Fiordan and Reesa

[2013] FamCA 329

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FIORDAN & REESA

[2013] FamCA 329

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Order – With whom the child lives – Where Father seeking Order for children to live with him – Where Mother seeking Order for the children to live with her and have supervised time, at most, with the Father - Where Father is an excessive drinker – Where Mother has posted derogatory comments about the Father on social media sites – Where Mother’s negative attitude in respect of the Father has influenced the subject children’s perception of the Father – Where Mother has made allegations of sexual abuse of the children – Where Mother has attempted to alienate the children from the Father – MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461 – s60CC – Where Father believes the Mother’s attitude towards him exposes the children to physical and psychological harm – Where children have a close, loving relationship with the Mother – Order made that children live with Father, conditional on his not partaking in any illicit substances and not drinking to excess – Order made for Father to have sole parental responsibility – Order made for Mother to have the children on alternate weekends.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Procedural – Where Mother seeks relocation order – Adjourned for not less than 6 months from the date of judgment.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where Mother has not put forward sufficient evidence to enable a property settlement – Property proceedings adjourned.  

APPLICANT:

Mr Fiordan

RESPONDENT: Ms Reesa

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Kristyn Everett, Solicitor

FILE NUMBER: TVC 393 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 12 April 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Mackay

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

HEARING DATE: 25 February to 28 February 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Mayes of Counsel appearing for the Applicant Father

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: S R Wallace & Wallace, Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: The Respondent Mother appearing in person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Moore of Counsel appearing for the Independent Children's Lawyer

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Everetts Family Law

Orders

IT IS ORDERED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:

1. The children, D born … January 2003 and B born … September 2006, live with the Father.

2. The Father be restrained from drinking alcohol to excess during the time the children are with him.

3. The Father be restrained from consuming any illegal drugs during the time the children are with him.

4. The Father shall have sole responsibility for the children.

5. The Father submit to supervised random drug screening, on such terms and conditions, at least four (4) times prior to the return of these proceedings before the Court, as may be requested by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, with the cost of such drug screenings to be payable by the Father.

6. After the expiration of two (2) months from the date of this Order, the Mother shall spend time with the children at such times as may be agreed upon between the parties, but failing agreement, each alternate weekend immediately after school on Friday to the commencement of school on Monday.

7. After the expiration of two (2) months from the date of this Order, the Mother shall have telephone communication with the children at such times as may be agreed upon between the parties, but failing agreement, the issue be adjourned for determination by the Honourable Justice Bell to a date to be fixed, not less than six (6) months from the date of this Order.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The children’s proceedings, including the Mother’s application for the children to relocate with her to Western Australia, be adjourned before the Honourable Justice Bell to a date to be fixed, not less than six (6) months from the date of this Order.

2. The property proceedings be adjourned before the Honourable Justice Bell to a date to be fixed, not less than six (6) months from the date of this Order.

3. The Mother’s Application for Contempt filed 15 October 2012, be dismissed.

4. The Independent Children’s Lawyer given leave to re-list the proceedings on forty-eight (48) hours written notice to all parties.

5. Pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders, and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an order, are set out in the document entitled “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help”, a copy of which is annexed to these Orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Fiordan & Reesa has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Act.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: TVC 393 of 2011

Mr Fiordan

Applicant

And

Ms Reesa

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On the 21 April 2011, an Initiating Application was filed by Mr Fiordan, (“the Father”) in which he sought, at that time, including but not limited to, the following children’s orders:

   1.That the children of the relationship namely [D] born … January 2003 and [B] born … September 2006, live with the mother.

   2.The Mother and Father have equal shared responsibility for the major long term issues of the children including but not limited to:

   a.        The children’s education (both current and future);

   b.        The children’s religious and cultural upbringing;

   c.        The children’s health;

   d.        The children’s name; and

   e.        Living arrangements for the children.

   3.That in exercising the parental responsibility in paragraph two (2), the father and the mother will consult with each other about the decisions to be made as follows:

   a.They shall inform the other parent about the decisions to be made;

   b.Consult those matters in writing as requested in an attempt to agree on them; and

   c.        Make a genuine effort to reach an agreement.

