2024 QCCS 410, 2024 QCCS 410

Droit de la famille — 24160 2024 QCCS 410 SUPERIOR COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-12-357387-236 DATE: February 9, 2024 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE CAROL COHEN, J.S.C. ______________________________________________________________________ S. C. Plaintiff v. V. S.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ TRANSCRIPTION [1] AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RENDERED VERBALLY ON FEBRUARY 7 TH , 2024 ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Defendant V. S. (the “Father”) has presented a 176 paragraph application for accessory measures and safeguard order (the “Application”) signed by him on Monday February 5 th , 2024. It was served upon Plaintiff S.

C. (the “Mother”) by email care of her attorney on February 5 th , 2024, at 12:03 p.m., presentable at 2:00 p.m. on the same day, February 5 th , 2024, in room 2.17, alleging extreme urgency. [ 2 ] The parties are the parents of 3 children, X, born on [...], 2016, aged 7; Y, aged 6 and born on [...], 2017; and Z, aged 3 months and born on [...], 2023. The Father has de facto custody of the two older children X and Y (the “Girls”) and the Mother has de facto custody of the baby Z.

The Mother has not seen the Girls since July 5 th , 2023 (other than a brief sighting at the Town A airport in August 2023 described below), and the Father has never met the baby Z. [ 3 ] The Application was referred to the undersigned, sitting in room 2.01, for adjudication on February 5 th , 2024, as a result of the extreme urgency alleged by the Father and despite the short delay, even though the Mother had not had yet had the opportunity to respond by way of a sworn declaration.

The Father is asking, inter alia , for exclusive custody of the three minor children and exclusive use of the former family residence located on [Address 1], in Town A (the “property A”). [ 4 ] The undersigned has now rendered two judgments in this file, the first on February 5 th , 2024, in which the Mother was granted the opportunity to respond to the Application by way of a sworn affidavit and Mtre Isabel Brault was appointed attorney to the older children X and Y, inter alia , and another on February 6 th , 2024, dealing primarily with case management and the issue of Mtre Brault’s fees.

The case was continued before the undersigned today at 2:00 p.m. [ 5 ] The Mother has now produced sworn declaration in response to the Application dated February 6 th , 2024 (the Mother’s “Affidavit”). As for the Father, his attorney served an amended Application and affidavits upon the Mother’s attorney, which the Court barred him from producing yesterday as a result of the judgment rendered Tuesday.

The Father also held a meeting of several hours with a representative of the Director of Youth Protection (“DYP”) yesterday, at the same time as the attorneys were appearing before the undersigned with respect to Mtre Brault’s fees and the amended Application. The attorney for the DYP has now asked the Court for a delay until March 27 th , 2024, before deciding the issue of custody of the children, even though the DYP is not in the file at the moment.

After a hearing of several hours today, the undersigned was clearly of the view that a delay until March 27 th , 2024, almost two months, is far too long, and the case will be continued to February 22 nd , 2024, when the other attorneys are available. [ 6 ] The Court has now heard representations from the attorneys for the Mother and the Father on several issues, including the interim use of the property A, currently occupied by the Mother and Z since last weekend; access by the Mother to the Girls; access by the Father to the baby; use of a car by the Mother, who is presently on maternity leave and unable to work here in Quebec as a dental hygienist due to language restrictions, and provision for costs and interim support to the Mother.

The Court also heard representations from Mtre Brault, who asked the Court to transform her mandate into one of Amicus curiae (friend of the Court), given the young age of the Girls and their relative lack of maturity and inability to give her a mandate. This request was granted. [ 7 ] The facts, in brief, are as follows. [ 8 ] The present proceedings in divorce were instituted by Plaintiff on June 8 th , 2023, in the context of a highly conflictual

relationship between the parents.

At the time of the institution of the divorce proceedings, the Mother listed her domicile as the property A, while the Father’s address is listed at [Address 2], also in Town A (the “property B”), where his mother also resides. [ 9 ] On June 20 th , 2023, prior to the birth of Z, Justice Guylaine Duplessis refused an interim request by the Mother to relocate with the Girls to Town B, where her family resides, noting a lack of urgency and the fact that the Court of Quebec, Youth division, had on [...], 2023, granted joint parental time of the Girls to both parents, on the condition that the Girls not be exposed to conjugal violence or conflicts between the parents and that they reside in separate residences (“Duplessis judgment”).

