Williams v. Power, 2022 NSSC 156

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Williams v. Power , 2022 NSSC 156 Date: 20220603 Docket: SFHPSA-112829 Registry: Halifax Between: Daniel Williams Applicant v. Tina Power Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice C. LouAnn Chiasson Heard: April 25-29, 2022

Summary: The parties were in a court ordered shared parenting arrangement with a week on/ week off arrangement. The father had been found in contempt of the order and the mother had limited time with the children for months. The mother alleged parental alienation. The father applied to relocate to Ontario with the children. The court found there was parental alienation and the father’s request to relocate with the children was denied. The mother was to have sole decision making and primary care of the children.

Key words: Contempt of Court- civil Family- access to children Family- emergency application Family- child decision making Family- parental alienation Family- relocation/ mobility Legislation: Parenting and Support Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 160 THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOESN’T FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET . SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia

FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Williams v. Power , 2022 NSSC 156 Date: 20220603 Docket: Halifax No. SFHPSA-112829 Registry: Halifax Between: Daniel Williams Applicant v. Tina Power Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice C. LouAnn Chiasson Heard: April 25-29, 2022, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Written Release: June 3, 2022 Counsel: Patrick Eagan for the Applicant Matthew Conrad for the Respondent By the Court: [ 1 ] C. and L. are 9 and 8 years old. Their parents have been involved in the court process for years.

This application was brought to decide whether C. and L. will live primarily with their mother in Nova Scotia or in Ontario with their father. [ 2 ] Up until 2020, the parents were able to reach agreement on the parenting arrangements for their boys. In May 2020, there was a Consent Order confirming the continuation of the shared parenting arrangement. The children spent equal time with each parent, alternating between the households on a week on/ week off basis. [ 3 ] As with all families, there were difficulties along the way, but they managed to put the boys needs first and co-parent.

From the date of their separation in 2017 until the fall of 2021, the parents shared relatively equal time with the boys in a week on/ week off arrangement. [ 4 ] In the last two years the parents have shifted from co-parenting their children to a chaotic and toxic situation. This should serve as a cautionary tale. When the parenting arrangement started to slide, I don’t think anyone could have predicted the emotional avalanche that is now wreaking havoc in the lives of these two young boys. [ 5 ] C. and L. are my focus. Throughout these proceedings, I have heard voluminous evidence from a number of witnesses.

My focus was, and continues to be, on the best interests of these boys- everything else is secondary. [ 6 ] Much of the evidence presented related to the parents. Mr. Williams provided some background information related to the children’s schooling, friends and interests in his affidavit filed August 23, 2021 [ref Exhibit 53]. Ms. Power provided some detail about the children in her affidavit sworn February 1, 2022 [ref Exhibit 9, paragraphs 19-37]. I have also reviewed two court ordered assessments: the first filed by Neil Kennedy in November, 2020, and the second filed by Olga Komissarova on April 20, 2022.

BACKGROUND [ 7 ] At the outset, it must be noted that both parents love their boys dearly. There can be no doubt that each parent firmly believes that they are doing what is best for their children. The evidence clearly showed that, despite their love and affection, the boys have been negatively impacted in the most significant way. [ 8 ] The current proceeding began as a variation application by Mr. Williams to change the shared parenting arrangement to a request that he have primary care of the children. In June 2021, Mr.

Williams amended his application to include a request to relocate with the children to Ottawa. [ 9 ] Mr. Williams is posted and was scheduled to commence working in Ottawa shortly after the hearing. His house in Nova Scotia is sold and he and his current spouse are leaving for Ottawa. They remain in Nova Scotia pending the decision of the court.

[ 10 ] Mr. Williams currently resides with his partner, Krista Williams. Ms. Williams has four children. Her three youngest children continue to reside with her and Mr. Williams: A., T. and Lu. [ 11 ] Ms. Power has had little parenting time with the boys since September 2021, despite a court ordered shared parenting arrangement. A contempt motion was filed on September 23, 2021. Mr. Williams was found guilty on two counts of contempt and acquitted of the third count. He was found guilty of contempt in that he denied Ms.

Power her court ordered parenting time on two separate occasions in the fall of 2021. [ 12 ] Despite her limited parenting time with C. and L., Ms. Power is requesting the boys remain in Nova Scotia in her primary care. [ 13 ] Prior to hearing the present application, Ms. Power brought two emergency applications: 1) requesting the children attend public school and 2) to establish her Christmas parenting time. [ 14 ] In relation to the first application, Ms. Power wanted the children to be re-enrolled in public school. She had agreed that the spouse of Mr.

Williams could homeschool the children during the spring school term in 2021. Her consent was based on the covid pandemic and the alleged vulnerability to the virus of another child in Mr. Williams’ home, his stepson Lu. She withdrew her consent to homeschooling for the fall term commencing in September 2021. [ 15 ] Mr. Williams opposed the schooling application requesting the children continue to be home schooled. The issue of schooling for the children was addressed as part of the contempt motion. Ms.

Power was successful and the children were ordered to be re-enrolled in public school. [ 16 ] In the second emergency application, Ms. Power requested overnight parenting during Christmas 2021. This was despite the fact that an existing court order mandated equal parenting time. Mr. Williams requested Ms. Power have supervised parenting time for a few hours on Christmas Day. Ms. Power was successful on her application and the children had unsupervised overnight parenting time with her. ISSUES: 1) Should C. and L. move to Ontario with Mr. Williams? In answering that question, a number of other issues arise: a.

Are there any legislative presumptions that apply to the mobility application of Mr. Williams? b. What is the analysis pursuant to s.18H(4) of the PSA ? c. What, if any, credibility findings are appropriate? d. Has there been parental alienation by Mr. Williams? e. What weight should be given to the Assessment Reports? 2) What is the appropriate parenting arrangement for the non-residential parent? LAW & ANALYSIS Issue 1(a): Legislative Presumptions in Mobility Cases [ 17 ] Years ago, relocation or mobility cases were decided on the basis of common law.

Parties would advance their position based on the relevant case law and the judge decided whether to grant or deny one parent’s request to move with the children. [ 18 ] Recently, both provincial and federal legislation were amended to include provisions on relocation. These amendments provide a legislative framework when deciding relocation cases.

The applicable legislation in this proceeding is the Parenting and Support Act , RSNS 1989, c.160 , (as amended) (“ PSA ”). [ 19 ] Pursuant to s.18H(1) of the PSA any presumption in favour of one parent’s position over the other depends on the parenting arrangement. [ 20 ] As noted in the PSA at

section 18H (1A): “The burden of proof under subsection (1) is allocated as follows: (

a) where there is a court order or an agreement that provides that the child spend substantially equal time in the care of each party, the party who intends to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child, unless the other party is not in substantial compliance with the order or agreement, in which case clause (

e) applies”. [ 21 ] If there is no agreement, court order, or informal arrangement,

section 18H(1A) (

e) states that the relocation is determined based on a best interests analysis. Under this subsection, there is no presumption in favour or against the relocation. Counsel for Mr. Williams argued that this is the appropriate legislative framework. I do not agree. [ 22 ] There is clearly a court order whereby the children are in a shared parenting arrangement. In order for the presumption pursuant to 18H(1A)(

a) to be inapplicable, it must be proven that Ms. Power is “not in substantial compliance with the order”. Ms. Power filed a contempt application seeking to enforce the court ordered shared parenting arrangement. Her position is that any non- compliance with the order did not arise as a result of her actions, but rather from the actions of Mr. Williams.

