Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS- 20-20794-00 Date: 2023-01-20 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Kyle Sanvictores, Applicant And: Nancy Sanvictores, Respondent

Before: M.D. Faieta J.

Counsel: Nadia Warsi and Stephanie Brown, for the Applicant Self-represented, Respondent

Heard: January 19, 2023

Endorsement

[1] The Applicant father’s motion for contempt was to be heard on January 19, 2023. It had been scheduled to be heard on December 20, 2022. The Respondent did not file a Factum nor an affidavit in response to this motion. The motion was adjourned so that the Respondent could retain counsel.

[2] On the return of the contempt motion, counsel did not appear for the Respondent, nor did the Respondent deliver a responding Factum.

[3] However, at the outset, the Respondent brought a motion for recusal and a motion for an order, that amongst other things, vacates eleven Orders issued from December 18, 2020 to December 19, 2022 pursuant to Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules (“motion to vacate”).

[4] I heard the Respondent’s motion for recusal. My reasons for decision will follow separately.

[5] The Respondent’s motion to vacate also requests: (1) an order to strike the Application; (2) an order requiring the Respondent to withdraw all complaints filed against myself and the Applicant’s counsel from the Canadian Judicial Council and the Law Society of Ontario in respect of events during the period December 18, 2020 to January 11, 2023. In respect of the withdrawal order, the Respondent states that she will only seek such order if the motion to vacate is fairly heard. It would be inappropriate for the court to make such order even if it had the authority to do so.

[6] Given that it may impact the determination of the contempt motion, I granted the Respondent leave to bring the motion to vacate to the extent it relates to the request to vacate certain Orders. The Respondent relies on 19 affidavits including three affidavits that she has sworn in January 2023. The Respondent’s submissions were largely disorganized and ran about one hour longer than the 45 minutes that she had requested. At that point, the Respondent’s submissions were far from completed and I decided to adjourn the motion to vacate so that the Respondent could prepare a Factum to focus her submissions.

[7] In respect of the contempt motion, I direct the parties to consider the application of the principles in Moncur v. Plante, 2021 ONCA 462, at paras. 10, 19 and 20, to this case, when making their submissions.

Order

[8] Order to go as follows:

(1) The Respondent is granted leave to bring her motion to vacate to the extent it relates to vacating certain orders. The Respondent is not granted leave to bring a motion for an order to strike the Applicant’s Application.

(2) The Respondent’s motion to vacate is adjourned to January 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. Neither party is permitted to file any further affidavit evidence in respect of this motion.

(3) By 4:00 p.m on January 23, 2023, the Respondent shall deliver a Factum in respect of her motion to vacate that describes with specificity the provision(s) of Rule 25(19), along with the supporting evidence referencing the relevant affidavit and paragraph number(s), that she relies upon to vacate each paragraph of each Order.

(4) By 4:00 p.m. on January 25, 2023, the Applicant shall deliver a responding Factum.

(5) The Applicant’s contempt motion shall be heard on January 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.

(6) Costs of today are reserved.

Faieta J. Date: January 20, 2023