Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-23-00001031-0000 (Stratford) Date: 2025-12-04 Corrected: 2025-12-05 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Rebecca Reeve, Applicant And: Kevin Larson, Respondent

Before: Kalajdzic J.

Counsel: Rebecca Reeve, acting in person Kevin Larson, acting in person Armando D'Andrea, counsel for Legal Aid Ontario Hailey Ji, counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney-General

Heard: December 3, 2025

Endorsement

Overview

[1] In my endorsement dated October 25, 2025, and reported at 2025 ONSC 6030, I advised the parties that I was considering appointing an amicus to assist the court in this litigation. In accordance with the direction of the Court of Appeal in Morwald-Benevides v. Benevides, 2019 ONCA 1023, 148 O.R. (3d) 305, at para. 54, I directed that notice be provided to Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) and the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG). I scheduled today's attendance so that I may hear from the parties, and from LAO and MAG, about the necessity of an amicus, and the scope of their work if one is appointed.

[2] LAO and MAG take no position on the appointment of an amicus. Mr. Larson supports the appointment. Ms. Reeve does not oppose it but advises that she has applied for a Legal Aid certificate and intends to hire a lawyer if she can find one.

[3] Having considered the submissions of the parties and the circumstances of this case, for the reasons that follow, I find that this is an appropriate case to appoint amicus.

Legal Framework

[4] In my October 25 endorsement, I set out the framework for appointing an amicus in family law cases. The Court of Appeal in Morwald-Benevides confirmed a judge's implied jurisdiction to appoint an amicus to assist the court where the appointment is "essential for the court to adequately discharge its judicial functions" (at para. 24). The court's non-exhaustive list of factors to consider include in part, at paras. 27-40:

a. The stakes must be high.

b. A judge has a responsibility to ensure the proceedings progress reasonably.

c. The authority to appoint amicus should be used sparingly, in response to specific and exceptional circumstances. That one or both parties are self-represented is not a sufficient reason to appoint amicus.

d. The order appointing amicus must be clear, detailed, and precise in specifying the scope of the amicus' duties. The goal should be to use the services of amicus only where and to the extent necessary.

e. The activities of the amicus must be actively monitored by the judge to prevent mission creep, and the order would be open to change as circumstances demand.

[5] In addition to the Morwald-Benevides factors, I cited two additional reasons why an amicus may be appropriate in the specific circumstances of this case: the so-called 'silo effect' of family, criminal, and civil proceedings; and the existence of litigation abuse.

[6] First, I observed that the siloed nature of family, civil, and criminal proceedings inhibits the court's ability to fairly and efficiently decide critical questions regarding the financial support of the parties' three children. In addition to the family court proceedings which I am case managing, Mr. Larson has brought three civil actions against Ms. Reeve and is involved in more than a dozen other civil actions on matters involving his financial affairs. He is also facing a criminal prosecution for fraud. All of these court files arguably bear on Mr. Larson's past income, his ability to pay child support, and the question of imputing income, but virtually no information about these actions is before the court. I concluded that the silo approach "does a disservice to the administration of justice. [...] Important information and evidence can fall through the cracks": R. v. S.S.M., 2018 ONSC 4465, at para. 52.

[7] Second, I queried whether the existence of litigation abuse is a relevant consideration in appointing amicus. I concluded that there is at least a prima facie case that Mr. Larson is engaging in a pattern of conduct that has likely impacted Ms. Reeve's ability to participate meaningfully in the litigation. Moreover, the appointment of amicus may be an appropriate addition to the judge's toolbox to ensure that the court's processes are not used as a means of harassing, threatening, or otherwise abusing the opposing party.

Application of Factors

[8] Having regard to the Morwald-Benevides factors, I find that the following facts justify the need for the appointment of amicus:

a. The stakes for this family in this litigation are high. The three children are young, and the financial issues are complex. Mr. Larson is in arrears of his child support payments, but seeks the repayment of tens of thousands of dollars in alleged overpayments.

b. Legal Aid is not an adequate alternative. It is not known if Ms. Reeve will be approved for a Legal Aid Certificate. In any event, she has attempted to find a lawyer who will agree to go to trial on a Certificate and has not yet been successful. Mr. D'Andrea confirmed at the hearing that there is a dearth of family litigators in Stratford and the surrounding region who will represent clients on a Certificate. Mr. Larson advised the court today that he is eligible for Legal Aid but that he intends to represent himself.

c. Although an OCL s. 112 assessment is underway and will be critical to helping the court make final orders regarding parenting and decision-making, it will be of no assistance on the financial issues.

