Instead, the mother pretended that she and the children still lived in Toronto. At para. 26 of her affidavit, she states:

“Rather than getting into a fight with him about my having moved, I rented an Airbnb apartment in Toronto.”

o. The father spent time with C. for two, 30-minute visits at a café in September in Toronto, each time in the presence of the mother and the maternal grandmother.

p. The father retained family law counsel in October 2023 and told the mother. On October 13, 2023, the father’s counsel wrote to the mother requesting a temporary parenting schedule to be implemented. The mother retained counsel in Australia, even though both parents and C. were Canadian residents.

q. The mother swears that she returned to Vancouver in October 2023. She did not provide the Court with a specific date of her return.

r. On October 27, 2023, the father issued the within Application in Ontario. On October 30, 2023, the father’s counsel advised the mother’s Australian counsel that court proceedings had been commenced in Ontario and asked if he was retained to accept service of the Ontario Application on behalf of the mother.

s. On November 2, 2023, counsel for the father tried to serve the mother personally. Service was not effective.

t. On November 2, 2023, the police contacted the father and advised that a warrant was out for his arrest. The father attended the police station and was arrested. His passport was seized. The father was charged with one count of assault and two counts of uttering death threats. father maintains that the mother made false allegations about him to the police. These charges remain outstanding.

u. The father brought a 14B motion seeking an order for substituted service on November 7, 2023. That same day, the mother’s prior counsel, Mr. Mamo, wrote to the father’s lawyer. Mr. Mamo advised that he was retained to accept service of the Application for the mother.

v. The mother has not filed an Answer in this proceedings.

w. The mother notified the father that the newborn child, M., was born on February 14, 2024. On March 15, 2024, the mother notified the father that she remained in the hospital. Again, the mother lied. In paragraph 29 of her affidavit, the mother deposes that she came back to Toronto in December 2023, to prepare for the birth of M. She further deposes that she gave birth with the support of a doula at her family’s cottage in Muskoka on December 23, 2023. She also states that “she wanted to be close to the doctor that saved her life after [her] first birth”. However, she gave birth with a Doula present and not with the doctor who was present at C.’s birth, Dr. Zaltz.

x. The mother states that she returned to Vancouver with C. and M. in January 2024, when M. was a newborn baby.

y. On March 20, 2024, the parties attended an urgent case conference before Diamond, J. as the matter had been deemed urgent by the Court. Justice Diamond’s Endorsement, dated March 20, 2024, confirms that Mr. Mamo appeared on behalf of the mother and advised the Court that he had been unable to communicate or obtain instructions from the mother because of her recent hospitalization, caused by post-delivery complications. Diamond, J. made the following orders:

i. The Mother was to provide particulars of the birth of M., including the name, date of birth, details of birth and health records from the hospital to the father;

ii. A motion for parenting time (and if necessary child support) was scheduled to proceed on April 30, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

iii. The urgent case conference was scheduled to proceed before him on April 3, 2024 at 2:00 p.m.

z. The father brought this motion, for the return of the children to Ontario, returnable on April 2, 2024. The matter came before Justice Nakonechny. The mother had recently retained Mr. Hutcheson, her current counsel. She claimed that the children’s habitual residence is British Columbia. Mr. Hutcheson sought an adjournment to file additional materials. The mother had filed an affidavit in response to the motion that was not sworn. The Endorsement of Nakonechny, J. confirms that the mother had not complied with the Order of Diamond, J., dated March 20, 2024, in that she failed to provide the particulars of M.’s birth. During the motion, the mother made submissions that M. was male, and born in her mother’s home in Toronto on December 23, 2023, with the assistance of a Doula. The mother had not applied for a Statement of Live Birth and had no Ontario birth records for the child. This is despite the fact that a birth is required to be registered within 30 days. Justice Nakonechny granted a brief adjournment of the father’s motion to today and set out a timetable for the delivery of motion materials. In addition, she made the following orders:

i. Both the mother and father and M. were to attend for DNA blood testing at an accredited lab by Friday, April 5th. The mother was to advise the father through counsel where and when the samples were taken so the father could ensure the SNA samples are tested to determine the father’s potential paternity of M., born December 23, 2023.