[ 23 ] Ms. Power testified the children have been in a shared parenting arrangement since separation in 2017. Her evidence is that the Consent Court Order of May 2020 confirms the continuation of a shared parenting agreement. Up until September 2021, the children spent roughly equal time with both parents. [ 24 ] Counsel for Ms. Power contends that the limitation of her time with the boys arose from parental alienation on the part of Mr. Williams and his spouse, Krista Williams. Ms.

Power’s position is that there is a presumption the children should remain in Nova Scotia as the children were in a court ordered shared parenting arrangement. [ 25 ] Counsel for Mr. Williams concedes there should be no presumption in favour of the relocation. Mr. Williams does not agree, however, that the parties are in a shared parenting arrangement. He disagrees that there is a presumption in favour of the children remaining in Nova Scotia.

His position is that both parties have the burden of demonstrating what is in the best interests of the children when there is no presumption applicable as set out in s. 18H(1) (

e) of the PSA . [ 26 ] Mr. Williams was found guilty on two counts of contempt on February 4, 2022. Counsel for Mr. Williams requested that I consider all evidence from the contempt proceeding in this mobility application. By consent, all documents and the transcript of the contempt hearing were entered into evidence in this proceeding. [ 27 ] I would be condoning the contemptuous conduct of Mr. Williams if I were to ignore the court ordered shared parenting arrangement. The court will not waive the appropriate presumption under the legislation.

To do otherwise is to encourage others to act unilaterally and in contravention of a court order. [ 28 ] The appropriate presumption is found in s. 18H(1A)(

a) of the PSA . Mr. Williams bears the burden to show that it is in the children’s best interests to relocate to Ontario. The court must consider the factors set out in sections 18H(4) and 18(6) of the PSA in determining what is the best interest of the children. Issue 1(b): Analysis pursuant to s. 18H(4) of the PSA [ 29 ]

Section 18H(4) of the PSA sets out the factors to be considered by the court in relocation applications: “In determining the best interests of the child under this Section, the court shall consider all relevant circumstances, including (

a) the circumstances listed in subsection 18(6); (

b) the reasons for the relocation; (

c) the effect on the child of changed parenting time and contact time due to the relocation; (

d) the effect on the child of the child’s removal from family, school and community due to the relocation; (

e) the appropriateness of changing the parenting arrangements; (

f) compliance with previous court orders and agreements by the parties to the application; (

g) any restrictions placed on relocation in previous court orders and agreements; (

h) any additional expenses that may be incurred by the parties due to the relocation; (

i) the transportation options available to reach the new location; and (

j) whether the person planning to relocate has given notice as required under this Act and has proposed new decision making responsibility, parenting time and contact time schedules, as applicable, for the child following relocation. [ 30 ] I will first address the factors noted in s.18H(4)(b)- (j): (

b) the reasons for relocation : Mr. Williams is employed with the Department of National Defence and is posted to Ontario. (

c) The effect on the children of changed parenting time and contact due to the relocation : Contrary to the current court order, the children are primarily living with Mr. Williams. The effect on the children will be addressed later in the decision under the heading: Parental Alienation (

d) the effect on the children of the children’s removal from family, school and community due to the relocation ; The extended family of both parents reside in Nova Scotia- grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins. If the relocation is permitted the children will change schools and live in Ottawa with Mr. Williams, his spouse and step-siblings. The effect on the children will be addressed later in the decision under the heading: Parental Alienation (

e) the appropriateness of changing the parenting arrangements ; This is addressed later in the decision under the heading: Parental Alienation.

(

f) compliance with previous court orders and agreements by the parties to the application ; Mr. Williams was found in contempt on two counts related to the parenting

schedule for the children. At the request of counsel for Mr. Williams, all evidence of this proceeding was to be considered by the court in this relocation application. In addition to the evidence related to the contempt motion, further evidence was presented wherein Mr. Williams ceased paying child support to Ms. Power. He ceased paying child support prior to August 31, 2020 contrary to the May 2020 Consent Order. The Records of the Maintenance Enforcement Program were in evidence [ref Exhibit 48]. The records show that, as of February 2021, Mr. Williams was in arrears $6,086.50. As a result of his non-payment, the income of Mr. Williams was garnished for a period of time. (

g) any restrictions placed on relocation in previous court orders and agreements ; There are no such restrictions. (

h) any additional expenses that may be incurred by the parties due to the relocation ; There will clearly be increased travel costs in relation to Ms. Power’s parenting time should the relocation be allowed. Mr. Williams’ proposal is that the travel costs would alternate in odd and even months and that he would pay the costs associated with the children’s activities. I am uncertain as to how the alternating monthly cost would be practical. Travel costs are not fixed and may result in one parent paying significantly more than the other depending on dates of travel. (

i) the transportation options available to reach the new location ; Given the distance between Ontario and Nova Scotia, the only practical option for transportation is by air. The proposal for parenting time suggested by Mr. Williams includes four day visits. Driving that distance during those shorter visits would be completely impractical. (

j) whether the person planning to relocate has given notice as required under this Act and has proposed new decision making responsibility, parenting time and contact time schedules, as applicable, for the child following relocation . Mr. Williams applied to the court on June 24, 2021, requesting the ability to relocate with the children. His proposal related to parenting time and contact time is contained in submissions from counsel filed April 14, 2022. [ 31 ] The remaining factor to be considered is set out in s.18H(4)(a).

It directs the court to consider the factors related to the best interests of the child as found in listed in s. 18(6) . These factors are considered and addressed under the heading of parental alienation. [ 32 ] The court must properly balance the plans of each parent through the lens of the children’s best interest ( D.A.M. v. C.J.B. , 2017 NSCA 91 ; Titus v. Kynock , 2022 NSCA 35 ). [ 33 ] The plan of Mr. Williams is to relocate with the children to Ottawa. His plan is for Ms. Power to come to visit the children in Ottawa on a regular basis “and vice versa” [ref Exhibit 1, para 120].

He is prepared to share the cost of flying the children to see Ms. Power in Nova Scotia “once they become more comfortable with contact with their mother.” [ 34 ] Mr. Williams indicates that he is prepared to facilitate Skype and telephone call a few times a week between the children and Ms. Power. [ 35 ] During the trial Mr. Williams provided some further details about his plan. He indicated that he had purchased a home approximately 40 minutes outside Ottawa. He testified that the home was large enough to accommodate his stepchildren as well as C. and L.

