) ) ROHAN HAZELTON Applicant – v. –, 2017 ONSC 2282

CITATION : Hazelton v. Forchuk, 2017 ONSC 2282 COURT FILE NO.: 39681/17 DATE: 2017-04-11 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) ROHAN HAZELTON Applicant – and – NATALIE ANNE FORCHUK Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Donna A. Wowk and Chloe Van Wirdum, for the Applicant Catherine A. Haber, for the Respondent ) ) ) HEARD: April 4, 2017 Gray J. [ 1 ] This case is about parental alienation. [ 2 ] Regrettably, there is no real alternative other than to deal with this issue by way of an interim motion.

If there is anything everyone agrees on, whether it be lawyers, experts or judges, it is essential that a parental alienation case be dealt with quickly. As a practical matter, if it is to be dealt with quickly it must be resolved by way of a motion, long before trial. That means, of course, that a judge must deal with the matter on the basis of a less-than-perfect record. As is usual, affidavits markedly conflict and there is no cross-examination.

What emerges from the motion is an order that is likely to be final in many respects, in practical terms, while interlocutory in form. [ 3 ] Notwithstanding the imperfections in the record, I am able, in this case, to make a determination based on logical inferences from largely undisputed facts. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, I hold that there has been parental alienation, and I award appropriate relief. Background [ 5 ] The parties married on December 18, 2004 and separated on January 25, 2013.

There are two children, Phinneus Richard Hazleton (“Finn”), born January 7, 2006; and Cashelmara Anne Elizabeth Hazelton (“Cash”), born January 10, 2007. Originally, they lived in British Columbia. [ 6 ] After the parties separated, they engaged counsel and executed a separation agreement dated June 6, 2015. The agreement provided for joint custody, and provided that the children would reside with each party on an agreed-upon schedule. [ 7 ] Since February, 2007, Caroline Hay worked for the family as a nanny to care for the children.

There were some breaks in her employment, but she was more or less working fulltime for the family from February, 2007 until May, 2011. I will more to say about Caroline and her relationship with the family and the children in a moment. [ 8 ] There is some dispute as to whether the respondent was the primary caregiver to the children. Based on the evidence as a whole, it is more likely than not that she was the children’s primary caregiver. When the applicant commenced proceedings in British Columbia, he described his time with the children as being something less than 50 per cent.

In a statutory declaration made relatively recently, the applicant and respondent both swore that the respondent was the primary caregiver. [ 9 ] In the summer of 2016 the respondent decided that she wanted to move to Ontario. She confirmed her intention in this regard in an email to the applicant dated July 2, 2016. [ 10 ] The applicant initially opposed the move, but ultimately he agreed with it, or at least he withdrew his opposition. [ 11 ] Caroline Hay had moved from British Columbia to Ontario in September, 2010.

She had kept in touch with the family, and on many occasions she visited with the family and the children, and the children visited with her. [ 12 ] The relationship between the respondent and Caroline Hay was very close. The respondent referred to Ms. Hay as her “sister”. While it is suggested by both the respondent and Ms. Hay that there were periods of disagreement, I am persuaded that in

general the relationship was very close, at least until the early part of 2017. [ 13 ] The respondent purchased a home in Burlington. Clearly, part of the reason for the move to Ontario, and specifically Burlington, was the fact that Caroline Hay was living in Burlington, and the respondent wanted to live close to her. The children were closely bonded with Ms. Hay, and they called her “Auntie”. [ 14 ] The children moved to Burlington at the end of August, 2016, and it was agreed between the parties that the children would live with Caroline Hay on an interim basis.

It was anticipated that the respondent would not move to Ontario until December, 2016, apparently on account of her employment responsibilities in Vancouver. [ 15 ] Sometime after the respondent decided to move to Burlington, the applicant also decided to move to Burlington. [ 16 ] The respondent travelled to Burlington in early September, 2016, so that she could be with the children on their first day at school. She stayed in Burlington until September 9, 2016 when she returned to Vancouver.

It is clear from a photograph of the respondent with the children, taken on their first day of school, that the relationship between the children and the respondent at that time appeared to be warm and loving. [ 17 ] In early October, 2016, the applicant travelled to Burlington, and he moved in with Caroline Hay and the children. In November, 2016, the applicant closed the purchase of his own home in Burlington. While it is unclear as to whether the applicant at that point moved into his own home, the children remained living with Caroline Hay until the middle of January, 2017.

