COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-3851 (Brampton) DATE: 20220406
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Joginder Bajwa Plaintiff
-and-
Raman Singh, Rajinder Singh and Kulminder Kahlon Defendants
J.S. Mangat, for the plaintiff J.S. Chahal, for the defendants
Heard: March 21, 2021 by video conference and March 22, 23 and 25, 2022, in person, with additional written submissions received April 1, 2022
Justice R. Chown
Endorsement
[1] The plaintiff claims recovery of money alleged to have been loaned to the defendants in 2016. The defendants say the money was gifted to them.
[2] The plaintiff is currently 98 years old. The defendants are two of her daughters and one son-in-law.
[3] The defendants testified that the plaintiff gave them the money as gifts. They say that if their mother had ever personally asked them for the money back, they would have paid it, but their mother told them she did not want the money back. They acknowledge receiving a demand letter for the return of the money from plaintiff’s counsel, but do not accept that counsel was truly instructed by their mother to give the money back. They acknowledge that their mother is the plaintiff in this lawsuit, but they assert the lawsuit was in fact initiated and controlled by their brother. While this lawsuit has proceeded through pleadings, disclosure, discoveries, pre-trial, and trial, they do not accept that their mother has truly instructed the advancement of this matter. Their brother died in October of 2021, but they assert their older sister and her husband have influenced their mother to continue it. They acknowledge that their mother testified during the trial that she wants to be paid back. However, they believe this was rehearsed testimony advanced at the instance of others.
[4] Without making any unnecessary findings at this point, I will say that there is evidence to support their position. However, throughout this matter the defendants did nothing to assert that their mother lacks capacity. They simply maintained the position that the money was a gift and not a loan.
[5] I heard the trial in this matter on March 21, 22, 23, and 24, 2022. During the trial, no one directly raised the possibility that the plaintiff lacks capacity. During closing argument, I raised the issue. Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Mangat, assured me that he has no concerns about the plaintiff’s capacity to give him instructions. Regardless, based on the trial testimony which I will summarize below, I have concerns. An effort must be made to address these concerns before I give judgment.
[6] Two practical considerations favour simply determining the issue framed by both counsel and disregarding the capacity issue. First, the plaintiff is 98 years old. Investigating the plaintiff’s capacity will take time. Further delay in the resolution of this matter is undesirable. Second, the amount involved in this matter is moderate. In total, the plaintiff alleges she paid $78,000 to the defendants. It is appropriate to be concerned about proportionality.
[7] Despite these practical considerations, the evidence raises enough concern about the plaintiff’s capacity that some effort to address the issue is appropriate. My order, set out in detail below, is that there shall be a further hearing at which the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”) will be invited to give submissions on the appropriate next steps.
[8] Each side may have had its own incentive not to address the plaintiff’s capacity. For whatever reason, the plaintiff’s capacity has not been addressed at all. It deserves consideration before I determine this matter.
[9] In what follows, I describe the evidence that I heard during the trial. I wish to specifically state that, at this point, I am not making findings of fact based on that evidence. I provide this summary for two reasons:
a. to justify why I am declining to make a decision until after I hear whether the PGT wishes to investigate the plaintiff’s capacity; and
b. to assist the PGT in understanding the circumstances.
[10] If the PGT becomes involved, there is a possibility that I may receive additional evidence. I will therefore refrain from making any unnecessary findings at this point.
Background
[11] The plaintiff Joginder Bajwa is a widow. Her husband died in 2010. They had one son, Gurnam, and four daughters: Satpal, Sukhraj, Kulminder, and Raman. The two youngest, Kulminder and Raman, are defendants. Raman, the youngest, is married to Rajinder Singh, who is also a defendant.
[12] Mrs. Bajwa’s son, Gurnam, died in October 2021.
[13] Counsel referred to the plaintiff as Mrs. Bajwa so I will as well. Given the common surnames among the people involved, in these reasons I will refer to the other family members using first names only.
[14] Mrs. Bajwa came to Canada from India decades ago. Her ability to speak and read English is limited. She testified through a Punjabi interpreter. She is hearing impaired but seemed to hear well enough once she started wearing her hearing aids part way through the first day of the trial. She was seemingly visually impaired, but that conclusion is based primarily on her responses when asked to look at certain documents. On at least two occasions she seemed to have difficulty reading documents, but I was not certain whether this was because she could not see them or because she did not understand them, or a combination of both.