ii. The father was to have virtual parenting time with C. every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, starting April 3, 2024 by Facetime at 9:00 a.m. Toronto time. The calls were to be facilitated by the mother. The parties were not to speak to one another other than to set up the call. The calls were not to be less than 15 minutes and could be longer depending on the child;

iii. The father was to also have Facetime calls with C. at 9:00 a.m. on April 6th and April 14th.

iv. If the paternity tests confirm that the father is the biological father of M. then M. was to be present for the Facetime calls with C., considering his age and stage.

v. The case conference originally scheduled for April 3, 2024 was vacated, with a new date to be scheduled after the motion is decided.

vi. Costs of the conference to be reserved to the motions judge.

aa. The mother failed to attend or cause M. to attend for DNA blood testing at an accredited lab by April 5th, 2024. This was the second order of this Court breached by the mother. In her affidavit, sworn on April 10, 2024, at para. 3, the mother acknowledges that she was ordered by the court to provide the DNA tests but that she

“[has] not been able to leave the house to do that. [She] just can’t do that right now with [her] health. [She] is caring for [her] two children who are 14 months old and 3 months old. M. wakes up every hour and a half in the night to breastfeed. That combined with my doctor telling me that I need to very careful to avoid exertion and stress have made it impossible for me to comply with the DNA testing requirements so far. My partner has been away on a work trip so he has not been able to take M. to get a DNA test himself yet.”

[7] The father has put forward parenting proposals to the mother, through counsel on October 12th, 2023, November 10th, 2023, November 29th, 2023, December 27th, 2023; January 8th, 2024, January 19th, 2024, and February 7th, 2024. This is not disputed by the mother.

The Law:

[8] Pursuant to ss.22(1) of the CLRA, the court shall exercise making orders for jurisdiction for parenting issues when a child is a habitual resident of Ontario. In ss.22(2) of the CLRA, habitual residence is the place where the child resided with both parents. Furthermore, removing or withholding a child without the consent of the other parent, does not alter habitual residence (ss.22(3)) of the CLRA.

[9] There is no dispute on the record before me that C. was habitually resident in Ontario, as was M., when he was born. Toronto is the only place where C. resided with both parents. The fact that the mother surreptitiously moved with C. and M., and actively hid this very significant fact from the father, does not alter the habitual residence. I find that the mother’s excuse that she wanted to tell the father of her plans to relocate but “he made it impossible” is disingenuous. The evidence on record is clear that the parties were messaging back and forth continuously in and around the time she relocated.

[10] The mother’s evidence fails to mention any of the factual connections C. had to Toronto, such as the name of his doctor/paediatrician or any of the baby programs in which they were enrolled. However, her affidavit discusses the better quality of life she and the children would have in Vancouver. That is not the legal test. If the mother wanted to relocate with C. and/or M., they she had to follow the notice requirements set out in the CLRA and provide the father with notice. The mother not only failed to do so; she admits that she actively took steps to hide this from the father.

[11] The mother’s evidence is that her mother, C.’s “only Canadian relative” moved with her to Vancouver so she could be “an active participant” in C.’s life, notably leaves out the fact that the father, C’s biological father, is in Canada. Furthermore, the mother’s unilateral move to Vancouver with her mother, while may be supportive of C.’s and M.’s relationship with the maternal grandmother (which is no doubt important), completely discounts the importance and devalues of the father’s relationship in the children’s lives.

[12] The mother alleges significant family violence at the hands of the father. The CLRA provides that she could have applied to the Court to move without giving the father notice if the court was of the opinion that there was a risk of family violence if she stayed in Ontario. She did not do so.

[13] I find that C. and M. were habitually resident in Toronto, Ontario, until the mother unilaterally moved with them to Vancouver, again, without the knowledge or consent of the father.

Issue two: If the children are habitually resident in Ontario, whether the return of the children to Ontario should be immediate or follow some other time frame?

[14] The mother seeks an order that she be given 6 months to return to Ontario because of the ages of the children and her health.

