Court File and Parties

Court File Nr.: FC-19-2371-1 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Mark Terrence Bond, Applicant And: Kathleen Francine Bond, Respondent

Before: Master Kaufman

Counsel: Michele D. Blais for the Applicant Ron Paritsky, for the Respondent

Heard: In writing

Endorsement

[1] On June 12, 2020, I denied the Applicant’s request to have an urgent motion heard to prevent the Respondent from relocating to Crysler Ontario. The parties’ separation agreement required a relocating party to provide 120 day’s notice if the proposed move was more than 15km from the former matrimonial residence. On the basis of the evidence before me, which included the Respondent’s evidence that the children would not change schools or activities and that they would benefit from a larger home and more land, I determined that the issue was not urgent within the meaning of the Chief Justice’s Directive.

[2] The Respondent claims her costs for responding to the Applicant’s urgent motion request. She claims $1,770 inclusive of HST, which is based on 5.2 hours on partial indemnity basis. The quantum sought is reasonable.

[3] The Applicant opposes a costs order on several bases. He argues that the Respondent acted unreasonably by failing to provide him 120 days’ notice as stipulated by their agreement. He also states that the Respondent has a history of acting unreasonably, and he provides examples of alleged failures of abiding by the agreement. I agree with the Respondent that these are not factors relevant to costs here, and that I am not able to assess the merits of these contentions anyway.

[4] The Applicant also argues that the Respondent misled the Court when she stated that he had previously agreed to waive the 15km restriction, and that the Court took her statements at face value. My June 12, 2020 simply mentioned that the Respondent “said” that the Applicant had previously agreed to waive the 15km requirement. I made no finding on this issue and, in any event, the Respondent’s assertion did not influence my determination on urgency.

[5] The Applicant argues he acted reasonably in requesting an urgent motion because the unilateral decision to relocate will have an impact on him and on the children. He argues that this was his only opportunity to prevent the move, and that the Court should not condone the Respondent’s breach of the separation agreement. He adds that she should not be able to take advantage of the suspension of Court activities during the pandemic to pursue self-help remedies.

[6] I agree that the Applicant’s request for an urgent motion may very well have been granted pre-Covid, and that the reasons for denying the request were the more restrictive factors by which urgent requests are assessed against. While the applicant’s request did not raise dire financial circumstances or the safety or well being of the children, it was reasonable of him to insist that the terms of the separation agreement be abided. He is not abandoning the application at this point and he and the Respondent are negotiating logistical issues.

[7] In these circumstances, I order that the parties bear their own costs.

Master Kaufman Date: July 3, 2020