At some point, although the evidence is not clear, it would appear that the applicant moved out of Caroline Hay’s home and into his own home in Burlington. [ 18 ] While the actual level of communication between the respondent and the children between July 2016 and October 2016 is not clear, what is clear is that the respondent communicated with Caroline Hay on a frequent, if not daily, basis as to the welfare of the children and as to the arrangements for their schooling and other matters, including counselling.

It should be noted that the text messages exchanged between the respondent and Caroline Hay during this period (and indeed in the period between October 2016 and January 2017) confirm, at least apparently, the warm, loving and trusting relationship between them. [ 19 ] Commencing in October, 2016, there developed a suggestion in the text messages that all was not necessarily well with the children. In a text message sent by the respondent on October 30, 2016, she stated “I am having a lot of anxiety around the kids and this whole Finn thing. It’s making me sick with worry.” Ms. Hay responded “Of course!!!!

You just have to breath”, and “there is nothing we can do about it right now and just needs time.” On November 1, 2016, the respondent sent a text message that reads “I need to know exactly what you are saying regarding Finn. Clarity is needed.”, to which the response was “My brain is bouncing” and “I’m saying for you and Finn to have some healthy talks about how he is feeling and Cash as well, with you.” [ 20 ] In November, 2016, it became clear that the children would not talk to or otherwise communicate with the respondent.

In an email from the respondent to the applicant dated November 19, 2016, she stated: I am going to be vulnerable here and tell you that Finn and Cash are not speaking to me. Something happened between when I saw them in September and the end of October. It is very unclear other than there are some very strong feelings that I am not able to speak to because of this silent treatment. You were living with Caroline during this time so if you can give me any insight I would appreciate it.

At this stage, it is getting out of hand and because no one is talking, they are making things worse; things are just sitting and festering. Thus, I may have a greater urgency than you to get them into counselling with an independent 3 rd party so that I can get down to the issues, speak to them and work towards healing them. [ 21 ] In his response, the applicant stated: Re: the kids. I have had to work through some issues with them. I do not have any insight into your situation for you.

I understand you were here two weeks ago so I would hope you took that opportunity to begin that work with them. [ 22 ] After November 19, 2016, communication from the applicant to the respondent regarding the children was infrequent, at best. On November 19, 2016, the respondent emailed the applicant as follows: I wanted to know your thoughts on how we are going to manage the kids once they transition back to us in January. What kind of

schedule are you thinking of? I personally will be looking for it to be equitable to both you and I and fair and healthy for the kids. Secondly, what are your thoughts on Christmas? It is your year. [ 23 ] On November 22, 2016, the respondent emailed the applicant, with a copy to Caroline Hay, in which she proposed a

schedule for seeing the children over the holidays. She also proposed some visiting time with the children on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. She also reiterated the need for a schedule. [ 24 ] On November 30, 2016, the respondent emailed the applicant and stated “I have not heard back from you on any of my messages regarding scheduling.” [ 25 ] On December 5, 2016, the respondent emailed the applicant as follows: I am reaching out yet again to establish communication regarding Finn and Cash. I am becoming concerned.

I know you are busy with your new job and taking possession of your new home; I have compassion for all of the emotions that come along with it. However it doesn’t change the need for us to communicate on a regular basis. Please read my preceding emails and respond.

[ 26 ] On December 12, 2016, Caroline Hay emailed the respondent and stated: So I want to propose what I feel is best for the kids with this transition. I feel that come January, the kids remain here as their primary home and we start sleepovers and visits to each parent house as the comfort levels increase. With speaking to both of you I think we are all in agreement to do what’s best for the kids, understanding that this will take time.

Let’s try to have some open communication about this before the holidays so we have a plan in place for January. [ 27 ] The respondent responded on December 13, 2016 as follows: Thank you Caroline for bringing this to the forefront. As I have already expressed to Rohan, a transition will be key and having the three of us agree on a plan is best. We can also take direction from Melissa who will update Rohan and I tomorrow. The sooner we can plan together then we can all know what’s going on.

I will speak for myself when I say this is very emotional for me, so a plan will help manage my own emotions so I can focus solely on them. [ 28 ] On January 8, 2017, the respondent emailed the applicant as follows: I have tried every medium to reach you including calling you tonight and leaving you a voicemail as well as multiple texts throughout the week. For your benefit, I have reattached my email from earlier this week below. I am working hard to try to work with you to create a workable plan that benefits the kids, myself and yourself and I am getting nothing back from you.

