Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-82 DATE: 2024-08-06

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

M.R.M. Applicant – and – A.R.M. Respondent

Counsel: James D. Higginson, Counsel for the Applicant Luigi De Lisio, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: July 8-9, 2024

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE L. E. Standryk

DECISION ON MOTION

INITIALIZATION OF THE PARTIES AND NAMES OF CHILDREN

[1] While neither party requested the initialization of this decision, I have considered the appropriateness of doing so pursuant to my common law jurisdiction, which allows me to restrict the publication of names and other information that would identify the children in this case. In addition to my common law jurisdiction, authority to do so can be found in s.70 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.C.12. I am required to consider the sensitivity of information contained in the file and whether the publication of identifying information could cause physical mental or emotional harm to any person referred to in the court file.

[2] Given the reference to both medically sensitive information concerning the applicant and the highly sensitive nature of the applicant’s conduct during the parties’ separation as well as its impact on the family, I am satisfied that without the protection of confidentiality through initializing the names of the parties, the children could suffer emotional harm.

INTRODUCTION

[3] These are my reasons for decision in connection with a contempt motion by the applicant M.R.M. (the “applicant”) dated October 24, 2023 originally returnable February 8, 2024. The applicant seeks an order finding the respondent A.R.M. (the “respondent”) in contempt of the order of Walters J. dated January 24, 2023.

[4] The applicant seeks to enforce the order's provisions by requesting a finding of contempt against the respondent.

[5] The relevant provisions of the order provide for visits between the paternal grandparents and the children of the marriage: R.R.B.M. born May 9, 2009 (15 years of age), R.R.K.M. born February 15, 2011 (13 years of age) and O.M.G.M. born April 26, 2013 (11 years of age) (the “children”).

[6] The respondent denies she has breached the court order and submits that the children have valid reasons for their reluctance to engage with the applicant and/or see their paternal grandparents.

[7] After careful consideration of the extensive affidavit and viva voce evidence adduced at the hearing and for the following reasons, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent is in breach of the order of Walters J. dated January 24, 2023, and that I may properly make a finding of contempt. However, I declined to make a finding of contempt for the following reasons.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THIS COURT PROCEEDING

[8] The applicant was born November 5, 1984 and is currently 39 years of age. The respondent was born April 21, 1976 and is currently 47 years of age. The parties were married on April 17, 2009, and separated December 30, 2018. R.R.B.M., R.R.K.M. AND O.M.G.M. have resided with the respondent since separation.

[9] The applicant describes the separation as one in which he was forced out of the home, followed by the respondent's immediate introduction of her new partner to the children. The applicant admits that he was depressed by the dissolution of the marriage, the circumstances of leaving the matrimonial home and having the respondent’s new partner immediately take up residence with his wife and children. He states that he felt as though he was erased and usurped from the lives of his family.

[10] The applicant readily acknowledges that his behaviour during separation was not appropriate. He attributes his behaviour to his depression and an effort to guilt the respondent into reconciling with him. The applicant states that while he acted poorly, the children were not witnesses to his behaviour.

[11] The respondent details a history of concerns with the applicant’s mental health and addiction to alcohol, which she says was the impetus for the breakdown of the marriage. During the marriage and since separation, the applicant’s behaviour has presented fears for both her and the children’s personal safety: the applicant has threatened to commit suicide; threatened to jump out of a vehicle that the respondent was driving; the children saw the applicant try to open his car door while driving; put a belt around his neck trying to restrict airflow in the respondent’s presence; sent various text messages to the respondent suggesting that her life and the world would be a better place without him.

[12] Following separation, the respondent remained in the matrimonial home with the children until June/July 2023 when the home was sold pursuant to the consent order of Walters J.

[13] After leaving the matrimonial home in December 2018, the applicant began living with his parents in Brechin, Ontario.

[14] Parenting time occurred immediately following separation, with the applicant seeing the children each weekend at the matrimonial home in the respondent's presence. Thereafter, the applicant saw the children every Saturday at the local arena while they played hockey or basketball. The respondent was present in the arena during these visits. Additional parenting time was arranged between the applicant and the respondent in addition to visits involving the paternal grandparents and extended family.

