CITATION: Gafanha v. Gafanha, 2021 ONSC 6908

COURT FILE NO.: 51/21

DATE: 2021-10-15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Raquel Carina Fernandes Gafanha, Applicant

AND:

Eugenio Lopes Gafanha, Respondent

BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. PAZARATZ

COUNSEL: L. Oliver, Counsel, for the Applicant A. Nicholls, A. Luthra, Counsel, for the Respondent

HEARD: October 15, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This matter was scheduled as a contested motion to be heard at 2 p.m. today. It was my only matter on a Friday afternoon.

[2] I read the respective Notices of Motion and Affidavits filed by the parties. Both parties identified that there are serious issues which need to be addressed quickly. I was ready to proceed.

[3] However, when the matter was called at 2:00 p.m. only two lawyers attended – Aneesha Luthra as agent for the Applicant’s counsel Ms. Oliver; and the Respondent’s counsel Mr. Nicholls.

[4] I was advised that neither party was attending because this was a joint request for an adjournment of the motion.

[5] Specifically I was advised:

a. Ms. Oliver is not available this afternoon. She was DRO in the morning and had booked the afternoon out of the office.

b. More to the point, Mr. Nicholls said he had to file more materials, so the motion wasn’t ready to proceed.

[6] Given the well-known scheduling problems which our court system is experiencing, and the acute shortage of court time slots, I explained that it is not acceptable to present motions claiming urgent relief and then waste a motions date when it is assigned.

[7] Counsel advised that they thought they would be given a selection of dates to choose from. That’s not my understanding of the information set out in the Notices to the Profession.

[8] Beyond that, in the Confirmations which each party filed in relation to the original motion return date of October 13, 2021, both counsel indicated that they were requesting a date for argument of the motion. Neither confirmation said anything about not being ready, or requiring more time to file additional materials.

[9] I explained to Ms. Luthra and Mr. Nicholls that adjournments of scheduled matters are not automatic, and I invited them to have both of their clients join us so that they would be fully informed of the dynamics, and the possibility that if the matter is adjourned it may have to go to the bottom of the list, because we have many more motions waiting to be called.

[10] We stood down, and when we re-convened both parties were present and Ms. Oliver also joined us. I again explained the concern about wasted judicial resources – and a wasted opportunity to help the parties with their urgent claims. I stood the matter down to allow further discussion. At the very least I wanted to ensure that any truly urgent issues could be addressed pending return of this motion, which would now likely be several months away.

[11] The parties returned without any resolution.

[12] Counsel confirmed that there are no urgent parenting issues. The issues which had been characterized as “urgent” are all financial.

[13] The motions are adjourned without a return date, not to be returnable prior to December 3, 2021. This reflects the court’s need to give adequate resources to each file while also giving adequate resources to all other files.

[14] The parties have a Settlement Conference set for October 28. Hopefully they can make more progress.

Date: October 15, 2021