So as I have just been made aware from the other party of their desire to take this matter all the way to trial even though we havn't done a Case Conference yet, I am hoping to gain some assistance if a Summary Judgement may be appropriate in this case. I know they are extremely rare, but I'd like to seek out any assistance or opinions on the matter. I did hint on this in another post I made, however I felt it may be better to make this its own thread for an easier way of searching for information.
Background
1. The Respondent and I began our relationship in 2011 which subsequently ended in 2013.
2. After separating with the Respondent, I moved away with my Son, while the Respondent remained in Petawawa.
3. Between 2013 and 2016 there was no Court Order established.
4. In 2014 The Respondent and I agreed to parenting-time being afforded through supervised visits. Additionally, various other conditions were imposed on the Respondent such as:
5. In 2016, due to the Respondent’s supervised parenting-time becoming more and more sporadic and the Respondent refusing to pay child support, I submitted an Application to the court to begin this present Family Court case.
6. At the conclusion of the 2016 Case Conference, the following orders were provided on consent in addition to standard clauses:
7. In April 2019, the Respondent submitted a Motion to Change seeking a decrease in support for my Son. During this time, the Respondent provided me with the ability to have the term “sole custody” on the 2019 Order for $1000.00 off of his arrears.
8. On November 11th, 2019, the Respondent informed me he was voluntarily quitting his job within the Canadian Armed Forces and was moving in with his mother. As a result, the Respondent stated he was going to be seeking to have 50/50 decision-making responsibility and parenting-time with my Son due to being in the same town.
Circumstances of Current Motion to Change
9. On May 4th, 2021, after over a year of failed negotiations between the Respondent and I, a Motion to Change was submitted by me seeking the following amendments:
10. Between May and June 2021, the Respondent and I began further negotiations and came to an agreement which resulted in a Consent Motion to Change being signed by both parties on July 16th, 2021. This Order would provide the following;
11. The Consent Motion was submitted to the court and the Respondent had paid me the $7,500 in arrears. Additionally, the Respondent utilized his additional week of parenting-time with my Son as well as the open communication and the utilization of my Son having the final decision-making power with regards to the Respondent’s additional parenting-time.
12. On August 10th, 2021, both parties received an endorsement from a Judge stating “The Motion to Change and Consent Motion to Change do not match on the issue of child support arrears, parties are to clarify. Both parties should file a 14A Affidavit to confirm the amount of arrears.”
13. I had submitted my Affidavit and informed the Respondent and his lawyer of their responsibility to do so many times.
14. On November 26th, 2021, the Respondent initiated Court proceedings seeking to have split decision-making responsibility, majority parenting-time, and having my Son reside at his residence.
15. As there is currently a 10 year status quo in which the Respondent has not held court ordered decision-making of my Son since birth, nor has the Respondent had more than 25% parenting-time, I had questioned the motive behind this change.
16. It was noted in the Respondent’s Motion to Change the following material change of circumstances that warranted the drastic removal of the 10 year status quo:
17. It should be noted that I have used my parents as before and after school care as well as occasional child care for both my Son and my Daughter. The Respondent is quiet aware of this as the Respondent had frequently used my parents as child care despite the limited him he has. This ended after he threatened physical violence toward my 75 year old Father in front of my Son resulting in a trespass order being placed on him.
18. Both parties agreed to seek out the Office of the Children’s Lawyer prior to conducting a Case Conference on this matter. However, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer declined to accept the file.
19. During the waiting period for the OCL, Family and Children’s Services were contacted three times. Once by me due to my son informing me the Respondent was physically abusing his dog, once by the Respondent a week later stating I was withhold court ordered access, and once by a third unidentified party (I believe it was a teacher) after my son informed someone he was being emotionally abused by the Respondent.
20. All three Family and Children’s Services reports were provided to me after a disclosure request. As of today, the investigation into the emotional abuse is still ongoing, however all three reports state my Son does not want to spend any time with the Respondent as well as other statements such as my Son claiming he hates the Respondent.
Background
1. The Respondent and I began our relationship in 2011 which subsequently ended in 2013.
2. After separating with the Respondent, I moved away with my Son, while the Respondent remained in Petawawa.
3. Between 2013 and 2016 there was no Court Order established.
4. In 2014 The Respondent and I agreed to parenting-time being afforded through supervised visits. Additionally, various other conditions were imposed on the Respondent such as:
- No contact from the Respondent outside of email correspondence;
- Removal of parenting-time if child support is not paid;
- Supervised visitations; and
- The Respondent’s Mother was not allowed to be present due to the arguments that would ensue between the Respondent and her in front of my Son.