   4.Notwithstanding paragraphs two (2) and three (3), the father and mother shall be responsible for the day to day care, welfare and development of the children whilst the children are in their respective care.

   5.That the children spend time with the father at all reasonable times as agreed between the parties and failing agreement as follows:

   a.In alternating weeks from Thursday after school, the father or family member is to collect the children and return the children to school on Tuesday morning;

   b.One half of each school holiday period for the first half in even numbered years and the second half in odd numbered years;

   c.On the children’s birthday for a period of not less than four (4) hours, if the children’s birthday falls on a school day for not less than two (2) hours, at a time to be agreed and failing agreement from 12:00am to 4:00pm on non-school days and from 3:30pm to 5:30pm on school days;

   d.On the father’s birthday for a period of not less than four (4) hours, should his birthday fall on a weekend, if the father’s birthday falls on a week day for not less than two (2) hours, at a time to be agreed and failing agreement from 12:00am to 4:00pm on non-school days and from 3:30pm to 5:30pm on school days; and

   e.        From 9:00am to 5:00pm on Father’s Day.

   6.Should either party wish the children to attend a family event, they shall provide the other party with two (2) weeks notice and the other party will act reasonable in accommodating and promoting a relationship with extended family members.

   7.The children spend time with the [sic] each parent at Christmas as may be agreed and failing agreement as follows:

   a.In even numbered years with father from 4:00pm Christmas Eve to 12:00pm Christmas Day and the mother from 12:00pm Christmas Day to 4:00pm Boxing Day;

   b.In odd numbered years with mother from 4:00pm Christmas Eve to 12:00pm Christmas Day and the father from12:00pm Christmas Day to 4:00pm Boxing Day;

   c.With the parent who is spending time with the children from 12:00pm on Christmas Day to collect the children from the other parent.

   8.That unless otherwise agreed or provided for in these orders, changeovers occur at the McDonald Family Restaurant in Town E.

   9.That neither party be permitted to relocate the permanent residence of the children from the Town E area without written consent of the other parent or by Court Order.

   10.Telephone contact is to occur as agreed and at all reasonable times during such times that the children are in the care of the other parent, however failing agreement, telephone contact will be limited to between the hours of 7:00pm – 8:00pm each night and the parent with whom the children are not living or spending time will initiate the call and the other parent will make the children available to take the call.

   …

   Subsequently, the Father changed his application to seeking sole residence of the children.

2. The Initiating Application was supported by an affidavit in which the following facts apply.

3. The Father and Ms Reesa, (“the Mother”) commenced a de facto relationship in 1998.

4. It appears early in the relationship in 1999, the Father was involved in an accident which caused an injury to his back and necessitated his being off work for a considerable period of time.

5. Subsequently, a house at C Street, Town F, Queensland, was built, the building of this house commenced in or about the year 2007.

6. Once the Father received medial clearance, he commenced work at a service station.

7. In March 2001, the Mother gave birth to the first child, a female named G, who unfortunately was delivered stillborn.  Subsequent thereto, the two children, the subject of this application were born.

8. It has been alleged by the Mother that the Father is an excessive drinker.  In November 2008, the Father was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol when his son D was in the car.  I believe that the Father’s blood alcohol content was about 0.16.

9. The Mother was incensed at this and required the Father to move out of the house, which he did and he stayed at his brother’s house for about three weeks until he returned to the house on 23 November 2008.

10. The Father thereafter attended Alcoholics Anonymous and he says he stopped drinking and since that time has drunk alcohol on a comparatively few occasions, see the evidence of Mr H, Family Consultant (infra).

11. The Father alleges that he stopped drinking and that he has never had any more than two drinks on any one occasion since about 2009.  I do not accept that.  I think the Father drinks more, although I do think that he has controlled his drinking.  I believe there is evidence now from the Father, that he drinks about 12 drinks per week.

12. In or about the month of August 2010, the parties separated with the Father moving out of the house.  The Father thereafter spent time with the children and had them on overnight occasions.