It is important to note that both parties have pressed criminal charges against the other on more than one occasion, and the most recent arrests are described below. [ 10 ] The Duplessis judgment also noted the following with respect to the use of the property A, the former family residence: “ CONSIDÉRANT l’offre du défendeur de laisser l’usage de la residence familiale à la demanderesse pour exercer son temps parental avec les enfants pendant la période estivale et son engagement de ne pas s’y présenter…..ACCORDE à la demanderesse l’usage exclusif pour cette période de vacances de la résidence familiale ”. [ 11 ] The Mother went to Town B with the Girls in early 2023, and she alleges that they began looking for a house for the family to relocate there.

The Mother alleges in her Affidavit that the Father consented to the move to Town B and indeed helped her find a house there and was planning to move there with her. The Father claims that this is not the case and that the Mother abandoned the Girls when she left, although the Father, in a recent sworn statement dated January 30 th , 2024, cited below, alleges that the parties separated only in April 2023, after the Mother’s initial departure for Town B. [ 12 ] Z was born in Town B in October 2023.

The Mother alleges that the baby was conceived following a rape by the Father in January 2023, which allegation is contested by the Father. The Father claims in his Application that he has never met Z, although he is asking for exclusive custody of the baby. [ 13 ] According to the Mother, when the Father changed his mind about moving the family to Town B and following the Duplessis judgment of June 2023, she returned to Town B after the summer vacation time in the property A from June 23 rd until July 5 th , 2023, as set out in paragraphs 36 and following of her Affidavit, cited below.

The Mother has not seen the Girls since July 2023, despite several agreements to the contrary and despite a short viewing at the Town B airport at the end of August 2023, also as explained in her Affidavit. [ 14 ] In support of his Application for exclusive use of the property A and exclusive custody of the three children, the Father alleges conflicts between the parties dating back to 2016, and the involvement of the DYP as of 2020.

In a police report following another incident between the parties on April 16 th , 2018 [2] , the Father lists his address as being on property B. [ 15 ] The Father also produced, inter alia , the audio of a recording he made in October 2021 [3] , during which he says that the Mother kicked the children and stated that they were not her children. During this audio recording, a child is heard to be crying although the audio recording continues and the Father calls for his own mother, the grandmother, to come take care of the child.

The Court has not heard any other circumstances concerning this audio recording, which dates back 3 years, more specifically why the Mother would claim these were not her children and why the Father continued to record the crying when the child was clearly distressed. However, the parties reconciled after this incident of October 2021, as they did after all of the other incidents, including those in which the police and/or the DYP were involved, until the summer of 2023. [ 16 ] On August 30 th , 2023, the Father arrived at the Town B airport with the Girls and his mother, but did not let the Mother see the Girls.

The circumstances leading up to this event are described at paragraphs 36 and following of the Mother’s Affidavit concerning the events as of July 4 th , 2023, in particular her claim that the Father consented to the children moving to Town B and starting them at the [School A] in Town B as of the fall of 2023: 36. On July 4 th , 2023, while the minor children were sleeping in the other room, Defendant once again entered the residence A, informed me that he discovered I was pregnant and further threatened to kill me if I moved to Town B with the unborn child. 37.

Given the circumstances, I gave the minor children to Defendant on the morning of July 5 th , 2023 and immediately left to Town B; 38. At that time, I was already 5 months pregnant and was not in a condition put myself at risk with Defendant’s erratic behaviour and I decided to stay in Town B until I gave birth and felt well enough and safe to come back to Town A; 39.

Although Defendant continued to make my communications with the minor girls very difficult if not impossible, on or about August 15 th , 2023, Defendant began once again rediscussing my relocation with the minor girls to Town B and providing his agreement to same; 40. Defendant even communicated with the school directly; 41. Given the foregoing and following Defendant’s instructions, on Aug 21 st 2023, I reinitiated contact with A. D. of [School A] and registered the girls for the upcoming school year beginning Sept 1 st , 2023, the whole as more fully appears from copies of emails to and from A. D. [4] …; 42.

