Court File and Parties
Browes v. Stevens, CITATION: 2020 ONSC 5632
COURT FILE NO.: 115/20
DATE: 2020-09-18
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Ashley Browes, Applicant
AND: Michael Stevens, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay
COUNSEL: Edwin Sauer for Applicant; Golan Yaron for Respondent
HEARD: in writing
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Applicant has brought a motion to change the final order of Curtis J. of the Ontario Court in Toronto dated March 28, 2017. The Respondent moves to transfer the proceeding to Toronto. His first submission is that it cannot be heard in Welland because the children live in Toronto.
[2] The motion to change requests a reduction in child support. It makes no reference to custody or access. The Applicant lives in Welland and the Respondent lives in Toronto. Rule 5(1) of the Family Law Rules provides:
- (1) Subject to sections 21.8 and 21.11 of the Courts of Justice Act (territorial jurisdiction — Family Court), a case shall be started,
(a) in the municipality where a party resides;
(b) if the case deals with custody of or access to a child, in the municipality where the child ordinarily resides, except for cases described in,
(i) section 22 (jurisdiction of an Ontario court) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, and
(ii) subsection 91 (2) (place for child protection hearing) and subsection 203 (1) (place for adoption proceeding) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017; or
(c) in a municipality chosen by all parties, but only with the court’s permission given in advance in that municipality.
[3] Accordingly, it was open to the Applicant to bring the motion to change in Welland or in Toronto.
[4] Rule 5(8) allows me to transfer the case to another municipality if it is substantially more convenient to deal with it there.
[5] The Respondent submits that the case should be transferred to Toronto because he lives there with the children, his lawyer is in Mississauga, and he cannot afford to travel to Welland for court appearances. He has to work and take care of the children. The Applicant says that she is on ODSP and cannot afford to travel either. Her lawyer is in Welland.
[6] The court no longer requires parties to travel to motions or necessarily to trials. A trial in open court on this matter is not likely. Both parties will have to travel to their lawyers’ offices. The evidence at trial will for the most part concern the income of the Applicant. Evidence of that is most likely to be found where she resides. It is not substantially more convenient to deal with the case in Toronto than in Welland. The motion is dismissed with costs.
[7] The Respondent was unsuccessful and should partially indemnify the successful party. I order him to pay $500 costs to the Applicant forthwith.
“J. A. Ramsay”
J.A. Ramsay J.
Date: 2020-09-18