[15] Ongoing parenting time changed, as did many things during the Covid-19 pandemic. In April 2020, to comply with the then provincial restrictions, the applicant visited with the children outside the respondent’s home, socially distanced on a chair on the front lawn, playing various games with sidewalk chalk. This was the last time the applicant visited with the children face to face. The only other time the applicant has seen the children face to face is during an OCL meeting held in December 2020.

[16] The applicant does not understand why parenting time with the children came to an end. He surmises that it has to do with having told the children that he was purchasing a fishing lodge on the same lake where the respondent operates a similar lodge. The respondent denies that this is the case.

[17] The application was issued on February 12, 2020. On August 31, 2020, an order was made by Donohue J. requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (the “OCL”). A report was filed February 23, 2021.

[18] This proceeding was scheduled for trial on January 23, 2023. The January 24, 2023 order is a consent order incorporating terms agreed to by the parties. Outstanding property issues were resolved on a final basis, and terms concerning parenting or grandparent time were resolved on a temporary basis.

[19] Again, the applicant has not seen the children face to face since December 2020. The paternal grandparents have not seen the children since February 11, 2023.

[20] The applicant seeks a finding that the respondent is in contempt of the January 24, 2023, order. Each of the provisions will be referenced below.

[21] The applicant requests an order: i. finding the respondent in contempt of the January 24, 2023 order; ii. requiring the respondent to provide the address of the children’s residence and the school they attend; iii. specified visits between the children and the paternal grandparents; iv. costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

[22] The respondent denies any breaches of the order, opposes any finding of contempt, and requests that the court dismiss the applicant’s motion.

CONTEMPT – THE LAW AND APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES

[23] In family law proceedings, motions for contempt are governed by rule 31 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.

[24] The primary objective of contempt in family law matters is remedial, the basic object being to coerce the offender into obeying the court judgment or order: see Kopaniak v. MacLellan (2002), 212 D.L.R. (4th) 309 (Ont. C.A.).

[25] Civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Therefore, each element of the claim for contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: see Bhatnager v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217 (S.C.C.). Any doubt with respect to the necessary elements of a contempt case must be exercised in favour of the alleged contemnor: see Prescott-Russell Services for Children and Adults v. G.(N.) (2006), 82 O.R. (3d) 686 (C.A.).

[26] To establish the test for contempt, three elements must be established: a. the order must state clearly and unequivocally what should or should not have been done; b. the party alleged to be in contempt must have actual knowledge of the order that they are alleged to have breached; and c. the evidence must show that the party who disobeyed the order did so deliberately and willfully. See Vigneault v. Massey, 2014 ONCA 244 and Prescott-Russell Services for Children and Adults.

[27] In this case, the applicant has the onus to satisfy me beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent is in contempt of the court order: see Fisher v. Fisher, 2003 ON SC; and Einstoss v. Starkman, 2003 ONCA.

[28] The Ontario Court of Appeal has established the following guiding principles regarding contempt proceedings in the context of a family law matter:

• Courts have consistently discouraged the routine use of the contempt power to obtain compliance with court orders;
• Great caution and restraint should be exercised when considering contempt motions in family cases;
• The contempt power is an enforcement power of last, rather than first, resort;
• A contempt order should not be granted where other adequate remedies are available to the aggrieved party, i.e. in relation to an alleged access denial, a variation or enforcement of the access order;
• When the issue raised in the contempt motion concerns access to children, the best interests of the children is the “paramount consideration”;
• Contempt findings should be made sparingly and only where conferences to resolve problems or motions for enforcement have failed. See Hefkey v. Hefkey, 2013 ONCA 44; Ruffolo v. David, 2019 ONCA 385.