5. In 2016, due to the Respondent’s supervised parenting-time becoming more and more sporadic and the Respondent refusing to pay child support, I submitted an Application to the court to begin this present Family Court case.
6. At the conclusion of the 2016 Case Conference, the following orders were provided on consent in addition to standard clauses:
- I obtained primary residence of My Son;
- I obtained full decision-making responsibility in context that I had to consult with the Respondent, however if there was a disagreement with respect to the decision, I was at liberty to make the final decision; and
- The Respondent obtained 20-22% parenting-time dependant on the year.
7. In April 2019, the Respondent submitted a Motion to Change seeking a decrease in support for my Son. During this time, the Respondent provided me with the ability to have the term “sole custody” on the 2019 Order for $1000.00 off of his arrears.
8. On November 11th, 2019, the Respondent informed me he was voluntarily quitting his job within the Canadian Armed Forces and was moving in with his mother. As a result, the Respondent stated he was going to be seeking to have 50/50 decision-making responsibility and parenting-time with my Son due to being in the same town.
Circumstances of Current Motion to Change
9. On May 4th, 2021, after over a year of failed negotiations between the Respondent and I, a Motion to Change was submitted by me seeking the following amendments:
- Increase of the geographical radius in which I could live from 100km to the Province of Ontario; and
- Increase of Child Support to be based on the Respondent’s new income of $171,187.
10. Between May and June 2021, the Respondent and I began further negotiations and came to an agreement which resulted in a Consent Motion to Change being signed by both parties on July 16th, 2021. This Order would provide the following;
- Increase of the geographical radius in which I could live from 100km to 150km;
- The Respondent acquires an extra weekend if I moved to outside of 100km;
- The Respondent obtained open communication with my Son via his cellphone;
- My Son acquired the ability to make the final decision on additional parenting-time with the Respondent;
- The Respondent acquired the Friday or Monday of long weekends that fell within his parenting-time;
- The Respondent obtained an extra week of parenting-time with my Son during his summer vacation; and
- The Respondent was required to pay $7,500 in arrears to equate to the increase of his income to $171,187.
11. The Consent Motion was submitted to the court and the Respondent had paid me the $7,500 in arrears. Additionally, the Respondent utilized his additional week of parenting-time with my Son as well as the open communication and the utilization of my Son having the final decision-making power with regards to the Respondent’s additional parenting-time.
12. On August 10th, 2021, both parties received an endorsement from a Judge stating “The Motion to Change and Consent Motion to Change do not match on the issue of child support arrears, parties are to clarify. Both parties should file a 14A Affidavit to confirm the amount of arrears.”
13. I had submitted my Affidavit and informed the Respondent and his lawyer of their responsibility to do so many times.
14. On November 26th, 2021, the Respondent initiated Court proceedings seeking to have split decision-making responsibility, majority parenting-time, and having my Son reside at his residence.
15. As there is currently a 10 year status quo in which the Respondent has not held court ordered decision-making of my Son since birth, nor has the Respondent had more than 25% parenting-time, I had questioned the motive behind this change.
16. It was noted in the Respondent’s Motion to Change the following material change of circumstances that warranted the drastic removal of the 10 year status quo:
- That beginning September 2021, my Son began living with his maternal grandparents;
- That my Son only resides with me during alternative weekends due to my attendance of post-secondary education;
- That the Respondent had my Son “at least 50% of the time”; and
- That reasonable additional parenting-time requested by the Respondent has been refused on a frequent basis.
17. It should be noted that I have used my parents as before and after school care as well as occasional child care for both my Son and my Daughter. The Respondent is quiet aware of this as the Respondent had frequently used my parents as child care despite the limited him he has. This ended after he threatened physical violence toward my 75 year old Father in front of my Son resulting in a trespass order being placed on him.
18. Both parties agreed to seek out the Office of the Children’s Lawyer prior to conducting a Case Conference on this matter. However, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer declined to accept the file.
19. During the waiting period for the OCL, Family and Children’s Services were contacted three times. Once by me due to my son informing me the Respondent was physically abusing his dog, once by the Respondent a week later stating I was withhold court ordered access, and once by a third unidentified party (I believe it was a teacher) after my son informed someone he was being emotionally abused by the Respondent.
20. All three Family and Children’s Services reports were provided to me after a disclosure request. As of today, the investigation into the emotional abuse is still ongoing, however all three reports state my Son does not want to spend any time with the Respondent as well as other statements such as my Son claiming he hates the Respondent.
Comment