Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 1387/19 Date: 2020-06-08 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Harjit Dhaliwal, Applicant And: Amandeep Dhaliwal, Respondent

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz

Counsel: Sunny Sandhu, Counsel, for the Applicant Ruth Roth, Counsel, for the Respondent

Appearances: None for this in chambers endorsement

Heard: June 8, 2020

Endorsement (COVID-19 Protocol)

[1] AS A RESULT OF COVID-19, this endorsement is made pursuant to the Consolidated Notice to the Profession, Litigants, Accused Persons, Public and the Media from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, issued May 13, 2020 and available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/notices-and-orders-covid-19/consolidated-notice/.

[2] This endorsement is also made pursuant to the Protocol regarding Family and Child Protection Matters in Central South Judicial Region from Regional Senior Justice Arrell issued April 7, 2020 and available at https://www.hamiltonlaw.on.ca/for-the-public/covid-19-hla-response#Protocol and the Notice to the Central South Region from Regional Senior Justice Arrell, issued May 26, 2020 and available at https://www.hamiltonlaw.on.ca/home/2020/05/26/may-26-amendment-to-central-south-region-notice-dated-may-12th-re.-criminal-family-civil-expansion.

[3] As referenced in the above Notices, the regular operations of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have been suspended since March 15, 2020 and until further notice.

[4] This is a Motion brought by the Respondent father, characterized as uncontested because the Applicant mother’s solicitor has not responded to the Notice of Motion and Supporting affidavit served by e-mail on June 2, 2020. The Notice of Motion included a return date of Wednesday June 10, 2020 at 10 a.m.. But pursuant to the Amended Notice to the Profession for Central South Region dated May 12, 2020, the Respondent’s lawyer has today requested that this motion proceed on an uncontested basis as a basket motion, because the Applicant has not filed responding materials.

[5] I remember this file from February 21, 2020 when the Respondent’s current solicitor and the Applicant’s previous solicitor appeared before me for a contested adjournment of a motion. This is a high conflict file, and during the February 21, 2020 attendance the lawyers somewhat bitterly disagreed with one another on the topic of adequacy of service and professional courtesy.

[6] In paragraph 7 of my February 21, 2020 endorsement I stated:

I am not inclined to determine costs today, primarily because I am very concerned that this is turning into a nasty, high conflict file, and I want to convey to both parties the court’s concern that we don’t like what we are seeing, and we don’t want to encourage more aggressive litigation with a costs order.

[7] I don’t fault the Respondent’s lawyer for adhering to the evolving protocols during the COVID-19 situation.

[8] But the relief being sought on this urgent motion is quite profound – it includes a request for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home where the Applicant and children (ages 7 and 4) are residing.

a. I make no comment as to the merit of the Respondent’s request or the likely outcome.

b. I would have anticipated that the Applicant would have wanted to file responding materials. I make no determination as to any extension of time in this respect.

c. I am mindful that neither counsel has their office in Central South region. The Respondent’s counsel appears to be familiar with protocols in this region. I am concerned about the possibility that the Applicant’s counsel in Mississauga may through inadvertence have failed to file materials; or been unaware of the policy in this region that if no materials were filed, the June 10, 2020 10 a.m. date would be vacated and this would become a basket motion.

[9] I am of the view that on this particular file, before asking that this proceed as an unopposed basket motion, it would have been helpful if the Respondent’s counsel telephoned or e-mailed the Applicant’s counsel to double check whether any reply materials would be filed.

a. The rules don’t require such action.

b. But it’s more than professional courtesy.

c. If it is likely that the Applicant will have some opposition to the Respondent’s request, it is cheaper for the parties if their lawyers can communicate productively – rather than obtain an unopposed order and then have to deal with a subsequent motion seeking to set the order aside.

d. Sometimes files become “high conflict” because people won’t take simple steps to avoid problems.

[10] Court staff are to e-mail a copy of this endorsement to both counsel.

[11] 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.

Pazaratz J.

Date: June 8, 2020