[CITATION](http://intra.judicialsecurity.jus.gov.on.ca/NeutralCitation/): Re: White Estate, 2020 ONSC 3334

COURT FILE NO.: DC 19/60 (Hamilton)

DATE: 2020-05-28

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - DIVISIONAL COURT - ONTARIO

RE: Re: Estate of Maria White; White v. White

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Carolyn M. Arnold LeBlanc, for the Appellant, Debbie White (Pharand) Jarvis K. Postnikoff for the Respondents the Estate Executors and Trustees

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT

[1] This endorsement reflects a case management conference conducted by teleconference on May 28, 2020.

[2] This appeal from the order of Carpenter-Gunn J. dated October 17, 2019, shall proceed by teleconference on July 17, 2020, at 2 pm, before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court for an estimated half-day (2.5 hours).

[3] This appeal was scheduled to be heard by a panel of three judges at the Hamilton sittings of the Divisional Court during the week of June 8, 2020. All materials for the appeal have been filed already other than briefs of authorities.

[4] Counsel for the Respondents shall establish an electronic drop box for all appeal materials, shall render all of the appeal materials in pdf form, shall place them in the drop box, and shall provide the court with the link and password for the drop box by June 19, 2020.

(a) Documents should be labelled in a manner that identifies them clearly for the court so that it is not necessary to open the document to understand what it is. Pages should be numbered sequentially within each pdf. If this is not practical, given the current state of the documents, then individual documents should be uploaded to the drop box in pdf form, so that each document is clearly labelled, enabling the court to find documents quickly during the course of the hearing.

(b) Books of authorities containing the full text of authorities should not be uploaded to the drop box. The parties may, but are not required to, file hyperlinked versions of their factums. If they do not do so, they should file briefs of authorities consisting of a list of their cases hyperlinked, rather than full-text copies of their cases. Only unreported authorities should be filed full-text.

(c) Each party shall file a counsel sheet setting out the name(s) of all counsel appearing at the hearing and the estimated time for submissions.

(d) The parties shall file their agreement on the disposition of costs, or, if the parties have not agreed as to costs, then each party shall file its bill of costs and costs outline and any brief supporting materials relied upon in respect to costs. The court does not open costs materials until the conclusion of the hearing.

(e) All parties are permitted to (but are not required to) file the following additional documents (in addition to documents permitted under the Rules):

(i) Versions of their previously filed factums with hyperlinks to cases;

(ii) Compendiums for oral argument, containing excerpts of evidence and authorities to which the parties intend to refer in oral argument.

(f) Compendiums for oral argument, costs materials, and counsel sheets, need not be filed in the drop box until July 15, 2020.

[5] There was some discussion about the technology to be used for the hearing of this appeal. This court currently uses ZOOM videoconferences as the default method for oral argument in place of in-person hearings. However, the appellant does not have reliable internet where she lives and may not be able to participate in a ZOOM videoconference.

[6] This appeal hearing could proceed by videoconference, by teleconference, or in writing. Given the focused nature of this appeal, I see no difficulty in the appeal proceeding using any of these three methods. Ms LeBlanc advised that her client would be in a better position to participate by teleconference than by videoconference, and on that basis I have directed that the hearing proceed by teleconference. However, I will give Ms LeBlanc an opportunity to confer with her client further on this point. Whatever mode of hearing the Appellant wishes to have – whether videoconference, teleconference, or in writing without oral argument – it will be for the Appellant to satisfy herself that she is able to participate in that mode of hearing on July 17th. If the Appellant wishes to request a mode of hearing other than teleconference, she shall so advise the court, by email, no later than July 3, 2020.

[7] To be clear, of course, the Appellant does not get to select the mode of hearing unilaterally – it is a matter for the court to decide after hearing from both sides. However, given the Appellant’s technological challenges in her remote location and the respondent’s desire to have this appeal heard without further delay, and given Ms LeBlanc’s limited retainer, I have afforded Ms White a further opportunity to indicate her preference as to mode of hearing, and I understand that the respondents are content if the hearing proceeds on July 17th by any of the three modes I have described.

[8] As the parties were advised during the teleconference, all Divisional Court cases are being case-managed during COVID-19. If any matter arises that will affect this appeal proceeding, as scheduled, on July 17, 2020, the parties should arrange a further case management teleconference with the court.

[9] 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: May 28, 2020