Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 433/19 DATE: 20200414 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Cameron Douglas Jennings, Applicant AND Allison Samantha Thompson, Respondent

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Timothy Minnema

COUNSEL: Beth Ambury, for the Applicant Judith Millard, for the Respondent

HEARD: In Writing

Endorsement on Urgency – COVID - 19

[1] This is a request for an urgent hearing by the applicant father Mr. Jennings following the COVID-19 procedures as set out in:

a) the Notice to the Profession published on the SCJ website from the Chief Justice Morawetz dated March 15, 2020 (“Prov. NTP”); b) the Notice to the Profession for this county from our Local Administrative Justices dated March 25, 2020 (“Local NTP”); and c) the Notice to the Profession from Regional Senior Justice Calum MacLeod dated April 2, 2020 (“Region NTP”).

[2] The father has properly followed those procedures. He has provided an email stating the relief requested and why he feels it is urgent (Region NTP). He has served and filed a 14B motion (Region NTP para. 24, Prov. NTP para. 1).

[3] My role at this point as the triage judge is to determine, based on the unchallenged submission and affidavit evidence, whether the matter meets the test of urgency set out below, and should therefore be heard (Prov. NTP para. 7, Local NTP para. 27). While I could require more information (Local NTP para. 25), I am not seeking it at this time.

[4] The Prov. NTP sets out that only urgent family events will be heard during the COVID-19 pandemic until further notice. For the purposes of this motion this includes urgent relief relating to the safety of a child (para. 2(a)), urgent issues that must be determined relating to the well-being of a child (para. 2(b)), and any other matter that the court deems necessary and appropriate to hear on an urgent basis (para. 4). I note that these are not urgent motions in the traditional sense (per Rule 14(4.2)), and indeed the matter in question has already had a case conference.

[5] In my view the test for urgency has been met. The father raises issues relating to the safety of the very young female children (ages 1 and 3) relating to the mother Ms. Thompson’s access in view of her physical and mental health and her choice of partner. Further, the existing interim order was entered into on consent on a without prejudice basis, and the circumstances existing at that time have substantially changed.

[6] Per the Prov. NTP at paras 7 to 9, upon finding urgency I am to determine a schedule for the service and filing of any responding materials and, once all submissions have been received, I am to determine the manner of the hearing (writing, telephone or video conference).

[7] Unfortunately, the materials were served just before the Easter long weekend, and this is therefore a short week. The mother shall serve and file her responding material by Thursday April 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., and the father shall serve and file his responding materials by Thursday April 16, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. Although, as noted, in the usual case I would be expected to determine the manner and time of the hearing after the materials are filed, given the loss of Good Friday and Easter Monday, I am setting the date now for Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:10 a.m. by way of a teleconference for 1 hour. The parties can speak to me at that time if there is a concern about due process as a result of these rather condensed timelines. The applicant father will have 10 minutes for submissions, the respondent mother 15 minutes for her submissions, and the father will have 5 minutes for reply. I anticipate asking questions at the hearing, to take up the balance of the allotted time.

Mr. Justice Timothy Minnema Date: April 14, 2020