Defendant further deposited the sum of $20,000 into the joint account and instructed me to advance said funds to [School A], which I did; 43. Given that the admissions were completed and that the children were to start school on September 1 st , 2023, Defendant agreed to bring the minor girls to Town B on August 30 th , 2023; 44. On August 30 th , 2023, Defendant arrived at the Town B Airport with the minor girls and his mother, and upon my father requesting

that Defendant act like a gentleman moving forward and stop his abuse, Defendant had an outburst of anger in front of the minor children, grabbed the minor children before I could greet them and took off with the minor girls and his mother in a taxi, all the while swearing and shouting out loud; 45. Defendant was insisting to meet me in his hotel room and when I refused, he stopped taking any of my calls, leaving me wondering where the minor girls were and leaving the girls without attendance at the school in Town B where we had registered the girls; 46.

On August 31 st , 2023, I attended the Town B police and reported Defendant’s illicit actions perpetrated on me and further expressed my fear for my own safety, that of my unborn child and that of the two minor girls … 47. Since August 31 st , 2023, Defendant has not permitted any effective communication whatsoever between me and the minor girls, the whole notwithstanding my numerous calls and texts and pleas for help from the Social Worker working for Youth Protection; 48.

Defendant has further since been brainwashing the minor girls and has further been intentionally and purposefully unduly alienating the 2 minor girls from me; [ 17 ] These incidents are absent from the Father’s Application. He merely states that the Mother has been living in Town B surrounded by her immediate and extended family since March 2023 (paragraph 109).

He does not deal with his own visit with the Girls to Town B in August 2023, nor with the registration of the Girls in a Town B school, the payment by him of $20,000 towards the fees of that school and his abrupt departure from the airport in August 2023 with the Girls, without allowing the Mother to see them. [ 18 ] As noted above, the Mother gave birth to Z in Town B on [...], 2023, and she has not seen the Girls since the brief viewing at the airport with the Father following the altercation on August 30 th , 2023. [ 19 ] Despite all of this, and the criminal charges pressed against the Father by the Mother in Town B following the airport incident, the file appeared to have been settled on the merits of the divorce and accessory measures in December 2023. [ 20 ] The parties signed a Final Consent to Judgment on Accessory Measures (the “Consent”), in anticipation of their divorce.

This Consent was signed by the Father and his attorney in Town A, on December 18 th , 2023, and by the Mother in Town B on December 15 th , 2023, without signature by her attorney, Mtre Eric Kirshner, who had ceased representing her earlier in the month of December. [ 21 ] The Mother now alleges that she signed the Consent without representation by an attorney and under pressure, as appears from paragraphs 51 and 52 of her Affidavit of February 6 th 2024: 51.

In early December 2023, relations with my attorneys broke off and my attorneys stopped representing me and […] filed on December 20 th , 2023, a Notice to Cease Representing in the file; 52.

Meanwhile, on December 2023, unrepresented by attorney, not getting any response from the Police regarding conditions being imposed on Defendant, begin disillusioned with the legal system, being under pressure from Defendant and being in desperate need for money, I hastily signed a Final Consent to Judgment on accessory Measures; [ 22 ] The Mother also signed a sworn declaration in anticipation of the judgment on the divorce on December 18 th , 2023, and it lists her domicile and residence on [Address 3] in Town B, which was presumably prepared by the Father’s attorney, although he did not sign his own sworn declaration for judgment until January 30 th , 2024, namely last week, which commences as follows: “ I, the undersigned, V.

S., domiciled and residing at [Address 2], Town A ..” The Father goes on to state at paragraph 9 of this sworn declaration that the parties separated on April 5 th , 2023. At paragraph 10, he states the following: “ I reside at [Address 2], Town A, in the judicial district of Montreal, Province of Quebec, [...], and I have been doing for well over a year ”. [ 23 ] The Mother has now filed a Notice of Withdrawal of consent to the Final Consent, on January 25 th , 2024 (the “Withdrawal of consent”) through her new attorney, Mtre Maurice Oiknine, who appeared on her behalf on that same day.

The Court will return below to the issue of the Withdrawal of consent, which will be adjudicated at a later date, given the objection of the Father. [ 24 ] Returning to the Consent, which remains in force until adjudication on the Mother’s Withdrawal of consent, it resolves all issues between the parties. The parents agreed that the Father shall have exclusive custody of X and Y, whereas the Mother will have exclusive custody of Z.