The plan was to enrol the children in the English public school system close to the home. [ 36 ] Mr. Williams indicated that they had tentatively looked into a soccer program as well as skateboarding camp. Mr. Williams also indicated they were looking into motorcross for one of the children. [ 37 ] The plan of Ms. Power is set out in paragraphs 211- 225 of her affidavit filed February 2, 2022 [ref Exhibit 9, tab 1]. Her plan is to keep as much the same for the children as possible.

She stated she would like to move into the area of the children’s school to be close to the children’s friends (as well as being closer to their school). [ 38 ] Ms. Power would keep them at the same school, and with the same health care providers (doctor, dentist, optometrist). She would seek counselling for the boys. Ms. Power would maintain their involvement in current extra-curricular activities. She has noted a willingness to work with Mr. Williams and to arrange parenting time for him as set out in her affidavit. Issue 1(c): Credibility [ 39 ] Much of the evidence was contradictory.

Findings of credibility are central to a determination in this case. Factors to consider in assessing credibility were set out in Baker-Warren v Denault , 2009 NSSC 59 , as approved in Hurst v. Gill , 2011 NSCA 100 . [ 40 ] As noted in the Hubley v MacRae , 2011 NSCA 25 at paragraph 29 : “Determining credibility is a function squarely within the competence of trial judges. They are called to make such determinations on a daily basis. They have the advantage of seeing and hearing the parties testify.

They are entitled to accept all, some or none of any witness’s testimony.” [ 41 ] There were a number of inconsistencies in the evidence of Mr. Williams. Following are some examples of those inconsistencies although not every piece of evidence has been recounted in this decision. As set out in KK v MM, 2022 ONCA 72 (Ont. C.A.), at paragraph 22 :

“…One of the purposes behind the requirement to give reasons is to identify the issues to be resolved and to distill the evidence down to the facts that are relevant to those issues: see generally, R. v. Sheppard , 2002 SCC 26 , [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869 . The wholescale repetition of all the evidence heard does not fulfill that purpose. It does not help the parties who may be unable to understand the central basis for the decision reached. It does not help counsel in terms of their ability to understand and identify possible grounds of appeal.

Finally, it does not help this court which must, among other things, then determine if extraneous facts influenced the trial judge’s analysis.” Example One- School Enrolment Issue [ 42 ] Mr. Williams opposed the children being re-enrolled in school in the fall of 2021. He said he was opposed to C. and L. going back to school because it would pose a risk to his stepson, Lu. He indicated that Lu.’s health made him vulnerable in relation to exposure to covid. No admissible medical evidence was tendered regarding Lu. [ 43 ] Mr. Williams argued that the health risk to Lu. would increase if C. and L. attended school.

His rationale to minimize exposure to Lu. was contradicted by his actions. He did not advise Ms. Power that two other step children residing in his home were attending school approximately 50% of the time. The exposure to Lu. in relation to children attending school was already present. [ 44 ] The position of Mr. Williams is even more difficult to reconcile with the evidence of further potential exposures to covid. Both boys continued to attend extra-curricular activities with other children. On one occasion, they attended a play park and at least one child was noted to be unmasked.

These actions are inconsistent with ensuring that any covid exposure to Lu. was minimized. Example Two- Letter of Kelly Greenland [ 45 ] A Parenting Time Assessment Report was prepared by Neil Kennedy on November 27, 2020. During the assessment, Mr. Williams provided Mr. Kennedy with a letter in support from a collateral contact, Kelly Greenland. That letter is noted at page 5 of Mr. Kennedy’s report. In that letter Ms. Greenland stated that she had common parenting styles with Mr. Williams and his spouse.

The letter further indicated that her children “are always happy to visit the Williams home.” [ 46 ] What Mr. Williams did not disclose to Mr. Kennedy is that Ms. Greenland wrote a subsequent letter regarding parenting issues. The letter was sent by Ms. Greenland to Krista Williams on June 21, 2020 [ref. Exhibit 12, tab c]. Mr. Williams was aware of the letter but chose not to disclose the letter to Mr. Kennedy months prior to the report being finalized. [ 47 ] The letter questioned the integrity of Ms. Williams and pointed to a number of “untruthful and unfounded” allegations. Ms.

Greenland’s letter addressed the friendship between her children and C. and L.. The letter stated, in part: “… We will encourage them to remain friends in school but due to these events, the lack of trust and hearing things like you calling yourself mommy #2 to H, our children will not be permitted to be under your sole supervision. And because of the lack of trust, I am not comfortable with your children being under our sole supervision…” Example Three- Attempted transition- September 29, 2021 [ 48 ] Transitions of the children were occasionally to occur at the school. On Wednesday, September 29, 2021, Ms.

Power was attempting to transition the children into her care. Mr. Williams testified that L. called him that afternoon. He indicated that L. was hysterical and crying when he called him. Mr. Williams then attended the school. He indicated that “L. had red markings on his arm that resembled a hand print.” [ 49 ] Mr. Williams filed a further affidavit [ref Exhibit 27] addressing the September 29 th incident. At paragraph 11 of his affidavit he states: “The incident of September 29, 2021, wherein Ms.

Power went to the school to pick up the boys and tried to physically force L. and C. into her car are documented in my affidavit sworn in this matter on October 1, 2021. C. is more quiet and cowed by Ms. Power but he exhibits the same fears and anxiety over spending unsupervised time with his mother as does L.. C. is unwilling to go to his mother’s without his brother. The police attended the scene of the exchange after I got two hysterical phone calls from L. after the boys’ physical struggle with their mother.” [ 50 ] Mr. Williams also testified that he took L. to the doctor as a result of Ms.

Power allegedly hurting L.. He indicated that the doctor diagnosed L. with a soft tissue injury to his shoulder. [ 51 ] The principal of C. and L.’s school testified about what occurred on that date. He said he walked the children out of the school at the end of the day. He indicated that Ms. Power was very happy to see them and there was a discussion with the boys about how much fun it would be with her. The boys were refusing to get in the car. [ 52 ] The principal testified that during this discussion, L. hit a button on his watch and ran from Ms. Power.

He indicated that L. then stood with his hands tightly clasped and refused to get into the car with Ms. Power. He indicated that C. tried to convince L. to get into the car. [ 53 ] The principal testified that Ms. Power was trying to reassure L. during this exchange. He testified that she gently guided L.’s hands and there was no aggression at all on the part of Ms. Power. He testified that she was speaking in a kind and reassuring voice and was not yelling. The principal did not see any fear in either C. or L. on this occasion. The principal witnessed the entire interaction between Ms.

Power and the boys. [ 54 ] Mr. Williams alleges that Ms. Power had hurt L. that day and a red mark resembling a hand print was on his arm. During this entire exchange, the principal was present. His evidence is completely contradictory. As a result of the allegation that a parent had assaulted a child in his presence, the principal was wary of further false allegations by Mr. Williams. The principal ensured that there was independent verification in a subsequent transition on February 16, 2022.