[15] The mother put forward no evidence on record about her current health. When she was ordered to provide evidence of her hospitalization which caused her to miss the urgent case conference on March 24, 2020, she did not do so. Surely, if the mother’s health is so precarious, as she claims it is requiring her hospitalization in Vancouver, it was incumbent on her to put forward hospital records and some evidence from her doctor in Vancouver. The mother claims she could not attend an accredited lab to get a DNA test for herself and M. because “she just can’t do that right now with her health”. This statement is vague. The mother has now alleged that her health has prevented her from not attending before this Court on two occasions and prevented her from taking M. to a lab, but she fails to provide any current medical evidence to support these claims, and yet her affidavit speaks about a new life in Vancouver. I am not persuaded that the affidavit sworn by Dr. Zaltz on April 4, 2024 is relevant to the mother’s current health.

[16] Dr. Zaltz confirms that the mother was his patient prior to and following the birth of C. He deposes that the mother has continued to be a patient, remotely, through the birth of M. While Dr. Zaltz is clear that the mother was a high-risk obstetrical patient and he expresses concern about the mother’s health, the mother, herself, has admittedly not taken this medical advice. In fact, despite her life threatening condition days after M. was born, the mother saw fit to drive from Toronto, across the country to Vancouver, when he was less than a month old. She admits on the record that this drive was stressful. Yet, Dr. Zaltz “strongly advised” that she avoid stressful circumstances.

[17] There is nothing on the record about the mother’s current health circumstances nor is there anything to demonstrate that she would require 6 months from now to return to Ontario. It is now April 18, 2024 and M. is four months old. A five-hour plane ride with a four-month old is not considered to strenuous nor would such a trip place more exertion on the mother, any more than a week-long drive must have when M. was just weeks old.

[18] In F. v. N., 2022 SCC 51, at paras. 63 and 64, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that following an abduction, “the child’s best interests are aligned with their prompt return to the jurisdiction of their habitual residence unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify Ontario courts taking up jurisdiction ... The premise that the children’s best interests are favored by their timely return to their home jurisdiction is sound.”

[19] In the case of Malpani v. Malpani, 2022 ONSC 4123, the parties were permanent residents of Canada since 2020. The parents lived together with their child in Toronto since September 2020. The mother travelled to India with the child from January 27, 2022 to April 11, 2022 but she did not return as planned. The child was found to be a habitual resident of Ontario for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the father never consented to the mother relocating to India with their child. The child was ordered to be returned to Toronto within 30 days.

[20] During the motion, counsel for the mother argues that she has to find a place to live. I note that the mother was able to rent an Airbnb in September 2023, when she lied to the father that she was still living in Toronto without difficulty. She can use the same resources she did at that time, to find and secure housing in Toronto, even if it is only temporary in nature. Further, while the mother and maternal grandmother have given evidence that they both relocated to Vancouver, there is no evidence on the record as to whether the maternal grandmother gave up her home in Toronto. Further, there is no evidence on the record as to whether the maternal grandmother’s cottage in Muskoka is still property owned by her, which could also be readily available if finding housing in Toronto is difficult as a temporary solution. I note that in the maternal grandmother’s affidavit, sworn on April 9, 2024, at para. 13 she still refers to the birthplace as “my cottage in Muskoka”, implying that it is still owned by her.

[21] I appreciate that the mother cannot pick up and move within days, however, I am ordering her to return to Toronto with both children within 15 days.

[22] I further request the assistance of the British Columbia law enforcement officials to assist in the apprehension and return of the children to Ontario, should the mother refuse or fail to comply with my Order. In facilitating the apprehension and return of the child to Ontario, the children may be escorted on a return flight to Toronto by the father.

Issue Three: What temporary parenting time arrangements are in the best interests of both children when they return to Ontario?

[23] The mother seeks an order that the father only have supervised parenting time with C. and no parenting time with M. until M. is 6 months old, other than virtual parenting time. The reasons given are concerns she has raised about the father’s mental health and the allegations of family violence which have resulted in criminal charges.

[24] The test for whether a parent can be granted parenting time of a child is the best interests of the child. Pursuant to s.24(2) of the CLRA, in making a parenting order, I am required to given primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.

[25] The best interests factors are set out in s.24(3) of the CLRA and include the following:

(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.