They also set out in detail their agreements concerning shared parental visitation time on a going forward basis, the whole as appears from paragraphs 9 to 11 inclusive of the Final Consent. At paragraph 12 of the Consent, the parents agree to continue to exercise together their parental authority and they grant to the other the right to travel outside of Canada with the child or children in their custody.

At no time are the older conflicts between the parents mentioned in the Consent, including the numerous conflicts alleged in the Father’s Application and the Calgary incident of August 2023. [ 25 ] As to property, the parties agreed inter alia that the property A will be transferred to the Father’s mother (paragraph 16) and that the Mother shall retain ownership of her townhouse in Town B.

Finally, at paragraphs 38 and following of the Consent, the parties mutually renounce inter alia to any and all recourses and claims against the other concerning lump sums, property, pensions or assets, etc. [ 26 ] At paragraphs 11(

a) and following of the Consent, the parties agree inter alia to visitation by the Girls with their Mother during the Christmas vacation of 2023, as well as parenting time with the Father and the baby Z, during the Father’s time in Town B between December 21 st and 30 th 2023 : (

a) during the Christmas vacations of 2023, the father shall bring the children X and Y to Town B from Town A, between December 21, 2023 and December 30, 2023 inclusively, for Mother to exercise parenting time with them, begin understood that the mother will pay the

travel expenses including plane tickets for the departure and return flights for the two girls; (

b) The parents agree that the children Y and X will not take night flights and that both of their departure and return flights between Town A and Town B will take place during daytime, so as to respect to the greatest degree possible their usual bed-times; (

c) For their visitation to Town B, the children X and Y will be accompanied by the father at all times for the purposes of travelling by airplane from Town A to Town B, and back from Town B to Town A; (d) […] (e) […] (

f) The parents agree that the father will be allowed to exercise parenting time for up to 2 consecutive hours per day with the newborn boy Z … during his time in Town B for the winter of 2023 between December 21 and December 30. Should the parties fail to come to an agreement, the default visitation time will be from 10h to 12h noon on a daily basis.

Visitation will occur in the presence of a wet-nurse who is familiar with the child Z. (emphasis added) [ 27 ] The parties also agreed that the Father should pay an amount of $75,000 in lump sum spousal support payable as follows: $50,000 before December 31 st , 2023, and $24,000 before June 1, 2024 (paragraphs 2-3 of the Consent). As noted, the Mother is still on maternity leave and formerly worked as a dental hygienist, which she can no longer do in Quebec since the language legislation required proficiency in French she does not have, partially explaining her wish to move to Town B.

The Father has an MBA and works as an “ entrepreneur and landlord ”, earning a gross income of $120,000 annually, according to the

preamble of the Consent. [ 28 ] But the Father never brought the Girls to Town B on December 21 st , 2023, as agreed, and he never paid the $50,000 lump sum instalment by December 31 st , 2023. [ 29 ] In the Father’s Application, he explains at paragraphs 134 and 135 that it was his understanding that it was the Mother who was to come from Town B to collect the Girls in Town A, in apparent contradiction with paragraph 11(

a) cited above: 134. Notwithstanding the agreement that the mother would come to collect the daughters to bring them back to Town B, accompanied by the father, for a visitation this past Christmas 2023, the mother did not come and abruptly stopped calling her daughters and stopped exercising her virtual visitation with them; 135. The father remained in Town A with the daughters and he did not see his son.

The daughters did not see their brother. [ 30 ] Moreover, the Mother states in her Affidavit that the Father’s mother and aunt made a surprise visit to Town B on January 22 nd , 2024, insisting on seeing her and the baby Z, and informing her that the Girls were being “ tortured and brainwashed ” by the Father, as appears from paragraphs 54 and following of her Affidavit: 54. On January 22 nd , 2024, Defendant’s mother and aunt made a surprise trip to Town B and insisted on seeing me and my son Z; 55.

That same evening, Defendant’s mother and aunt visited by Town B home and informed me that the minor girls have lost so much weight since I left to Town B, that Defendant has been torturing and brainwashing the minor girls to not talk to me over the phone and that the minor girls missed me greatly; 56. Defendant’s mother further informed me that when Defendant learned from the Social Worker of Youth Protection that the minor girls informed said Social Worker that they wished to see me and move to Town B, Defendant began pinching the minor girls and pulling their hair; 57.