[29] In Jackson v. Jackson, 2016 ONSC 3466 at para. 56, Chappel J. provided the following summary of the circumstances which warrant the use of contempt in family court proceedings:

1. it ultimately remains a matter for the court’s discretion;
2. because of its seriousness and quasi-criminal nature, it must be used cautiously and with great restraint;
3. it cannot be reduced merely to a mechanism for enforcing judgments;
4. it should be used sparingly and as a measure of last resort where there are no other adequate remedies available;
5. it is reserved for cases involving defiant conduct that is at the most significant end of the spectrum and where it appears to be the only reasonable means of sending a message to a litigant that court orders cannot be flaunted;
6. the complex emotional dynamics involved in family law disputes and the desirability of avoiding further escalation of the conflict between the parties are additional factors that prompt a cautious approach.

[30] Even where the foregoing factors and guiding principles are met, a judge retains an overriding discretion to decline to make a contempt finding if it would be unjust to do so, such as where the alleged contemnor has acted in good faith to take reasonable steps to comply with the relevant court order: see McKinnon v. McKinnon, 2018 ONCA 596.

[31] The contempt power is to be used with restraint and in exceptional circumstances—essentially, to respond to circumstances where it appears to be the only reasonable means of sending a message to the litigant that court orders are not to be flaunted. That approach is consistent with the design of the Family Law Rules as a whole, which enables a court to deal with a case justly, with particular attention to subrules 2(3) and 2(4) of the Rules: see Ricafort v. Ricafort, 2006 ONCJ 520.

POSITIONS OF PARTIES

[32] The applicant submits that the respondent is in violation of paragraph 4(a) of the order. The relevant child-centric portions of the order are set out in paragraphs 4-8.

[33] Paragraph 4 of the order provides:

4. The Applicant’s family shall have visitation with the children as follows: a. Commencing February 11, 2023 one unsupervised visit per month, the dates, times and locations to be agreed by the Respondent and the paternal grandparents using OurFamilyWizard or a similar program and to take place in the community where the children reside. The initial visit shall be for a minimum of three (3) hours; b. The children’s paternal cousins shall be permitted to attend any of the paternal grandparents’ visits with the children; c. …. d. The Respondent shall provide the Applicant and the Applicant’s parents with the children’s school activity schedule on a monthly basis on or before the 30th day of each month to facilitate scheduling of the Applicant’s parents’ visitation using OurFamilyWizard; e. In the event of a cancellation, the grandparents visitation shall take place on the next available day that the children are available within the month; f. When arranging visitation for the grandparents, each party, including the cousins, shall consider the children’s wishes and desires in consultation with Gillian Sheldrick, if required.

[34] Paragraph 5 contemplates that after four monthly visits with the paternal grandparents, the parties will cooperate and jointly retain Gillian Sheldrick to support the children in graduating to overnight unsupervised visits with them.

[35] The applicant argues that the respondent’s actions and attitude have been focused on marginalizing his involvement and parenting. He submits that much of the responsibility for the breakdown of his relationship with the children, strain, and rift with his extended family, falls on the shoulders of the respondent. The applicant asserts that the respondent has failed to exercise her parental authority to ensure the children continue to enjoy a relationship with their extended paternal family.

[36] The respondent denies the allegations advanced by the applicant and any breach of paragraph 4(a) of the order. She submits that she has previously arranged visitation between the children and the paternal grandparents. She proposed dates for visits with the paternal grandparents. She states that despite encouraging the children to visit with the paternal grandparents and imposing sanctions such as taking away iPad, iPhones and sports, the children refuse visits.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Are the Terms of the January 24, 2023, Order Clear and Unambiguous?

[37] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the terms of the order are clear and unambiguous.

[38] Visits with the grandparents shall take place once a month. While the adults were left to determine where, when, and at what time visits were to occur, the parties were to consider the children’s wishes and desires in consultation with Gillian Sheldrick, if required.

[39] I find that the parties used mandatory language to speak to the importance of the relationship between the children and the paternal family. They incorporated a built-in protocol with access to a counsellor to assist with any difficulties in implementing the agreed upon terms.

Does the Respondent Have Actual Knowledge of the Order?

[40] The terms of the order were reached on consent. The respondent had input into negotiating the terms while represented by counsel. I am left with no doubt that the respondent had knowledge of the January 24, 2023, order.

