Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-43621

DATE: 2021-12-15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Fazilat Fatima Ishkanian, Applicant

AND:

Adrian Ishkanian, Respondent

BEFORE: Kurz J.

COUNSEL: Maureen Edwards, for the Respondent and as agent for counsel

HEARD: December 15, 2021

Endorsement

[1] This motion was scheduled as "59-minute" motion. Having spent some time reviewing the materials on this motion, including over 40 pages of facta between the two parties, it is clear that the representation that this was a short motion was inaccurate. It should never have been scheduled as a regular motion. Because this motion was scheduled for 59 minutes this morning, at least one and likely more other "regular" motions could not be heard this morning before me.

[2] I received notice this morning that the parties had settled this motion before it had been scheduled to be argued. Had they not done so, I would have adjourned this motion to a long motion date.

[3] While the Applicant may feel that she achieved some success by having her issue dealt with by jumping the queue, that approach is not acceptable. It is not always better to ask for forgiveness than to seek permission. With respect, this motion was not so urgent that the rules that apply to all litigants needed to be waived here.

[4] Under r. 2(2) of the Family Law Rules, the primary objective of those rules is to enable to court to deal with cases justly. Rule 2(3)(d) explains that dealing with cases justly includes the requirement to give "appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases". Under r. 2(4), counsel have a duty to help the court apply the rules to meet their primary objective. Under r. 2(5), the court deals with cases justly through active case management. Under r. 2(5)(d), that includes controlling the progress of a case. The court is required to further consider "whether the likely benefits of taking a step justify the cost".

[5] This court is strapped for time to deal with all of the cases that seek resolution in these difficult times. Among the issues that this court deals with each day are the best interests of vulnerable children whose parents separate and the right to have criminal charges adjudicated within a reasonable time. Civil jury trials may be put off for years. To cite a double-negative, this court's resources are not unlimited.

[6] When parties (and the moving party here is not the first), elbow their way into the queue, demanding audience on a regular motion list when they know or should know that they should be placed on a long motion list, they harm all of the other parties seeking the same audience. Ultimately, they harm the administration of justice.

[7] The practice of scheduling long motions by claiming that they will take "59 minutes" must end. If a party finds itself confronted with such a motion, they should consider requesting a conference call with a judge of this court to raise the issue, and resolve it before time, money and the ability of other parties to properly use them time are wasted or lost.

[8] In the future, the court should consider whether costs consequences are an appropriate remedy, even for a winning party who brings such a "59-minute" motion, under r. 24(4).

"Marvin Kurz J."

Electronic signature of Justice Marvin Kurz,

Date: December 15, 2021