[26] I agree with the mother’s counsel that given the very young ages of both children; the court must exercise caution in awarding parenting time to the father, particularly, since he has not had experience parenting either C. or M. Further, given how young M. is, consistency, sensitivity, and capacity to respond to an infant’s needs are critical. The father does not yet know the children’s routines, be it sleeping or feeding. Further, the father is not aware of how to provide regular and reliable feeding, holding or soothing to either child, which is necessary before he has unsupervised parenting time. It will be critical that the mother provides the father with this information so the children’s feeding, toileting and sleeping schedules, along with food preferences for C. and soothing techniques can be learned. It is in both children’s best interests for the father to develop childcare capacity and bonded relationships with each child before he has sole care of either C. or M.

[27] As stated by the AFCC Parenting Plan Guide, for infants, birth to 9 months:

If the non-residential parent has not been significantly involved in caregiving for this infant, it is important for familiarity to develop between the infant and that parent, starting with frequent contact for short periods. This will require support from the child’s primary caregiver. The primary caregiver may have concerns about giving care of “her child” to anyone else. However, it is important that the primary caregiver does not become a “restrictive gate-keeper,” but rather takes the long-term view in promoting healthy child development by supporting the other parent’s relationship with “their child,” unless there are legitimate concerns about the other parent’s capacity to care for the infant.

The process of developing parenting skills and connection with an infant may start with regular short parenting time of a few hours at the home of the primary caregiver. There may at first be frequent and regular contact that includes opportunities for all caretaking activities, such as feeding, playing, soothing, bathing, and putting the infant to sleep for naps. As caregiving skills are mastered and the parent-child bond develops, this should evolve to longer visits that may include taking the child away from the primary residence.

If the parents cannot communicate effectively about the infant, or if one parent is unable to gain the necessary caregiving skills, consideration should be given to having the child remain in the care of the primary parent, with frequent, short contacts with the other parent. Infants are sensitive to conflict between their parents and may become difficult to soothe during transitions. A third party familiar with the child may be helpful to transition the infant if parents are unable to do so without conflict.

[Emphasis added]

[28] Similarly for Babies, ages 9-18 months, the AFCC Parenting Plan Guide states

A consistent and predictable schedule of waking, eating and sleeping is necessary to allow the baby’s development of self-regulation and self-soothing. The baby’s normal routines should be a primary consideration when parents are making a parenting plan for children of this age. While multiple caretakers can provide this schedule, some babies have more difficulties with multiple transitions and changes. Those babies may do better with one primary caretaker and frequent contacts with the other parent.

If one parent has had primary care, the duration and frequency of contact with the other parent will depend upon the other parent’s availability, willingness and sensitivity to the child, as well as the baby’s temperament. Parents also need to consider their work schedules and the baby’s sleeping and eating routines. As with infants under 9 months of age, overnights with a non-residential parent may be appropriate if that parent is attuned to the baby’s needs, is able to maintain the care schedule of the residential parent and is able to soothe the baby.

If one parent had less parenting and childcare time before separation, there should be opportunities to participate in feeding, playing, bathing, and sleeping times before that parent has sole care and overnights. To strengthen the relationship, there should be contact between the parent and baby every few days, gradually increasing the length of separation from the primary parent as the baby tolerates with the possibility of starting overnight visits.

As with younger infants, a communication log is essential. This log, whether hand-written or digital, should include information about eating, sleeping and elimination, as well as health, developmental changes and new milestones. It is important that parents avoid arguments in the presence of the child, as even pre-verbal babies will be stressed by the tension between their parents

[Emphasis added]

[29] It will be necessary, therefore, for both parents to cooperate with one another and find a way to communicate about the children. This many involve a third-party professional who specializes in children’s development and parents undergoing separation.

[30] Given the young ages of the children, and the fact that these parties are not able to communicate directly, it is imperative that they attend an urgent case conference so the Court can assist the family in canvassing the schedule that will meet the children’s needs and best interests.

[31] Accordingly, until the mother returns to Toronto, the father will continue to have virtual parenting time and the mother shall ensure that the phone or device is not muted. Once she returns to Toronto, the father’s parenting time shall be supervised by Brayden Supervision Services or another agreeable supervision centre for one hour, every other day, at an hour when C. and M. are not napping.