Has the Respondent Disobeyed the January 24, 2023 Order in a Deliberate and Willful Fashion?

[41] I take a moment to briefly outline the backdrop against which the consent order was made. This provides context to my analysis.

[42] The applicant acknowledged having difficulty dealing with his separation from the respondent. He admits that his behaviour was inappropriate and that his actions were motivated by his desperation to salvage the marriage. Yet, I am satisfied, based on the evidence before me, that the children were exposed to the conflict and, in some cases, the applicant’s poor behaviour. I do not doubt that these circumstances have impacted the children and their relationship with their father.

[43] Notwithstanding these circumstances, there was a period of time post-separation where the applicant and his extended family enjoyed visits with the children, and the respondent facilitated those visits: the applicant enjoyed unsupervised time with the children at their sporting events (while the respondent was present at the arena); the respondent arranged for visits between the children and the extended paternal family including a picnic and visit to the trampoline park. Each of these visits involving the paternal grandparents was described as positive.

[44] Against this backdrop, the parties entered into the consent order. The respondent testified that she agreed to visits with the paternal grandparents and family because she viewed the relationship as important. In other words, the respondent viewed continued contact with the paternal grandparents as being in the children’s best interest.

[45] The first visit with the paternal grandparents occurred on February 11, 2023. The visit can be described as strained. The children initially refused to visit with their grandparents. Eventually, the children agreed to go for a walk, provided the respondent was present. The respondent walked with the family dog, albeit within view, some distance behind the children and the grandparents.

[46] After the walk, the paternal grandparents left and returned to the respondent’s home to continue their visit with the children. The visit continued outside on the front porch with R.R.B.M. and R.R.K.M.; O.M.G.M. refused to continue the visit. The grandparents gave R.R.K.M. a birthday gift and continued their chat, discussing their next visit, where they might go bowling together.

[47] The testimony of J.M., the paternal grandmother, and the respondent conflicted about whether the paternal grandparents were invited into the respondent’s home during the visits. Whether they stepped inside the house, invited or not, they were only present in the front doorway, and the respondent did not invite them to come into the house for any portion of the visit, notwithstanding the cooler weather.

[48] On February 15, 2023, the paternal grandparents contacted the respondent via OurFamilyWizard to arrange their next visit with the children. They suggested bowling, lunch, or a visit to the park and expressed hope that they could make the children feel more comfortable with them again.

[49] The respondent proposed that the next visit occur on March 27, 2023, and informed the paternal grandparents that the visit would depend on the children's comfort. On March 23, 2023, the respondent informed the paternal grandparents that the children did not want to visit despite her encouragement.

[50] Communications continued between the grandparents and the respondent using OurFamilyWizard for several months. At various times, the grandparents asked how the children were doing, whether they received their birthday cards, inquired about R.R.B.M.’s school graduation, and asked the respondent to tell the kids that they loved them. Responses were limited and offered no information about how or what the children were up to in their lives. Responding to the proposed visits, the respondent informed the grandparents that the children did not feel comfortable visiting with them.

[51] The respondent testified that despite encouragement and sanction, the children refused each proposed visit with their grandparents. She explained that the children refused visits because of the trauma they experienced from the applicant’s behaviour during the period of separation. She stated that the children fear that the applicant will show up during visits with their grandparents.

[52] There is ample evidence before me to find that the respondent attempted to encourage the initial visit with the grandparents on February 11, 2023. However, I am not persuaded that the respondent actively promoted and facilitated visits beyond the one and only face-to-face visit.

[53] There is no evidence that the respondent told the children that she agreed to the scheduled visits. There is also no evidence that she told the children that she supported the relationship with their grandparents and thought it was an important relationship to foster.

[54] There is no evidence that the respondent tried to alleviate the children’s concerns about the applicant attending the grandparent visits despite a provision in the order that prohibits parenting time with the applicant unless agreed to or ordered by the court.

[55] I accept the respondent’s evidence that she imposed sanctions on the children for refusing to visit with their grandparents. However, there is little evidence of incentives offered to the children.

