Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-23-00038695-0000 DATE: 20240703 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Walid Hachani, Applicant AND: Camille Mauger, Respondent

BEFORE: Mathen J.

COUNSEL: Walid Hachani – Self Representative Matthew Newton, for the Respondent

HEARD: July 3, 2024

Endorsement

[1] The parties attended a motion before me, brought by the Respondent Ms. Mauger. This is my decision.

[2] After living together for years, the parties married in 2015. They separated in 2022 and ceased living together in 2023. They have one son, N., who is 6 years old.

[3] The parties have an upcoming case conference on July 22, 2024 to deal with several issues. Ms. Mauger alleges that she has suffered some violence from the Respondent, Mr. Hachani. Ms. Mauger has made several calls to the Children’s Aid Society but as I understand it the files have all been closed. The Respondent did advise me that he was contacted again by CAS the week preceding this hearing, and would be speaking with them within the next week.

[4] The current motion relates to: obtaining a report from the Children’s Lawyer (OCL); requiring communication via the AppClose parenting software; the return of N’s Birth certificate; an order requiring Mr. Hachani to cooperate in renewing N’s passports or an order dispensing with his consent; and an order permitting the Respondent to travel internationally with N. to the United States and/or France.

[5] Both parties agree that the involvement of the OCL, involving a clinician, is warranted to determine what is in N.’s best interests. A draft order was presented at this motion and, on consent, is attached to this endorsement.

[6] Both parties have agreed to use AppClose software to communicate and an order shall issue.

[7] The Applicant father objects to: the renewal of N’s passports; the return of his birth certificate; and the Respondent mother travelling internationally with N. His concerns are:

a. he wishes to maintain the status quo until the settlement conference has been concluded;

b. he fears that Ms. Mauger will not return N. to this jurisdiction; and

c. he fears the impact of a long trip on his relationship to his son.

[8] With respect to (a), I am not aware of a practice to limit relief requests such as this one because of a pending settlement conference. I understand that the Applicant believes that the settlement conference may occasion a fundamental shift in the current parenting arrangement. At this point, however, that is speculative. Ms. Mauger’s counsel advised the Court that she has no tickets at present and no imminent plans to travel. Therefore, the travel order shall commence on July 26, 2024.

[9] With respect to (b), Mr. Hachani articulated in detail a fear that Ms. Mauger will remove N. from Canada and never return. He did not produce any concrete evidence to substantiate this fear. Ms. Mauger is employed in Canada and by all accounts well-settled here. While she does have family in the United States and France, that is hardly a basis to conclude that she will simply move there. She has agreed to provide Mr. Hachani two weeks’ notice and a full itinerary including the purchase of a return ticket to Canada, and that any travel shall be limited to two weeks in length.

[10] With respect to (c), the Applicant described his love for and bond with his son. I accept that the Applicant fervently wishes to be closely involved in N.’s life. That said, the Respondent states that she wishes to foster that bond. In any event, the Respondent has agreed to limit any travel to two weeks’ duration. I do not think that a trip of this length will adversely affect Mr. Hachani’s bond with N.

[11] With respect to N.’s personal documents, I accept the Respondent’s evidence that it is common for the primary caregiver to retain a child’s essential papers. While the cases the Respondent cited relate to passports (e.g., Botros v Botros, 2022 ONSC 5911) I draw a similar conclusion for a birth certificate. Mr. Hachani argues that such an order will freeze the status quo and may facilitate Ms. Mauger’s flight from Canada. I have already addressed the flight concern which I find unsupported by the evidence. In ordering the return to N.’s essential papers, I make no conclusion about N.’s best interests or any final parenting arrangements. To emphasize this latter point, my order relating to N.’s papers shall issue on a temporary basis subject to further order of this court.

[12] Drawing upon my analysis in paragraph 10 and 11 of these reasons, I have been provided no reason why N’s passports should not be renewed, and an order facilitating the same will issue.

[13] Ms. Mauger seeks costs on a full recovery basis. As she has prevailed on this motion, she is entitled to some recovery. That said, I am mindful that Mr. Hachani is self-represented, apparently after losing a legal aid certificate. I believe Mr. Hachani is determined to protect what he views as his best interests as well those of his son. I do not find that Mr. Hachani acted unreasonably or in bad faith. The parties are unfortunately locked in a storm of acrimony and competing narratives. On the basis of this motion record, I do not find one of them to bear more blame for the situation than the other. I therefore make a costs award of $1000.00.

Order

[14] In conclusion, I make the following order:

a. Pursuant to the order attached to this endorsement, the Children’s Lawyer is requested to investigate and provide a report in accordance with Section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act;

b. Within 7 days of this order the parties shall register for the AppClose parenting software. They shall henceforth limit their parenting communication to that platform.

c. Subject to further order of this Court, the Applicant father shall within 3 days of this order return to the Respondent the birth certificate of N., born February 19, 2018.

d. Subject to further order of this Court, the Applicant father shall within 3 days of this order return to the Respondent any passports in his possession or under his control, expired or unexpired, issued in the name of N., born February 19, 2018.

e. The Applicant shall cooperate with the Respondent regarding any passport renewal for N., born February 19, 2018. Should the Applicant within 48 hours fail to sign and return to the Respondent any passport renewal forms, Ms. Mauger is entitled to renew any such passport without need for the Mr. Hachani’s signature.

f. Commencing any time after July 26, 2024, the Respondent mother may travel for vacation purposes to the United States and/or France with N., born February 19, 2018. Such trips shall not exceed 14 days duration. At least 14 days prior to any trip, the Respondent mother shall provide to the Applicant father: proof of return travel to Canada; a complete itinerary; and contact information for the child N. throughout the journey.

g. Neither parent shall disparage or speak negatively about the other parent to their son N., or in his presence, nor shall they encourage or invite others to do so.

h. The Applicant Walid Hachani shall pay to the Respondent Camille Mauger costs of $1000.00.

Date: July 3, 2024 Mathen, J.