I am unclear as to what your intentions are however I would like to know rather than trying to figure it out. At the end of the day we are their parents and therefore our job is to work together and when needed, support the other. I have done that for you countless times and I can’t help but feel that it’s not being reciprocated. Regardless of the issues that are being worked through with the kids, they belong with me as much as they belong with you and I would expect you to support that.

I would like this to not escalate so please email me back. [ 29 ] On January 9, 2017, the respondent emailed the applicant as follows: Cash had an amazing “first day” at Waldorf and Finn had a great day back at Frontenac. Remarkably I have not heard a word from you. I hope to within the next four school days so you can be a part of the kids’ schedule. To date it has been evident it is not your priority. I’m available any time. [ 30 ] On January 10, 2017, the respondent emailed the applicant as follows: I have not yet heard back from you, which is sad as it is our daughter’s tenth birthday.

A big day which I have been excluded from. She has received a special card from me as well as flowers that I delivered myself to Caroline’s as I felt she doesn’t need more “things”. I know she had Guides tonight but I have a feeling that she may have missed for a dinner at Mandarin instead. I could be wrong, and would be happy to be so. It doesn’t take away from the fact that I had to tip-toe around a day that was a miracle in our lives. As I wrote in her card, she is a miracle child; I should not have been able to have her yet, we did.

I would have hoped that today, as I would have hoped on January 7, there would have been a peace accord to celebrate the two beautiful people we created. Speaking for myself, parenting may not have always looked like I thought would but I feel they have the potential to be great. They are already great!! They’re just getting to the age where we have to think of how they will apply themselves. I am unsure how this imbalance has come to be, considering we both have moved to new territory, quite literally. This point of this move was for a reset; so far it’s the exact opposite.

We need to move forward, and as I have referenced in previous emails, the way that happens will escalate. I have zero desire for that but your lack of response drives it forward. Also, given what I have written above, I feel I am being quite soft in my approach. I want what is best for Finn and Cash, and given history, their mental health weighs on my mind first. I look forward to hearing from you post haste. [ 31 ] On January 11, 2017, the respondent emailed the applicant as follows: I’m again asking the same questions and am unsure why you won’t answer them.

We have all the structures in place for success yet you choose not to participate in a conversation. Interestingly you had the kids stay at your place last night, again on our daughter’s tenth birthday which, again, I was not a part of even though I am in the city. Your silence is not helping. As I said before, I would rather know what your plans are versus trying to guess. I hope to have some explanations on day ten. [ 32 ] On January 14, 2017, the respondent emailed the applicant as follows: I have now been trying to make a connection with you for two weeks.

I am not sure what you are expecting to accomplish by not responding to me. Certainly I do not want to be doing this for another 8 years – I don’t feel I should have had to have been doing it for 14 days, and those are just the days I’ve kept consecutive track of.

We have a lot to talk about and I’m not going to let up. Our children are everything to me and the kids and I may be going through a rough patch but it does not change the fact that I’m their mom and you’re their dad. If you want to have less of a role in the day to day things of their lives, you are welcome to let me know at any time. I feel strongly that it takes two of us to effectively parent and we had agreed to “start fresh” on January. This has already been contravened by you with Finn’s martial arts.

I would not even be in it up except you were so adamant about equality and discussing and agreeing before we make a joint decision. I look forward to hearing back from you. [ 33 ] On January 16, 2017, the respondent emailed the applicant as follows: As I’m sure you have heard by now, Caroline and I have had a massive fight which has pretty much ended our relationship. There were a lot of horrible things said on both sides which were devastating. Additionally I read Melissa’s detailed response to my questions.

I’m not sure what I have done to make them hate me that much, considering I did my best to shield them from some incredibly difficult circumstances in our lives to the best of my ability. It’s interesting that it really seemed to begin in the middle of October. I don’t know where this leaves us however, again, nothing can be determined without communication. [ 34 ] On January 16, 2017, the Application in this proceeding was issued. On January 17, 2017, the respondent emailed the applicant as follows: As you are aware, I have received your paperwork and will respond accordingly with my lawyer.

However, it does not change the current circumstances that we are still both co-parents and share custody of Finn and Cash. This means that we are equally responsible for the decisions being made and their well-being, regardless of where they are living. As you and Caroline seem to be in this together, I would like to point out that she has no legal ties to Finn or Cash. She was put in a position of trust with the guardianship documents; one that is a formality and does not hold much weight. Regardless it runs out at the end of January but I again want to be clear that she cannot supersede me.

