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
Decision on Urgent Motion
1The 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.
2Permission 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].
3The motion proceeded by teleconference. Present on the call were the applicant, assisted by duty counsel, and counsel for FRO.
4Counsel 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.
5The 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.
Disposition
6Because 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.