Court File and Parties

Newmarket Court File No.: FC-10-34539-02 Date: 2020-04-24 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Jesse Irwin Goldman, Applicant And: Larisa Kudelya, Respondent

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice D.A. Jarvis

Counsel: David Tobin, Counsel for the Applicant Larisa Kudelya, Self-Represented

Heard: April 24, 2020

Urgent Case Conference Endorsement and Order

[1] On April 8, 2020 I directed that an urgent case conference proceed (see 2020 ONSC 2180). The issue to be conferenced relates to a Motion to Change a child support Order by the father. On December 12, 2015 Bennett J. ordered that the father pay child support to the mother for their daughter who was then living with her. Pursuant to an Order made by Jain J. on November 18, 2019 temporary custody of the child was awarded to the father in protection proceedings. I made a further Order to that effect on January 23, 2020. The father wants the support Order, which he has been paying, to be terminated as of November 18, 2019 and the support paid since then repaid to him.

[2] After he started his Motion to Change and it was served on the mother, the father proposed that the support be terminated. In a March 6, 2020 email from the mother to the father’s lawyer, she responded to the father’s Offer indicating that she accepted it but only on the basis that the support Order be suspended temporarily and then only until the resolution of the outstanding child protection proceedings.

[3] Before he brought his urgent motion for a case conference (on April 6, 2020) the father served another Offer, this to temporarily suspend the support Order until final disposition of his Motion to Change. No request for, or other reference was made about, costs. On April 8, 2020 I granted the father leave to proceed with the case conference and cautioned the mother that she should be prepared to deal with a suspension of the support Order when the conference proceeded. On April 10, 2020 the mother accepted the father’s March Offer but added a term that there be no costs.

[4] The mother acknowledged during the conference that she agreed to the suspension of the support Order but that she was seeking in proceedings not before me financial and support-related disclosure from the father for the period before the court ordered in November 2019 that the child reside with him.

[5] I have the following observations:

(a) The mother continued to accept the substantial child support that the Family Responsibility Office was collecting from the father after November 18, 2019 (the date that Jain J. made the Order transferring the child’s residence to her father in protection proceedings). She could have, but did not, inform that Office that there had been a change in the child’s residency;

(b) The father tried to resolve the issue of the support Order after he started his Motion to Change. While there may have been some merit to the mother refusing in early March 2020 to accept a termination of the Order, there was no reasonable justification whatsoever for her to have declined to accept the Offer made on March 27: she only did that after my Ruling that a conference should proceed was granted and sent to her, adding a no-costs term; and

(c) The father was put to an unnecessary expense and valuable court time was wasted as a result of the mother’s behaviour.

[6] This case has a long, and tortured history. Substantial costs awards have been made against the mother. There is an outstanding, unpaid costs award of $1,000 in the father’s favour that I made on January 23, 2020. With respect to this conference, the father has requested costs of $2,000 enforceable as support. I think this is reasonable.

[7] In terms of responding to the Motion to Change, the mother has asked for an extension of time for filing her pleadings. After some discussion, it was agreed that would be done by May 19, 2020.

[8] Accordingly, the following is ordered:

(a) Paragraph 5 of the support Order made by Bennett J. dated December 17, 2015 is temporarily suspended as of February 1, 2020 pending final disposition of these proceedings;

(b) The mother shall have until May 19, 2020 to deliver her pleadings in response to the father’s Motion to Change;

(c) The mother shall pay to the father costs of his 14B motion and this conference in the amount of $2,000, all-inclusive;

(d) The costs shall be enforceable as a support Order; and

(e) The next event in these proceedings may be scheduled by the parties either in accordance with the Chief’s Notice or as may be allowed once the court re-opens, subject to any future Notices to the Public and Profession in that regard.

[9] A Support Deduction Order shall issue.

[10] In the circumstances of the COVID-19 emergency, this endorsement is deemed to be an Order of the Court that is operative and enforceable without any need for a signed or entered, formal, typed Order.

[11] Approval of this Order is dispensed with: the father may submit a formal Order for signing and entry once the court re-opens.

Justice David A. Jarvis Date: April 24, 2020