Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-00030399-0000

DATE: 20220704

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Alan Earl Shaw, Applicant

AND:

Tracey Myers, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice Sharon Shore

COUNSEL: Chloe van Wirdum, Counsel for the Applicant

James Edney and Aly Virani, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: July 4, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Applicant issued his application on June 21, 2022, and scheduled TBST Court today seeking an urgent case conference or motion date. The application has not been uploaded into the electronic file as of today, which may simply be a processing delay.

[2] After reading the Applicant’s TBST Court Form, I was trying to understand why this matter was proceeding in family court. According to the Applicant, the parties were not spouses. The parties were not married. They do not have children together. According to the Applicant, the parties were only together for four months, from December 2021-April 2022. The Respondent moved into the Applicant’s home and was now refusing to leave. It sounded like they were practically strangers. The Applicant is living with his daughter having been charged with assaulting the Respondent. The Applicant is looking for an order removing the Respondent from his home. How was this a family case?

[3] Then I read the Respondent’s brief.

[4] According to the Applicant, the parties started living together in May 2013 and were engaged, to be married in June 2022. They separated on May 8, 2022. There is a dispute as to whether there were any breaks in the relationship, not that there was a relationship. The Applicant owns several properties and is worth millions of dollars. He is not without resources to meet his expenses. The Respondent is currently on LTD from injuries she suffered falling down a flight of stairs in 2021. She alleges she does not have the resources or physical ability to move out at this time. There is a dispute as to whether she fell or was pushed down the stairs. The Applicant is living with his daughter because the daughter is his surety, the Applicant having been arrested on May 8th and charged with assaulting the Respondent amongst other charges (which includes the stairs incident -all still to be proven in court).

[5] I am sure that there are many outstanding issues that need to be addressed in this file, but none of the issues presented in the materials suggest that the Applicant’s issues are urgent. They can wait to be addressed in the usual course of a file.

[6] TBST Court should not be used to try to bypass the Rules to get an early conference or urgent motion date. Being unhappy with the status quo does not make an issue urgent. TBST Court is to be used and reserved for cases where there are clearly urgent issues or where there is a potential for high conflict and early judicial intervention will assist. I do not want this endorsement to be read as trying to discourage litigants from using TBST Court in appropriate cases. There are many benefits to litigants and the Court in this process. The vast majority of litigants in Toronto have used the TBST Court process effectively and efficiently, saving time and money, and improving access to justice.

[7] The case before me today misused this process, taking resources and time away from others.

[8] Further, TBST Briefs are meant to be short and to the point but not at the expense providing the court with basic relevant information. The Applicant’s brief was selective, to the point of misleading.

[9] The parties should complete the pleadings as required under the Rules. Matter not urgent.

[10] Costs ordered in the sum of $1,500 payable from the Applicant to the Respondent within ten business days.

Justice Sharon Shore

Date: July 4, 2022