Superior Court of Justice
Court File Number: FS-13-388757
Court: Superior Court of Justice
Address: 393 University Avenue, Toronto
Date: November 19, 2013
Applicant(s):
Barbara Klara Fehervari
Respondent(s):
Istvan Vince Kiss
Before: Perkins J.
Counsel:
Kim Stock, Duty Counsel, for the Applicant
Lorna M. Yates, Duty Counsel, for the Respondent
Motion in writing
Endorsement
This motion comes to me unopposed as a “basket” motion (in Form 14B). The respondent husband asks for an order validating service of his answer, which was served by uploading it on to an electronic document website known as “SIX”. He also asks for an order permitting service of all future documents in the case by the same method.
The husband relies on rule 6(2)(c) of the Family Law Rules, which provides:
REGULAR SERVICE
(2) Regular service of a document on a person is carried out by,
(c) depositing a copy at a document exchange to which the person’s lawyer belongs; … .
The husband’s evidence helpfully explains the technical aspects of how SIX works. A lawyer registers and pays a fee in order to create a file on the website. This allows documents to be uploaded by the lawyer. When a file is created or a document is uploaded, a notice is sent electronically to the other lawyer in the case, and the other lawyer is given password protected access to it. The other lawyer does not pay a fee to access documents – only the lawyer who creates the file has to pay a fee – but if the other lawyer wishes to upload a document, then the other lawyer must pay a fee too. Obviously this system works only if each lawyer can communicate with the other by email. It happens that, in this case, both lawyers are regular users of the site.
There is no question that electronic documents uploaded to a website are “documents” within the meaning of the rule. See the definition of “document” in rule 2(1).
“Depositing” as used in rule 6(2)(c), in relation to an electronic document, would include putting it on to a website where it is preserved and could be accessed by another person within a reasonable time. Though permanent storage of documents on this particular website is apparently offered, that is not necessary for purposes of service.
Is SIX a “document exchange”? An “exchange”, according to dictionary definitions, includes a place where things or services are exchanged:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exchange
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Exchange .
This website appears to me to be a place where electronic documents are exchanged between users.
Belonging to this particular exchange is accomplished by the initiating lawyer’s giving the particulars of the other lawyer to the exchange. Belonging to an institution usually means being entitled to use services offered by it. For the purpose of rule 6(2)(c), a lawyer who is notified that a document has been uploaded and is able to access the document “belongs”, and this is even more so if the lawyer has the right to upload a document in response.
I find that the SIX website satisfies the requirements of rule 6(2)(c). There will accordingly be an order confirming that the answer was served in accordance with rule 6(2)(c). No order is necessary to authorize further use of the website for ordinary service of documents in this case, as the rule itself authorizes this.
Perkins J.