13. There was an endeavour at reconciliation in or about the Christmas period of 2010.  This was not successful and the Father again moved out of the house in February 2011.

14. In February 2011, the Mother made an application for a Domestic Violence Order.  This was adjourned to allow the parties to try and negotiate family law matters.

15. In February 2011, the Mother refused the Father having further contact with the children, alleging that there was some concern about his mental capacity and refusing him to have time with the children, until such time as he was mentally assessed.

16. Since separation, it is alleged by the Father (see his affidavit filed 21 April 2011) that the Mother has been posting derogatory comments about him on her Facebook.  These comments loom particularly large in this case and it is particularly important insofar as Mr H, Family Consultant, is concerned.  I will touch upon his evidence at a later stage.

17. Needless to say, the material put before me and particularly the affidavit of Ms J filed 5 November 2012, who was in a relationship with the Father towards the end of last year, setting out transcripts of text messages from the Mother, are exceptionally concerning to me as well as to Mr H. 

18. The Mother does not deny that she sent these text messages, although she does deny one of the derogatory comments posted on Facebook, which looms large in Mr H’s evidence and that is the one wherein she allegedly said (see paragraph 8 of Mr H’s report of 18 February 2012 which was annexed to the affidavit of Mr H filed 13 August 2012):

    8.[The Father] has also produced a copy of a Facebook page that contains a comment by [the Mother] that states “don’t know if I will get away with what I’m doing because the kids miss him and the ball I told my solicitor might not stand up in court, just let him suffer I can say anything I like”.  [The Mother] denies making these comments and believes the copy to be forged.

    It is the only forgery alleged by the Mother, in the considerable number which have been attached to the affidavits of the Father (supra) and Ms J (supra).

19. Thereafter, I may say that the relationship between the Father and the Mother has been toxic.  The Mother has ranted and raved, as I find and as Mr H has, not necessarily using those words, found, making as he says (see paragraph 48 of Mr H’s report dated 18 February 2012 (supra)):

    48.The language used in the Facebook, e-mail and text messages was abusive and derogatory and can be seen as domestically violent with regards to verbal and emotional abuse.  Many of the comments made were designed to emotionally hurt and attack the self-esteem and self-confidence of [the Father].

20. I do not at any stage wish to involve myself in an in-depth dissection of these matters, but I refer to and incorporate the views of Mr H in relation to these comments.  It appears that the emails were directed initially to the question of the mental health of the Father.  Subsequently, when this appears to have been answered by medical opinions, to his drinking, his drug taking and his association with criminals. 

21. I am more than satisfied on the evidence before me that the Mother’s attitude towards the Father has escalated in vitriol and it has in fact now overflowed to the children (see also paragraph 29 (infra)).

22. As I have said before, I really only need to refer to and incorporate Mr H’s reports (dated 18 February 2012 (supra) and Addendum dated 7 November 2012) to indicate that the Mother’s attitude towards the Father is so vitriolic, that it cannot other than interfere with the children’s relationship with the Father.  This has been shown in D’s general confusion and has eventuated D in fact, tells lies to make his Mother feel as though that she is loved deeply by him, and that he is opposed to contact with his father.

23. I refer to the incident in February 2013, where the Mother was assured by D that the police had raided the Father’s premises and had found a bag or bags of marijuana in a zip-lock type bag.  The Mother then caused D to show her by handing him a zip-lock bag with grass cuttings in it, how much marijuana was found.

24. It appears quite clear on the evidence before me, that no such police raid ever took place.  The Mother herself became quite confused and upset at the fact that her child, whom she considered always told her the truth, was caught out lying in this case.

25. As has been emphasised by counsel, it appears to be quite strange that the Mother was more upset about how she was affected rather than the cause of D attempting to tell lies to her about the conduct of the Father.

26. There have been allegations by the Mother of sexual abuse of not only D, but also of B.  There have been allegations that the children have been exposed to the Father and his then partner Ms J, having sexual intercourse.

