Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-16-38978 DATE: 2022-10-18 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: R.N.H., Applicant AND: B.C.L., Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: Ms. L. Oliver, for the Applicant, R.N.H. B.C.L., Self-represented and assisted by Duty Counsel, Ms. O’Rourke Counsel

HEARD: October 18, 2022

ENDORSEMENT ON ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION

[1] At the commencement of the trial today, the Respondent mother, B.C.L., through duty counsel, requested an adjournment for three reasons – (i) to consult with counsel, (ii) because she is feeling very stressed due to the recent passing of her father, and (iii) because she is also concerned about her own health and has an ultrasound tomorrow to check a lump on her body that she has recently discovered.

[2] The adjournment request was vigorously contested on behalf of the Applicant father, R.N.H., and understandably so.

[3] The adjournment was denied. It was denied because the matter was expressly marked peremptory on both sides by another justice’s order, and because the trial has already been postponed previously, and because the trial concerns the welfare of a young child, and because the mother was already given time to grieve the passing of her father when opposing counsel and the court agreed not to call the case for trial during the ongoing blitz sittings before now, and because this Court promised to accommodate the mother’s medical appointment tomorrow morning by resuming the trial in the afternoon, and because the mother is free to consult with counsel on her own time but has had more than ample opportunity to have a retained lawyer here today if that is what she desired.

[4] Given all of that, the adjournment request was not in the interests of justice and clearly not in the best interests of the young child.

[5] This Endorsement explains to the mother why her request was not granted.

Conlan J.

Date: October 18, 2022