Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor)
245 Windsor Ave., Windsor, ON N9A 1J2
Endorsement / Page d’inscription
Applicant(s) / Requérant(e)(s): Angela Christine Simpson Counsel / Avocat(e): Ms. Melville
Respondent(s) / Intimé(e)(s): Ryan Victor Freeman Counsel / Avocat(e): Georgette Makhoul
THIS MOTION HAS BEEN BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE PROTOCOL IN PLACE DURING SUSPENSION OF NORMAL COURT OPERATIONS DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
DATE: April 20, 2020 APPEARANCES: In writing by the respondent (moving party)
Endorsement
HEBNER J.:
[1] Counsel for the respondent father has requested leave to bring an urgent motion. The respondent seeks access to the parties’ two children, Eastynn aged 8 and Jaxzen, aged 6. The respondent father has apparently not seen the children since October 2019. Counsel for the respondent father has identified this matter as one of high conflict, where both parties have been charged with assaulting the other.
Urgency
[2] This matter comes before the court during a time when the court has suspended its normal operations due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. At this time, the court is only hearing motions that meet the definition of urgency set out in the Notice to the Profession of the Chief Justice of Ontario, available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/ (the Chief Justice’s notice). The Chief Justice’s notice includes the following:
Only urgent family law events as determined by the presiding justice, or events that are required to be heard by statute will be heard during this emergency period, including:
a) requests for urgent relief relating to the safety of a child or parent (e.g., a restraining order, other restrictions on contact between the parties or a party and a child, or exclusive possession of the home);
b) urgent issues that must be determined relating to the well-being of a child including essential medical decisions or issues relating to the wrongful removal or retention of a child;
c) dire issues regarding the parties’ financial circumstances including for example the need for a non-depletion order.
[3] A determination as to whether a matter meets the definition of urgency is intended to be simple and expeditious. It is not intended to be a motion in and of itself: see Onuoha v. Onuoha, 2020 ONSC 1815.
[4] There is no outstanding file for this matter. There is a final order dated September 20, 2017, but the parties subsequently reconciled and separated again. Counsel for Mr. Freeman intends to issue a motion to change the final order.
[5] Ms. Makhoul has made an alternative request for an urgent case conference. In my view, this matter ought to proceed to a case conference before the hearing of any motion, urgent or otherwise. This court has recently expanded its operations to include case conferences, limited to two pressing issues. In this case, the pressing issues are the residence of the children and access.
Disposition
[6] I do not intend to rule on the issue of urgency at this point. Instead, I direct that a case conference be scheduled before me by conference call on the issues of the children’s residence and access no later than May 1, 2020. In the event the motion is still necessary after the case conference, I will release a ruling on urgency at that point.
[7] In order to facilitate the hearing of the matter, the parties may serve and file their case conference briefs, limited to six (6) pages in accordance with the Notice to the Profession of the Regional Senior Justice dated April 2, 2020, at any time up to 24 hours before the scheduled case conference.
[8] Ms. Makhoul may issue her motion to change and serve it along with her case conference brief. Service of all documents in this matter may be effected by email. Ms. Makhoul has indicated that Ms. Melville is representing the applicant, however given that the motion to change has not been issued, Ms. Melville is not yet on the record. Accordingly, I direct that service be effected by email on the applicant directly, with a copy to Ms. Melville.
Pamela L. Hebner Justice
RELEASED: April 21, 2020