Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FS-10-364255
Date: 20121012
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
RE: L.W., Applicant
AND:
A.W., Respondent
BEFORE: Czutrin J.
COUNSEL:
Lorna M. Yates , for the Applicant
Respondent – In Person
HEARD: October 4, 2012
Endorsement
[ 1 ] This motion brought by the Respondent, asking for an order to put him on the Applicant’s extended health and dental plan so that he can seek psychological counseling.
[ 2 ] The Applicant objects to the Respondent’s requests on several grounds:
That pursuant to Perkins J.’s orders of June 23 and 24, 2011, he is restrained from bringing any further motions, conferences or a trial until he is in compliance with all temporary orders in this matter, including orders obligating him to pay costs up to and including (the date of the order).He has not complied and therefore has no standing.
Similarly Jenkins J., sitting as a Divisional Court Judge, made a similar order on March 20, 2012.
The Respondent is in arrears of $39,855 in costs.
[ 3 ] Even if no such orders had been made, rule 14(23) provides that a party who does not obey an order is entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders that this sub-rule does not apply.
[ 4 ] The relief requested is incidental to a support claim and no support order has been made or requested.
[ 5 ] The did not have benefits at the time of separation and the benefits she now have appear not to allow adding a separated spouse to her plan.
[ 6 ] The Respondent concedes that in trying to get help that he is now seeking to find through any plan the wife may have, any one he has approached has told him that they will not be involved in a matter before the court.
[ 7 ] The plan, if it were available, has limited coverage, far too little for any extensive assistance.
[ 8 ] The Respondent’s claim fails for all these reasons.
[ 9 ] When I allowed the Respondent to bring this motion, I did so knowing that Kiteley J. scheduled a settlement conference before her and I was hopeful that issues could be resolved in their entirety on this case that began in 2010 after the parties’ separation November 1, 2008 (nearly four years ago).
[ 10 ] Several colleagues have written extensively on the history of this case. In spite of, no doubt, Kiteley J.’s best efforts at the settlement conference September 4, 2012, neither the issue on this motion nor the case in its entirety did not settle.
[ 11 ] The Applicant does not, in the circumstances, submits that to have the Respondent continue to escalate her client’s costs is unreasonable and he should be prevented from initiating any steps and I should not manage the case under Rule 2 unless requested by the Applicant , but I find that this case needs to come to an end.
[ 12 ] As part of my duty as case manager, the Applicant shall by November 19, 2012 serve and file her proposed next steps and costs submissions.
[ 13 ] The Respondent will then reply by December 3, 2012.
[ 14 ] I will consider these requests as 14(b) motion and give further directions.
Czutrin J.
Released: October 12, 2012