COURT FILE NO.: 407/19 DATE: 2020-05-08 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Cory Lea Williams, Applicant AND: Oskar Mayen, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice C. Lafrenière
COUNSEL: Ms. A. Williams, Counsel, for the Applicant Mr. F. Roy, Counsel, for the Respondent
HEARD: In Chambers
Endorsement
[1] AS A RESULT OF COVID-19, the regular operations of the Superior Court of Justice are suspended at this time, as set out in the Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020 available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/.
[2] For the moment, the court is prioritizing “urgent” matters. A supplemental Notice to the Profession dated April 2, 2020 sets out a narrow list of less urgent matters the court will attempt to deal with, as time and resources permit. (Further information is available in the April 7, 2020 “Protocol Regarding Family and Child Protection Matters in Central South Region”.)
Matter Before the Court
[3] This motion was referred to me by the Triage Judge, Justice Pazaratz, who made a preliminary determination of potential urgency based on the Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated May 1, 2020 and Affidavit dated April 27, 2020.
[4] Justice Pazaratz set out timelines for filing of the Respondent father’s responding material and the Applicant mother’s reply material.
The Triage Endorsement
[5] Justice Pazaratz stated as follows in the Triage Endorsement, paragraph [4] through [20]:
I have received and reviewed the following materials:
a. Applicant mother’s Notice of Motion dated May 1, 2020.
b. Applicant’s Affidavit sworn April 27, 2020.
I have not received any responding materials on behalf of the father. This is understandable given the fact that the father’s counsel was served on April 27, 2020. It is vitally important that the court receive evidence from both parents in a case like this.
On a threshold basis, I find that the issues raised in the materials before me are potentially urgent. This is a preliminary determination, without prejudice to either party on the ultimate hearing of the motion.
However, I wish to be clear about the extent to which I am authorizing that this matter proceed on an urgent basis.
The following components of the mother’s narrative suggest urgency:
a. The parties have two children ages eight and four.
b. The parties separated in 2014.
c. The children remained primarily in the mother’s care thereafter.
d. The father was having regular access, most recently in the form of alternate weekends.
e. However after a weekend visit on March 20, 2020, the father refused to return the children to the mother.
f. She has not seen the children since that date.
Accordingly, since there is an allegation that a long-standing parenting status quo has been disrupted, and that the children are not seeing one of the parents, this suggests that the matter requires immediate attention.
However, this file appears to entail a great deal of complexity – I suspect, more complexity than the mother has alluded to in her materials.
a. The mother’s affidavit is relatively brief, but it includes as an attachment a very lengthy “Discontinued” s.112 report issued by the OCL on February 27, 2020.
b. The mother’s notice of motion seeks leave to serve and file these materials (which exceed length limitations). In the alternative, if she is not permitted to file the OCL report, she seeks leave to file an amended affidavit.
c. The mother says the OCL investigation was discontinued because “there were too many child protection concerns that needed to be addressed” and it was more appropriate for CAS to address these concerns.
d. Not mentioned in the mother’s affidavit, the OCL social worker also explained that the investigation was complicated by the fact that the mother “was difficult to engage and missed or cancelled several scheduled appointments.”
e. A March 30, 2020 letter from Hamilton CAS sets out the Society’s investigation remains outstanding, and “the Society is not taking a position with respect to custody or access of the children.”
f. The mother’s materials include an e-mail from the father to the mother’s lawyer. The March 2, 2020 e-mail sets out the father’s allegation that there were problems at access exchanges as a result of his interactions with the mother’s boyfriend. However, implicitly, the father’s e-mail confirms that as of the beginning of March he was having “access” to the children. They were primarily in the mother’s care.
For purposes of an urgent motion, the mother shall be permitted to rely on her 35 paragraph affidavit, and all of the attachments except the OCL report. (This is without prejudice to a future judge making a determination as to the discontinued OCL report.)
The father shall be permitted until May 6, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. to serve and file any responding materials. His affidavit should be no longer than the mother’s affidavit. In total, his materials should be no longer than 12 pages.
The mother may file a reply affidavit (not more than 2 pages) by May 7, 2020 at 4:00 p.m..
Each party shall serve and file documents electronically.
