Court File and Parties
NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-128021-00 DATE: 20200424 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Robert Weidenfeld, Plaintiff and Sejal Parikh-Shah as Executor of the Will and Trustee of the Estate of Hana Weidenfeld, Deceased, Nathalie Weidenfeld, Joel Weidenfeld, Robert Leck and Silver Vale (Law Firm), Defendants
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice P.W. Sutherland
COUNSEL: Robert Weidenfeld, self-represented Allen C. Gerstl, for the Defendants, Sejal Parikh-Shah as Executor of the Will and Trustee of the Estate of Hana Weidenfeld, Deceased, Nathalie Weidenfeld, Joel Weidenfeld
HEARD: April 24, 2020, in writing
Endorsement
[1] The plaintiff and the defendants, Sejal Parikh-Shah, as Executor of the Will and Trustee of the Estate of Hana Weidenfeld, Deceased, Nathalie Weidenfeld and Joel Weidenfeld (These Defendants) each bring an urgent motion. These Defendants seek an order to pay out from court the sum of $898,360.11 which was paid into court pursuant to the consent order of me dated June 21, 2017 (the monies). The plaintiff’s motion seeks numerous relief which includes an order prohibiting the payment out of the monies, and an order prohibiting These Defendants from bringing any further motions “until the two related actions” have been finally resolved.
[2] Presently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the court is only hearing specified matters, including those that meet the definition of urgency set out in the Notice to the Profession of the Chief Justice of Ontario, dated March 15, 2020 (the March notice) and the Notice to the Profession Protocol for Civil Matters in the Superior Court of Justice, Central East Region, amended April 14, 2020 (the April notice). The March notice indicates under the heading, Civil and Commercial List (Toronto) matters:
a. urgent and time-sensitive motions and applications in civil and commercial list matters, where immediate and significant financial repercussions may result if there is no judicial hearing.
[3] The March notice further indicates that: “Any other matter that the court deems necessary and appropriate to hear on an urgent basis. The Bar and the public are advised that these matters will be strictly limited.”
[4] The April notice states under the heading Non Urgent Civil Matters:
It is not possible at this time for the Court to deal with civil matter other than those covered by the Notice (the March notice) and this Protocol. Counsel are asked to refrain from contacting trial coordinators or using the generic email addresses to make inquiries about non-urgent civil matters.
[5] The first hurdle for the moving parties to overcome is whether their respective motion brought is urgent.
[6] I am of the opinion that “immediate and significant financial repercussions may result” includes matters that may put a person in financial jeopardy. This includes the moving party requiring immediate financing, funding or monies for their business, business venture or construction project, failing which the financial viability of that business, venture or project is in jeopardy. Also, the necessity of a person to have resources to pay expenses or an order for the health and safety of a person also, in my opinion, meets the criteria of urgency.
[7] The obligation is on the moving party to provide cogent, particular and specific evidence to show the court that the relief requested is urgent. Speculative, supposition or theoretical evidence is not good enough. The present environment and limited use of judicial resources mandate that the urgency must be real and immediate.
[8] On the basis of the material filed by the plaintiff and These Defendants, I do not find that either of them has overcome the hurdle of urgency.
[9] The affidavits filed in support of the motions do not provide any cogent evidence that satisfies the court that the relief sought is urgent. Though, I can appreciate the desire of These Defendants to end the sordid litigation commenced against them by the plaintiff in both family and civil court, but the desire to end a matter and receive the monies from court, in itself, does not translate into urgency.
[10] Thus, I found that neither of the motions brought by the plaintiff and These Defendants are urgent and refuse to schedule the motions brought for a hearing.
[11] The parties may return their respective motion for a hearing after the courts are open to hear such matters. Either motion may return for a hearing set by the trial coordinator after the court has fully opened on 14 days notice.
[12] Costs are reserved to the judge hearing the motion(s).