CITATION: Punit v. Punit, 2022 ONSC 6530
COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-374568
DATE: 20221121
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Hemwattie Sandy Punit
Applicant
– and –
Raj Komar Punit
Respondent
Steven Bookman, for the Applicant
Rono Baijnath, for the Respondent
HEARD: In Writing
PINTO J.
Endorsement re: Transcript Request by Respondent’s counsel
Overview
[1] This endorsement addresses the respondent’s request for a transcript of select portions of the court hearings that took place on December 9, 2021 and January 6, 2022.
[2] For the reasons that follow, I decline to order that such transcripts be produced.
Transcript Request
[3] I was the family motions judge in respect of a motion brought by the applicant wife and a cross-motion brought by the respondent husband.
[4] I issued my decision on the merits of the motions on August 12, 2022, see Punit v. Punit, 2022 ONSC 4641.
[5] On November 7, 2022, it was brought to my attention that the Recording Management Office of the court had received an urgent transcript order from respondent’s counsel, Mr. Baijnath.
[6] Mr. Baijnath was requesting the transcript of “Pre-motion – Discussion about proceeding with hearing Motion as a final order on consent by the parties to proceed with the motions Either in first 0-15 minutes of the Dec. 9 or Jan 6 hearings. It was a short discussion between the Court and Counsel about proceeding the motion and accepting the change to the final order.”
[7] The Recording Management Office indicated that, as no court reporter was assigned, no court recording was found. The Recording Management Office asked whether, as the motions judge, I had recorded the hearing and, if so, whether I would release the recording so that a transcript could be produced and released to the requesting party.
Background
[8] There have been 3 court attendances (December 9, 2021; January 6, 2022; and April 14, 2022), all via Zoom, before me to deal with the motions. The parties have been represented by counsel at each attendance and no court reporter has been present. I recorded the Zoom sessions on my own computer for my own purposes.
[9] At the first attendance, on December 9, 2021, I had a discussion with counsel about the scope of the motions, the status of disclosure and how arguments on the motions could proceed in an organized fashion. I adjourned the motion to January 6, 2022, and issued an endorsement explaining my reasons for adjournment.
[10] At the second attendance, on January 6, 2022, counsel made submissions on the merits of their motions. I reserved on my decision.
[11] On April 6, 2022, I send an e-mail to the parties advising that I wanted written submissions on six points (paragraphs a-f). Paragraph (f) stated the following:
(f) Finally, His Honour asked on January 6 but did not receive a satisfactory answer as to what the legal test is for the change in child and spousal support arising from a Final Order? Are the parties now seeking a revised final order, or an interim order? Was a “Motion to Change” necessary or was it not necessary because the Order of Goodman J. (which incorporated the parties Minutes of Settlement) incorporated a financial disclosure and review clause, albeit that was not engaged until the applicant’s March 2021 motion and the respondent’s May 2021 cross-motion? Justice Pinto assumes that the parties are seeking finality based on the motion materials filed but this aspect was inadequately addressed.
[12] The respondent and applicant provided their written submission on April 9 and April 13, 2022 respectively.
[13] At the third attendance, on April 14, 2022, the parties further addressed the issue of the change to a final order.
[14] I released my motions decision on August 12, 2022. At paragraph 34 of the decision, I stated:
[34] The motions hearing proceeded on January 6, 2022 and I reserved. I then determined that further submissions on various aspects of the motions were required. The parties provided written submissions and made further oral submissions on April 14, 2022. On the latter date, the parties agreed that it was not necessary for the respondent to have brought a Motion to Change and that I should proceed to rule on the motions.
Discretion in Judge re: Transcript Requests
[15] The Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction governs the release of digital court recordings. Under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction:
C-68. The release of digital recordings will be at the court’s discretion and the use of all digital recordings will be subject to any court order and any common law or statutory restriction on publication applicable to the particular proceeding.
[16] In particular, the section on “Restrictions on Access to Digital Recordings from DRDs” makes clear that unless a judge of the Superior Court of Justice orders otherwise, no digital recordings are available to anyone in respect of “civil and family motions and applications.”
Restrictions on Access to Digital Recordings from DRDs
All copies or access to digital recordings are subject to any express order the presiding judge may make. The presiding judge may expand or restrict access to the digital recordings in any particular proceeding before him or her.
Unless a judge of the Superior Court of Justice orders otherwise, no digital recordings are available to anyone in the following proceedings:
(a) in camera proceedings or any portion of a proceeding that is heard in camera;
(b) private or closed hearings (e.g. pursuant to ss. 87 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act);
(c) proceedings subject to a statutory, common law or court ordered restriction on the provision of transcripts or digital recordings of the proceeding (e.g., pre-trial conferences held in court with self-represented accused, pursuant to rule 28.05(4) of the Criminal Proceedings Rules of the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario), proceedings under the Youth Criminal Justice Act); and,
(d) case, settlement and trial management conferences pursuant to rule 17 of the Family Law Rules; and,
(e) civil and family motions and applications (e.g. civil motions and applications under rule 37 and rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, family motions under rules 14 and 15 of the Family Law Rules).
[17] Accordingly, digital recordings of family motions are not available unless a judge orders otherwise. Also see Mother Doe v. Havergal College, 2020 ONSC 5550.
[18] Here, for the following reasons, I find there is no reason to exercise my discretion and release my Zoom recording of December 9, 2021 and January 6, 2022 so that a partial transcript can be produced.
(a) I have already indicated in my motions decision that on April 14, 2022, the parties agreed that it was not necessary for the respondent to have brought a Motion to Change and that I should proceed to rule on the motions.
(b) I requested and received written submissions on the point in question concerning changing a final order.
(c) Respondent counsel’s request pertains to earlier attendances on December 9, 2021, and January 6, 2022, whereas the point in question was addressed in written submissions and on April 14, 2022.
[19] For clarity, were I to receive a subsequent request for a transcript of the April 14, 2022 attendance, for similar reasons, I would also decline to exercise my discretion to depart from the default in the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction that digital recordings of family motions are not available.
Pinto J.
Released: November 21, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: FS-11-374568
DATE: 20221121
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Hemwattie Sandy Punit
Applicant
– and –
Raj Komar Punit
Respondent
Endorsement Re: Transcript Request By Respondent’s Counsel
Pinto J.
Released: November 21, 2022