Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-65 DATE: 2020-03-31
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Bradley John Reitzel, Applicant Nadine Lee Reitzel, Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice L. Madsen
COUNSEL: Barry T. Paquette, Counsel for the Applicant Emily Carroll, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: In Chambers
E N D O R S E M E N T – COVID-19 PROTOCOL
[1] AS A RESULT OF COVID-19 the regular operations of the Superior Court of Justice have been suspended at this time, as set out in the Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020 available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/. In accordance with that Notice, only urgent matters are being heard at this time.
[2] The Notice of the Chief Justice provides that “urgent and emergency” matters shall continue to be heard by the Superior Court of Justice during the suspension of operations due to COVID-19, and that urgency is “as determined by the presiding justice.” The Notice specifies that such matters may include requests for urgent relief relating to the safety of any child and urgent issues related to the wellbeing of a child. This preliminary determination of urgency is an exercise of judicial discretion.
[3] In accordance with the Regional Notice to the Profession, electronic materials were filed by the Applicant father, Bradley Reitzel and the Respondent mother, Nadine Lee Reitzel. The father asks that the Court make an order on an urgent basis for access to his children G.R., born April 25, 2008; [“G.R.”] and I.R., born October 19, 2005, [“I.R.”]. The mother opposes same.
[4] This matter was referred to me as Triage Judge for a determination of urgency and of how this matter should proceed.
[5] The court received the following materials at Kitchener.Superior.Court@ontario.ca, which will by duly filed in the court record when regular court operations resume:
a. Applicant father’s Notice of Motion dated March 23, 2020; b. Applicant father’s Affidavit sworn March 12, 2020; c. Affidavit of service in relation to the Applicant’s materials; and d. Respondent mother’s Affidavit sworn March 30, 2020.
[6] For the reasons set out below, I find that this matter is not urgent at this time.
[7] In summary the father states as follows in his affidavit:
a. The parties separated September 16, 2019 after twenty years of marriage. There was a previous separation in 2003. b. The parties are parents of seven children, two of whom are under 18 years of age. G.R. will be 12 years old next month; I.R. is 14 ½ years old. c. G.R. and I.R. have been living with their mother since separation. The father has had no parenting time since separation other than from time to time attending sporting events. d. The father states that he was always involved with the children, has never abused the mother or the children, and would like to have access with G.R. and I.R.. He alleges that the mother has mental health issues. e. The father does not state that he has sought parenting time through the court at any time between September 2019 and the present motion.
[8] In summary, the mother states as follows in her affidavit:
a. The mother confirms the parties’ date of separation and that the father has not had parenting time with the children since that date. At that time the mother left with the children, the father remaining in the matrimonial home. b. On September 11, 2019, five days before the parties’ separation, the father hit and pushed one of the parties’ adult children, C. who is 20 years of age. The police were called and attended the home. C. chose not to have charges pressed. c. The mother states that the father was verbally and physically abusive to her and to all of the children when the parties were together, and that he continues to harass, stalk, and intimidate them. d. The mother states that G.R. and I.R. are afraid of their father and do not wish to see their father at this time. e. Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region (FACS) interviewed all of the children subsequent to the parties’ separation in September 2019. It is the mother’s understanding that FACS does not support any unsupervised parenting time for the father with G.R. and I.R. The mother attached a letter from FACS dated March 30, 2020 which confirms same.
[9] The determination of urgency is intended to be simple and expeditious, recognizing the summary nature of the determination.
[10] Any determination of potential urgency or lack of urgency is wholly without prejudice to either party on the ultimate hearing of the motion.
[11] In my view this motion is not urgent at this time, for the following reasons:
a. The father did not bring his motion until March 23, 2020. At that time the parties had been separated for six months. Had this matter been urgent, even to the father, he would have brought his motion earlier; b. The Notice to the Profession indicates that matters will be found to be urgent where there is a question relating to the “safety of a child or parent,” or an urgent issue related to a child’s “well-being.” On the evidence I do not see issues related to either at this time; c. The children are 14 ½ and almost 12 years of age. Their views will be an important consideration in determining any parenting arrangements, particularly in light of the mother’s allegations. This would be an appropriate case for a Voice of the Child Report. It is the court’s understanding that the Office of the Children’s Lawyer is not conducting Voice of the Child reports at the present time; d. The preliminary evidence, as yet untested, indicates that FACS is involved with this family, and that the worker has met with the mother, and 6 of the 7 children. The worker’s letter states that she attempted to meet with the father but he cancelled a meeting with the worker. A letter dated March 30, 2020 indicates that in the agency’s view any parenting time of the father should be supervised. More evidence will be required before a determination can be made on motion about appropriate parenting arrangements.
[12] In the circumstances, this motion is adjourned to be spoken to at a case conference to take place after the resumption of regular court operations, which may be set by counsel by contacting the Trial Coordinator.