Witnesses
[15] Apart from herself, the plaintiff’s only witness was her nephew Paramjot. Paramjot lives with the plaintiff and provides care for her, but he also works full time seven days a week. The plaintiff’s oldest daughter, Satpal, also provides care for the plaintiff. Satpal and her husband, Avtar Dhindsa, did not testify.
[16] The defendants all testified. The defendant Kulminder’s daughter, Nimmi Kahlon, also testified.
[17] I will now review portions of the evidence that caused me to have concern regarding the plaintiff’s capacity. I will also provide some of her evidence which weighs in favour of the conclusion that she has capacity. One of the problems in evaluating Mrs. Bajwa’s evidence was that many of the questions during her examination in chief were leading questions. This persisted despite several objections by Mr. Chahal and admonishments to Mr. Mangat. This detracted from my ability to assess Mrs. Bajwa’s testimony and did nothing to diminish any concerns about her capacity.
[18] I wish to again emphasize that I am relaying what the evidence was, and I am not making findings of fact at this point.
The Plaintiff’s Evidence
Age
[19] In an initial exchange, Mrs. Bajwa could not recite her age:
Q. What is your date of birth?
A. 25-2-25
Q. And how old are you today?
A. 93. I think.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, if I said you are 98 years old today would you agree with me?
A. Yes.
Purpose of Trial
[20] Mrs. Bajwa also could not state why she was at trial.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, do you understand why we’re here today?
A. We came here for – I forgot.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, do you understand you are here because you have sued two of your daughters and your son in law?
A. Yes.
Year of Her Husband’s Death
[21] Mrs. Bajwa said her husband died in 2016. When the question was asked again, she repeated this answer. In cross examination, she again said he died in 2016. When it was put to her that her husband died in 2010, she did not give an answer.
[22] The defendants all testified that Mr. Bajwa died in 2010. They were not challenged on this point. Counsel for Ms. Bajwa essentially conceded that he died in 2010.
Life Savings
[23] Mr. Mangat submitted that Mrs. Bajwa’s entire life savings had been taken by the defendants. He offered the following evidence to support this position.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, did you and your late husband have any savings at the time he died six years ago?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the approximated amount of money of your life savings at the time of your husband’s death?
A. 68,000.
Q. Thank you, and just to confirm, six years ago your husband died so that means he died in 2016?
A. Yes.
[24] Because Mrs. Bajwa was the first to testify, when she gave this evidence there was no evidence that Mr. Bajwa in fact died in 2010. It was never clarified whether Mrs. Bajwa thought the $68,000 figure related to 2010 or 2016.
[25] No further detail about Mrs. Bajwa’s life savings was offered. No banking or financial records were put in evidence which would confirm the amount of Mrs. Bajwa’s life savings. The records that are in evidence show that the defendants received, in total, $78,000 in September and October of 2016, not $68,000.
[26] Mrs. Bajwa was not asked the particulars of her assets, liabilities, income, or expenses. In result, there was little evidence permitting one to assess her level of understanding about her financial circumstances.
Payments and Amounts
[27] For the claim to succeed, it must be established that the money Mrs. Bajwa advanced to the defendants was not a gift but rather a loan. The following evidence was offered on this point.
Q. Thank you. Mrs. Bajwa, do you recall lending anybody money in 2016?
A. No.
Q. In 2016, did you loan any of your daughters any money?
[28] This drew an objection as a leading question.
[29] Later, this exchange occurred:
Q. After your husband died in 2016, did you loan anybody money? Yes or no.
A. I did.
Q. Who did you loan money to?
A. I gave them to my daughter.
Q. Which daughter?
A. Raman.
Q. How much money did you loan Raman?
A. I think 68.
Q. Okay.
A. And one time I gave 5.
Q. Okay. Did you loan any other of your daughters any money?
A. No, no. – I gave 10,000 to Kulminder…
[30] It is acknowledged by the defendants that Mrs. Bajwa gave Raman $68,000 and Kulminder $10,000. This is confirmed through a cheque and three bank drafts. It is not pleaded that Mrs. Bajwa also gave Raman $5,000, and there was no other evidence or suggestion that she did.