[56] I received few, if any, details of encouragement, either through words or conduct, by the respondent. There is a saying that actions speak louder than words. There is no evidence that the respondent considered inviting the grandparents into her home beyond the front hallway during the initial visit in the middle of winter to show the children that the visits were welcome.

[57] There is no evidence that the respondent informed the grandparents when the children had activities. This could have allowed the grandparents to attend the activities, see the children, and offer some level of interaction between them. It may also have allowed the respondent to be present during the interactions to reassure the children that, in her view, a continued relationship with the paternal grandparents was a positive thing.

[58] One could reasonably expect the respondent to engage the grandparents in finding a solution to resolve the children's difficulties with visits. Both the applicant and the respondent own and operate fishing lodges in a northern community of Ontario on the same lake. The applicant’s parents often spent time helping the applicant with his business. The children spend their summer at the respondent’s lodge. A quick visit to the community dock between the children and their grandparents as supplies are gathered for the business could have also been considered.

[59] There is no evidence that any of these solutions, including the engagement of a counsellor incorporated into the terms of the order, were considered.

[60] I accept that the respondent is attentive to the children's views and desires. Their views and desires must be considered, as required by the court order. However, the respondent must do more than the evidence reveals. She must, by her words and actions, actively engage in a solution-based approach, particularly in these circumstances where she acknowledges the importance of the relationship between the children and the paternal grandparents. Her constant insistence that she remain present during visits, in my view, legitimizes the children’s fears.

[61] The applicant is not required to prove that the respondent intended to disobey the order: see Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 79. Accordingly, based on the totality of the evidence before me, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent is in breach of the January 24, 2023 court order.

[62] I have difficulty finding that she has genuinely encouraged or supported visits between the children and their grandparents. Rather, the respondent has left the decision in the children's hands and preferred that any visits occur in her presence. This approach is wholly inconsistent with agreed upon terms that grant the paternal grandparents unsupervised visits with the children.

[63] While I am satisfied that all the necessary elements to find contempt have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be unfair to do so in the circumstances of this case: see Chong v. Donnelly, 2019 ONCA 799.

Exercise of Judicial Discretion

[64] A finding of contempt in a family law proceeding is a remedy of last resort. The applicant must take other steps to address non-compliance with the court order before pursuing a motion for contempt. Other than communications between counsel, there is no evidence that the applicant has taken the steps available to him; there is no evidence that a case or settlement conference was requested other than one I suggested in February 2024; there is no evidence that the applicant attempted the re-engagement of a counsellor to support the children with grandparent visits; the applicant could have brought a motion requiring the respondent to facilitate counselling for the children in order to address their underlying reasons for refusing visits.

[65] The court must exercise the contempt power cautiously and with restraint. The best interests of the children are paramount. The evidentiary record reveals an astounding level of prolonged conflict in this family. While both the applicant and respondent love and care deeply for the children, the evidence demonstrates that the applicant’s behaviour during separation and the ensuing conflict with the respondent has had a detrimental impact on the children and their relationships with not only the applicant but the extended paternal family.

[66] A finding of contempt against the children’s mother may only intensify the children's negative feelings toward the applicant and his family, increase conflict, and create further distrust between the children and the paternal family. This does not serve the objective of re-establishing a relationship that both parties acknowledge is in the children's best interest.

[67] Finally, the respondent has raised concerns that the applicant failed to comply with the therapeutic treatment provision of the order of Reid J. dated January 28, 2021. Several of the concerns raised by the respondent regarding the children’s refusal to visit with their grandparents stem from trauma caused by witnessing the applicant’s behaviour during the period of separation.

[68] There is no medical evidence before me to verify a trauma-based diagnosis. Still, I recognize that the events that occurred involving this family would undoubtedly have a lasting impact on each of them.

[69] Reid J.’s order required that the applicant undergo dialectical behaviour therapy for a specified period and for a further period if recommended by the therapist. The order also required the applicant to provide proof of the completion of the therapy to the respondent.