27. These allegations made by D have been made and withdrawn by him.  His credit is now suspect (see exhibit 1 being the subpoenaed documentation of the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, dated 17 July 2012 page 2 of 7 and 13 June 2012 page 3 of 3).

28. All of these allegations have been denied by the Father, and I am more than satisfied on the evidence before me, to say that I do not believe that any of these things took place.  I think things took place in relation to the child B bathing, but that it has been exaggerated out of all proportion by the Mother and perhaps has even been exaggerated by the child in an endeavour to maintain the respect, love and affection of the Mother.

29. The evidence of Ms K, Child Safety Officer with the Department Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services (see transcript of proceedings dated 28 February 2013, pages 315 to 332) is illuminating.  Also see exhibit 1 (subpoenaed documentation of the Department Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services) on 29 August 2012 the document says the following:

    [The Mother’s] behaviour is chronic and ongoing in nature.  [D’s] emotional state is reflective of the emotiona [sic] harm that [the Mother’s] continued behaviour is causing.  It appears that [D’s] ongoing exposure to his mother’s dysfunction is having a negative effect on him.  Furthermore, [the Mother] saying that she would “kill herself if [D] sends her to jail” puts unreasonable pressure on [D].  Threatening to kill herself and placing responsibility for her life on 9 year old [D] is akin to terrorising him; creating a climate of fear/threat and is effectively the threat of her own suicide as a sinister punishment for circumstances that are beyond [D’s] control.

30. I make it quite clear that on the evidence before me, the children do love their mother and have a relationship with her.  Equally, I indicate there is a warm relationship between the children and the Father and I once again indicate and refer to the family reports of Mr H (supra), wherein it is quite clear that they have a warm and happy chatty relationship with the Father in Mr H’s presence when he observed them.

31. It is incumbent upon the Court in this matter to consider the provisions of

    
    MRR v GR

    (2010) 240 CLR 461 in which, inter alia, the High Court found at paragraph [13]:

    [13] Section 65DAA(1) is expressed in imperative terms.  It obliges the court to consider both the question whether it is in the best interests of the child to spend equal time with each of the parents (para (a)) and the question whether it is reasonably practicable that the child spend equal time with each of them (para (b)).  It is only where both questions are answered in the affirmative that consideration may be given, under
    para (c), to the making of an order.

    …

    And paragraph [13] goes on to say:

    …

    It is a matter upon which power is conditioned much as it is where a jurisdictional fact must be proved to exist.  If such a finding cannot be made, subss (2)(a) and (b) require that the prospect of the child spending substantial and significant time with each parent then be considered. 

    …

32. I take that into consideration, and my initial decision of course is to decide whether this is a case in which the children should spend equal time with each of the parents.  This is totally impossible.

33. The parents and particularly, the Mother, is vehemently opposed to the Father having contact or if contact with the children, on a supervised basis.  I refer to the Mother’s Response filed on 15 June 2011 in which she seeks limited contact to the Father and her Amended Response (being exhibit 13), inter alia, in which she seeks supervised contact only as well as property orders (see infra).  That the Mother has quite clearly on the evidence before me, which I accept unreservedly, endeavoured to alienate the children from the Father – I refer to the only particular matter that I have emphasised and that is the so-called police raid and consequently I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the children to be put in a position where they would be spending equal time with the Mother and the Father.  It is not supported either by the Family Consultant, Mr H.

1. Since I have decided that question in the negative, it is therefore for me to consider what contact should be had between the children and the parties, and I then have to consider the children in this case spend substantial and significant with each parent.

2. The next question for the consideration of the Court is the s 60CC factors.  The primary considerations are as set out in s 60CC(2), they being a meaningful relationship being beneficial to the children and the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

3. The Father’s case is that the Mother’s attitude towards him is such that the children are being exposed to physical and in particular, psychological harm.

4. On the evidence to which I have previously referred, and in particular the considerations expressed in Mr H’s evidence, in my opinion that the Mother in fact probably overtly and not necessarily covertly, is endeavouring to alienate the affections of the children, in particular D, from the Father, and I do not believe this in any way encourages a meaningful relationship with both of the children’s parents.

