Abargil v. Wortzman, 2021 ONCJ 519

Abargil v. Wortzman, 2021 ONCJ 519

Citation: Abargil v. Wortzman, 2021 ONCJ 519
Date: June 1, 2021
Court File No.: D21987/18
Ontario Court of Justice
47 Sheppard Ave. E, Toronto, Ontario

Applicant: Sigal Abargil
Counsel: Helen Kurgatnikov Miller

Respondent: Moe Wortzman
Counsel: Howard Feldman

Before: Justice R. Spence
Heard: In chambers

Endorsement

1Yesterday, on May 31, 2021, the court sent the parties an endorsement following the filing of two 14B motion forms by the applicant. One motion form requested an adjournment of the June 3 hearing date, on consent. The court granted that order – with minor modifications. The court endorsed that it would not deal with the second 14B as it was marked opposition expected.

2Late in the day on the same day, May 31, the court received another 14B, this time from the respondent. This 14B was marked opposition expected. That 14B asks for substantive relief pertaining to the child’s documents, the manner in which the mother refers to the child to third parties, and a production order of those documents from the applicant. Once again, the court points out what ought to be obvious to both parties who are represented by very experienced counsel. Subrule 14(10) provides:

(10) PROCEDURAL, UNCOMPLICATED OR UNOPPOSED MATTERS – MOTIONS FORM – If a motion is limited to procedural, uncomplicated or unopposed matters, the party making the motion may use a motion form (Form 14B) instead of a notice of motion and affidavit.

3This subrule has been repeatedly breached by both parties in this proceeding. The effect of these breaches is to waste the court’s time and cause unnecessary and undue expense to the parties. This runs counter to the primary objective of the Rules, which is to deal with cases justly. This includes “saving expense and time” (subrule 1(3)(b)) and “giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases” (subrule 1(3)(d)).

4Subrule 14(21) provides [emphasis added]

(21) NO MOTIONS WITHOUT COURT’S PERMISSION – If a party tries to delay the case or add to its costs or in any other way to abuse the court’s process by making numerous motions without merit, the court may order the party not to make any other motions in the case without the court’s permission.

5Having regard to the “war” of 14B motions that these parties have engaged in, most of which fail to comply with subrule 14(10), the court now makes the following order:

1. Pursuant to subrule 14(21), neither party shall be permitted to bring a 14B motion unless that motion is in strict compliance with subrule 14(10).

6The court declines to deal with the 14B motion filed by the respondent, as noted at the outset of this endorsement.

7Court staff to email this endorsement to both counsel.

June 1, 2021