Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00004794-0000 DATE: 2024-07-24 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton ON L6W 4T6
RE: IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of Travis Ryan Seelal, deceased: NATASHA SEELAL, Applicant AND: ANNETTE SEELAL, DHANRAJ SEELAL and DARRELL SEELAL, Respondents
BEFORE: Justice J. K. Trimble
COUNSEL: Timothy Lockhart tim@tlclaw.ca Counsel for the Applicant/Responding Party Joseph Figliomeni jfigliomeni@cambridgellp.com Counsel for the Respondents/Moving Parties
HEARD: July 24, 2024, in Person
Endorsement
[1] This matter is an Estates dispute in which the Applicant seeks dependent’s relief for her daughter from the estate of her late husband. He died on 20 June 2020. At the time of the testator’s death, the Applicant and testator were involved in Family Litigation in the Ontario Court concerning support for the couple’s daughter. There has been no temporary or final order. On the testator’s death, the Applicant elected to pursue a claim for dependent’s relief against the testators estate on behalf of the couple’s daughter.
[2] This matter did not proceed today notwithstanding that it has been booked 3 separate times, been in Triage Court twice, and was marked peremptory to all parties.
[3] The Motion for Directions did not proceed for two reasons:
a. Neither party complied with the Central West Practice Direction about uploading electric documents to Case Centre, and
b. Irrespective of complying with the Practice Direction, neither party presented their motion materials a way that made sense, and that was helpful in assisting the Court to help either of their clients.
[4] The following the major problems with the motion materials:
a. The Respondent/Moving Partie’s Motion materials comprised 165 pages (20 pages for the Factum, 25 pages of Affidavit, and 115 pages of exhibits).
i. The Factum contained some bookmarks. Those bookmarks, however, took me to the place referred to in the Affidavit, but did so in the same Case Centre window. I had no way of navigating back to where I left off in the Factum.
Bookmarks in a document should in open a separate window, or if in the same Case Centre window, permit the reader to navigate back to the original document by using the “esc” key or other single key, as opposed to trying to return to the place in the Affidavit or other document by using the mouse wheel.
ii. The Exhibits in the Affidavit were not bookmarked/hyperlinked.
I was only able to read the Affidavit and Exhibits together as they were two separate documents which I opened on a split screen in Case Centre and review in parallel.
iii. The references in the Factum to cases and legal authorities were not bookmarked/hyperlinked. There was no independent casebook uploaded.
b. The Applicant/Responding party’s motion material comprised a 22 page Factum and 400 page motion record.
iv. The Factum’s references to evidence were not contained in the body of the factum but in footnotes. None were bookmarked/hyperlinked.
On the other hand, the case references contained in footnotes were hyperlinked to the database and opened in a separate window.
v. The motion record was 400 pages long.
The Motion Record’s Table of Contents was bookmarked to the various tabs contained in it. They opened, however, in the same Case Centre window, with out the ability for the reader to return to the Table of Contents by using the “esc” or other single key.
The references in the Affidavit referred to “Exhibit A” etc. Those Exhibit references were not bookmarked/hyperlinked to the specific documents. Unable to navigate among the Affidavits and Exhibits, I stopped reading at 50 pages.
The Motion Record contained four Affidavits from the Applicant/Responding party, and the exhibits attached to each. They were not separated.
[5] Neither party uploaded a compendium.
[6] I spent 3 hours preparing for the motion, scrolling through motion materials, looking for documents so that I could inform myself sufficiently to hear and decide this motion, which was set for 2.5 hours, to address 4 simple, discrete questions. After 3 hours, I stopped reading, exasperated, and frustrated.
[7] The materials for this Motion for Directions, on their face, suggest that they were prepared in ignorance of the requirements of the Practice Direction and uploading electronic documents to Case Centre, indifference to it, and/or in ignorance of how to do what should have been done.
[8] The materials for this Motion for Directions, on their face, suggest that they were prepared in ignorance of the concept that the materials filed should help the Court to navigate through them and to make a decision efficiently, or in indifference to the concept.
[9] I accept both counsel’s apologies for the problems with each of their files. The time is long past, however, for apologies for not doing what is required by the Practice Direction and good advocacy. Most counsel are compliant. In some quarters, however, announcements from the Chief Justice’s office, Practice Directions, the availability of on-line resources, and seminars by the Advocate’s Society, the OBA, District and County Law Associations, have had no effect. Perhaps the Court’s refusing to hear matters will be an effective call to the bar to do what is required by Practice Direction and good advocacy. I can only repeat the admonitions of Edwards, RSJ in Lepp v. The Regional Municipality of York, 2022 ONSC 6978.
[10] Case Centre (and its predecessor, CaseLines) has been mandatory in Central West Region in all civil and family matters since 4 April 2022.
[11] For the Court, the Bar, and self represented litigants, Case Centre has brought a substantial change in the way the Court does its business for the public. There have been growing pains for all users. To assist counsel and self represented litigants, Province-wide and Regional Practice Directions have been issued about how people are to upload documents to CaseLines. They have been amended from time to time to address user issues. Tip sheets have been published on the Court’s website to assist counsel and litigants: see: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/notices-and-orders-covid-19/supplementary-notice-september-2-2020/caseline-tips/#Tip_1_Register_and_bookmark_Case_Center_Ontario.
[12] Two of the tips address uploading for hearing purposes. One says that if you want to maintain internal hyperlinks and bookmarks you must upload one PDF document. Alternately, you must upload the Affidavit and the attached items each as a separate PDF document.
[13] Given that Case Centres has been mandatory for two years in Central West, counsel’s failure to comply with it is no longer acceptable.
[14] CaseLines, uploading the materials as was been done in this case, renders the documents an impediment to the Court being able to do what the public expects the Court to do – prepare for the hearing, conduct it, and decide it, fairly and impartially, and efficiently.
[15] For the above reasons I adjourned this motion to the Triage Court of 23 September 2024, 10 am, for fixing a new date.
[16] Since I used Court time reserved for the motion to conduct a detailed “pre-trial” both on this motion for directions and the Application as a whole, and since some progress was made in resolution, I order that costs of the day are in the cause of the Motion for Directions, fixed at $1,500.00.
[17] Further, I order that:
a. This motion is placed into the Triage Court of 23 September 2024, 10 am, for fixing a new long-motion date for ½ day.
b. The parties shall upload revised Motion Records, Affidavits, and Facta, that comply with the above requirements for bookmarks/hyperlinks. This shall be done by 4 pm 20 September 2024.
c. There shall be no further evidence allowed.
[18] Had the parties decided to not avail themselves of my offer of a “pre-trial” today, or had they not engaged in good faith attempts to resolve some aspects of this Motion for Directions and the Application, I would have ordered that neither lawyer could charge their clients for fees for the day, or the fees associated with reconfiguring and re-uploading their motion materials. Compliance with Case Centres and good advocacy is solely within the lawyer’s purview; their failure to comply with them should not be charged to their clients.
Trimble, J. Released: July 24, 2024