The matter will be scheduled to be dealt with by a Judge on or after May 11, 2020.
a. The Judge may decide to conduct a hearing by teleconference involving counsel and the parties. In that event, counsel will be advised by the court as to the date and time of the teleconference.
b. However, after reviewing the file, the Judge may determine that it is more appropriate to deal with the matter based solely on the written materials, without a teleconference. In that event, the parties will be forwarded a copy of the Judge’s written decision.
c. The judge dealing with the matter will make a formal determination as to whether the materials filed – and any responding materials – raise any issues which meet the threshold of being “urgent”, as required in the Notice to the Profession. If urgency has been established, the Judge will make any necessary orders.
For clarity, the reason that I am making a preliminary determination of urgency is that the materials suggest these children have suddenly not only had their primary residence changed (indeed, to another city), but they are no longer even having access to the parent they used to live with.
In the absence of responding materials from the father, I make no prediction as to either the short-term or long-term result in this file. But I would urge both parties to focus on some parenting principles which will inevitably be raised by the judge dealing with this matter:
a. As a general rule, courts are reluctant to disrupt a long-standing status quo except in urgent or compelling circumstances.
b. As a general rule, courts attempt to implement a “maximum contact” approach, whereby children should have generous contact with both parents, to the extent that such contact is in their best interests.
c. And almost without exception, courts really don’t approve of self-help or unilateral action. Very often, such behaviour provides powerful evidence in relation to parental insight (or the lack thereof).
Both counsel should attempt to obtain (preferably jointly) an updating letter from Hamilton CAS setting out the status of their investigation, and any further position they may have.
I would strongly suggest counsel and the parties start engaging in serious discussions about coming up with a reasonable temporary-temporary without prejudice resolution.
Notwithstanding rule 25 of the Family Law Rules, this endorsement is effective from the date it was made and enforceable as an order of the court without the need for an order to be prepared or approved by the parties and then issued by the court. No formal order is necessary unless an appeal or a motion for leave is brought, or alternatively unless one is necessary for enforcement by a third party. A party who wishes to prepare a formal order for approval and issuance may do so, and submit materials by Form 14B to the court.
[6] I will refer to the Applicant as the mother and the Respondent as the father in this endorsement.
Material Filed
[7] Electronic materials were filed through the courthouse email address: Hamilton.Family.Superior.Court@ontario.ca. Upon the resumption of court operations all materials will be duly filed in the physical record at the courthouse.
[8] I do not have access to the Continuing Record or the Endorsement Volume and rely on the materials the parties have filed electronically and the triage endorsement of Justice Pazaratz.
[9] I have received the following material and I have read all of it:
a) The mother’s Notice of Motion dated May 1, 2020;
b) The mother’s Affidavit dated April 27, 2020;
c) The father’s responding Affidavit dated May 6, 2020; and,
d) The mother’s reply Affidavit dated May 7, 2020.
[10] The father did not bring a Cross-Motion.
[11] There were a number of attachments to the Affidavits. The mother attached Exhibits A through G:
a) The OCL report;
b) March 23, 2020 letter from mother’s counsel to CAS counsel and CAS counsel’s responding letter dated March 30, 2020;
c) The July 9, 2020 Temporary Order made by Justice Bale on consent at the case conference and the endorsement of that date;
d) March 2, 2020 letter from mother’s counsel to the father (self-represented at that time) requesting access exchange at the YWCA Supervised Access Centre and the father’s email response on the same date proposing the Tim Horton’s near the mother’s home as an exchange location;
e) March 5, 2020 letter from mother’s counsel to father’s counsel requesting compliance with the July 2020 Order that the father provide confirmation of his partner’s involvement with child protection agencies, if any;
f) March 23, 2020 letter from mother’s counsel to father’s counsel requiring immediate return of the children to the mother’s care in accordance with the status quo in place since September 2019 and March 24, 2020 letter from mother’s counsel to father’s counsel enclosing a recent urgent motion endorsement of Justice Pazaratz; and,
g) March 31, 2020 letter from mother’s counsel to CAS counsel in response to CAS letter of March 30, 2020 advising the parties have not been in court since the case conference and that a copy of the March 30, 2020 CAS letter was provided to father’s counsel.