[32] During the motion, the mother’s counsel advised the court that his client advised him that her fiancé and M. went for DNA testing, but she did not. This is not acceptable because there is no documentation for M. and, therefore, there is no way to verify that the DNA was taken by M. and not another baby. This is why Justice Nakonechny ordered the mother and M. were to undergo DNA testing. The mother must comply with that order immediately. If the DNA test results show that the father is not the biological father of M. prior to May 6, 2024, then his parenting time shall only be with C. Otherwise, the father shall have supervised parenting time with both children.

ORDER

[33] This court makes the following order:

a. Within 15 days of the release of this Endorsement and no later than April 26, 2024, the Respondent shall return the parties’ children, namely, C., born January 17, 2023 and M., born December 23, 2023, to Toronto, in the Province of Ontario.

b. The British Columbia police and/or law enforcement officials shall assist in the apprehension and return of the children to Ontario, should the Respondent refuse or fail to comply with my Order. In facilitating the apprehension and return of the children to Ontario, the children may be escorted on a return flight to Toronto by the Applicant, if the Respondent fails to comply with my Order.

c. There shall be no order for decision-making until a further motion before this court.

d. The children shall remain in the primary care of the Respondent.

e. Until the Respondent returns to Toronto, the Applicant shall have virtual parenting time on Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 9 a.m. Toronto on FaceTime. The calls shall be facilitated by the Respondent and she shall ensure that the device on which she is calling is not muted. The calls shall be for no less than 15 minutes and may be longer depending on the child.

f. The Respondent shall immediately attend herself, with M. for DNA Blood Testing at an accredited lab by April 22, 2024, The Respondent shall advise the Applicant through counsel where and when the samples have been taken so the Applicant can ensure the DNA samples are tested to determine the Applicant’s possibility of paternity of M. born December 23, 2023. The Applicant shall also attend for DNA blood testing at an accredited lab, by April 22, 2024, if he has not already done so. If the paternity tests confirm that the Applicant is M.’s father, M. shall be present for the Facetime calls with C.

g. The Applicant shall have supervised parenting time with both C. and M. on alternate days commencing in Toronto on Monday, April 29, 2024 and every alternate day thereafter, i.e., May 1, 2024 for a minimum of one hour, to be supervised a parenting supervision centre, such as Brayden Supervision Services or APCO, during an hour that does not interfere with the children’s sleep routines. The respondent shall ensure that the children are brought to the Centre with a diaper bag, diapers, appropriate snacks, bottle, etc., soothing toys and any other item necessary to ensure that the children’s needs are met. Prior to the Applicant’s first supervised visit, the Applicant shall outline each child’s daily routine, in terms of feeing, toileting, nap time, soothing routines, etc., to be provided to the father through counsel. If the DNA test results prove that the father is not the biological father of M., then his parenting time shall be with C. only.

h. The parties shall attend an urgent case conference on May 7, 2024 at 12:00 p.m. before me, if available. This conference can take place on zoom. The parties shall serve and file confirmation forms for this conference and an update only as to their present circumstances. No further case conference briefs are necessary.

i. The Respondent shall immediately provide the particulars of the birth of M., including providing M.’s full name, the time and date of M.’s birth, the name of the Doula, and any and all health records about M. to the Applicant.

j. The Respondent shall immediately provide hospital records for M. to confirm that she took M. to the hospital as submitted by her counsel on April 18, 2024, along with a discharge statement, to explain how he was treated, given that his birth has not been registered and to provide proof as to why she was not present today at court.

k. The Respondent shall immediately provide hospital and medical records regarding why she was not present at the urgent case conference on March 20, 2024.

l. The parties should attempt to agree on costs of both the motion before Justice Nakonechny on April 2, 2024 and the motion before me today. If they cannot agree then the Applicant shall serve and file written costs submissions of no more than 3 pages in writing, not including a Bill of Costs or Offers to Settle within 15 days of the release of this Endorsement. The Respondent shall then serve and file responding costs submissions of no more than 3 pages in writing, not including a Bill of Costs or Offers to Settle within 7 days of being served with the Applicant’s costs submissions. Reply submissions, if any, shall be no more than 1 page in writing and shall be served and filed within 5 days of being served with the responding costs submissions.

Released: April 19, 2024 M. Kraft, J.