Q. How did you pay Raman and her husband the money? Was it cash or cheque?
A. I gave cash and I gave a cheque.
[31] Apart from this testimony, there was no other evidence that Mrs. Bajwa gave cash. This evidence was not supported through bank statements. The statement of claim does not allege that Mrs. Bajwa gave cash. The evidence of Raman and Rajinder was that they received one cheque and two bank drafts.
[32] Mrs. Bajwa also testified as follows:
Q. Mrs. Bajwa you mentioned that Paramjot helps take care of you.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay does Paramjot also help you with your banking?
A. Yes.
Q. Does anybody else help you with the banking?
A. No it’s just him. The only one.
Q. Was Paramjot helping you with your banking in 2016?
A. Yes. Nobody else did the signature. My signature was done and $4,000 was withdrawn.
[33] Nobody else testified about a $4,000 withdrawal. No further details were elicited. The statement of claim does not reference a $4,000 withdrawal.
Purpose of Payments
[34] With respect to the $68,000 paid to Raman and Rajinder, Mrs. Bajwa testified as follows:
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, why did you give a loan to your daughter Raman.
A. She said I’m doing house repairs.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, you mentioned that your daughter Raman said that she needed money for house repair?
A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, do you know if Raman actually did any house repair?
A. I don’t think so. They bought a new car.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, do you know what kind of car your daughter bought with your money?
A. A very expensive one
[35] This is consistent with the allegations in the statement of claim. However, no other evidence was presented to indicate that Raman or Rajinder were planning house repairs. They denied planning repairs or renovations around that time. Raman testified they had previously completed a renovation. She acknowledged that they bought a Lexus using some of the money that they received.
[36] With respect to the $10,000 paid to Kulminder, Mrs. Bajwa testified as follows:
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, why did you loan money to your daughter Kulminder?
A. She had a car accident and she wanted to get that fixed.
Q. Do you know if Kulminder actually fixed her car?
A. I think so. I think so. She had an accident.
[37] This is consistent with the allegations in the statement of claim. However, the date on the $10,000 bank draft to Kulminder is September 28, 2016, and Kulminder testified the car accident was after that date. Kulminder’s evidence was that it is impossible she told Mrs. Bajwa that she wanted a loan to fix her car because the car accident had not happened when the money was given to her. She further testified she did not require a $10,000 loan, and if she did her mother would not be the person she would ask for a loan. She described her son as a successful medical specialist in Vancouver and said he would be able to loan her money if she needed it, which she did not.
Interest
[38] The following allegations are made in the statement of claim:
On September 28th, 2016, Bajwa gave her daughter Kahlon, a loan of $10,000.00 by way of a Scotia Bank Bank Draft.
Kahlon had informed Bajwa that her husband had recently been involved in a motor vehicle accident, and that she desperately required money to help her pay her expenses.
Bajwa and Kahlon entered into a verbal agreement in which Bajwa loaned $10,000.00 to Kahlon. Kahlon and Bajwa further agreed that the loan would be given at a 3.00% per annum rate of interest. Kahlon was to repay the loan to Bajwa no later than September 28th, 2018 (“Kahlon repayment deadline”).
[39] Mrs. Bajwa’s evidence on the issue of interest was as follows:
Q. Did they promise to pay you any interest on this loan?
A. They said that they would give it.
Q. Do you remember how much interest they promised you?
A. They said whatever the bank has.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, do you want your money back?
A. Yes.
Q. With interest?
A. H’mm?
Q. Do you want your money back with interest?
A. If it’s not a lot of interest then they should just give it as it is.
[40] Mr. Mangat acknowledged in closing argument that there was inadequate evidence to support the interest claim particularized in the statement of claim, so he argued the judgment should include prejudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, at s. 128.
Repayment Terms
[41] Mrs. Bajwa also testified as follows:
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, did your daughters and her husband promise to pay you this money back?
A. Yes.
Q. When were they supposed to pay you back?
A. They said that they will give it quickly, but they did not give it.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, the money you gave your daughters. Was it a loan or was it a gift?