5. In particular, I emphasise and refer to the evidence of Mr H contained in the transcript of proceedings on 28 February 2013 at page 338 line 12 as follows:

   ---Well, yes, because if it’s accepted that the children are being schooled to make the allegations, which I believe is the case, [my underlining] then they are under constant pressure from the mother, because it’s not like the children’s comments are being misconstrued, or the children are making comments at the school which are being misconstrued.  These are comments that have to be schooled, they have to be told to the kids, the kids either have to be promised a reward, a threat, or by emotional blackmail, but the kids have to be taught to – “this is what you have to say to these people.”  Now, that kind of emotional pressure, I think, has an impact, and there’s some sense of that in the material from the school, where we talk about the children crying, being very upset.  And the – [D], in particular, is under enormous pressure to please his mother, who he loves very much, and is dependent on, but at the same time, knowing that his father is not doing these things.

   ….

   And that’s why that pressure needs to be removed in the short term, to allow him to relax, and perhaps for [the Mother] to – for the mother to reflect and hopefully seek some professional help.

6. Further, in cross examination of Mr H by the Mother on 28 February 2013 (see transcript page 352 line 8), the Mother puts to Mr H the following:

   [THE MOTHER]:     Okay.  So if you’re saying that these orders are to go through and the children are to be taken off me for three months how do you think it is going to affect the children, if they love me and are so comfortable with me?

   [MR H]:        Exactly.  I couldn’t agree more.  And it will be – it will be harmful to them.  It will be stressful.  It will be traumatic.  However – however, the emotional harm that is being done to them by your obsession with the father and his wrongdoing and the sexual abuse has far greater consequences for them in the long-term and the medium term, then [sic] the short term trauma that will be – the short term confusion and trauma that they will experience.

   …

   It’s a balance and in this case the balance is clearly the emotional harm being done to them by being sat down and told to lie to authorities about their children [sic] [I read parent] abusing them, which is what I have come to believe is happening.

7. The Father has impressed me in that he has endeavoured to distance himself from any of the vitriol which has been poured upon him by the Mother and has not replied with any vehemence at all to any of the allegations and criticisms contained in her evidence.

8. Insofar as s 60CC(3) is concerned, I am quite satisfied that the children have a close, warm and loving relationship with their mother.  The child, B is too young to make any conclusive and or assisted decision as to with whom she wishes to live with, even though she can make general observations.  D has indicated on occasions that he wishes to live with his father and then he wishes to live with his mother.  He is a boy who, I have already indicated, I am more than satisfied has become totally confused as to the relationship between himself, his father and his mother.

9. Obviously there is a close, warm and loving relationship between the children and the Mother, and it is unfortunate that the Mother has seen fit to denigrate the Father, notwithstanding she may (as she thinks) have some grounds, not as much as she alleges, for denigration of him.  Such denigration should not take place to the extent that D has now been put into the position of lying to her, not only on one occasion, but it appears to me it is as though he has fabricated other allegations concerning his father, solely in an endeavour to make his relationship with the Mother more attractive to the Mother.

10. I am fully aware (see s 60CC(3)(d)) that it will be traumatic for the children, particularly D, to be removed from the Mother, as will happen.  But, I am more than satisfied as was said by Mr H, that the damage being done by the Mother in the children’s present circumstances, is more detrimental than the children being removed from the Mother and placed in the care of the Father.

11. Insofar as s 60CC(3)(f) is concerned, I am satisfied that both parents would endeavour to provide for the needs of the children in intellectual areas, but I am more than satisfied that the Mother is failing in providing for the emotional needs for the children, and D in particular.  The Mother does not realise that her attitude towards the Father is causing a great deal of emotional distress and disturbance to the child.  I note the Father resides close to educational facilities.

12. I make it quite clear that I am of the view that it is totally unnecessary for me to go through each of the provisions of the Act in relation to s 60CC, but I am able to emphasise those matters to which I have hereinbefore referred, as indicating I am of the view the children’s general overall welfare is not being advanced by being in the possession of the Mother, who is carrying on a vendetta, if I may use that word, against the Father.

