Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS 14 004234 DATE: 20170112
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Robert Must v. Yana Shkuryna
BEFORE: Sproat, J.
COUNSEL: Mr. Must, Self-represented Anthea Cheung, for the Public Guardian and Trustee Annie Noa Kenet, for Yana Shkuryna
HEARD: Motion in Writing
E N D O R S E M E N T
1I reviewed a Rule 14B Motion Form filed by Mr. Must seeking leave to bring a motion in this family law proceeding. In my initial review of the file, the order of Daley J. dated June 25, 2015 came to my attention. That order provided that Mr. Must was not permitted to bring any motions without first obtaining leave of the court and also referred to the fact that he was represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT).
2I, therefore, instructed the court staff to inquire as to whether the PGT intended to file any material and what its position was. I received a letter dated December 1, 2016 from Ms. Cheung for the PGT. The PGT relied upon the order of Daley J. and took the position that leave should not be granted to bring a motion as the motion was not brought by the PGT and was not in Mr. Must’s interest. I offered Mr. Must an opportunity to respond and he did so by letter dated December 27, 2016. Counsel for Ms. Shkuryna was copied on all correspondence for information purposes only and did not make any submissions.
3Ms. Cheung provided me with a copy of the order of Clay J. of the Ontario Court of Justice dated September 5, 2014 appointing the PGT, pursuant to s. 4(3) of the Family Law Rules, as the legal representative of Mr. Must, in an Ontario Court family proceeding between Mr. Must and Ms. Shkuryna. Mr. Must’s appeals from that decision were dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal.
4Mr. Must was found by Clay J. to be a special party as defined by s. 2 of the Family Law Rules. This finding was made on the basis that he was mentally incapable and required legal representation. There has, therefore, been a final court order as to Mr. Must’s status.
5The June 25, 2015 order of Daley J., which refers to Mr. Must as represented in this Superior Court proceeding by the PGT, appears to be premised on the prior determination by Clay J. upheld on appeal. That conclusion makes sense to me. Both this proceeding and the Ontario Court of Justice proceeding before Clay J. are family law proceedings between Mr. Must and Ms. Shkuryna and are concerned primarily with child access, custody and support issues. As Daley J. did, this court should respect and proceed in accordance with the determination that Mr. Must is a special party who must be and is represented by the PGT.
6While not essential to my reasoning or the result I have reached, I add the following. I appreciate that a person’s mental status may change and that a person found to be incapable may become capable. The decision of Clay J. in 2014 was based in large part upon Mr. Must’s own words and actions. Clay J. described conduct by Mr. Must as “bizarre” and noted that Mr. Must had no appreciation that his conduct was inappropriate and irrational. The unfortunate reality is that Mr. Must’s letter of December 27, 2016 appears to be a continuation of the conduct and lack of appreciation noted by Clay J. The letter is for the most part unresponsive to the issues raised by Ms. Cheung and large parts of it are simply incomprehensible. As such the material before me does not give any indication that the status of Mr. Must has changed.
7As such I dismiss Mr. Must’s Rule 14B motion. Any motion in this proceeding can only be brought by the PGT.
Sproat, J
DATE: January 12, 2017