A. It was a loan. It was a loan that was given.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, how many times do you remember asking your daughters Raman and Kulminder and her husband Rajinder to return your money?
A. Yes. I asked two to three times.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, when you asked your daughter and her husband that the money be returned, what did they say to you, do you remember?
A. They said we don’t have it, work.
[42] Apart from the testimony, “They said that they will give it quickly, but they did not give it,” there was no other evidence about a repayment deadline.
Investment
[43] The statement of claim asserts:
Bajwa, Raman and Rajinder entered into a verbal agreement in which Bajwa invested a total of $68,000.00 in exchange for an equal ownership interest (“The Partnership”) in the property located at 18 Nobel Place, Brampton, Ontario. (hereinafter referred to as the “property”)
Bajwa, Raman, and Rajinder further agreed that the amount of $68,000.00 would be used to renovate the property. Furthermore, Bajwa, Raman, and Rajinder agreed that once the renovation was completed, the property would be sold, and the profit from the sale proceeds would be equally shared between Bajwa, Raman, and Rajinder.
Bajwa, Raman, and Rajinder further agreed that Bajwa’s ownership interest would be registered on the title of the property prior to the sale of the property.
[44] Mrs. Bajwa’s evidence on whether the $68,000 was an investment was follows:
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, did your daughter Raman and her husband Rajinder ever tell you that they are going to sell their house after they do the renovations?
A. Yes, yes, yes. And they didn’t sell it.
Q. Did they promise you any profit from the sale of their house?
A. They said that they would give it. How would they sell their house [ sic ].
[45] Apart from what I have just described, Mrs. Bajwa was not asked about the alleged investment and there was no other evidence to support these allegations.
Mrs. Bajwa Feels Cheated
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, do you feel that you have been cheated?
A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, did you trust your daughters and her ... and your son in law when you loaned the money?
A. At first, I did have trust.
Q. How about now, Mrs. Bajwa?
A. It’s fine.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, do you feel that your daughters Raman and Kulminder and your son in law Rajinder took advantage of you?
A. Yes. Rajinder is very cunning.
Q. And why do you say that?
A. Hmm?
Q. How is Rajinder cunning?
A. He does this type of work, taking money out. He … without even having a signature done he withdrew money from the bank.
[46] The plaintiff repeated evidence to this effect in cross examination. When asked if she had given cash to Raman, Ms. Bajwa said, “They would do it on their own from the bank.” And then she said:
Q. Did you agree to them withdrawing the money in cash?
A. Yes
Q. So you were fine with them taking the money in cash?
A. Yes.
[47] Overall, the evidence regarding cash being given to the defendants was confused, or perhaps it should be characterized as confusing and not clarified. In any event, there was no evidence that Rajinder or Raman withdrew cash from Mrs. Bajwa’s account without her consent. Apart from what I have described, there was no evidence about the amounts of cash the defendants allegedly took.
Taking Control of Finances
[48] Mrs. Bajwa focused on Rajinder as being responsible.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, do you remember in 2016 that your daughter Raman and her husband ever came and lived with you for a short period?
A. Yes, they came and lived. I was alone.
Q. Why were you alone?
A. My husband’s death had happened.
[49] The evidence of the defendants was that Rajinder, primarily, and Raman to a lesser extent stayed with Mrs. Bajwa after she had a fall in late September or early October of 2016. This was not tied to Mr. Bajwa’s 2010 death. The defendant’s evidence of course came after this. But Mrs. Bajwa’s evidence in chief continued as follows.
Q. Mrs. Bawja, before your husband died, was your husband responsible for your household financing, or were you responsible for it?
A. He would do that. When his death happened, then it went into my name.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, after your husband died, did your daughter Raman and her husband take control of your finances?
A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, did your daughter Raman and her husband Rajinder know how much money you your had in your bank account?
A. Yes. … So then they would do it on their own.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, after your husband died, what happened to all your money?
A. At first it went into my name and then after that Rajinder kept saying that we have repairs that need to be done and then they took all the money.