From this point on I will be communicating directly with you regarding their care and it will be your choice what you do with that. It is unfortunate that you have chosen to go down this road, and the reasons for it are unfathomable as it will do more harm than good to the kids if it goes to trial. What is possibly more flooring is the betrayal from both of you. I put Caroline in a high position of trust and have given you the benefit of the doubt time and again.

However you both have chosen this path so we will see where it leads. [ 35 ] As noted earlier, when it was decided in the summer of 2016 that the respondent would move to Burlington, it was decided that the children would live with Caroline Hay commencing in September, 2016. Ultimately, a statutory declaration was sworn on September 6, 2016. It contained seven paragraphs, three of which are as follows: 2. We are separated and we share custody of our children. Natalie is the primary caregiver of our children. 5.

Our friend, Caroline Susan Hay, has consented to be guardian of Phinneus and Cashelmara for five months commencing in September 2016. We give permission for Caroline to care for our children in her home and to apply for, consent to or otherwise obtain any medical treatment or any economical, social, educational, or other services that Phinneus or Cashelmara may need during this time. 6.

We have appointed Caroline Susan Hay as the guardian of our children and she has accepted this appointment and she is fully cooperative and supportive of our intention to have our children attend Frontenac Elementary School in Burlington, Ontario. [ 36 ] As noted earlier, the respondent discovered during the fall, 2016 that the children would not communicate with her. The children began to meet with a counsellor, Melissa Healy in December, 2016. In an email dated January 5, 2017, Ms. Healy stated “Natalie, we spoke about meeting a few additional times to discuss rebuilding your relationship with Finn and Cash.

I am going to put those appointments on pause for now, as I need more time to work with Finn and Cash on some of their ongoing issues. As of right now, I will continue to see Finn and Cash alone and separately.” [ 37 ] On January 15, 2017, Ms. Healy emailed the parties and advised “I am not comfortable working on supporting the relationship between you and the children until you provide me with some context.

As of right now as we have discussed, the children harbour a great deal of anger and resentment towards you Natalie.” She also described her interaction with the children regarding a meeting which was to take place between the respondent and the children. Apparently, Finn had stated that he did not want to see his mother, and that he would not leave Caroline’s car for the visit, while Cash would go in. Apparently, Ms. Healy simply advised Finn that he should do what felt right for him.

In the result, Finn refused to meet with his mother and Cash did meet with her, but the meeting was not successful. [ 38 ] In the application, the applicant seeks sole custody of the children, or in the alternative an order for joint custody. He seeks an order that the children live primarily with him, with access to the respondent. He seeks an order that the children continue to be seen by a counsellor. [ 39 ] After being served with the application on or about January 16 or 17, 2017, the respondent commenced a motion seeking to appoint Jacqueline Vanbetlehem to conduct a custody/access assessment.

She also sought an order requiring the applicant to produce all of his mental health records.

On March 27, 2017, she sought a further order that the children reside with the parties on a week-about basis; an order that the parties and the children attend reintegration therapy; and an order that Caroline Hay not be present during scheduled parenting time with the children. [ 40 ] On March 29, 2017, the applicant brought a motion for an order appointing Barry Brown, Irwin Butkowsky or Helen Radovanovic to conduct the custody/access assessment, and an order dispensing with the respondent’s consent for the children to attend

therapy with Melissa Healy. [ 41 ] On March 31, 2017, the respondent brought a motion to amend the request for a week-about residential schedule, so that it would commence in 75 days. [ 42 ] The applicant filed an affidavit in which he denied that he and Caroline Hay have denied access to the children. He takes the position that the respondent did not have any meaningful contact with the children. [ 43 ] The applicant deposes that the respondent travelled to Burlington on the weekend of November 5, 2016. He says the children expressed stress and anxiety over seeing the respondent.

He says the children made journals in which they expressed their anger and frustration at their mother. [ 44 ] The applicant deposes that on Cash’s tenth birthday, the respondent did not attempt to speak to Cash. [ 45 ] The applicant blames the respondent for the inability to appoint an assessor. [ 46 ] For the first time, the applicant now raises concerns with the respondent’s parenting of the children.