13. Admittedly, the Father has some weaknesses himself.  He has been convicted of drink driving.  He has in effect failed four drug tests required by the Independent Children’s Lawyer in that he was found that two of his tests were diluted and the other two showing cannaboids in his system.  

14. I am making it quite clear to the Father that his children’s welfare is much more important than his desire to partake in so-called recreational drugs.

15. Consequently, notwithstanding the fact, I will be granting the possession of the children to the Father, it will be conditional upon his not partaking in any form of illegal drugs and that he does not consume alcoholic liquors to excess.

16. I will therefore order, that the Father submit to supervised random drug screening on such terms and conditions, at least four (4) times prior to the return of these proceedings before the Court, as may be requested by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, with the cost of such drug screenings to be payable by the Father.

17. The Mother does allege that the Father is a heavy drinker.  As I have already found, I consider that he does drink, but I do not think at this stage he drinks to excess, notwithstanding the allegations of some taxi driver who saw him in the early hours one morning.

18. The Father has a predilection towards cannabis and has in fact been caught out by denying it on one occasion, but having been found to have had partaken of that drug.  He must stop.  If he does not stop, this matter will return before me at the expiration of approximately six months and any addiction or consumption of illegal drugs will be such that I will consider removing the children once again, notwithstanding the “ping pong” effect, from him back to the Mother, whom I do not think at this stage is the best person for the advancing of their welfare.

19. There are two other matters before me.

20. The first being the property issues.  Regrettably, the Mother appearing on behalf of herself has not put before me sufficient material at this stage to be able to determine the property settlement and consequently I will adjourn it to a date to be fixed.

21. The other matter is an application by the Mother to relocate with the children to Western Australia with a person with whom she is in a relationship.

22. In the Mother’s submissions which have been put before me as an alternative, should she not have the possession of the children, she seeks to remove herself to Western Australia and to allow the children to remain with the Father, subject to certain strict conditions.

23. I am unable to make any order in relation to this application for relocation because the Mother has put no evidence before me other than she wishes to relocate to Western Australia to live with her new partner.  The Mother’s new partner gave evidence by telephone but refused to disclose his address.  Consequently, I am unable to ascertain where the children would be living, what type of accommodation they would be living in, whether in fact they would be close to schools, and all other necessary things for the proper and adequate upbringing of them.

24. Consequently, I will not make an order in relation to the Mother’s application to relocate the children to Western Australia, but will adjourn this issue to a date to be fixed.

25. There is much of what the Mother says.  Regrettably, I have to test the waters in this case.  I am more than satisfied on the present evidence, notwithstanding the Father’s weaknesses in certain areas, that he is by far the person who is better able to advance the welfare of the children, without denigrating the Mother to the extent that the Mother has attempted to denigrate him.

26. In those circumstances, I order that the children reside with the Father.

27. I will further order that the Father be restrained from drinking alcoholic liquors to excess during the time the children are with him and further that he do not consume any illegal drugs of any nature whatsoever.

28. I am mindful in relation to the Mother’s contact, particularly in view of

    
    

    Mr H’s evidence in which he says the children, particularly D, must have some relief (see paragraph 38 hereof).

29. Therefore, I further order, after the expiration of two months from the date of this judgment, the Mother is to spend time with the children at such times as may be agreed upon between the parties, but failing agreement, each alternate weekend immediately after school on Friday to the commencement of school on Monday.

30. I further order that the proceedings be adjourned to a date to be fixed, not less than six months from the date of my reasons for judgment in order that the matter may be reconsidered in relation not only to the Mother’s relocation which she wishes to do, but the Father’s ability to control his consumption of alcohol liquors and illicit drugs.

31. I also order that the Mother’s contempt application filed 15 October 2012 be dismissed, since it does not disclose a cause of action within the Family Law Act 1975.

I certify that the preceding sixty-four (64) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bell delivered on 12 April 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  12 April 2013