Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor)
245 Windsor Avenue
Windsor, ON N9A 1J2
Endorsement / Page d’inscription
Applicant(s) / Requérant(e)(s):
Steven Anthony Burton and Betty Jane Burton
Counsel / Avocate(e): Jerrod D. Patterson
Respondent(s) / Intimé(e)(s):
Selena Lynn Burton and Travous John Tysick
Self-Represented
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 14, 2020
APPEARANCES: In Writing by the Applicant Steven Anthony Burton
RULING OF TRIAJE JUSTICE
[1] The applicants have brought a motion requesting an order that the child, Elya Myra Tyfick (as spelled in the Notice of Motion) born June 3, 2015 be placed in their custody on an interim basis. They further request an order that the respondent, Selena Lynn Burton, be prohibited from removing the child from Essex County.
[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 matters 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] I have reviewed the applicant’s letter to the triage Justice dated April 13, 2020, which letter complies with the notice to the profession of Thomas RSJ dated April 2, 2020. I have also reviewed the applicant’s notice of motion. Based on the letter and notice of motion, I find that the proposed motion meets the definition of an urgent family law event as it deals with the well-being and potential wrongful removal of a 4-year-old child. Accordingly, the motion may proceed.
[5] I make the following order:
The applicants may serve both of the respondents by email as proposed in the notice of motion;
The matter shall be heard by way of an urgent motion by conference call on Friday, April 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. The respondents are both to be invited to attend on the conference call. The respondents may serve and file any material, including an unsworn statement, by email at any time prior to 10:00 a.m. on April 17, 2020.
Pamela L. Hebner
Signed with Electronic Signature and Released by “Hebner J.” Justice
Released: April 14, 2020