Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV- 1900630077 DATE: 20200319 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

DAG HRVOIC, Applicant

– and –

MELISSA HRVOIC, Respondent

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

COUNSEL: Daniel F. Chitiz and Alastair McNish, for the respondent

READ: March 19, 2020

Endorsement

The respondent moves for a stay pending the hearing of her motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from terms of an adjournment imposed by Dow J. by order dated March 10, 2020. Among other things, Dow J. required that as a term of an adjournment sought by the respondent of an application questioning the propriety of the respondent drawing $600,000 on a line of credit secured by property owned by the applicant, the respondent should be required within seven days to repay $500,000 of the funds drawn. Repayment is due today. The matter is time sensitive and urgent within the meaning of the Notice to the Profession released by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 15, 2020.

[1] I have numerous concerns about the proceeding. The respondent has proposed meta-motions prior to the hearing of the main application concerning the propriety of her unilateral drawing of the impugned funds. There are other proceedings between these parties all of which ultimately emanate from the breakdown of the personal relationship between them. There are two sides to every story. On the day that the respondent drew the impugned funds, the applicant purported to terminate her employment with a corporation by whom she had been employed for some 20 years.

[2] Is this really a matter that should be bound up with the parties’ family law proceedings? Should the motion for leave to appeal be heard in the Divisional Court as the respondent has already delivered her notice of motion for leave to appeal? If the order that the respondent repay the bulk of the funds that she drew is stayed, will she consume the funds pending the hearing? Can she repay the funds? If not, would this truly prejudice the applicant viewing the financial affairs between them globally?

[3] How likely is the respondent to obtain leave to appeal from a discretionary term (made under the broad authority of the court under Rule 1.05) of an order for adjournment sought by the respondent to defer the determination of the propriety of her taking the funds in issue? [1]

[4] I will convene a case conference by telephone with counsel for the parties to discuss process issues for this application and the proposed hearing. The parties’ family law counsel are invited to attend. The parties are on notice that pursuant to Rule 50.13(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, as a result of the case conference I may designate a judge to hear this matter and make any orders required to ensure that this application is dealt with efficiently.

[5] I refer the parties to the following provision of the Notice to the Profession referred to above:

During this temporary suspension of regular operations, the Court calls upon the cooperation of counsel and parties to engage in every effort to resolve matters.

[6] The case conference will be heard at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, March 20, 2020. The Motions Coordinator will provide notice of the call-in details.

[7] Service of any materials for this motion may be made by email and shall be deemed effective on the date the email is sent or, if sent after 4:00 p.m., on the next day. No acknowledgement of receipt for email service is required for this motion.

[8] All evidence, motion records, and factums shall be filed with the court by delivering them as attachments to an email to the other parties and the Motions Coordinator in searchable PDF format. No Books of Authority or statutory materials are to be sent to the other parties or the Motions Coordinator. References to case law or statutory material shall be made by hyperlinks to contained in the parties’ factums or in a separate list of authorities.

[9] The hearing of all case conferences and motions will be held by telephone conference on a line to be provided by the Motions Coordinator. The parties and the presiding judge may use videoconference technology (whether Skype or Microsoft Teams or otherwise) as may be available to them all and acceptable to the presiding judge.

[10] Upon the courthouse reopening to the public, each party shall file with the Civil Motions Office a hard copy of all the material he, she, or it delivered electronically for this motion, with proof of service, and pay the appropriate fees therefor.

[11] This endorsement is effective when made. No formal order is required.

[12] All parties are given notice that:

a. The presiding judge may convene one or more case conferences and make all orders as he or she deems appropriate under Rule 53.10(6) to ensure the efficient hearing of the urgent application that is the subject of this endorsement; and

b. The outcome of the application whether conveyed in typed or handwritten format is an order of the court enforceable by law from the moment it is released regardless of whether a signed order is signed or entered with the court. A formal order may be required for any appeal or motion for leave to appeal that may be brought;

c. All of the provisions of this order may be varied by the presiding judge on such terms and he or she deems just; and

d. All case conferences and hearings may be recorded for the court’s purposes.

F.L. Myers J. Date: March 19, 2020

Footnotes

[1] Rule 1.05 provides: When making an order under these rules the court may impose such terms and give such directions as are just.