Court File and Parties

Newmarket Court File No.: FC-18-56488-00 Date: 2020-06-19 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Mahsa Mizrahi, Applicant And: Jan Mizrahi, Respondent

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice D.A. Jarvis

Counsel: Meghan Lawson, Counsel for the Applicant Jan Mizrahi, Self-Represented

Heard: In Writing

Urgent Case Conference Request

[1] As a result of COVID-19 regular Superior Court of Justice operations are suspended at this time as set out in the Notice to Profession, the Public and Media Regarding Civil and Family Proceedings of the Chief Justice of Ontario. See the Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020, as revised on April 2 and May 5, 2020 available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/ ["the Chief's Notice"] and as locally revised, effective as of May 19, 2020.

[2] The respondent ("the father") has brought a motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion to deal with access and communication with the parties' two daughters, YLM born September 27, 2009 and ASR born May 11, 2012 ("the children") who primarily reside with the applicant ("the mother"). He claims that the mother has blocked his access and communication to the children since May 31, 2020. Since late September/early October 2019 the access has taken place on alternating Saturdays (4:00 p.m.) to Sunday (4:00 p.m.) and alternating Mondays (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.). He also claims that the mother has shown the children legal correspondence to the effect that he has no interest in seeing the children and that the mother regularly disparages him in their presence.

[3] The mother disagrees that the matter is urgent but her material indicates that the father has been discussing adult matters and these proceedings with the children. She says that on June 7, 2020 the father wrote to her counsel and confirmed that he had told YLM that the mother had committed adultery, that was the cause of the marriage breakdown, that he had discussed with the child the financial consequences of divorce and that he did not think that inappropriate. How wrong he is! If this is true, it is a serious misjudgment and reflects poorly on the father's parenting ability.

[4] Jewish Child & Family Services received a complaint about the children's care from a source who the mother suspects was the father. The complaint was investigated, the mother and children interviewed and no action was taken.

[5] The parties agree that the children, particularly YLM, are being negatively impacted by the conflict between them. YLM has consulted a therapist. The mother has made suggestions that would involve immediate professional intervention and family therapy to which the father has not responded.

[6] In my view, the evidence indicates that there is pressing need for judicial intervention but not, as the father proposes, by motion but by a conference. The last event in this mater was a settlement conference conducted by Kaufman J. on December 19, 2019 in which a June 15, 2020 date was scheduled for a Trial Management Conference, which date has had to be adjourned as a result of the closing of the courts to in-person attendances and restricting motions to urgent matters or matters of pressing importance of which this meets the latter test.

[7] The following is ordered:

(a) A case conference shall proceed before Kaufman J. on a date and time to be scheduled by the court administration after June 29, 2020;

(b) The mother shall deliver her case conference brief by June 23, 2020 (4:00 p.m.);

(c) The father shall deliver his case conference brief by June 26, 2020 (4:00 p.m.);

(d) The parties shall comply with the revised CER Notice to the Profession dated April 17, 2020 (paragraph 3) dealing with form and length of the parties' briefs;

(e) Each party shall file as part of their case conference brief their proposed parenting plan to be in effect until the courts re-open. This plan does not form part of the length restriction in the April 17, 2020 CER Notice to the Profession;

(f) The total time allotted will be three-quarters of an hour or such further time as the case conference judge may allow, fifteen minutes to each party - the balance is for a limited response by the mother and for the conference judge who may extend the time allocated as circumstances require;

(g) The costs of the father's motion are reserved to the conference judge.

[8] A few cautionary words.

[9] Involvement of the children in these proceedings is an inexcusable failure of parenting. Until such time as the conference can be held and the outcome of any motion that may follow, I am not prepared to disturb the current access and communication status, or at least that which has obtained since May 31, 2020.

[10] The parties will be expected to have realistic solutions for the conference.

[11] In the circumstances of the COVID-19 emergency, this Order is operative and enforceable without any need for a signed or entered, formal, typed Order. Approval is dispensed with. The parties may submit a formal Order for signing and entry once the court re-opens.

Justice David A. Jarvis

Date: June 19, 2020