I have a recording of the aforementioned conversation with Defendant’s mother and aunt which is in the Hindi language, but which I am presently in the process of officially translating into the English language .. [ 31 ] The day following the visit to Town B by Defendant’s mother and aunt, on January 23 rd , 2024, the Father sent a text message to the Mother which stated : “ I will not back down, and I will absolutely make it my GOAL to hurt you DOUBLE anything you try and hurt me! ” [5] . [ 32 ] As noted above, on January 25 th , 2024, the Mother mandated a new attorney who filed a Withdrawal of her consent to the Final Consent, and she pressed criminal charges against the Father. [ 33 ] As noted above, on January 30 th , 2024, the Father signed a sworn statement in support of the divorce being pronounced on the basis of the Final Consent, the provisions of which had not been respected (in particular, visitation of the Girls to Town B and payment of $50,000 lump sum).

No mention is made of the Withdrawal of consent by the Mother. [ 34 ] On that same day, January 30 th , 2024, the Mother received confirmation from the Town A police that the Father had been arrested with respect to his threats, and released on conditions [6] . [ 35 ] As a result, she felt safe enough to return to Town A in order to see the Girls, and returned on January 31 st , 2024. [ 36 ] The parties’ attorneys reached a temporary agreement with respect to visitation by the Girls to the Mother and visitation by the Father with Z – two virtual visits between the Mother and the Girls on February 2 nd and 3 rd , and an in person meeting with the girls on

Sunday February 4 th , 2024, for 3 hours at Mall A. However the Father did not allow those communications between the Girls and their Mother, to take place, nor did the [Mall A] visitation take place. [ 37 ] The Mother had moved back into the property A in Town A with Z, having no other place to live in Town A. According to her Affidavit, the property A was unoccupied when she arrived there, and all clothing closets were empty and there was no food in the refrigerator (paragraph 99). [ 38 ] The Father’s version of the Mother’s arrival in Town A is quite different.

At paragraph 137 of the Application, the Father states that there was a hearing before Youth Court on [...], 2024, at which the Mother was not present. He continues as follows at paragraph 138 and 139 of his Application: 138. Shortly after the appearance in Youth Court, the mother suddenly and mysteriously began announcing to the father that she would return to Town A to claim her daughters; 139.

The father is aware that the DYP agent, [Social Worker 1], had numerous phone calls with the mother subsequent to the January 17 hearing and has reason to believe that [Social Worker 1] advised and convinced the mother to return to Town A. [ 39 ] The Father makes no mention of the visit by the his mother and sister to the Mother in Town B on January 22 nd , 2024.

He merely states at paragraph 141 that on January 31, he learned that the Mother had arrived in Town A with their son Z and with her own mother, and was demanding to see her daughters. [ 40 ] The Father acknowledges at paragraphs 149 and following of his Application that the parties had agreed to visitation between the Girls and the Mother at Shopping Centre A, however when he learned on Sunday morning, February 4 th , that the Mother and Z were residing at the property A, he called the police who said that they could not intervene as the Mother’s name still appears on that property. [ 41 ] He then alleges that the Mother began calling and texting the Father from an unknown number, threatening to kill him, saying that he will never see the daughters again, and that she will drop all charges if he brings her the daughters so she can return to Town B. [ 42 ] On the basis of these threats, which the Mother categorically denies sending, the Mother was arrested at 4:00 am on February 5 th , 2024, and she now has police imposed conditions that she may not approach the Father or the Girls.

The Application was served on her attorney a few hours later, at 12:03 p.m. on February 5 th , 2024, asking for her immediate eviction from the property A on the grounds that it was the residence of the Father and the Girls, and asking for exclusive custody of the three children. [ 43 ] At paragraph 168 of the Application, the Father claims that he is “ fully confident that with the assistance of his mother and their full-time nanny, he can take care of Z and would love to do so ”.

DISCUSSION [ 44 ] The Court must now decide a number of issues on an interim basis, before the parties return to the Court on February 22 nd , 2024.

The undersigned is of the opinion that the issues raised here, especially access by the parents to the children, cannot wait until March 27 th , 2024, as requested by the DYP which, it must be emphasized, is not yet in this file. [ 45 ] First, the Court will decide the issue of interim occupation of the property A, and visitation with the three children. [ 46 ] The Father’s Application dated February 5 th , 2024, is supported by an affidavit in which he states that he is domiciled and residing at [Address 2].