Q. Who took all your money?
A. Rajinder my son in law.
[50] This assertion was not pleaded and was not further developed in evidence. For instance, Mrs. Bajwa’s financial records were not put in evidence (except for records redacting all transactions other than the payments totalling $78,000). The suggestion that Raman and Rajinder took control of her finances, withdrew cash from her account on their own, and took all her money, was not seriously pursued in the cross examination of Raman and Rajinder.
Whether She Wanted to Pursue this Lawsuit
[51] The following exchange occurred during cross examination of Mrs. Bajwa:
Q. And this lawsuit that you brought. Was it your son Gurnam’s idea to bring this lawsuit?
A. Yes. He died though.
Q. But it was his idea to bring this lawsuit?
A. Yes.
Q. And, you really didn’t want the money back, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And …
A. They were saying you’re near to death, what do you want the money for.
Q. Who was saying you’re near to death, what do you want the money for?
A. My son in law. Rajinder.
The Evidence of Nimmi Kahlon
[52] Nirmal (Nimmi) Kahlon (age 49) is the daughter of the defendant Kulminder and the granddaughter of Mrs. Bajwa. She teaches grade 5.
[53] Nimmi acknowledged that she didn’t visit her grandmother very much. In October 2019, she received information that this lawsuit had been commenced in the name of her grandmother. She was advised that her grandmother had asked her aunt (Raman) to take her to a lawyer so that she could get the lawsuit stopped. Nimmi spoke to her grandmother about this and confirmed that she wanted to be taken to a lawyer. She visited her grandmother and told her that Raman could not take her because she was a defendant. However, she offered to take her grandmother to a lawyer. Her grandmother told her she had given the money as a gift and she did not want the money back. At her grandmother’s request, Nimmi made an appointment for her grandmother to see a lawyer at Nanda lawyers. This firm had prepared Mrs. Bajwa’s will and power of attorney.
[54] On October 22, 2019, Nimmi and a friend of Raman drove Mrs. Bajwa to Nanda lawyers. Nimmi explained to a lawyer there why she had brought her grandmother. She left her grandmother alone to speak with the lawyer and an interpreter. When the meeting was over, the lawyer explained to Nimmi that her grandmother would have to instruct her lawyer in the lawsuit (Mr. Mangat) to drop the lawsuit.
[55] On the same date, they went to see Mr. Mangat. Mrs. Bajwa and Nimmi met with Mr. Mangat. Mr. Mangat objected to Nimmi testifying about what was discussed at the meeting on the basis of privilege. Counsel reached an agreement that Mr. Chahal would not lead such evidence.
[56] Nimmi described that after the meeting her grandmother presumed she had ended the case. Her grandmother further described that she was afraid of her daughter Satpal (Nimmi’s aunt), and that when Satpal calls, “I’ll just tell her that you took me shopping.”
[57] Nimmi spoke to her grandmother several times shortly after the meeting and during these calls her grandmother still presumed the case had ended. However, after about two weeks, Nimmi knew the lawsuit had not ended. She did not follow up.
[58] The next time Nimmi called her grandmother was in October 2021 after Gurnam died. Mrs. Bajwa asked Nimmi to come and see her and she asked why no one was calling or coming to see her. Nimmi explained that Raman’s and Kulminder’s phone numbers were still blocked so they could not call her. During that call, Nimmi asked Paramjot to unblock the phone numbers and he said he didn’t know how.
[59] Despite the request that she visit, Nimmi delayed seeing her grandmother because she expected she would be unwelcome by Satpal and Avtar. About four weeks later, Nimmi learned that another relative was planning on visiting, so Nimmi coordinated a visit for the same time. She went to see Mrs. Bajwa on approximately November 21, 2021, not having seen her for two years. Nimmi described that Mrs. Bajwa was happy to see her. While there, Mrs. Bajwa asked Nimmi why no one was calling her, and Nimmi again explained that the phone numbers were still blocked. Nimmi asked if she wanted to speak to Raman and Kulminder and used her cell phone to connect her to them. Mrs. Bajwa said to Kulminder that she missed her and wanted to see her. She spoke to Raman and asked Raman to come and see her, to which Raman said, “I can’t come because of the lawsuit that my brother Gurnam has done against me.” This was on speaker phone. Mrs. Bajwa said, “I want to see you. I miss you. I’m ending the case.”
