Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-19-20031 Date: 20200424 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Gary Gosnell, Applicant And: Megan Miinch, Respondent

Before: Hebner J.

Appearances: In writing by the applicant

Counsel: Samuel A. Mossman, for the applicant Tamara K. Stomp, for the respondent

Heard: April 24, 2020

THIS MOTION HAS BEEN BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE PROTOCOL IN PLACE DURING SUSPENSION OF NORMAL COURT OPERATIONS DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.

Endorsement of Triage Justice

[1] The applicant and respondent are parents to a daughter, Sophie, born September 7, 2014. The applicant father wishes to proceed with an urgent motion for access to Sophie. In compliance with the Notice to the Profession of Thomas R.S.J. dated April 2, 2020, Mr. Mossman has provided a two-page statement setting out the relief requested and grounds for urgency. Ms. Stomp has provided a two-page response in which she submits the motion is not urgent.

[2] According to Mr. Mossman’s statement, the parties separated in April 2019. There is a consent order dated July 26, 2019, that provides for shared parenting. The applicant asserts that he has not received his time with Sophie as set out in the consent order and has not seen Sophie in over a month. According to Ms. Stomp’s statement, the applicant has cancelled access and has not attempted to exercise his access over the last month. Ms. Stomp suggests that the applicant provide a proposed schedule of access he is prepared to exercise for discussion.

Urgency

[3] 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 specified matters, including those 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.

[4] My task is to rule on whether this matter meets the definition of urgency as provided in the Chief Justice’s notice. I point out that 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.

Disposition

[5] 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 applicant’s access with Sophie no later than May 6, 2020. In the event the motion is still necessary after the case conference, I will release a ruling on urgency at that point.

[6] 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.

Pamela L. Hebner, Justice Date: April 24, 2020