Example Four- Attempted Transition- February 16, 2022 [ 55 ] On February 16, 2022, another incident occurred at the children’s school. Again, Ms. Power was attempting to transition the children into her care. The principal indicated that the children refused to go with Ms. Power. The principal testified that L. was very unemotional and simply kept repeating that he did not feel safe. Despite significant effort, the principal could not get L. to give any context to why he felt unsafe.

He further testified that this was the first time either boy indicated anything in relation to their safety. [ 56 ] The principal testified that Ms. Power came into the school, knelt by the boys and indicated that she would never put the boys in harms way, hurt them or allow anyone else to hurt them. C. in response advised Ms. Power “I know. I love you too”. Despite this, L. continued his rote statements of not feeling safe. [ 57 ] Shortly thereafter they left the school and were outside on the school grounds. The children then ran to a nearby pole, sat down and refused to go with Ms. Power. Mr.

Williams came to the school. The principal indicated he would prefer to have the RCMP present. [ 58 ] The principal indicated that he requested the RCMP attend because he did not want further false allegations to be made by Mr. Williams as had occurred in September. He wanted independent witnesses to the event and to transition the boys safely to Ms. Power’s care. The principal indicated that he kept the supervisor appraised of the situation involving C. and L. and ensured that any situations would be documented. [ 59 ] The principal confirmed that the children did not appear to be scared. He indicated that Ms.

Power did not raise her voice to the boys at any point in time. The allegations made by Mr. Williams on this occasion were that Ms. Power was yelling, screaming obscenities and waving her arms angrily at him. None of the other witnesses testified to these events. Under cross examination, the principal confirmed that he was within earshot of everything going on. [ 60 ] Mr. Williams also alleged that Mr. Greenland (a constable with the RCMP) acted inappropriately with the boys on this occasion. He accused Mr. Greenland of acting outside the scope of his authority as a police officer in speaking with the children.

Mr. Greenland was a parent of a child attending that school and was present to pick up his child. [ 61 ] Mr. Williams alleged that Mr. Greenland advised the boys that they would be taken into foster care if they did not go with Ms. Power. Mr. Greenland denied this. He advised the boys they could not stay at the school overnight (as they stated they would). He advised that Child Protective Services would need to be called if they refused to leave the school overnight. [ 62 ] Mr.

Greenland was clear that he was not in uniform, was not acting in the course of his employment, and was merely a parent picking up his child. He indicated that he was trying to diffuse the situation and speak to the boys after being given permission by Ms. Power. Despite this, Mr. Williams has complained to the RCMP regarding Mr. Greenland. [ 63 ] Counsel for Mr. Williams vigorously cross examined Mr. Greenland in relation to the complaint. Exhibit 62 confirms that Mr. Williams made a complaint against Mr. Greenland to his employer. Exhibit A of Exhibit 26, is an email received by Mr.

Greenland with the subject line: “Complaint- Cst Gavin Greenland”. The email thread contains the following: “Dan Williams dob: ****** would like to speak with supervisor of Cst Greenland regarding a complaint he would like to file about the assault on 9 year old child…” Example Five- Coaching the children [ 64 ] Mr. Williams adamantly denied coaching the boys. After the boys began refusing to attend Ms. Power’s parenting time, Zoom calls were set up. Unbeknownst to Ms. Power at the time of the Zoom calls, Mr. Williams was recording the calls. [ 65 ] In the affidavit filed by Mr.

Williams on April 6, 2022 [ref Exhibit 30, paragraph 13] he states: “…I have never coached the boys- attached as Exhibit “F” hereto are my cell phone bills showing I was on my phone at the times of these calls, when I was supposedly coaching the boys during their Zoom meetings.” [ 66 ] Mr. Williams was questioned about the zoom calls on cross examination. He admitted to being off camera and “reminding” the boys what to say on occasion.

He acknowledged that he was present at times during the zoom calls after cross examination and would whisper words and phrases to the boys. [ 67 ] One such Zoom call occurred on November 19, 2021. On that occasion, Mr. Williams admitted to whispering “homeschool” to the boys. Ms. Power then asks the boys who is speaking in the background. The boys denied anyone was there and said it must be a fan. Two seconds after whispering to the boys, the boys lied to Ms. Power and denied Mr. Williams was there. He did not correct their lie. He stayed off camera and mute.

Conclusions on Credibility [ 68 ] There are numerous examples of the inconsistencies in the evidence of Mr. Williams. The incidents noted above are a few of the examples. I find the evidence of Mr. Williams to lack credibility. Where his evidence conflicts with the evidence of Ms. Power or other witnesses, I accept the evidence of the other witnesses. [ 69 ] For greater clarity, I accept as findings of fact the following: 1) Mr. Williams’ refusal to re-enrol the children in public school had nothing to do with minimizing the children’s exposure to covid. 2) Mr.

Williams intentionally omitted to provide the second letter from Kelly Greenland to Neil Kennedy knowing that it would negatively impact the outcome of his assessment. 3) Ms. Power did not try to physically force the children into her car on September 29, 2021. She did not physically harm L.. She did

not leave a “red handprint” on L.’s arm, nor did she cause a soft tissue injury to his shoulder. 4) On February 16, 2022, Ms. Power was not escalated and yelling during the attempted transition of the boys. Neither L. nor C. displayed any signs of fear of Ms. Power other than their rote incantation that they did not feel safe. 5) Mr. Williams did coach the boys as to what to say during their Zoom calls with Ms. Power. Issue 1(d): Parental Alienation [ 70 ] Ms. Power argues that Mr. Williams has alienated the children from her. She alleges that Mr.

Williams and his current spouse have created the situation whereby the children are refusing to see her. [ 71 ] Mr. Williams vehemently denies this. He argues that the children are responding to the events while in Ms. Power’s care. His position is that the children’s voices must be heard in these proceedings and that they are adamantly refusing to be in Ms. Power’s care because of the actions of Ms. Power and her partner, David Chernecki. [ 72 ] The following definition of parental alienation was set out in L.M.A.N. v C.P.M , 2011 MBQB 46 (Man.

Q.B.), at paragraph 98 : “Early in his testimony before the court Dr. Stambrook was asked to offer his definition of “parental alienation”, and he provided the following response: It is a descriptive term that refers to a process. It is not a diagnostic label. It doesn’t appear in any nomenclature about mental health disorders. It is a descriptive term that refers to a process where there is a systematic devaluation, minimization, discreditation of the role of, typically the other parent in a parental dyad.

One parent systematically, through a variety of physical, emotional, verbal, contextual, relational set of maneuvers systematically reduces the value, love, commitment, relationship, involvement of the other parent by minimizing, criticizing, devaluing that parent’s role. It can involve children having their sense of history being “re-written” by a parent’s redefinition of history, reframing things, repetitively talking about things. It can involve sometimes very subtle and sometimes not so subtle suasion, coercion, direction, misrepresentation and so on. It is an abusive practice.