[60] Nimmi testified as follows:
…Avtar Dhindsa, who is Satpal’s husband, … he was in the room and I said, “She doesn’t even know what’s in this [referring to the statement of claim]. She’s saying she doesn’t want it. She knows about money but … all of this is a surprise for her. She doesn’t agree with it,” and he said that her son Gurnam did the case for her and that he gave directions to the lawyer. …
While I was still there, she repeatedly said, “Stop this. Stop this. I don’t want this. Call the lawyer. End the case.” She had said that prior to this as well, and I said to her daughter Satpal, … “you hear your mother what she’s asking you to do, can you help her?” And then Satpal said, “She doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” … Avtar Dhindsa said to her, “You have to follow what Mr. Mangat tells you to do. He’s not going to end the case. The judge has already made a decision. And this case cannot be ended.” Something to that effect.
[61] Nimmi told her grandmother that she didn’t know what to do. Her grandmother repeatedly said to her, “Do something.” Nimmi said she felt helpless when she left. She hoped that Satpal and Avtar would listen to her grandmother’s wishes.
[62] Some of this evidence had been put to Mrs. Bajwa in her cross examination. The following are excerpts from that exchange:
Q. Ms. Bajwa, in November of 2019, you went to see Mr. Nanda, and you went to see your own lawyer Mr. Mangat on your own, right?
A. I went and I took Nimmi with me.
Q. And you took her because you trusted Nimmi, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you felt Nimmi would help you do what you want to do, correct?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And you felt that nobody else could help you do want to do except for Nimmi, is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wanted to drop this case against your daughters, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, I’m going to take you to November of 2021 … do you remember speaking to Nimmi in November 2021 again?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember telling Nimmi, “Nimmi can you take me see a lawyer so I can drop this case”?
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you want to drop the case?
A. I thought what is this, day after day at the lawyers?
[63] The following question was asked in Mrs. Bajwa’s re-examination:
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, did Nimmi ask you to drop this case? Or did you tell Nimmi you wanted to drop the case?
Mrs. Bajwa answered in Punjabi before this question was translated. Her answer was:
A. My thought is that it should be closed. Why go to courthouses day after day?
[64] The question was asked again so that the interpreter could be sure Mrs. Bajwa understood it.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, did Nimmi ever ask you to drop this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Bajwa, did your daughter Raman ever ask you to drop this case?
A. No. Her husband is very quick and everything has been ruined because of him. Rajinder Singh.
Interim Order
[65] As can be seen, the evidence I heard raises concerns about Mrs. Bajwa’s capacity to instruct counsel and to maintain this action without a litigation guardian. In my view, I ought not to proceed to a final determination without first providing the PGT an opportunity to investigate and make submissions.
[66] A copy of this endorsement shall be sent to the PGT along with a covering letter from my assistant which shall include the contact information of Mr. Mangat and Mr. Chahal. The PGT is requested to contact my assistant by email, copied to counsel, and to provide its availability to attend a brief videoconference hearing. My assistant will arrange a hearing to be held on a mutually convenient date as soon as possible at 9:00 a.m. before my regular court day begins. Counsel for the parties shall attend. The parties may attend but are not required to attend. The purpose of the hearing will simply be to receive the PGT’s submissions on what steps, if any, it would like to take in this matter and the parties’ submissions in response. If the PGT wishes to undertake an investigation or other steps, I will receive submissions on what order, if any, should be made to facilitate this.
[67] This interim order is not intended to interfere with the PGT’s usual processes. If it wishes to do so, the PGT may begin its investigation before the hearing.
[68] The PGT is asked to (but is not required to) write or email counsel and me in advance of the hearing with its position. I am not asking the PGT to provide its final position at this stage, but rather to advise of its position on what next steps should be taken. The PGT is encouraged to reach out to the parties to see if a consent order can be made before the hearing.
[69] No new materials may be filed by the parties prior to the hearing without leave from me. If a party wishes to file material, leave may be requested by way of an email explaining why.
[70] If there is no communication to my assistant from the PGT within a reasonable time, I will contact counsel.
Chown J. Released: 2022-Apr-06