[70] There are two letters from E. Hepworth, registered psychotherapist, dated May 4, 2022, and May 30, 2022. The first letter advises that the applicant continues to do well, has been compliant with treatment and has completed all homework and worksheets around his cognitive behavioural therapy treatment. The second letter indicates that the applicant continues to do well, is compliant with treatment and has completed all homework and worksheets around his dialectical behaviour therapy treatment.

[71] I appreciate the respondent’s concerns; the treatment referenced by E. Hepworth in the first letter is not the treatment ordered by the court; while the second letter corrects the misstated type of therapy, it does not firmly state that therapy has been successfully completed. One could infer from the letters that the applicant has completed the court-ordered dialectical behaviour therapy; however, the respondent is entitled to clearly communicated confirmation. The letters lack this necessary detail.

[72] A more fulsome confirming letter that the applicant has successfully completed the court-ordered therapy is required. It may also alleviate some of the respondent’s ongoing concerns for her and the children’s safety and well-being.

What Is the Appropriate Remedy Considering the Best Interests of the Children?

[73] Where a party has failed to comply with a court order, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter. See rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

[74] Section 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act requires that I consider what is in the children’s best interests in determining an appropriate remedy.

[75] The applicant requests that the respondent be required to: i. provide the address of the children’s residence and name of the school attended by them; ii. the respondent deliver and pick up the children to and from the paternal grandparents’ residence in Tobermory each Saturday for a period of six consecutive Saturdays; iii. thereafter the respondent will deliver the children to the paternal grandparents on Saturday mornings at 10 a.m. and the applicant and the grandparents will return the children to the respondent at 8 a.m. on Sunday morning.

[76] While the applicant’s requested relief primarily aims to remedy lost time between the grandparents and the children, I do not consider it in the children’s best interests.

[77] The evidence of the children’s fear of the applicant attending grandparent visits has been made very clear. The proposed relief speaks to the applicant’s involvement in the return of the children to the respondent following an overnight visit. There is a significant amount of work and healing for this family to undertake before I would be inclined to order an overnight visit and/or the applicant’s involvement as proposed.

[78] Furthermore, it is now known that the respondent has relocated the children from Fonthill to Sudbury, Ontario. The distance between the two locations far exceeds the distance between the paternal grandparents’ and the respondent’s former residences. To have the children delivered to the paternal grandparents by 10 a.m. would require the respondent to travel the night before or alternatively leave Sudbury by 5:30 a.m. Similarly, to have the children return to the respondent by 8 a.m. Sunday requires the grandparents to leave their home by no later than 3:30 a.m. This does not represent an ideal situation in the best of circumstances where the children are fully cooperative with exchanges.

[79] The terms of the original order require unsupervised visits. Considering the period of estrangement between the grandparents and the children, I find that a transition period allowing for the respondent or a mutually agreed upon third party, such as the paternal aunt, K., or the respondent’s partner, J.B., to be present is appropriate. This will once again provide the respondent with an opportunity to show the children that she supports the relationship and encourages its development. To be clear, the presence of a third party is not to supervise the visits but to provide a measure of comfort to the children and demonstrate that the visits are encouraged.

[80] The court was informed that the children will live at the respondent’s fishing lodge until the beginning of school. The transition period should start immediately while all parties are located at their respective lodges on Lady Evelyn Lake.

[81] Beyond the initial transition period, any option that I consider must be child focused. A lot of time has lapsed since the OCL was last involved or the children attended reunification therapy. Both parties believe that the children have been subjected to too many interviews during the course of this litigation. I agree.

[82] The evidence of the children’s preferences is well known. A report from either the OCL or a reunification therapist, at this time, may not be helpful to the court. A child-focused solution must also allow for the assistance of a professional while taking into consideration the views of the children and allow for input from the grandparents and the parties.

[83] While I am prepared to order that the grandparents continue monthly visits with the children in Sudbury, this is not a long-term sustainable plan for many reasons, including the winter driving conditions in the northern community, expenses associated with travel time, and the paternal grandparents' age. Accordingly, the parties will immediately arrange for mediation to work through the issue of how ongoing monthly visits with the paternal grandparents and the children are to occur.