It is child abuse when it occurs. It's emotionally abusive. It cripples and stunts children's development because the reality they knew at one point is undermined by this process. It is dangerous for the development because in [an] ideal situation, children should feel free to love and interact with the adults who are important in their lives, unencumbered by twisted turns of relational loyalties that are, unfortunately misplaced in this situation.

So parental alienation is a process, an interactional process where systematically one parent's role in, for the children is eroded over the course of time. (bolding added).” [ 73 ] This definition has been accepted in Radley v McClean 2020 ONSC 4396 (Ont. S.C.), and Bors v Beleuta , 2019 ONSC 2128 (Ont. S.C.), M.S. v K.A. , 2021 ONSC 7853 (Ont. S.C.). [ 74 ] A finding of parental alienation is a finding of fact which does not require expert evidence ( A. M. v. C.H. , 2019 ONCA 764 , 32 RFL (8th) 1 (Ont. C.A.)).

Such findings are exceptional and based on the unique facts of each case. [ 75 ] Parental alienation is not applicable in all situations where children are resisting contact with a parent. As noted at paragraph 171 of the H.D.H. v J.B. M . decision, 2018 SKQB 335 (Sask Q.B.), paragraph 171 : “Parental alienation” is a term that is commonly used to describe the problematic situation where a child is resisting contact with a parent due to the direct or indirect behaviour, attitudes and expectations of the aligned parent.

This is distinguished from those situations where a child has a natural affinity towards one parent or even a temporal alignment formed in the immediate aftermath of a separation. It must also be distinguished from cases where there is “realistic estrangement” caused by the breakdown of the relationship between the estranged parent and the children arising out of that parent’s conduct: I.D. v P.R.A.D ., 2012 SKQB 281 , 401 Sask R 114 .” [ 76 ] Labelling the parent/child relationship can do more harm than good.

Examining a checklist of factors to determine whether there is or is not alienation should be approached with the utmost of caution. Each parent/ child relationship is unique. [ 77 ] I have received evidence from over twenty (20) witnesses and reviewed all admissible evidence. I have looked at the possibility that the children are expressing their “untainted” views in not wanting to see their mother. [ 78 ] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that Mr. Williams has alienated the children from Ms. Power. [ 79 ] As noted in the decision of I.D. v.

P.R.A.D. , supra , the conduct by the alienating parent may not be overtly abusive or aggressive but rather far more subtle. As noted at paragraph 179: “While it may not be difficult to identify deliberately abusive or aggressive behaviour by a parent who is set on destroying the relationship between a child and the other parent, Dr. Childress also described more subtle, but equally destructive, conduct which can have a devastating impact upon the parent/child relationship.

In particular, he described a “role-reversal” dynamic where the aligned parent induces the child’s rejection of the other parent, and then hides behind and exploits the child’s induced rejection. For example, a child may say something fairly neutral but the parent will twist it into a concern about the child. To the child, it is perceived as though the aligned parent is being supportive. As soon as a child begins to define himself as a victim, the other parent begins to be defined as abusive.

Once that occurs, the child has been moved into the middle of the conflict taking the lead role in rejecting the other parent, with the aligned parent taking what appears to be a passive, and supporting, role.” The case of M.M. B. (V.) v C.M.V. 2017 ONSC 3991 (S.C.) involved allegations of parental alienation. At paragraph 1079 of the decision, Bennett J. referred to the work of Richard Warshak and Douglas Darnall. He states in part:

“…In his 2001

article “Current Controversies Regrading Parental Alienation Syndrome,” Warshak provides a helpful survey of the increasingly sophisticated debate on alienation, including Kelly and Johnston’s reformulation of the concept, and proposes three key traits by which alienation could be identified: a persistent rejection or denigration of the rejected parent amounting to a “relentless campaign”; the child’s rejection is unreasonable and unjustified; and the child’s rejection is at least partly as a result of the alienating parent’s behaviour.” [ 80 ] I find as a fact that Mr.

Williams engaged in the following behaviours indicative of parental alienation: 1. Permitting the children to make decisions about contact with Ms. Power. 2. Isolating the children from extended family. 3. Portraying Ms. Power as dangerous. 4. Promoting himself as the children’s protector in relation to the “harm” caused by Ms. Power. [ 81 ] There are a number of incidents that confirm Mr. Williams’ alienating behaviour in addition to those already cited.

Example One- School Transition September 29, 2021 [ 82 ] One example of this behaviour can be seen from his reaction to the transition of the children on September 29 th . The evidence was that Ms. Power was not escalated, and was dealing with the children in a kind and reassuring voice. Nevertheless, the response of Mr. Williams was to escalate the situation on his arrival. [ 83 ] Mr. Williams described the events of September 29 th in one of his affidavits [ref. Exhibit 3, paragraph 118]: “…Ms. Power was in a rage and the boys were screaming and hollering; L. had had his arm grabbed by Ms. Power.

The children were distraught. I was instructed by the 911 dispatcher to put the boys in a car and lock the doors, so I told them to go [sic] the car and lock the doors- I agree with that. L. got in the back seat and covered his head with a shopping bag. Ms. Power was still around my car, raving and agitated. I told Ms. Power to stay away from me and the car; I reacted as the circumstances of Ms. Power’s behaviour warranted.” [ 84 ] I have found as a fact that Ms. Power was not escalated on that date and did not physically harm one of the children. Despite this, Mr.

Williams instructed the boys to get into the car and to lock the doors in response to “Ms. Power’s behaviour”. It is not unexpected that the children have come to vilify their mother and see their father as their protector. The difficulty is that the facts accepted by the court do not support Mr. Williams’ version. Example Two: Tim Baxter [ 85 ] Both parents acknowledge the need for the children to be in counselling. Mr. Williams arranged for the children to see a counsellor, Tim Baxter. The counselling started in February 2021. Ms. Power was not aware that Mr.

Baxter was counselling the children until months later. Ms. Power indicated that she did not want Mr. Baxter to continue counseling the children in July, 2021. [ 86 ] Mr. Williams indicated that Ms. Power’s lack of consent for ongoing counseling with Mr. Baxter was unreasonable. I do not agree. [ 87 ] Mr. Baxter was not registered as a counsellor in Nova Scotia at the time he commenced counselling the children. He resided in the United States and provided counselling virtually to the children until his arrival in Nova Scotia in June 2021. [ 88 ] Mr. Williams engaged Mr. Baxter through an app called “Better Help”.

Mr. Baxter testified that he did his “best to avoid counselling children in custody applications.” In his marketing, Mr. Baxter described himself as a “counsellor” and “conscious monogamist”. He stated that he was primarily interested in issues related to sexuality, gender identity, and was polyamory positive. [ 89 ] Mr. Baxter was unaware that he required the consent of both parents to provide counselling to the children. The intake forms were completed by Mr. and Ms. Williams without input by Ms. Power. Mr.

