Court File and Parties

Newmarket Court File No.: FC-05-22917-01 Date: 20200505 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Mark Anthony Edwards, Applicant And: Camille Melissa Robinson, Respondent

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

Counsel: Mark Anthony Edwards, Self-Represented Denise Badley, Counsel for the Respondent

Heard: In Writing

Ruling on Urgent Motion Request

[1] As a result of COVID-19 regular Superior Court of Justice operations are suspended at this time as set out in the Notice to Profession, the Public and Media Regarding Civil and Family Proceedings of the Chief Justice of Ontario. See the Notices to the Profession dated March 15, 2020, as revised on April 2 and May 5, 2020 available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/ [“the Chief’s Notice”].

[2] The Chief’s Notice frames what may be considered urgent:

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;

d. in a child protection case, all urgent or statutorily mandated events including the initial hearing after a child has been brought to a place of safety, and any other urgent motions or hearings.

[3] The respondent (“the mother) has brought a motion for the return to her care of the two youngest of the parties’ three children (one of the children is twenty years old: the other two are two and eight years old). She has brought this motion without notice to the applicant (“the father”). It does not appear that there is a current Application before the Court. The mother referenced a 2005 court file in her material and said that it had “ended” by which I understand that a final Order was made but none has been provided to the Court. The mother may need to consider starting an Application pursuant to Family Law Rule 8(2.1) if she is seeking relief other than enforcing the terms of that Order.

[4] The mother says, among other things, that she is a victim of domestic abuse and she describes a history that reflects abuse in her affidavit. The parties had an on-again/off-again relationship beginning in 1999 and finally separated in March 2020. The father refuses to accept the parties’ separation. He has withheld the two younger children (“the children”) since March 25, 2020 and refused to allow them to speak to their mother. Shortly afterwards the father made a complaint to the police that resulted in the mother being charged with uttering a threat.

[5] The father was not served with the mother’s motion because she says that she is afraid of his reaction should the motion not be deemed urgent and her concern about the children’s safety. While she says that the local child protection agency is aware of this matter and apparently agrees with no notice being given to the father of the relief claimed, there is no evidence of any such contact apart from the mother’s statements.

[6] The CER Notice to the Profession dated April 7, 2020 requires that a party seeking relief without notice must provide a basis for that request by which I interpret that to mean requiring “reasonable” evidence. Despite the history of domestic violence described in the mother’s material, I am not persuaded that such a basis exists in this case. There is no suggestion that the children are in danger. The father should be served.

[7] Accordingly, the following is Ordered:

(a) If the mother is seeking relief other than enforcing a final Order dealing with parenting of the children, she must start a Motion to Change or an Application pursuant to Family Law Rules 15 or 8(2.1), respectively, by May 8, 2020 and serve it on the father; (b) The mother shall forthwith serve on the father her motion material now filed with the Court, together with a copy of this endorsement; (c) The father shall have until 1:00 p.m. on May 8, 2020 to serve the mother and file with the Court his material in response; (d) The mother shall serve the father and file with the Court her Reply (if any) by 1:00 p.m. on May 11, 2020; (e) No affidavit from any person other than the parties will be permitted; (f) The only relief that will be considered will be that of a parenting arrangement for the children; (g) The father’s affidavit shall be limited to five pages, double-spaced: the mother’s reply shall be limited to three pages. Exhibits may accompany the affidavits and shall not be subject to the page limitation but must be relevant. All pages shall be double-spaced; (h) All documents may be served by email and filed electronically with the Court. An affidavit of service must accompany any filing; (i) Court administration shall bring this matter to my attention after 1:00 p.m. on May 11, 2020 for further direction. I may issue an Order afterwards or schedule a motion by teleconference; (j) Costs may be awarded against a party not complying with the foregoing. If the Court should determine that either party has not acted in the children’s best interests, costs may be awarded against that party. Failure to support a child’s relationship with the other parent is a failure to parent.

[8] In the circumstances of the COVID-19 emergency, the foregoing is an Order of the Court that 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.

Justice David A. Jarvis Date: May 5, 2020