Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Emilie Dufort, Applicant
AND:
Gregory Price, Respondent
BEFORE: Kiteley J.
COUNSEL: Zakiya Bhayat and Barry Nussbaum, counsel for the Applicant
HEARD: in writing
ENDORSEMENT
Background
1This is a request by the Applicant for an urgent case conference. It is described as a motion to change final order with respect to the child born December 26, 2012. The order has not been provided. The parties were not married so I assume that that order was made pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act. The Applicant is a Sergeant with the Canadian Armed Forces. On March 18, 2021, the Applicant received an official notification that she is to relocate to Shilo, Manitoba with a start date of July 15, 2021.
2The Applicant indicates that a copy of the relocation notice was provided to the Respondent. The case conference brief does not indicate when it was provided but I assume it was on or about March 18, 2021, or approximately 30 days prior to this day.
3The Applicant indicates that the Respondent will not consent. She asks for an urgent case conference in anticipation of having to bring an urgent motion prior to July 15, 2021.
Analysis
4The case conference brief makes no mention of the amendments to the Children’s Law Reform Act that took effect March 1, 2021. Section 39.3 of that Act contains provisions that apply to the parent with decision-making who seeks to relocate. Section 39.3(1) requires the Applicant to give notice at least 60 days before the expected date of the relocation. Assuming she provided a copy of the notice on or about March 18, 2021, she has complied with that requirement. Based on the contents of the case conference brief, I am assuming that the notice she gave complied with the requirements in section 39.3(2).
5Pursuant to section 39.3(5) the person who receives notice of relocation must respond with 30 days. In this case, assuming notice was given on or about March 18, 2021, the Respondent was required within 30 days to respond by (a) notifying the Applicant of his objection to the relocation; or (b) making an application under s. 21 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. Section 39.4 addresses authorization of relocation.
6This protocol for relocation has been in effect for approximately 6 weeks. I consider it is consistent with the primary objective in rule 2(2) of the Family Law Rules to order an urgent case conference. The parties ought to have the opportunity to have input from a judge on the expectations arising from the relocation amendments in the Children’s Law Reform Act and to have an opportunity to resolve the issue. I urge the Respondent to immediately get legal advice and, if possible, retain a lawyer.
ORDER TO GO AS FOLLOWS:
Order
7The request by the Applicant for an urgent case conference is granted. The Assistant Trial Co-ordinator shall send a copy of this endorsement to the email addresses above.
8The Assistant Trial Co-ordinator shall schedule an urgent case conference during the week of April 26, 2021, before me if I am available.
9By Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:30 the Respondent shall comply with section 39.3(5) and notify the Applicant in writing of his objection to the relocation.
Kiteley J.
Date: April 19, 2021