Baxter indicated that he was unaware of the mother’s surname and believed it to be Williams. [ 90 ] The Client Intake Questionnaires for C. and L. were entered into evidence [ref Exhibits 57 and 58]. The questionnaires formed the basis for the counselling of the children. The forms were forwarded to Mr. Williams and nothing was sent to Ms. Power. Mr. Baxter relied on information related to “Family Mental Health History” which included references/ allegations related to Ms. Power [ref Exhibit 57, p.4]. Despite this information provided by Mr. and/ or Ms. Williams, Mr.

Baxter did not see fit to get any information from Ms. Power directly. [ 91 ] Other crucial information was not known to Mr. Baxter. The children witnessed a traumatic accident whereby their very good friend was involved in an accident which required life saving intervention. Mr. Baxter acknowledged that witnessing such an event would be traumatic for the children. Despite this, Mr. Williams did not advise Mr. Baxter of this event to assist him in providing counselling to the children. Instead, the narrative from Mr. Williams was that the children’s anxiety was solely as a result of Ms. Power. [ 92 ] Mr.

Baxter followed Mr. Williams on his tik tok account. He indicated that at the time he was following Mr. Williams, Mr. Baxter was unaware that he was the father of C. and L..

[ 93 ] “Family therapy” was arranged for Mr. and Ms. Williams along with the children on August 7, 2021. Ms. Power was not involved. Mr. and Ms. Williams were all present in the room at the same time. The notes of that session indicate that Mr. Williams made comments in the presence of the children as follows: “…[T]he client’s father verbalized- We have been trying to work with her this whole time and she is just now trying to work together with us but I feel like she and her family are using parental alienation with the kids” (Emphasis added) [ref: Exhibit 5, Exhibit A, Progress Note, August 7, 2021]. [ 94 ] Mr.

Williams testified that the children wanted to continue counselling with Mr. Baxter. He indicated that the children had a connection with him and should continue counselling. Ms. Power would once again be vilified in the eyes of the children for refusing to allow the children to continue counselling with Mr. Baxter. Her reluctance to continue the children’s counselling with Mr. Baxter is found to be completely reasonable. Example Three- Medical Records [ 95 ] The children’s medical records from the family physician were entered into evidence [ref Exhibits 42 and 43].

At page 3 of C.’s medical records, there is an entry from December 23, 2019. The change noted is that “Dad” is listed as “Daniel” and “Mom” is listed as “Krista”. Ms. Power was unaware that her name was not on the medical records until it was changed to add her contact information in October 2021. [ 96 ] Neil Kennedy conducted an assessment in November 2020. In the course of that assessment he contacted the children’s pediatrician, Dr. Mweemba. Dr. Mweemba confirmed that he checked his file and there was no contact information for Ms. Power. The only contact information Dr. Mweemba had was for Mr.

Williams and Ms. Williams. Example Four- Isolation from Extended Family [ 97 ] Mr. Williams had ceased permitting his parents to have contact with the children during his parenting time. He testified that his decision to cut the children off from their grandparents was reasonable. I do not agree. [ 98 ] Mr. Williams’ mother, Catherine Williams testified. Mr. Williams advised his mother to cut off contact with Ms. Power after separation. His mother refused. She indicated that, as the mother of the grandchildren, she would remain on speaking terms with Ms. Power. [ 99 ] Ms.

Catherine Williams testified that she has not visited with her grandchildren in over two years unless she sees them on Ms. Power’s time. She indicated that approximately two years ago, she had invited C. and L. to come for a sleepover with two of their cousins. The paternal grandparents were looking forward to having four of their grandchildren with them. [ 100 ] Mr. Williams insisted that his stepson also attend. Ms. Catherine Williams said that four children were all that they could handle. She advised that she would have another sleepover with C., L. and their stepbrother. Ms.

Williams indicated that they would have their hands full with four for one night but that she would have no difficulty in having another sleepover with the three boys. [ 101 ] Mr. Williams was so irate by this response that he advised his mother to lie to the children and advise them the sleepover was cancelled because she had to work. She refused to lie to the children. Mr. Williams picked the boys up and they missed the sleepover with their grandparents. [ 102 ] Mr. Williams has not permitted his parents to see the children since that time. Mr.

Williams’ parents have commenced a court application seeking contact time with their grandchildren. Ms. Catherine Williams testified that Ms. Power has facilitated contact with C. and L. on her parenting time. Example Five- Dentist Office Visit [ 103 ] There were a number of issues raised with respect to the behaviour of Krista Williams, the spouse of Mr. Williams. The behaviour of Ms. Williams is relevant insofar as Mr. Williams is putting forward a parenting plan jointly with Ms. Williams. His affidavits are replete with references to the joint parenting plan with Ms.

Williams and their joint responsibilities as they relate to the children. His affidavit of December 2021 sets out “Our plan for Tina’s parenting” at paragraphs 120-123 [ref Exhibit 1]. The behaviour of Ms. Williams condoned by Mr. Williams is relevant to his parenting plan. [ 104 ] Kelly Zwicker testified. She works in a dental office and is in charge of the operational side, including reception. She advised that Mr. Williams, Krista Williams and the children came to the dental office on November 19, 2020, for an appointment for one of the children. As covid restrictions were in place, Ms.

Zwicker requested that Krista wait in the hallway with her children “for spacing reasons.” [ 105 ] Ms. Zwicker testified that: “Krista became very irate, extremely rude, and spurted derogatory comments about Tina and our office. After this incident, Dr. Zwicker and I decided we no longer wanted to see Krista or her children.” (ref Exhibit 21, para. 7) Example Six- Tik tok videos [ 106 ] A number of tik tok videos posted by Krista Williams were entered into evidence. Ms. Williams acknowledged that she had posted the videos.

She described that she would try to get more followers to her tik tok account if she were able to set the video to trending music. [ 107 ] Ms. Williams advised that tik tok was an outlet for her stress. She testified that she wanted to increase the people following her

account. She was “venting” and “needed an outlet”. She knew that her posts were public. One of the children is a follower on her tik tok account. [ 108 ] She acknowledged that she posted a tik tok video of herself set to the song, “She F***ing Hates Me” in reference to Mr. Williams’ mother. She advised that this was an ill advised “joke”. [ 109 ] She acknowledged posting another tik tok video referencing Ms. Power by a derogatory name.

She posted a video set to “It’s a Hard Knock Life” whereby phrases are added to the screen. [ 110 ] Some of the phrases include: “toxic accusations” “being a full time parent to them and being told you don’t matter by bio mother” “My personal favourite “I’M THEIR MOTHER!” which is supposed to trump the kids wants & needs”. [ 111 ] Another video was posted with the lyrics “B**ch you killed this” with a caption which reads: “When he’s gorgeous & says “let’s build a life as a blended family.” And now I have 2 bonus sons who love me as their mother.” [ 112 ] One of the more disturbing tik tok videos relates to derogatory comments surrounding the passing of Ms.