This is only one example of the many places in the proceedings and documents in which he claims the property B as his residence. [ 47 ] Nevertheless, the Father now claims in his Application that the Mother is “ entrenched in the home of the Father on [Address 1] ” (paragraph 161) which is detrimental to him, given his allegation that he and the Girls had been “ enjoying exclusive use of the family home at [Address 1] since March of 2023 ” (paragraph 163).

This is in direct contradiction with his claim at paragraph 10 of his January 30 th , 2024 affidavit, in which he states that he is residing and domiciled at the property B and has been residing there for “ well over a year ”. [ 48 ] The Father’s claim that he and the Girls are residing in the property A is not substantiated by the proof, on a balance of probabilities, and further contradicted by his own sworn statements.

It appears that the Father was enraged by the fact that the Mother had returned to the property A, leading to his refusal to allow the access between the Mother and the Girls and leading to the present Application. [ 49 ] The Father uses old allegations of violent conflict with the Mother dating back years, as well as the anonymous threats denied by the Mother in order to claim that he must urgently reclaim “ residency ” of the property A.

He asks the Court “ on an urgent basis as a safeguard measure ” to award him exclusive custody of the minor children X and Y “ to be exercised in the family home at [Address 1] ”, to grant to him “ exclusive use of the family home located at [Address 1] ”, with an order that the Mother shall stay “ 100 meters away from the home of the Girls located at [Address 1] ”.

He also asks for exclusive custody of the baby Z, although he alleges at paragraph 116 that he “ has never seen the boy ” but that “ with the assistance of his mother and their full time nanny, he can take care of Z and would love to do so ” (paragraph 123). [ 50 ] The Court cannot condone such tactics. The Mother arrived from Town B in an attempt to see the Girls, following the Father’s refusal to let her see them in Town B on August 30 th , 2023, following his failure to respect the visitation in Town B set out in the Final

Consent signed by both parties and following representations by the paternal grandmother that the children were being brainwashed and “ tortured ” and that they wanted to see her.

Furthermore, she is the mother of a 3-month-old baby and she has no income and nowhere else to live, whereas the Father and Girls and well established at the property B, as set out in his own proceedings, along with his mother and a ” full time nanny ”. [ 51 ] The Court will therefore grant exclusive use of the property A to the Mother and Z, on an interim basis, and will grant to the Mother exclusive parenting time with Z. [ 52 ] As to the parenting time with the Girls, and the Father’s consistent refusal to allow the Mother access to them, the Court heard representations from Mtre Brault following her meeting with X and Y.

It is a testament to their resiliency that both children appear well and enthusiastic. According to Y, she prefers to live at the grandmother’s house. According to X, she feels “safe” with her father and grandmother.

Both children appear to be aware of the fact that the Mother is now living in the property A with their baby brother, whom they have not yet met, however it is not clear who told them this was the case, nor when. [ 53 ] It is unconscionable that the Mother and Girls have not seen each other since July 2023, and that no explanation was provided by the Father as to why, on three occasions, he did not allow the children to see their Mother: on August 30 th , in Town B; on December 21 st , in Calgary, in accordance with the Consent, and on February 2-4 th , 2024, in accordance with the interim agreement reached between the parties’ attorneys. [ 54 ] The Court will therefore immediately re-establish access by the Mother to Girls, in the hopes that the conditions imposed following her arrest on February 5 th , can be lifted.

It is in the interests of the Girls, who have become pawns in the highly conflictual relationship between the Father and the Mother, to resume contact with their Mother as soon as possible. It is also in the interest of the baby Z to be in contact, however brief, with his Father. [ 55 ] The Court will therefore set out visitation for Sunday February 18 th , 2024, to be coordinated through the paternal grandmother, as the Father has neither denied nor explained his threat to the Mother on January 23 rd , 2024, that he is going to “ make it his GOAL to hurt ” the Mother.

The Girls will be brought at 10:00 a.m. to the property A by the paternal grandmother. She will return to get the Girls at 1:00 p.m. and if she has a baby car seat, she will take the baby Z for one hour to property B to see the Father, and return him to the property A by 2 p.m. The paternal grandmother will remain with Z at all times during this visit. [ 56 ] As for a car, and without making any judgment on the parties’ respective financial situations, it is clear that the Mother requires a vehicle for herself and the baby, She has no source of income whatsoever and cannot work in Quebec.

