Court File and Parties
NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-18-56775-00 DATE: 20200430 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
David Joseph Natale Applicant – AND – Christina Crupi Respondent
Counsel: James Singer, Counsel for the Applicant Adina Schild, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: In Writing
Ruling on Urgent Case Conference Request #2
JARVIS J.
[1] After I dismissed on April 24, 2020 the father’s urgent motion requesting a case conference, he immediately brought another urgent motion for a case conference to deal with relief that he had neglected to consider asking in the request I dismissed. He had asked that his mother be relieved from facilitating access exchanges even though his sister was an alternate. He now says that the sister, who is a registered nurse and who works in a facility dealing with disabled adults, all of whose residents have tested positive for COVID-19, four of whom have died, tested positive for the virus on April 24, 2020 and must quarantine for 14 days. This information was brought to the attention of the mother’s lawyer right after it was learned.
[2] The mother disputes that the issue is urgent and points to the father’s current motion being the third in rapid succession and that no effort at all was made by him to propose reasonable alternate access facilitators before he brought it. Without a facilitator, it appears that the child will not be able to physically access his father. The child is almost 3 years old.
[3] In Balbontin v. Luwawa, 2020 ONSC 1996, an urgent matter involving access, the following observations were made:
[8] In Ribeiro v. Wright, 2020 ONSC 1829 Pazaratz J. contextualized the COVID-19 pandemic for parenting cases where there are court orders or parenting agreements:
In most situations there should be a presumption that existing parenting arrangements and schedules should continue, subject to whatever modifications may be necessary to ensure that all COVID-19 precautions are adhered to – including strict social distancing.
In some cases, custodial or access parents may have to forego their times with a child, if the parent is subject to some specific personal restriction (for example, under self-isolation for a 14 day period as a result of recent travel; personal illness; or exposure to illness).
[9] Pazaratz J. also highlighted what the court will expect of parents:
- Judges won’t need convincing that COVID-19 is extremely serious, and that meaningful precautions are required to protect children and families. We know there’s a problem. What we’re looking for is realistic solutions. We will be looking to see if parents have made good faith efforts to communicate; to show mutual respect; and to come up with creative and realistic proposals which demonstrate both parental insight and COVID-19 awareness. (bolding added).
[4] As I observed in Luwawa it is impossible to disagree with any of these observations.
[5] While I agree with the mother that the father appears to act hastily and should have given her a reasonable time to discuss with her lawyer alternate access-facilitator proposals before setting an arbitrary response deadline and starting his new motion, I disagree that nothing can, or should be, done as soon as possible with respect to facilitating access. That requires both parties’ participation.
[6] I am satisfied that the father has met the test for urgency contemplated in the Chief’s Notice. As Bennett J. has been conferencing this matter an urgent conference shall proceed before him.
[7] The father’s motion is granted. The following directions shall apply:
(a) Court administration shall schedule the first available date for a Case Conference (by telephone) with Bennett J. after May 6, 2020;
(b) The conference shall be restricted to dealing with facilitating the child’s access with his father;
(c) The parties shall comply with the revised CER Notice to the Profession dated April 17, 2020 (paragraph 3) dealing with form and length of the parties’ briefs;
(d) If a party is unable to sign their brief, their lawyer may do so on their behalf;
(e) The total time allotted will be one-half hour or such further time as Bennett J. may allow;
(f) Briefs may be signed and filed electronically;
(g) The father shall file his Brief by Monday May 4, 2020 (4:00 p.m.) and the mother her Brief by Wednesday, May 6, 2020 (4:00 p.m.);
(h) Confirmation that the conference is proceeding (i.e. delivery of a Form 17F) is dispensed with. If the parties settle the conference issues before the teleconference, they must so advise the Court and provide a draft Order to issue on consent;
(i) Unless otherwise ordered, the Conference shall proceed no earlier than Thursday May 7, 2020, with all material being provided to Bennett J. by court administration upon receipt.
[8] The parties will be expected to have realistic solutions for the conference. Costs may be awarded.
[9] There shall be no costs of this motion.
[10] In the circumstances of the COVID-19 emergency, this Order is operative and enforceable without any need for a signed or entered, formal, typed Order. The parties may submit a formal Order for signing and entry once the court re-opens.