Power’s former partner. [ 113 ] Ms. Power’s adult son from that relationship testified. His testimony was straightforward, credible and powerful. [ 114 ] He testified that he had some difficulty with depression in his teenage years following the death of his father. He is doing well now and is employed full time, is engaged to be married and has two children. He credited Ms. Power with being supportive and testified that they remain close to this day. He testified that Ms. Power has been an amazing grandmother to his children. [ 115 ] He described Mr. Williams as “a bully” when he was growing up.

He indicated that he had no issue in helping around the house and doing chores. His request was simply that Mr. Williams not whistle and snap his fingers when directing him to do something. [ 116 ] He indicated that on one occasion when he was approximately thirteen, Mr. Williams threw him to the ground and cocked his fist back. Ms. Power had to intervene. It is apparent that Mr. Williams and the adult son had a difficult relationship. [ 117 ] In late 2021, the adult son was trying to make arrangements to see his young step-brothers, C. and L.. Mr.

Williams would only permit the children to visit with the adult son and his immediate family (his fiancée and his children). Mr. Williams directed that Ms. Power was not to be present, nor were other family members. The adult son agreed reluctantly so that he could see his young step- brothers. Mr. Williams then advised that the visit would only occur if he were permitted to attend as well. The adult son reluctantly declined as he is not comfortable with Mr. Williams being in his home.

Example Seven- Promises to Children on Relocation [ 118 ] Evidence was tendered to indicate that the children have been promised various things when they relocate to Ontario. The children have been told that they may be able to experience fun activities such as motor-cross and snowmobiling in the winter. The children are not presently “allowed” to attend church in Nova Scotia, but have been advised by Krista Williams that they will be able to attend church with the family if they move to Ontario. Conclusion re: Parental Alienation [ 119 ] It is also important to define behaviour indicative of an alienated child.

As noted in the

article by Joan B. Kelly and Janet R. Johnston, “The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome” (2001 39 Fam. Ct. Rev. 249 at page 251, an alienated child is “ one who expresses , freely and persistently , unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs ( such as anger , hatred , rejection , and/ or fear ) toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child ’ s actual experience with that parent.” [ 120 ] I accept that the children have expressed their desire to relocate with Mr. Williams. I accept that the children have indicated they want limited contact with their mother.

The court may not accept the views expressed by the children in cases of alienation. Such expressions may not truly reflect the child’s wishes but rather may be tainted by the alienation. ( Letournau v. Letournau 2014 ABCA 156 (Alta C.A.), NL v RRM 2016 ONCA 915 (Ont. C.A.), Decaen v Decaen , 2013 ONCA 218 (Ont. C.A.)). [ 121 ] I find as a fact that the children have exhibited behaviour indicative of alienated children: 1. Viewing their father (and their step mother) as their protectors as against their mother. 2. Experiencing no guilt or ambivalence over their treatment of Ms. Power. 3.

Talking openly about the perceived problems with Ms. Power (such as her alleged untruthfulness). 4. Expressing a feeling of being unsafe with Ms. Power in an unemotional and rote way with no detail whatsoever. 5. The children’s concerns are rote, lack detail, and sound rehearsed. 6. The children had a positive relationship with Ms. Power prior to 2021 and there is no rational explanation for their refusal to attend for parenting time with her.

[ 122 ] I must determine what is in the best interests of these young boys. There are potential long term harmful effects to the child of such alienating behaviour. As noted in the case of S. v. A. , 2021 ONSC 5976 (Ont. S.C.) at paragraph 30 : “Whether passively permitted or actively encouraged, a child who rejects a parent is parallelly empowered to reject other important people in his life. He is taught to avoid difficult feelings instead of how to cope with them and to work through them.

He suffers an emotional impairment that deprives him not only of the love and protection of a parent, but of a wide array of complex social relationships.” Issue 1(e): Assessment Reports [ 123 ] The first assessment report was prepared by Neil Kennedy [ref Exhibit 8]. Mr. Kennedy reviewed all concerns raised and addressed each concern commencing at p.14 of his report. He noted that Mr. Williams was concerned about: 1) Ms. Power’s work

schedule : This was not found to be an impediment to continuing the shared parenting arrangement. 2) The allegation that Ms. Power was “impossible to communicate with” : Mr. Kennedy found that the communication of both parents was “less then perfect and has not been helped by this court proceeding.” 3) Concerns related to Ms. Power’s partner, David Chernecki ; Mr. Kennedy found that the children spoke positively about Mr. Chernecki, wished to spend time with him and the children appeared to be connected to him. Mr. Kennedy did, however, comment about the inappropriateness of Krista Williams reaching out to Mr.

Chernecki’s former partner. Mr. Kennedy also noted that Krista Williams had reached out to a security company to obtain background information on Mr. Chernecki. 4) Allegations that Ms. Power is not involved with the school ; Mr. Kennedy determined that Ms. Power had the children half the time and they were well behaved, their homework was completed, they were prepared for class and that Ms. Power attended parent teacher meetings. 5) Concerns regarding the car seats used by Mr. Chernecki and allowing one of the children to sit in the front seat of the truck ; The issue of the car seat was unfounded. Mr.

Chernecki removed the item from the back seat so that both children could be transported in the back seat. 6) Allegations of arguments at the time of exchanges ; Ms. Power denied any heated exchanges at that time. 7) Inconsistency between the homes which was acknowledged by Mr. Kennedy. 8) Inappropriate supervision by Ms. Power ; Mr. Kennedy did not find that there was inappropriate supervision. 9) Unwillingness of Ms. Power to agree to counselling for the children ; Mr. Kennedy noted that the pediatrician did not have any contact information for Ms. Power. He stated that Ms.

Power had actually requested counselling for the children in a text of May 29, 2020. [ 124 ] Despite the concerns of Mr. Williams, Mr. Kennedy found that Ms. Power was a capable parent, that Mr. Chernecki posed no concern and that the shared parenting arrangement should continue. I note Mr. Kennedy was provided a letter from Ms. Greenland supportive of Mr. Williams’ parenting abilities, but was not provided with the subsequent letter advising that Ms. Greenland’s children were not to be in the care of Mr. and Ms. Williams. It is unknown if this would have altered Mr.

Kennedy’s conclusions. [ 125 ] The court ordered assessment of Olga Komissarova filed with the court on April 20, 2022 [ref Exhibit 46]. The timing of the receipt of the report was problematic. This issue was addressed by the court in various pre-trials with counsel. I advised the parties that I would consider a request for adjournment if one was requested. I did not receive a request from counsel to refuse to admit the report because of the timing of the report. Counsel for both parties indicated that they were prepared to address the contents of the report during the trial. [ 126 ] Counsel for Mr.

Williams indicated a desire to file a rebuttal report part way through the trial. This procedural irregularity could not be accommodated. I did indicate, however, that if there was a request to adjourn, I would consider the request. Both parties wished to proceed despite the late filing of the report. [ 127 ] Ms. Komissarova was cross examined by counsel for Mr. Williams. In particular, counsel focused on an aspect of the testing conducted by an associate in her office, Ms. Pak. Ms.

