Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: No court file number currently assigned DATE: 20200605 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Mahmoud Mohamed Applicant – and – Courtny Vaz Respondent
Counsel: Michael Frank, for the Applicant Courtny Vaz was served by email but did not participate
HEARD: June 4, 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
BONDY J.
1) Introduction
[1] The applicant, Mahmoud Mohamed, and the respondent, Courtny Vaz, were in a common-law relationship from August 2017 until May 26, 2020, when they separated. The parties have one child, Musab Mohamed, born May 19, 2019.
[2] According to the applicant father, on May 26, 2020, the respondent mother moved to Ottawa with the child without either the consent of the applicant father or notice to the applicant father.
2) Urgency
[3] 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 those motions 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.
[4] 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.
3) Conclusion
[5] I conclude this matter meets the definition of urgency set out in the Chief Justice’s notice given that it appears to involve the wrongful removal and/or wrongful retention of a child accordingly, the motion may proceed.
[6] The motion shall be limited to the issue of where the child will live, parenting time, and decision-making for the child.
[7] 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
[8] I make the following orders, all subject to further direction of the motions judge:
The applicant may issue his application. It shall be served along with the notice of motion and affidavit by email no later than Monday, June 8, 2020, at 4:00 p.m.
The respondent shall have until Monday, June 15, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. to serve and file a responding affidavit, also by email.
The applicant shall have until Wednesday, June 17, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. to serve and file his reply affidavit.
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 issues of where the child will live, parenting time, and decision-making for the child Musab Mohamed, born May 19, 2019; 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 conference call during the hearing of 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 document, and the name of the affiant where applicable, and the date of the document, and the letter of the exhibit where applicable.
The applicant and respondent shall each also serve and file an up-to-date form 35.1 affidavit.
The motion shall be scheduled by trial coordination any time after Wednesday, June 17, 2020, at 4:00 p.m.
Christopher M. Bondy Justice
Released: June 4, 2020