COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-0141-00
DATE: 2022-12-19
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Kevin Olavi Vesa v. Tara Lynn Vesa aka Tara Lynne Beacham
HEARD: December 15, 2022
BEFORE: Fitzpatrick J.
COUNSEL: W. Shanks for Applicant Kevin Olavi Vesa C. Arnone for Respondent Tara Lynne Beacham
ENDORSEMENT ON MOTIONS
[1] The parties bring motions in a high conflict family case.
[2] The parties decided to bring these motions on a regular motion day on the Regional Motion List for the Northwest Region. The Superior Court of Justice Website has a page entitled "Family Motions Information-Northwest". It provides that regular motions are heard every week on Thursdays for the Region. Those Thursday motions courts are reserved for "short motions". Short motions are defined as consisting of one hour or less. Long motions are those over one hour. The website directs that a fixed date is to be provided by the trial coordinator for long motions.
[3] In this matter a total of three motions were before the Court. Two for the applicant and one for the respondent.
[4] The applicant appeared to only confirm one of the motions. The time estimated by counsel for the applicant for that motion was a total of one hour.
[5] The respondent confirmed her motion to be also one hour in length.
[6] At the outset of the hearing of the motions, I indicated to counsel I thought these motions were not short motions. I told them they were long motions. They respectfully disagreed and indicated they could argue the motions in one hour. There was no back up judge for motions on December 15, 2022. It turned out only one hour was in fact available to hear the motions because of how the day turned out.
[7] Hindsight being 20/20, the better course of action would have been to simply direct counsel to get a new date once the matter was reached after the parties had about 3 hours of waiting around time while the other matters went ahead. However, I allowed the parties to argue. The parties agreed on some procedural matters. These are:
the parties agree to exchange affidavits listing documents on or before January 13, 2023;
the parties agree to questioning of no more than two hours for each party once affidavits listing documents are exchanged.
[8] Although not expressly agreed, it appears the respondent will cooperate in instructing her pension plan administrator to prepare a family law valuation of her pension at the first available time.
[9] If the parties need a formal consent order for these discreet issues, they may submit a draft order containing only the above noted provisions for my signature.
[10] Other than that, counsel went ahead with argument. They finished within the hour. In my view, despite both parties being represented by able and experienced family law counsel, their presentations were not sufficient to persuade me to grant any of the balance of the relief the parties claimed on these motions.
[11] Accordingly, all motions are dismissed without costs.
[12] The next step in this process is for the parties to obtain a date for a further case conference, where, if the parties would like to refocus their materials and obtain a date of proper length for the matters at issue to be argued, they may do so.
[13] I make this disposition for the following reasons.
[14] Both parties are claiming diametrically opposed, significant relief from the other in four very important areas of family law. Both are claiming the other should pay child support to them. The applicant is claiming interim spousal support and the respondent claims the applicant has no need for support. Both are claiming exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. Both are claiming significantly different parenting schedules. A subset of this area of claim is the fact that both are claiming significantly different decision making responsibilities with regard to their children.
[15] On top of these very divergent positions, there are allegations and counter denials of family violence. The applicant was charged criminally. The charges were just recently withdrawn. There are allegations of significant parental misconduct by both toward the other with regard to the children. The parties both assert they were the primary care parent prior to and after separation. The parties cannot agree on the income of the applicant. The applicant claims essentially zero income and the respondent asserts he has or should have a sizeable income attributed to him. The parties dispute where the applicant is living and would parent the children.
[16] The narrative both parties seek to place before the Court spanned a period going back to at least August 2020.
[17] These are issues, legal and evidentiary, that cannot just be sorted out after the fact by the Court after counsel make generalized and broad submissions on such significant areas of dispute in a short motion format. There are too many disputed facts for the court to give either party the relief they seek on a temporary motion. The advocacy process is designed to help the Court focus on the important issues. The length of time chosen by counsel to argue these motions was not sufficient to give these important issues the attention they deserved.
[18] On the material filed, I am not concerned that the children are in any immediate need of any court orders to ensure their needs are being met and their well-being protected. A status quo parenting situation is in place. It may be subject to change later. It could probably be the subject of its own long motion if the parties cannot see their way clear to work something before this matter goes to trial.
[19] The respondent indicates in her affidavit she is willing to facilitate parenting time for the applicant. Both parties are represented by able and experienced family law counsel. I am confident an interim solution can be achieved on a without prejudice basis if need be. If not, the parties can schedule a long motion or put this matter on track for trial at the next case conference.
[20] Order to go dismissing all motions and directing the next step in the matter to be a case conference.
"original signed by" The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick
DATE: December 19, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-0141-00
DATE: 2022-12-19
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Kevin Olavi Vesa v. Tara Lynn Vesa aka Tara Lynne Beacham
HEARD: December 15, 2022
BEFORE: Fitzpatrick J.
COUNSEL: W. Shanks for Applicant Kevin Olavi Vesa C. Arnone for Respondent Tara Lynne Beacham
ENDORSEMENT ON MOTIONS
Fitzpatrick J.
DATE: December 19, 2022