Court File and Parties

Date: 2020-04-06 Superior Court of Justice - Divisional Court - Ontario

Re: Ontario v. Association of Ontario Midwives

Before: D.L. Corbett J.

Counsel: Mary Cornish, Lara Koerner-Yeo and Adrain Telford – Association of Ontario Midwives Zachary Green, Courtney Harris and Carmen McCracken – Ontario Jason Tam – HRTO

Case Management Endorsement

[1] This endorsement addresses the conduct of the hearing and the filing of documents for the upcoming hearing in this application.

[2] The hearing will be held before a three-judge panel on April 21, 22 and 23, 2020 (three full days).

[3] The hearing will be conducted as a video conference. ZOOM technology will be used. Further details about the videoconferencing process will follow in a subsequent endorsement.

[4] Neither counsel nor the court will gown for the hearing. Instead, business attire is required for anyone with a speaking role in the hearing. All parties must ensure that they participate in the videoconference from appropriate surroundings and that they (and the Court) will not be interrupted or disturbed during the hearing.

[5] The following guidelines apply to the filing of electronic materials:

a. No individual email can be larger than 10 MB;

b. All affidavits and each exhibit to an affidavit are to be sent as separate pdf attachments. Each affidavit and exhibit is to be clearly identified so that it can be easily located during the hearing (for example, "Affidavit of Jane Doe" and "Exhibit A to affidavit of Jane Doe"), preferably with each page of the record numbered sequentially.

c. Factums are to be filed in Word version.

d. Books of authorities are not required. However, citations to cases in the factums are to provide, if possible, a hyperlink to the online version of cases. Parties may file a Brief of Case References that includes single pages or brief portions of cases cited; where this is done the title of the case and headnote (where applicable) should also be provided. The only exceptions to this principle are references not available online, such as excerpts from textbooks, foreign law, or Canadian decisions not reported online.

e. The parties have previously filed Books of Authorities. They are not required to but are permitted to file these Briefs electronically.

f. The parties are permitted to (but are not required to) file the following additional documents (in addition to documents permitted under the Rules):

i. A revised factum with hyperlinks to cases and/or evidence;

ii. A factum compendium, containing excerpts of the evidence and authorities referenced in the hyperlinked factum;

iii. A compendium for oral argument, containing excerpts of evidence and authorities to which counsel intends to refer in oral argument.

The court would appreciate receiving all materials other than iii. by 12 noon on April 14th. The court requests filings pursuant to iii. by 12 noon on April 17th.

g. Counsel may request a further case management conference with D.L. Corbett J. if any issues come prior to commencement of the hearing.

[6] It is currently anticipated that the hearing will follow a webinar format and will accommodate up to 500 members of the public. Particulars will be confirmed to the parties in due course by the court.

[7] Ontario sought to bring a stay motion after the suspension of ordinary court acticities because of COVID-19, and the court's direction that this case would not be heard as "urgent". I understand that Ontario is required to commence payments under the impugned decision starting on May 19th. The stay motion is adjourned to the panel, to be addressed in its discretion.

[8] AOM asked that the stay motion be adjourned to a single judge, to be heard after the panel hearing. I declined to do this on the basis that the panel will be in the best position to dispose of the issues on the stay motion, having been immersed in the case. AOM may file responding materials on the stay motion, or may seek directions on that issue from the panel, recognizing that the panel will likely be required to make some sort of direction about the requested stay at the conclusion of the hearing, and the panel will not likely reconvene to consider that issue on another day. AOM should proceed on the basis that it is likely that the panel will decide what to do about staying the impugned decision pending (a) release of the panel's decision; and (b) for a reasonable time to give Ontario an opportunity to comply with the decision, given the current extraordinary demands made upon Health Ministry personnel during the COVID-19 crisis.

[9] If counsel believe there are points from the case management conference that are not reflected in this endorsement, they should so advise the court by email as soon as they can.

[10] The court has endorsed its fiat on this endorsement this day; the unsigned version distributed to the parties today has the authority and effect of the signed version, a copy of which will be provided to the parties in due course after the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: April 6, 2020