[12] Attached to the father’ affidavit as Exhibit A is a copy of a letter from the father’s counsel to the father dated April 3, 2020, enclosing Justice Pazaratz’ decision which is referenced as a decision made about the time the father attempted to bring an urgent motion. As well, the lawyer stated that as the children were now living with the father he did not have to be too concerned until the matter is brought back to court once the child protection agency completes its investigation.
[13] Also attached are several undated photos and what appear to be text messages. The father states the photos and text messages are indicative of neglect.
[14] The mother attached to her reply Affidavit correspondence from the CAS dated May 6, 2020 to mother’s counsel, and correspondence from mother’s counsel to the CAS dated May 1, 2020 enclosing Justice Pazaratz’ triage endorsement on this file.
Urgency
[15] The mother seeks an Order that her motion be heard on an urgent basis.
[16] The mother seeks an Order that the parties two children: Antonio Lamont Mayen (“Antonio”) born on November 11, 2011 and Anastasia Mackenzie Mayen (“Anastasia”) born on October 29, 2015 be placed in her care. She submits the status quo in place since the parties’ separation in 2014 is that the children primarily reside with her and have access with their father. The mother says from the time the parties separated until March 2019, they worked out the parenting arrangements themselves.
[17] The Chief’s Notice does not define urgency in family law matters but is described to include requests for urgent relief relating to the safety of a child or parent (e.g., a restraining order, other restrictions or contact between the parties or a party and a child, or exclusive possession of the home) and urgent issues that must be determined relating to the well-being of a child including essential medical decisions or issues related to the wrongful removal or retention of a child.
[18] Having considered the developing caselaw, Justice Kurz made an attempt in his recent decision in Thomas v. Wohleber, 2020 ONSC 1965 (Ont. S.C.J.) to establish certain factors that might be considered by the court when determining whether a matter is truly urgent within the context of the Chief’s Notice, stating as follows:
In considering the dictionary definition of the term, urgent, the circumstances of urgency set out in the Notice, the examples of urgency offered in Hood and Rosen, and the cases cited above that apply the Notice’s test of urgency, I find that the following factors are necessary in order to meet the Notice’s requirement of urgency:
The concern must be immediate; that is one that cannot await resolution at a later date;
The concern must be serious in the sense that it significantly affects the health or safety or economic well-being of parties and/or their children;
The concern must be a definite and material rather than a speculative one. It must relate to something tangible (a spouse or child’s health, welfare, or dire financial circumstances) rather than theoretical;
It must be one that has been clearly particularized in evidence and examples that describes the manner in which the concern reaches the level of urgency.
[19] I find that the mother’s request for an order to have the children placed in her care is urgent within the meaning of the Chief’s Notice.
How this Motion will proceed
[20] The Chief’s Notice confirms that once all materials are filed, the judge hearing the motion will determine the manner of the hearing, whether it be in writing, by teleconference or by video conference.
[21] The court’s discretion to determine matters based on the written record has been confirmed by Regional Senior Justice Arrell in his Notice to the Profession in Central South Region, dated March 24, 2020.
[22] In Grossman v. Kline, 2020 ONSC 2714, Justice J.T. Akbarali stated, at paragraphs [3] through [5]:
I have now received and reviewed the parties’ motion materials. I agree the motion is urgent within the meaning of the Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020. However, the urgency stems, not from the risks of COVID-19, but from the parties’ own behaviour. Their ongoing conflict, and failure to communicate, has created the urgency because it has created the potential for the parties’ conflict to cause damage to C.
After reviewing the motion materials, I exercised my discretion to hear this matter in writing, for two reasons. First, the parties have ably put forth their positions in their written material, and as a result, the motion can be determined justly if heard in writing.
Second, hearing this motion in writing is consistent with the primary objective set out in r. 2(2), Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, which requires the court to deal with cases justly.
Dealing with cases justly includes, among other things “giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases”: FLR, r. 2(3)(d). During this partial shut-down of the court’s operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever to consider how court resources should be deployed. I also note that my decision to hear the motion in writing is supported by the court’s duty to promote the primary objective by active management of cases, including “if appropriate, dealing with the case without parties and their lawyers needing to come to court, on the basis of written documents or by holding a telephone or video conference”: FLR, r. 2(5)(g).
[23] I agree with Justice Akbarali statements.
