Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-367-2 DATE: 2020/03/27 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Amanda Purdy Applicant – and – Jake Purdy Respondent

Counsel: Self-represented (Applicant) Self-represented (Respondent)

Heard: In Writing

Endorsement

SHELSTON J.

[1] Pursuant to the Notice of Profession from Chief Justice Morawetz dated March 15, 2020, only urgent and emergency family law matters are to be heard at this time. The list of matters that qualify as urgent is very narrow and the initial determination of urgency is to be made by the judge receiving a request for a hearing or determination.

[2] Only the following urgent family law events as determined by the presiding Justice will be heard during the emergency period, including:

a) requests for urgent relief relating to the safety of a child or parent (e.g., a restraining order, other restrictions on contact between the parties or a party and a child, or exclusive possession of the home);

b) Urgent issues that must be determined relating to the well-being of a child including essential medical decisions or issues relating to the wrongful removal or retention of a child;

c) Dire issues regarding the parties’ financial circumstances including for example the need for a non-depletion order.

[3] Electronic materials were filed through the courthouse email address. Upon the resumption of court operations, all materials will be duly filed in the physical record at the courthouse.

[4] As the LAJ of Family Law, I have been designated to triage all requests for urgent motions. I have reviewed the following documents:

a) Form 14 B Motion Form;

b) Affidavit of Amanda Purdy dated March 26, 2020;

c) Second affidavit of Amanda Purdy dated March 26, 2020;

d) Email from Jake Purdy dated March 27, 2020;

e) Copy of the order of Justice Summers dated November 1, 2019; and

f) Copy of the order of Justice Audet dated March 4, 2020.

[5] The applicant has requested an urgent motion to be heard regarding her requests for temporary child and spousal support. In support of her requests, the applicant submits that her circumstances are dire. This is a high conflict matter. Justice Audet ordered on March 4, 2020 that the children would alternate residences weekly and identified urgent matters such as support, dental care, a summer schedule, passports for the children and travel authorizations.

[6] In his email dated March 27, 2020, Mr. Purdy advises that he currently has a pending motion for contempt against Ms. Purdy alleging that she is in breach of “dozens of orders on access”. Mr. Purdy does not address the issue of support other then to inquire if both parties need to provide updated financial affidavits for motions about support.

[7] Upon a review of the materials, I do not find that this matter is urgent within the meaning of the Notice of the Profession dated March 15, 2020. While I accept that on March 4, 2020, the court ordered that the various issues be dealt with on an urgent basis, the circumstances have changed dramatically as a result of the pandemic. The court is not operating on its usual schedule. The only matters to proceed are urgent and emergency proceedings. At this juncture, I do not find that the applicant’s motion is urgent. Further, any award of spousal and/or child support may be made retroactively.

[8] The parties should be aware that their conduct will be reviewed at a future date and that they should attempt to collaborate with each other and to avoid confrontation in these very stressful times especially for children.

[9] In the event that the scope of hearings to be considered during this emergency period is expanded, I grant the applicant leave to reapply at that time.

Released: March 27, 2020 Shelston J.