ORDER

1. Commencing August 9, 2024 at 12:00 p.m., the grandparents shall have visits with the children once a week for no less than two hours; the respondent or a mutually agreed upon third party may be present during the visit.
2. The exchange shall occur on the public dock at Mowat Landing on a day and time agreed to by the respondent and the paternal grandparents. If the parties cannot agree on a specified date or time for the visits beyond the August 9, 2024 visit, ongoing weekly visits shall occur either on a Wednesday or a Friday at 12:00 p.m.
3. The applicant may not be present during the grandparent visits until further court order or agreement by the parties.
4. After the children begin school, commencing September 14, 2024, the grandparents shall visit the children in Sudbury every third Saturday for a minimum of three hours, with the last visit occurring November 16, 2024.
5. The schedule for grandparent visits thereafter shall revert to one visit per month, occurring either on the second or third Saturday or Sunday of the month.
6. The parties will immediately arrange for mediation to discuss the issue of how ongoing monthly visits with the paternal grandparents and the children are to occur. The grandparents may attend any mediation session at the mediator's request.
7. The parties shall pay the cost of the mediation as a section 7 expense.
8. The respondent shall immediately begin to post the children’s school and extracurricular schedule in accordance with paragraph 4(d) of the January 24, 2023, order and the grandparents shall be permitted to the activities in addition to regularly scheduled visits.
9. Commencing January 1, 2025, the applicant and the respondent shall jointly retain a counsellor for the purpose set out in paragraph 5 of the January 24, 2023, order and to assist the children in dealing with their fears and the impact that the separation has had on them. The cost of the counselling shall constitute a section 7 expense.
10. The respondent shall encourage and facilitate the children’s attendance at all counselling sessions.
11. The respondent shall immediately inform the applicant and the grandparents of the address of her new residence and the name of the children’s school.
12. The respondent shall ensure that the children are available for their visits.
13. The respondent shall not undermine the grandparent visits in any way, subtle or overt. The respondent is expected to behave consistently with her statement that the grandparent relationship is important.
14. The respondent and the applicant will ensure that neither they nor other person discuss the current or past legal proceedings between the parties with the children directly or indirectly. The respondent shall inform the children that she supports and encourages grandparent visits and that she agreed to the initial court order as reflecting their best interests.
15. Neither party will disparage the other parent to the children, or anyone directly or indirectly involved with the children.
16. If the respondent is faced with resistance from the children, she will document what discussions she engaged in with them to determine why they are resisting, encourage the grandparents to speak to them about their resistance, and, if required, document what incentives she offered the children to comply with this court order as well as any disciplinary measures imposed if their resistance continues.
17. If required to document details set out in paragraph 16, the respondent shall immediately share this information with the applicant and the grandparents, and the therapist/counsellor engaged by the parties to assist with the development and implementation of strategies that will promote a meaningful, positive, and loving relationship between the children and their grandparents. The respondent will also share this information with the children’s therapist/counsellor, if any.
18. In the event that the respondent breaches the terms of this order, the applicant may apply for an order for costs in connection with each breach pursuant to r. 1(8)(a) of the Family Law Rules.
19. The applicant shall provide the respondent with proof that he has completed the therapy ordered by Reid J. on January 28, 2021. The confirming letter shall include details regarding the date upon which the ordered therapy was completed, additional therapy recommended, status of ongoing therapy, if any, and status of the applicant’s compliance or non-compliance.
20. Should the parties require judicial oversight to monitor compliance with this matter, either party may request a case conference with MacPherson J or Standryk J.

COSTS

21. If the issue of costs cannot be resolved, I direct the applicant to deliver written submissions to my office by email to St.Catharines.SCJJA@ontario.ca on or before August 23, 2024, with responding submissions to be delivered to my office by email on or before September 6, 2024, and reply submissions, if any, to be filed no later than September 11, 2024. The written submissions are not to exceed three typewritten, double-spaced pages, with 12 pt. font, excluding the bill of costs and costs outline.

L. E. Standryk J. Date: August 6, 2024