[24] Having reviewed the materials I find this matter can be dealt with based on the written record and that the hearing scheduled for Monday, May 11, 2020 is cancelled.
Analysis and Discussion
[25] The mother seeks an Order that the children be returned to her care and that the father have access to them on an alternative weekend basis. She seeks an Order for police enforcement of the terms of the Order.
[26] I rely on the findings made by Justice Pazaratz and the following findings I make:
a) Neither party sought the Court’s assistance with respect to parenting of their children after their separation in 2014 until the mother commenced an Application seeking custody in March 2019;
b) There is no Temporary Order in place with respect to primary residence or time sharing with the non-residential parent;
c) The parties attended a case conference before Justice Bale on July 9, 2019 and at that time agreed to a week about time share for the months of July and August while the children were not in school. The parties agreed they would schedule a settlement conference when and if one was needed;
d) In September 2019, the children returned to her primary care and generally saw their father every other weekend; and,
e) The parties have not been in Court since July 2019.
[27] The mother’s evidence that the children returned to her primary care in September 2019, is not disputed by the father.
[28] The father states at paragraph 16 of his Affidavit that after the summer of 2019, he saw his children when it was convenient for their mother.
[29] He says he attempted to spend every weekend with them.
[30] At paragraph 21 of the father’s affidavit he says “I see my children on average 2 to 4 day a month”.
[31] He alleges the mother has told him that because there is no Court Order in place, he will see the children when she chooses. At paragraph 22 the father states:
Ms. Williams does not agree to making a custody schedule; as a result, I get to see and spend time with my children whenever she feels like allowing it, regardless of whether the kids want to see me or not. At times she has me waiting 3 weeks until I see the children again, a week goes by of me not being able to talk to my children. Ms. Williams will not return any missed calls for the children to speak with me.
[32] The father states at paragraph 27 that,
I am concerned for the safety of my children whenever they go to their mother’s home, as in the police reports it was stated that there have been concerns of gun violence while Ms. Williams was present. I have concerns that my children are spending multiple days overnight during the week in their Grandmother’s unsafe home, where gun violence is prevalent, and given the police report, I believe the children are not safe. When Ms. Williams calls, she insists on telling the children I am keeping them away from her and that I am not allowing them to see her. However, that is not true. I want the children to see their mother, but I need to know they will be safe, and she will not flee with them. The children have stated they do not want to leave, and they want to live with me and go to school.
[33] At paragraph 5, the father states that the mother has neglected the children since 2015.
[34] He makes very serious allegations about the mother’s care of the children from the date of separation but offers no explanation as to why he took no steps to secure an Order placing the children in his care.
[35] It is difficult to reconcile the very serious allegations the father makes and his inaction. There are only a couple of inferences that can be drawn: if he truly believed his children were at significant risk for the past 5 years then he has failed his children by not taking any steps to protect them or he did not really believe his children were at risk.
[36] What is even more difficult to understand is the fact that the father took no steps within the litigation commenced by the mother. If the father had the concerns he says he had about the mother’s refusal to let him see the children and communicate with them on a regular basis after September 2019, why did he not bring a motion seeking an order for a regular time share schedule or even primary residence.
[37] The father’s affidavit is replete with hearsay (at times double hearsay) evidence and bald assertions with no specifics. The father also makes statements that cannot possibly be evidence that is within his personal knowledge and he does not state the source of his information and that he believes this information to be true.
[38] Decisions regarding the best interests of children must be made on reliable and trustworthy evidence.
[39] In this matter the Court has the benefit of the correspondence from the CAS (dated March 30, 2020 and May 6, 2020) stating the CAS takes no position with respect to the custody and access issues in this file.
[40] In the March 30, 2020 letter (as noted by Justice Pazaratz) the CAS counsel stated the Society,
is not taking a position with respect to custody or access of the children.
[41] In the May 6, 2020 letter, CAS counsel stated:
At this time, the Society does not have immediate safety concerns with the children being at the home of either parent and it is not taking a position with respect to custody of and/or access to the children.
[42] The father has taken matters into his own hands rather than seeking the assistance of the Court. Such unilateral action is not in the best interest of the children and will not be condoned by the Court.
[43] What is particularly egregious about the father’s actions is that he planned he would “take custody” of the children well in advance of when he actually did it.