He says that after he moved to Burlington and resided temporarily with Caroline, “we began to talk about the children’s issues with their anxiety and stress.” He says that he has now discovered that during the marriage and following the separation, the respondent rarely parented the children. He says they were left solely in Caroline’s care while the respondent usually remained in her bedroom. He reviews a number of situations that apparently date from 2007 and 2008.

He says that the respondent is likely addicted to pain and/or sleep narcotics. [ 47 ] The applicant deposes that the children have an incredible close and strong bond with Caroline Hay. In fact, he says he now believes that the respondent was unable to parent the children without Caroline’s assistance. [ 48 ] The applicant deposes that he is opposed to reintegration therapy. [ 49 ] Caroline Hay has sworn an affidavit in these proceedings. [ 50 ] Ms. Hay deposes that when she began to work for the family in 2007, she was the children’s primary caregiver during the day.

During periods of time that she was not employed by the family, she remained in continuous contact with the children. She deposes that the respondent would tell people that she and Caroline were sisters. In a Facebook page, the respondent called Caroline the children’s “second mom”. She said “we are an unbeatable team and an unbreakable family and I am so grateful for you.” The Facebook page was posted on July 8, 2016. [ 51 ] Ms. Hay deposes that she and the children moved to Burlington on August 29, 2016, and the children resided in her home until January, 2017. [ 52 ] Ms.

Hay deposes that in October, 2016, the children began to confide in her with issues they had with the respondent. Ms. Hay lists a number of issues she says the children had. She says she asked the children why they did not share their feelings before, and they said they felt safe to tell her now knowing they did not have to “go home” to the respondent. [ 53 ] Ms. Hay deposes that she shared the children’s feelings with the parties, and suggested they be in counselling. She says that when the applicant moved to Burlington in October, he spent a lot of time with the children discussing their feelings. Ms.

Hay says the children became more relaxed and less anxious. [ 54 ] Ms. Hay refers to a number of other interactions with the children in November, 2016 and December, 2016, which apparently were not successful. [ 55 ] Ms. Hay deposes that she believes that the respondent has an issue with prescription medication. [ 56 ] Ms. Hay deposes that from the onset of her employment with the family, there were issues with the respondent’s parenting of the children. She deposes that during a period of living in Mexico in 2008, the respondent treated Ms. Hay inappropriately. [ 57 ] Ms.

Hay deposes that after what she refers to as the respondent’s “abusive behaviour”, she moved to Ontario in September, 2010 after the family returned from Mexico. Thereafter, she continually spoke to the children on a weekly basis and they would spend time with her every summer. She says that eventually the relationship between herself and the respondent repaired itself “and I set up boundaries to ensure that I would not be hurt by Natalie again.” [ 58 ] Ms. Hay’s allegations are disputed by the respondent in her most recent affidavit.

Submissions [ 59 ] The applicant denies that there has been any parental alienation. [ 60 ] In substance, the applicant submits that the children’s reluctance to see or communicate with the respondent is the respondent’s own fault, arising out of her parental deficiencies and with her own lack of communication with the children after the move to Ontario at the end of August 2016. [ 61 ] The applicant acknowledges that it will be important to attempt to re-establish a relationship between the respondent and the children, but he submits that it is important to do so through a gradual process, which includes a continuation of the therapy conducted by Melissa Healy, and a proper assessment under s.30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act .

[ 62 ] The applicant submits that it would be inappropriate to appoint Ms. Vanbetlehem to conduct the

section 30 assessment, and that it would be appropriate to appoint Barry Brown. The applicant submits that there are legitimate reasons for preferring Mr. Brown over Ms. Vanbetlehem. [ 63 ] The applicant submits that it would be inappropriate to order reintegration therapy.

Indeed, it would be dangerous to do so unless and until a proper s.30 assessment is done, so that the needs and preferences of the children can be properly assessed. [ 64 ] The respondent submits that the only rational explanation for the refusal of the children to have anything to do with the respondent is parental alienation. [ 65 ] The respondent submits that up until August, 2016, there was no concern whatsoever about the children’s relationship with the respondent. Indeed, it is clear from the evidence filed that they had a warm, loving relationship.

Photographs have been filed that show the respondent and the children hugging each other and smiling. [ 66 ] Counsel for the respondent submits that things began to change only when the applicant moved into Caroline Hay’s home with the children in October, 2016. All of a sudden the children wanted nothing to do with the respondent. [ 67 ] Counselling was arranged for the children.

