Court File and Parties

CITATION: Sherwood v. Turtle, 2020 ONSC 7832

COURT FILE NO.: 074/20

DATE: 2020-12-15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Sherwood v. Turtle

COUNSEL: Ms Sherwood, not appearing Andrew Lynes, for Ontario Aaron Hart and Lindsay Lawrence, for the OLRB

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

DATE: December 14, 2020

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT

D.L. Corbett J.

[1] On December 2, 2020, the applicant sent an email to the court attaching a fresh as amended notice of application in this case. The applicant advised that she considers her application to be “urgent and time sensitive”. She advised that she had been seeking a date for her application since May 6, 2020 and had not received word from the court.

[2] By email from the Divisional Court office on December 2, 2020, I directed as follows:

Justice Corbett directs me to advise you as follows:

The applicant is directed to serve the application on the employer and on the union by email. A case management teleconference is then to be convened including the parties, the employer and the union (unless any of these persons confirms in writing, by email, that they will not be responding to this application).

On page 25 of her fresh as amended notice of application, the applicant states that she requested of the Divisional Court on about May 6, 2020 that her application be heard on an urgent basis. The applicant is directed to provide the court by December 7, 2020, with copies of all communications or attempted communications by her with the Divisional Court respecting this matter between May 1, 2020 and November 30, 2020.

[3] By email from Ms Sherwood dated December 4, 2020, Ms Sherwood sent various documents to the court respecting her prior efforts to move forward with her application in Divisional Court, as I had directed her to do on December 2nd. Ms Sherwood also included a Notice of Motion for a motion for change of venue of this application.

[4] Divisional Court staff followed up with Ms Sherwood to see if she had served the fresh as amended notice of application, as had been previously directed. Ms Sherwood responded by email on December 7, 2020, as follows (emphasis added):

Good afternoon!

I have provided Andrew Lynes and Avril Dymond a copy of my amended application.

I am not amenable to a case management teleconference.

My initial request to have the matter addressed at 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, on an urgent basis, was made seven months ago, bearing the date of May 6, 2020. The Vice-Chair issued her final decision on June 15, 2020.

On December 2, 2020 Justice Corbett directed me to provide him with all documents demonstrating that I requested to have my matter heard at the Divisional Court. The date range was between May 1, 2020 and November 30, 2020. I submitted documents to the Court on December 4, 2020, and provided a copy to each counsel. (See attached).

My application was not made pursuant to section 6(2) of the JRPA. I neither consented to nor requested at any time to have my application addressed before a single Judge via teleconference. My application requests that the matter proceed before a panel of three Divisional Court Judge's.

I will canvas availability with counsel once the Court's available dates have been provided.

Thank you.

[5] The parties were then advised as follows:

By email from me on December 7, 2020 (emphasis added):

All matters in Divisional Court are currently being case managed by an administrative judge of the Divisional Court. You are required to participate in the case management teleconference, as has already been directed.

And by email from court staff as follows (emphasis added):

I am directed by Justice Corbett to advise you as follows:

As relayed to you directly by Justice Corbett already, His Honour has already directed that there be a case management teleconference with an administrative judge of the Divisional Court in this case. It is not optional; the parties are required to attend it.

At the case management conference, the court will address various issues respecting the process of this application, including (a) naming all proper parties to the application and scheduling any contested motions to add parties; (b) the notice of motion provided by the applicant for a change of venue. The court is currently conducting all proceedings via Zoom teleconference, and so it is not clear to the court what significance there is to the venue of the case or why it needs to be changed; (c) the applicant has indicated that she considers the application urgent. The court wishes to understand the schedule that the applicant proposes, in light of her position that the case is urgent, and then to establish a schedule for the case.

The court asks the parties to identify any other issues they wish to raise at the case management teleconference.

[6] The case management teleconference was scheduled for 3:30 pm, December 14, 2020. Ms Sherwood did not attend.

[7] All matters in Divisional Court are currently subject to case management by an administrative judge of the Divisional Court or his or her designate. Ms Sherwood is required to attend case management conferences, as directed, if she wishes to participate in litigation in this court.

[8] This application is stayed pending further order of this court. If Ms Sherwood wishes to proceed with her application, then she shall contact staff to arrange for a fresh case management teleconference. If Ms Sherwood has not taken these steps by January 15, 2021, then the court may consider that she has abandoned this application and dismiss the application.

[9] D.L. Corbett J. is seized of case management of this application.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: December 15, 2020