[44] The father states at paragraphs 27 and 28:
On March 1, 2020 I dropped off my children after having them for 1 day and there was a major concern to me regarding the children’s safety. I advised CAS that I was concerned for the children, that they may be in harm's way and I would be taking custody of them next time I see them. Ms. Williams’ partner on two separate occasions, on February 29, 2020 and March 1, 2020, attempted to be intimidating and threatening towards me in front of the children. Not long after Ms. Williams messaged me that she is leaving. She does not give me an answer to when and where. On March 14, 2020 I took custody of the children because I could visually see the neglect they suffered from Ms. Williams and fearing that she may flee with my children.
I spoke to Hamilton Police and Niagara Police to inform them and to take the next steps. I called myself for a safety check. Hamilton police spoke to CAS before calling me and they advised them that they were not concerned the children were with me. I also called CAS worker Rebecca Pantel and Amanda Ditmer and advised them of the situation so they could come and complete the interview with the children that were taking months to complete. Amanda Ditmer was successful in completing the children’s interviews on April 24, 2020 at 10:30 am.
[45] Clearly the father formulated a plan on March 1, 2020 but did not implement it until March 14, 2020. The mother states the father has kept the children since March 20, 2020 and father says he “took custody” on March 14, 2020. The mother’s counsel’s letters suggest the mother’s date is correct. The fact that the father says he tried to bring an urgent motion on March 23, 2020 also suggests the correct date is March 20, 2020. I do not think a lot turns on the point, however.
[46] The father could have brought an urgent motion to Court on Monday March 2, 2020. At that point regular operations had not been suspended. Regular operations were not suspended until March 15, 2020 after the father says he had taken custody of the children. It is important to emphasis the Court has always been able to receive and deal with urgent motions.
[47] The father made no attempt to seek the Court’s assistance to have the children placed in his care before he decided to keep them after an access occasion.
[48] I do not accept the father’s excuse that when he tried to bring his motion, he was unable to do so because he had to do so electronically.
[49] The father states at paragraph 32:
. . . When Ms. Williams calls, she insists on telling the children I am keeping them away from her and that I am not allowing them to see her. However, that is not true. I want the children to see their mother, but I need to know they will be safe, and she will not flee with them. The children have stated they do not want to leave, and they want to live with me and go to school.
[50] The father’s statement that it is not true that he is not allowing the mother to see the children is nonsensical. The children have not seen their mother since March 20, 2020 and the father cannot ignore that fact.
[51] What is even more curious is that the father states he intends to drop the children off to their mother on Sunday, May 10, 2020, which is Mother’s Day. If he is so concerned about the children’s well-being in their mother’s care that he has to take unilateral action, why is it acceptable that they be in their mother’s care just because it is Mother’s Day?
[52] Further, the father’s proposal is that the parties share time with the children on a week about basis. He seeks primary residence, but, he has not brought a cross-motion.
[53] It is difficult to arrive at any other conclusion that the father has acted as he has to gain an advantage in the on-going litigation. There is no evidence that he attempted to negotiate any regular time share schedule and as noted he did not return the matter to court.
[54] The father has requested the following relief despite the fact he did not bring a Cross-Motion, at paragraphs 52-60 of his Affidavit:
Week about access until school starts and then primary residence with the Respondent, with terms this Honorable Court deems appropriate, including an Order that Ms. Williams shall complete parenting courses, counselling courses, and a rehabilitation program in a reasonable time frame, and that the Respondent takes appropriate care of the children including hygiene, bathing, diet and school attendance.
An Order for Ms. Williams and Mr. Loitta to not use illicit drugs or alcohol while in a care giving role.
The Hamilton Police Services, OPP, RCMP, or any other police force having jurisdiction shall enforce the terms of the Order as it pertains to access. Telephone/video access to the party who does not have the children every evening at 9 pm.
Both parties shall be punctual during access exchanges.
Neither party shall attempt to negotiate parenting schedules through the children. The parties shall strictly comply with the parenting schedule, and any changes shall be through counsel only. In the case of a last-minute emergency (such as sickness, issues with vehicle, or like), the parties may communicate through the children in the emergency circumstance only.
Both parties shall ensure that the children are set up for online schooling, participate in virtual learning and complete their homework during the respective party’s parenting time.