However, it was with Melissa Healy, who is a young, inexperienced counsellor, who apparently does not realise the importance of restoring a relationship between the children and their mother, when that relationship had been warm and loving. In her most recent emails, Ms. Healy effectively said she wanted to put any restoring of the relationship on the “back burner”. [ 68 ] From about the middle of November, 2016, until these proceedings were commenced on January 16, 2017, the applicant refused to communicate with the respondent regarding the children.

The respondent sent innumerable emails to the applicant, requesting that he communicate with her. He declined to do so, and it is now apparent as to why that was the case. It is clear that the applicant, with the assistance of Ms. Hay, had decided to take steps to shut the respondent out of the children’s lives. [ 69 ] Counsel for the respondent submits that in the circumstances it can only be concluded that the alienation of the children from the respondent commenced when the applicant moved in with Caroline Hay, and occurred as a result of discussions the applicant and Ms. Hay had with the children.

The children are ten and eleven years old, and it is not surprising that they would be heavily influenced by anything told to them by Caroline Hay, whom they had come to regard as their loving caregiver, and their father, with whom Ms. Hay was then living. [ 70 ] Counsel submits that where parental alienation is found to have occurred, it is important that it be dealt with quickly. Otherwise, it will get worse. Reintegration therapy is essential, and it must begin now. A

section 30 assessment, even if it were to commence now, would take months. A delay in commencing reintegration therapy will simply make matters much worse, and it will be much harder to correct the situation as more time elapses. [ 71 ] Counsel submits that it would not be appropriate to compel counselling with Melissa Healy. As noted, she is young and inexperienced, and she has shown by her conduct that she does not understand the need to restore a relationship between the respondent and the children. Indeed, her approach was to put that relationship on the “back burner”. [ 72 ] Counsel submits that it would be appropriate to appoint Ms. Vanbetlehem as the

section 30 assessor. She is highly qualified, and she lives in the area where the parties live. There is simply no reason to not accept her as an appropriate assessor. Analysis [ 73 ] There is now a considerable body of caselaw that discusses the issue of parental alienation. It is unnecessary to discuss any of the jurisprudence, because it is now well understood that parental alienation is a real phenomenon, and the courts must take decisive action where it found to exist. [ 74 ] At the same time, the court must be satisfied that parental alienation is real, before somewhat drastic steps are taken.

Some courts have been inclined to take very drastic steps indeed, including cutting off any contact between the alienating parent and the child or children while reintegration therapy is underway. The court must be satisfied that such steps are really warranted before they are imposed. [ 75 ] However, as noted at the outset of these reasons, there is one thing on which all participants agree – where parental alienation exists, it is manifestly important that steps be taken immediately. If they are not, the situation will only get worse.

If the alienating parent continues to have unfettered access to the children, there is little doubt that the poisoning of the children’s minds will continue. At some point, the restoration of a relationship with the other parent becomes much more difficult, if not impossible. [ 76 ] In this case, I have little doubt that the children have been alienated from the respondent through the combined efforts of the applicant and Caroline Hay.

This is the only rational conclusion to be reached on the evidence. [ 77 ] Until the late summer of 2016, there was no suggestion whatsoever that the children had any difficulty with the respondent, other than the usual ups and downs of a parental relationship. There was no suggestion that they preferred to live with the applicant. Indeed, the respondent was considered the primary caregiver, and at the very least she had the children in her care most of the time. [ 78 ] Caroline Hay had been an employed caregiver for the children almost since they were born.

She had an incredibly close, loving relationship with them. In addition, she had a close, loving relationship with the respondent. They exchanged gifts. The respondent referred to Ms. Hay as her “sister”. Indeed, the text messages exchanged between them in the fall of 2016 are replete with expressions of love – there are many emoticons showing blown kisses and hearts.

[79] At no time, up until Ms. Hay swore her affidavit on March 29, 2017, did Ms. Hay express any concern about the parentingskills of the respondent, or any conduct of the respondent that was of concern. Indeed, in the communications up to at least Christmas,2016, Ms. Hay continued to advise the respondent that the difficulties with the children were nothing to worry about and they would sortthemselves out. [80] The complaints about the respondent that are delineated in Ms. Hay’s affidavit are dated, for the most part.

There is noevidence that they were considered serious enough that they were raised as the subject of any complaint by Ms. Hay prior to the swearingof her affidavit on March 29, 2017. [81] Until the commencement of these proceedings, there is no evidence that the applicant had any concern about the parentingskills of the respondent, or the relationship of the respondent and the children.

