Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-19172 DATE: 20200602 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Jennifer Anne Campagna Applicant – and – Craig Sylvano Anthony Campagna Respondent

Counsel: Gino Morga, for the Applicant Deborah L. Severs, for the Respondent

HEARD: In writing - June 1, 2020

THIS MOTION HAS BEEN BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE PROTOCOL IN PLACE DURING SUSPENSION OF NORMAL COURT OPERATIONS DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.

Endorsement of Triage Justice

BONDY J.

1) Introduction

[1] These are reasons for a reconsideration of a decision in this matter as to urgency made May 29, 2020. In those reasons I found that none of the issues raised by respondent’s counsel met the test for urgency.

[2] On June 1, 2020, respondent’s counsel wrote an email requesting reconsideration and clarifying her initial letter requesting that a motion be heard based on urgency. In the interests of convenience, I will repeat some of the background information contained in my reasons of May 29.

[3] The applicant, Jennifer Anne Campagna (“Ms. Campagna”), and the respondent, Craig Sylvano Anthony Campagna (“Mr. Campagna”), have separated. They have two children whose full names and dates of birth I was not given. They are identified in the materials as Ella (age 7) and Austin (age 5).

[4] By an interim order dated September 28, 2018, residency of the children is shared with the respondent father having parenting time on the weekends from Friday at 3:00 p.m. until Monday at 9:00 a.m., and the applicant mother having parenting time during the week.

[5] The parties recently lived in separate houses, each located within the municipality of LaSalle, Ontario. The applicant mother is in the process of moving to the nearby community of Harrow, Ontario which is a hamlet located within the nearby town of Essex.

[6] The respondent father sought leave to bring an urgent motion as it relates to:

1. The respondent father’s time with the children of the marriage, namely Ella (age 7) and Austin (age 5); and
2. Confirmation that the children’s school shall remain the same in light of the applicant mother’s intention to relocate to Harrow.

[7] The respondent father also sought a second case conference.

[8] On May 29, 2020, I granted the respondent father’s request for a case conference but found the issues of the children’s school, the respondent father’s parenting time with Austin, and the respondent father’s parenting time with Ella were not urgent.

[9] That finding was based upon the following language employed by counsel for the respondent father:

“This has been an issue since March 2019 (approximately five occasions, mostly PA days where there has been no school), but it is significantly worsened since the Covid-19 pandemic (an issue every weekend).”

[10] I took that language to mean that there had been five missed parenting exchanges during the 15 months commencing March 2019 and ending May 29, 2019, and that there had been additional unidentified “issues” each weekend since the pandemic.

[11] Respondent’s counsel’s June 1, 2020 email explained that by the language employed in her initial urgency request, she actually meant that the five days missed had occurred between March 2019 and March 2020. Respondent’s counsel’s June 1 email added that what she meant by “issues” during the pandemic was additional lost parenting time days. In her June 1 email respondent’s counsel advises that the total days actually missed for Ella in the two and a half months between March 16, 2020 and May 29, 2020 was 23 full days, and three half days, for a total of 24 ½ days. There was no suggestion that any time had been missed with Austin.

2) Urgency

[12] As said in my May 29 endorsement, this matter comes before the court during a time when the court has suspended its normal operations due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. And 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. I find the fact that 24 ½ days of parenting time have been missed over the course of approximately two and a half months to be a significant amount of lost parenting time to the respondent father and potentially the wrongful retention of a child. Accordingly, I find that issue meets the criteria for urgency.

3) Conclusion

[13] There was nothing in respondent’s counsel’s email to clarify any of the issues relating to the children’s school, or parenting time with Austin. Accordingly, my decision with respect to the urgency of those matters will not be interfered with.

[14] On the other hand, the decision with respect to the urgency of the respondent’s parenting time with Ella was based upon a mistake. For the reasons above, I find that based on the record now before the court the matter meets the test for urgency. I find it appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction pursuant to r. 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules, Ont. Reg 114/99, to change the order based upon that mistake. It follows that the motion can be heard.

[15] The motion shall, however, be limited to the issue of Ella’s parenting time with the respondent father.

[16] My determination on urgency is without prejudice to any position the parties may take before the motions judge. In addition, my determination on urgency is a preliminary determination only, and is subject to any ruling on the issue of urgency that may be made by the motions judge, who will have had the benefit of a review of the motion materials of both parties along with submissions of counsel.

4) Procedural Orders

[17] I make the following orders, all subject to further direction of the motions judge:

1. The respondent father shall serve and file his notice of motion and affidavit by email no later than June 5, 2020, at 4:00 p.m.
2. The applicant mother shall have until June 9, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. to serve and file a responding affidavit, also by email.
3. The respondent shall have until June 11, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. to serve and file his reply affidavit.
4. The affidavits a) shall be limited to affidavits by the parties only, without leave of the court; b) shall not be longer than 10 pages, excluding exhibits; c) shall include only those exhibits relevant to the issue of Ella’s parenting time with the respondent father; d) shall include as exhibits anything in the Continuing Record relied upon by the affiant it being recognized that the judge does not have access to the continuing record; e) need not be sworn, so long as the parties are on the line during the motion and affirm their affidavits to the motions judge; f) shall when possible be sent as a single document including the affidavit and any exhibits to that affidavit in order to facilitate reading and/or downloading and/or printing of the affidavit and exhibits; g) shall be given a name which includes: the name of the affiant, and the date of execution; h) In the event the affidavit and exhibits cannot be sent as a single document, then each exhibit shall be given a name which includes: the name of the affiant, and the letter of the exhibit.
5. The motion shall be scheduled by trial coordination any time after June 11, 2020.

Christopher M. Bondy Justice

Released: June 2, 2020

COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-19172 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Jennifer Anne Campagna Applicant – and – Craig Sylvano Anthony Campagna Respondent ENDORSEMENT Bondy J. Released: June 2, 2020