First right of refusal - If either party is unable to care for the children during their parenting time for twelve (12) hours or longer, the other party shall be provided first right of refusal, which shall be offered through counsel at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance and accepted at least twelve (12) hours prior to the proposed access exchange.
Neither party shall discuss family law matters with the children.
Neither party shall question the children about the personal life and residence of the other party, except through lawyers.
[55] I have disregarded the hearsay in the father’s Affidavit as well as any evidence that is clearly not within the father’s personal knowledge where the source of the information is not identified. Further, I have disregarded any references the father made to the OCL report. Justice Pazaratz did not allow the mother to rely on the OCL report subject to my discretion to order otherwise. The father should not have relied on it either.
[56] It is important that the parties realize that when this health crisis is over and regular court operations resume, there will likely be considerable scrutiny regarding their actions and parenting decisions during the suspension of regular court operations.
[57] Parents may be in a position to gain an advantage because of the suspension of court operations, but those parents are well advised to consider the long-term consequences of their actions. The court may have no difficulty determining which parents simply took advantage of the situation and which parents were able to put the needs of their children first.
[58] Parents’ actions during this situation will be powerful and persuasive evidence of their ability to protect and promote the other parent’s relationship with the child. The court must determine which parent is better able to protect and promote the other parent’s relationship with the child, when deciding which custodial and residential arrangements on a final basis are in the child’s best interests.
[59] The father has not acted in the children’s best interest. He has removed them from their mother’s care and refused to allow her to share any in person time with them since March 20, 2020. The father complains in this affidavit the mother has denied him time with his children for periods as long as 3 weeks. The father has denied the mother time with the children 7 weeks. He has not acted in the children’s best interest. He has the benefit of the CAS position which was put forth on March 20, 2020 and again on May 6, 2020.
[60] The children are to be returned to their mother immediately.
[61] I find that it is not in their best interest to have the acknowledged status quo residential arrangement unilaterally changed by one parent. I reiterate there is no indication the father attempted to negotiate any terms of a regular time share or that he attempted to return this matter to court at any time after September 2019 until he after he overheld the children. It is especially noteworthy that when the father responded to the mother’s counsel’s letter on March 2, 2020 requesting a neutral exchange point for access, he indicated he had retained counsel. The father says he formulated his plan to take custody on March 1, 2020. There is no indication any attempt was made to negotiate any terms of a time share through counsel.
[62] And, I find the attempt he says he made to seek the Court’s assistance is not credible or reliable.
[63] Given the father’s position that he will decide what is in his children’s best interest when he does not have the sanction of the Court or any recommendation from the CAS that the children should be in his care, I will make the police enforcement order requested by the mother. I am always reluctant to subject children to the prospect of being collected by police from one parent and delivered to the other. I expect the parents to comply with the terms of my order so that the children do not have to endure such a traumatic experience.
[64] I urge the parties and counsel to arrange for a Settlement Conference and move this litigation along.
[65] The mother has been entirely successful and should not have had to bring this motion. She is presumptively entitled to her costs. I urge the parties to resolve the issue of costs on consent. I will provide for the filing of written submissions in the event the matter is not resolved on consent.
[66] Therefore, my Temporary Order is as follows:
An Order will go in accordance with paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the mother’s Notice of Motion dated May 1, 2020.
The children are to be returned to their mother’s care immediately.
Notwithstanding rule 25 of the Family Law Rules, this endorsement is effective from the date it was made and enforceable as an order of the court without the need for an order to be prepared or approved by the parties and then issued by the court. No formal order is necessary unless an appeal or a motion for leave is brought, or alternatively unless one is necessary for enforcement by a third party. A party who wishes to prepare a formal order for approval and issuance may do so, and submit materials by Form 14B to the court.
If costs are in issue, and, as a result of COVID – 19 and the suspension of regular court operations at this time, written submissions may be filed as follows:
a) the Applicant mother may serve and file her submissions by July 10, 2020;
b) The Respondent father may serve and file his responding submissions by July 31, 2020;
c) The Applicant mother may serve and file any reply submissions by August 14, 2020 and
- The schedule for filing costs submissions is subject to change and if there must be a change, the parties and counsel will be notified by the Trial Office.