She has no car, although there is a Tesla X vehicle in the garage of the property A which the Father says has no snow tires. He drives the former family vehicle, a Tesla Y (stated as the family car in the Duplessis Judgment), to which car the Mother was given access during her two weeks with the Girls.

There is also a Mercedes in the garage of the property B which he claims also has no snow tires. [ 57 ] The Court will order the Father to make one of the two Tesla vehicles available to the Mother by no later than Monday February 12 th , 2024, at noon, along with keys and registration – either by arranging for the Tesla X to be equipped with snow tires at his expense prior to that date, or by giving her the keys and registration to the Tesla Y and bringing it to the property A by the same date. [ 58 ] The Mother is also requesting immediate interim support of $3,000 as well as a provision for costs.

The issue of the provision for costs will be deferred to the next hearing date, given the late hour, but the Court will order the $3,000 payment as support to the Mother, under reserve of both parties’ rights to ask for this amount to be adjusted at a future date. This support shall be payable within 48 hours of the present judgment.

This is in light, inter alia , of the Father’s failure to pay the initial lump sum of $50,000 by December 31 st , 2023, as agreed in the Final Consent, and under reserve of the Mother’s rights to claim further alimentary support and provision for costs. [ 59 ] Both parties will be ordered to provide their Form III and

Annexe I by the next hearing date. The Court also takes acte of the undertaking by the attorneys for the parents to file a Joint declaration for the hearing on the issue of the Mother’s Withdrawal of her consent to the Final Consent, so that a hearing can be fixed on that issue at the next Court date. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT RENDERS THE FOLLOWING SAFEGUARD ORDER TO REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL FEBRUARY 22 nd , 2024 : [ 60 ] GRANTS to the mother S.

C. interim and exclusive use of the property A with the baby Z, to the exclusion of Defendant S.; [ 61 ] ORDERS visitation by the Mother with the minor children X and Y, and by the Father to the baby Z as follows: The Girls will be brought at 10:00 a.m. to the property A by the paternal grandmother. The Grandmother will return to get the Girls at 1:00 p.m. and if she has a baby car seat, she will take the baby Z for one hour to the property B to see the Father, and return him to the property A by 2:00 p.m. The paternal grandmother will remain with Z at all times during the visit. [ 62 ] ORDERS the Father V.

S. to pay to the Mother, within 48 hours of the present judgment, an amount of $3,000 in alimentary support, under reserve of both parties’ rights to plead further on the issue of this support at the next Court date; [ 63 ] DECLARES that the Father shall make available to the Mother an either the Tesla X or the Tesla Y vehicle by no later than Monday February 12 th , 2024, at noon, equipped with snow tires at his expense and along with registration and keys; [ 64 ] APPOINTS Mtre Isabelle Brault as amicus curiae instead of attorney to X and Y, with her fees to be paid by the Father in accordance with his undertaking; [ 65 ] ORDERS that Mtre Brault shall be the only person to speak to X and Y about these matters, judgments and the present file and ORDERS the parties not to discuss this matter with or in the presence of the minor children and not to denigrate the other party in the presence or the earshot of the children;

[ 66 ] DEFERS to the next judge to the seized with this case the question of provision for costs, based upon all of the allegations in the parties’ respective proceedings; [ 67 ] TAKES ACTE of the undertaking by the Mother and Father, through their attorneys, to file their Form III and

Annexe I and to prepare a joint declaration for the hearing of this Withdrawal of her consent to the Final Consent, the whole for the next Court date of February 22 nd , 2024; [ 68 ] FIXES the Father’s Application pro forma in room 2.17, on February 22 nd , 2024, at 9:00 a.m.; [ 69 ] THE WHOLE without costs. __________________________________ CAROL COHEN, J.S.C. Mtre Maurice Oiknine Attorney for the Plaintiff Mtre Muhammed Emre Barak Mtre Daniel Romano GOLDWATER, DUBÉ Attorneys for the Defendant Mtre Isabel Brault Amicus curiae for the minor children X and Y Date of hearing : February 7 th , 2024