Pak conducted two parts of the children’s assessment: the HTP test (House-Tree- Person Projective Drawing Test), and the Sentence Completion Inventory test. The interview of C. was conducted by Ms. Komissarova and the interview of L. was conducted by Ms. Pak. [ 128 ] Ms. Pak did not testify. Her qualifications were not confirmed as an expert in the area of administering the assessment tools to the children. Ms. Komissarova indicated that the HTP test was conducted under the direction of a clinical supervisor and should be accepted by the court.

The interviews are semi- structured in that a series of questions are asked with the questioner providing no input. She indicated that the answers to the interview questions were interpreted by her in reaching her conclusions. [ 129 ] Ms. Komissarova provided psychological assessments to Ms. Power, Mr. Williams and Ms. Williams. [ 130 ] At page 10 of her report, Ms. Komissarova notes that Ms. Power “is experiencing no disorder or a minimally severe disorder.” She indicates that she fits the personality classification of “Histrionic Personality Style”. [ 131 ] Mr.

Williams is noted to be diagnosed with general anxiety disorder [ref p. 24 of the report]. He takes prescription medication and sees his psychiatrist regularly. Ms. Komissarova noted the following from her interview with Mr. Williams:

“Dan’s parents have no relationship with him and his children because they don’t accept Krista. Dan wants the best for his children and believes that they would have more opportunities to explore the world and better quality of life living in Ottawa.” [ 132 ] Ms. Komissarova noted that Ms. Williams is “exhibiting dysfunction of mild to moderate severity” [p.35 of the report]. She noted possible diagnoses for Ms. Williams of Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder, with Histrionic Features and Narcissistic Personality Features. [ 133 ] Counsel for Mr. Williams questioned Ms.

Komissarova about information provided by Ms. Power’s counsel. Ms. Komissarova indicated that she had received and reviewed information from Ms. Power’s counsel. She indicated that she advised Mr. Williams and Ms. Power to bring all relevant documents they wanted her to review but Mr. Williams did not provide any documents. She also testified that counsel were also contacted to see if they wanted her to review any documents and no documents were provided on behalf of Mr. Williams to her office for review. [ 134 ] The conclusion reached by Ms.

Komissarova is that this file “represents classic alienation case” [ref p. 51 of report]. Ms. Komissarova made various recommendations at pages 51 and 52 of her report. [ 135 ] Even without the benefit of the assessment report, I have no hesitation in finding parental alienation in these circumstances. The conclusion of the court is based on the myriad of examples of alienating behaviour some of which are noted herein. Although supported by the conclusion of the report, there is no necessity to rely on the conclusions contained in the report of Ms. Komissarova.

Issue 2: Parenting Arrangement [ 136 ] The beginning and the end of this toxic story comes back to the children. By not allowing the relocation, the children will experience significant trauma and upheaval. By permitting the relocation with an alienating parent will cause even more trauma in the long run. The request of Mr. Williams to relocate with the children is denied. [ 137 ] In reaching this decision I have considered all applicable factors. I have also considered and weighed the benefits and the detriments of each of the parenting plans advanced by the parties.

I have considered the effect on the children as it relates to each of those plans. [ 138 ] I am aware that by not allowing the relocation, the children will be in the care of Ms. Power. I am aware that the children may feel a sense of betrayal in that their voices have not been heard in these proceedings. I have heard their wishes. I simply cannot find that their expressed wish to move is in their best interest. [ 139 ] To allow the relocation to occur will result in completely severing the relationship not only with Ms. Power, but with the extended family on both sides, maternal and paternal.

Remaining with their mother means the children will not be removed from the school and community they have always known. They will continue to benefit from the continuity of those relationships, despite the attempts of Mr. Williams and his spouse to sever those relationships. [ 140 ] It is appropriate to change the parenting arrangement for C. and L.. They will be in the sole care of Ms. Power. She will make all major developmental decisions related to the children including decisions of health and education. She will continue to provide information to Mr.

Williams to keep him apprised of the children’s circumstances. [ 141 ] Ms. Power will immediately ensure that the children are put in counselling to address the effects of this change in parenting time and decision making. The counselling will be necessary to address the issue of the children’s attachment to their mother and to address the deleterious effects of parental alienation. [ 142 ] There will be a period whereby there will be no parenting time for Mr. Williams to allow the children to adjust to the new parenting arrangement. Parenting time for Mr.

Williams will be: 1) Friday, October 7 to Monday, October 10, 2022 (Thanksgiving) 2) A period of up to five days over the Christmas school holiday 2022. 3) March Break 2023- a period of up to seven days. [ 143 ] The parenting time specified herein shall occur in Nova Scotia. I reserve the right to direct the specific dates for Christmas parenting time and March Break 2023 parenting time should the parties not reach agreement by July 1, 2022. [ 144 ] Additionally, Mr. Williams will have one zoom call per week with the children commencing July 4, 2022. Ms.

Power will initiate the zoom calls which will not exceed thirty minutes in length. Should the parties wish to expand the amount of zoom calls or the duration, this decision should be made following consultation with the children’s counselor. [ 145 ] Mr. Williams shall ensure the following: - If requested by Ms. Power, she will be present when the children are advised of the decision or her designate will be present. The children will not be advised of the substantive results of the decision given their young ages.

They will be advised that the judge considered their wishes, heard all the evidence and found that it is in their best interests that they stay in the care of their mother in Nova Scotia. - Mr. Williams will ensure that the children are transitioned to the care of Ms. Power in a way which minimizes the emotional impact on the children. Ms. Power may indicate if she wishes a third party to be present during the transition of the children to her care (conditional on the consent of the third party). - Unless the parties agree otherwise, Mr. Williams will ensure that the children are transitioned to the care of Ms.

Power on

Wednesday, June 8 th at 9 a.m.. The place of transition will be the parking lot of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Family Division) 3380 Devonshire Avenue, Halifax, N.S.. - No derogatory statements will be made related to the other party, nor will 3 rd parties make disparaging statements in the presence of the children. [ 146 ] The matter will be scheduled for a further review of parenting time for Mr. Williams in April 2023. CONCLUSION [ 147 ] The request of Mr. Williams to relocate with the children is denied. He has not discharged the presumptive burden set out in s. 18H(1A)(

a) of the PSA . Alternatively, I would find that it is not in the children’s best interests to relocate with Mr. Williams pursuant to s.18H(1A)(e). Given the finding of parental alienation, the relocation of the children with Mr. Williams is not in their best interests. [ 148 ] The children will be placed in the care of Ms. Power and she shall have sole decision making in relation to the major developmental decisions involving the children. Mr. Williams will have specified parenting time with the children in Nova Scotia at times and on terms noted herein.

I have no doubt that the children will be affected by this decision in the most profound way. My only hope is that the negative short term effect is eclipsed by the potential long term health of these children. Chiasson, J.