Court File and Parties
Newmarket Court File No.: FC-18-56775-00 Date: 2020-06-11 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between: David Joseph Natale, Applicant And: Christina Crupi, Respondent
Counsel: James Singer, Counsel for the Applicant Adina Schild, Counsel for the Respondent
Heard: In Writing
Preliminary Ruling on Urgent Motion Request
Jarvis J.
[1] A case conference was held by Bennett J. on May 13, 2020 to deal with the sole issue of a weekday access-exchange location. Recommendations were made.
[2] The parties were unable to resolve the issue.
[3] Bennett J. granted the father leave to bring a motion in the event the issue wasn’t resolved and directed the parties to comply with the Chief’s Notice, 2020 ONSC 2466, as may from time to time be revised, with respect to the length of material, among other things.
[4] The father has brought his motion. His 70-paragraph affidavit is 11 pages in length and accompanied by 27 exhibits comprising 120 pages.
[5] The mother has responded with a 192-page affidavit comprising 58 paragraphs over 12 pages and 180 pages of exhibits.
[6] Neither party’s material complies with the Chief’s Notice and clearly disregards Bennett J.’s direction to be mindful of it. Moreover, in Greco-Wang v. Wang, 2014 ONSC 5316, Kiteley J. observed that “[m]embers of the public… are not entitled to unlimited access to trial judges”. Ibid, para. 3. While that was said in the context of trial scheduling it is equally, if not more pertinent, to temporary motions, especially in light of the Chief’s Notice. Without understating the matter, the parties’ material is disproportionate to the issue and an abuse of process.
[7] The father’s motion will not be heard as presently constructed. If he wishes to pursue the issue, the following is ordered:
(a) The father may re-file the evidence upon which he wishes to rely, limited to ten pages in the aggregate (affidavit and exhibits). The affidavit pages shall be double-spaced; (b) The mother’s material shall be subject to the same material-restriction as in (a) above; (c) The father shall be entitled to a reply no longer than three pages in length, in the aggregate (i.e. affidavit and exhibit(s)); (d) It is not necessary that the father re-file his Notice of Motion or that the parties file copies of the endorsements and Orders made in these proceedings to-date; (e) The mother shall have four days from her receipt of the father’s material in (a) above to deliver her responding material; (f) The father shall have two days from his receipt of the mother’s responding material to deliver his reply (if any); (g) The parties may deliver by the deadlines above any case law upon which they may wish to rely up to a maximum of four cases; (h) No other material will be considered by the court.
[8] In the circumstances of the COVID-19 emergency, this endorsement is deemed to be an Order of the Court that is operative and enforceable without any need for a signed or entered, formal, typed Order. Approval of this Order is dispensed with: either party may submit a formal Order for signing and entry once the court re-opens.