Indeed, he went out of his way to praise her as a mother. [82] It is of some significance, in my view, that the applicant declined to respond to the entreaties of the respondent tocommunicate about the children commencing in mid-November 2016. He made no attempt to foster any visit with the children over theChristmas period. It is somewhat disingenuous of him to complain that the respondent made no effort to speak to Cash on her birthday. Had he thought it important that the respondent do so one might have expected him to respond to the respondent’s inquiries.

As ithappened, the respondent left a gift for Cash, and emailed the applicant bemoaning the fact that there had been no communication onCash’s birthday. [83] I am mystified at the position taken by Melissa Healy regarding reintegration. I do not understand how a qualifiedtherapist could take the position that restoring a relationship between a parent and her children should be put on the back burner. I do notthink it would be in the best interests of these children to restore any therapeutic program under the auspices of Ms. Healy. [84] I think it is important that reintegration therapy commence immediately.

The question is whether it should beaccompanied by some of the more drastic remedies imposed in some of the cases to which I have been referred. This would include asevering of all contact between the applicant and the children while reintegration therapy is underway. [85] I am tempted to impose such a remedy, even though it is not requested by the respondent. [86] I think the most significant contributor to the alienation is Caroline Hay. I think she has had even more influence on thechildren over the years than either the applicant or the respondent.

I have little doubt that the children would be strongly influenced byanything she suggested to them. [87] At this point, I do not think it is necessary to exclude the applicant from reintegration therapy, but I think it is imperativethat Caroline Hay be excluded. Whether any further contact should be permitted in the future remains to be seen. [88] At this point, I think reunification should be the primary focus. In fact, I think a s.30 assessment should occur, if at all,only after reintegration therapy has been done. [89] The respondent proposes that Andrea Barclay be the reintegration therapist.

At one point, Ms. Barclay was proposed bythe applicant as a counsellor for the children. Besides objecting to the concept of reintegration therapy, the applicant does not put forthany objection to Ms. Barclay as a reintegration therapist. [90] As noted, the respondent requests that the children live with the parties on a 50/50 basis no later than 75 days from now. She submits that between today and that period, the children reside with the parties for such times as recommended by Ms. Barclay. [91] I think it is premature to determine a residential

schedule until the reintegration therapy has been completed. [92] I order as follows:

a) the parties and the children shall forthwith attend for reintegration therapy with Andrea Barclay. The parties shall equally share thecost of the therapy, which shall be subject to reapportionment by the trial judge;

b) Ms. Barclay shall provide a written report to the parties and the court no later than June 9, 2017;

c) until the completion of the review held by me, discussed below, the children shall reside with, and have contact with, each party atsuch times as are determined by Ms. Barclay;

d) until further order of the court, Caroline Hay shall have no contact with either child, whether in person, by telephone orelectronically, nor shall she have such contact through either party or any third party. [93] I am far from saying that Ms. Hay should never again have any contact with the children. However, I think it isimperative that during the reintegration therapy, any influence that she might otherwise have over the children be curtailed. [94] As noted, I am ordering that during the reintegration therapy, the children reside with and have contact with the parties asmay be determined by Ms. Barclay.

In my view, this does not mean the court is delegating its power to decide custody and accessissues. Rather, it is being done in aid of the decision that will ultimately be made by the court as to the appropriate custody and access order: see Children and Family Services for York Region v. G.S. (2011), 2011 ONSC 2824 , 3 R.F.L. (7th) 295 (Ont. Div. Ct.), atparas. 97-99. [95] It is important that a review be conducted by the court. It is equally important that I conduct the review, as opposed toanother judge.

[ 96 ] After the filing of Ms. Barclay’s report, there will be a review conducted by me on June 16, 2017, commencing at 10:00 a.m. Each party shall file an affidavit, on which I may permit some brief cross-examination at the hearing, in which each party shall outline the efforts made to restore the relationship between the children and their mother. [ 97 ] At the review I will determine whether a s.30 assessment is necessary, and if it is, by whom it will be conducted. I will also determine a residential schedule. [ 98 ] I will deal with the issue of costs after I have conducted the review. Gray J.

Released: April 11, 2017 CITATION : Hazelton v. Forchuk, 2017 ONSC 2282 COURT FILE NO.: 39681/17 DATE: 2017-04-11 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ROHAN HAZELTON Applicant – and – NATALIE ANNE FORCHUK Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Gray J. Released: April 11, 2017