Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 134/97 DATE: 20200404 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (FAMILY COURT) - ONTARIO

RE: Eric Daryl Richard Crosby, Applicant AND: FRO-Family Responsibility Office, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice Robert B. Reid

COUNSEL: The Applicant self-represented; assisted by Duty Counsel (A. Debanné-Piller) G. Sutter, Counsel, for the Respondent

HEARD: April 4, 2020

Decision on Urgent Motion

[1] The triage judge, Justice W. L. MacPherson, permitted the applicant to proceed with an urgent motion. The motion sought a refraining order preventing the respondent from suspending the applicant’s driver’s licence. He had received a First Notice to Suspend Driver’s Licence dated February 21st, 2020 from the Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”). In addition, the motion sought an order suspending enforcement proceedings by FRO.

[2] Permission for the matter to proceed was necessary because as a result of COVID-19, regular Superior Court of Justice operations were suspended as set out in the Notice to Profession of the Chief Justice of Ontario [1].

[3] The motion proceeded by teleconference. Present on the call were the applicant, assisted by duty counsel, and counsel for FRO.

[4] Counsel for FRO advised that the Director of FRO had sent out a notice dated March 26, 2020 advising the applicant that proceedings to suspend his driver’s licence have been cancelled owing to the current pandemic. [2] That notice had not yet been received by the applicant. As a result, that aspect of the motion which would have been urgent was moot.

[5] The request for a stay of enforcement is typically included as part of a Motion to Change rather than as a freestanding claim for relief. In any event, such a request must first be served on the support recipient. The applicant had not done so in this case. Without deciding the point, I observed that a request for a stay of enforcement might not meet the criteria for urgency currently prevailing during the current suspension of normal Superior Court activities.

[6] Because the urgent issue, namely the need for a refraining order, was moot, and because the motion for a stay of enforcement was not served on the support recipient, the motion is dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to the applicant’s right to bring a further motion, within a motion to change or otherwise, at a later date.

Reid J. Date: April 4, 2020

[1] See the Notice to the Profession dated March 18, 2020 available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/. [2] The same notice was sent to position all support payors who had previously received First Notice to Suspend Driver’s Licence where that process was still outstanding.