d. Even if Ms. Reeve retains counsel, an amicus is still needed to ensure that the court is making decisions in the children's best interests on the basis of a complete evidentiary record: W.A.C. v. C.A.F., 2021 ONSC 5140, at para. 48; G.S. v. S.B., 2022 ONSC 5383, at para. 23. In both W.A.C. and G.S., amicus was appointed notwithstanding that one party was represented.

e. Court assistance to the self-represented parties may not be sufficient. Questioning has not taken place, and disclosure is not being made. My observation as case management judge is that Ms. Reeve is not participating effectively. She is providing little evidence in response to Mr. Larson's many motions. According to Mr. Larson, Ms. Reeve has not filed a defence to at least one of his civil suits, so her lack of engagement in the family file is not unique. For his part, Mr. Larson is intent on representing himself. He has made numerous allegations of bias against the court, including in his most recent affidavit sworn November 26, 2025. He has on occasion treated the court and staff with disrespect, and he has defied court orders. In the circumstances, it is unlikely that court assistance to him will be sufficient to ensure that the litigation proceeds in an orderly and efficient manner.

[9] In addition to the factors set above, an amicus may be able to assist in breaking down the silos that exist between the various branches of our justice system to ensure the trial judge in the family matter has a complete evidentiary record. As mentioned, relevant information about Mr. Larson's financial history and status exists in parallel civil and criminal proceedings which neither party has produced to date.

[10] Finally, in my October 25 endorsement, I set out in some detail the basis on which I conclude that Mr. Larson is engaging in litigation abuse (at paras. 37-48). I will not repeat that evidence here. The evidence filed by the parties since October 25, 2025, confirms my finding. For example, Mr. Larson has defied two court orders relating to Ms. Reeve's participation at their son's hockey games and practices. He has again requested to schedule motions for matters that have been addressed on multiple previous occasions. And he is now attempting to further complicate the family matter by seeking standing for his common-law partner, Ms. Herr, on matters that affect Mr. Larson's and Ms. Reeve's children.

[11] An amicus may serve a behaviour modification purpose by assisting the parties in identifying relevant procedures, witnesses, and evidence. While the amicus is not responsible for curbing any continued litigation abuse -- that responsibility remains with the judges involved in these proceedings -- the assistance of amicus may mitigate the impacts of such abuse on the parties and the court's process.

[12] For all of these reasons, I appoint an amicus to assist the court in its role of ensuring that the trial, and the steps leading to trial, are orderly and fair to all parties.

Scope of Work

[13] This leads me to the scope of the work to be completed by the amicus. Ms. Ji and Mr. D'Andrea helpfully prepared a draft order on which they agree.

[14] Mr. Larson made several submissions regarding the terms of the order. He asks that the order specify the legal issues to be addressed by the amicus, including claims for unjust enrichment that he intends to add in an amended Answer. He also wanted to ensure the amicus understands that 'Ms. Herr has her own rights independent of his.'

[15] As I advised the parties at the hearing, the amicus is neither party's lawyer. Mr. Larson and Ms. Reeve will not have the authority to give instructions to the amicus, nor will they dictate the legal arguments to be advanced or determine which documents are relevant. The work of the amicus is dependent on the issues of the case as set out in the pleadings, and that need to be resolved at trial. For example, amicus is not required to bring a motion regarding Ms. Herr's standing but may assist the court in making a decision on the motion by ensuring relevant evidence and legal arguments are advanced by the parties.

Order

[16] The terms of the amicus' appointment are, therefore, as follows:

a. Amicus shall not act in a manner akin to counsel for any party and will not have a solicitor-client relationship with any of the parties in this matter.

b. Each party is responsible for determining the case they want to put forward. Amicus can provide comments to each party about their respective strategy.

c. Amicus shall not take any instructions from either party.

d. For amicus to be effective, the parties are encouraged to cooperate with amicus.

e. Amicus will be entitled to receive complete and continuing disclosure from both parties. Amicus should be added to Case Centre and granted full access to the court file.

f. Amicus shall be entitled to bring motions as necessary to ensure full disclosure of relevant documents is made in a timely manner.

g. Amicus shall assist the court in ensuring this matter steadily progresses towards trial. Once a trial date is set, the trial judge shall update the terms of this order to include a more detailed and precise scope of the amicus' duties.

h. Amicus shall assist the parties in understanding the trial process and procedural issues in the event and to the extent that the judge's guidance proves insufficient.

i. Amicus shall identify gaps in the evidence and how they may be filled.

j. Amicus shall assist the court to complete the trial management conference, by reviewing the trial material, discussing both parties' cases, and helping to complete the trial scheduling endorsement form.

k. Amicus shall be entitled to fully participate in the trial including to make opening statements, summon and examine witnesses; cross-examine witnesses and make evidentiary objections, as appropriate.

l. Amicus will be entitled to order the transcripts of any court appearance.

m. Amicus will abide by Legal Aid Ontario's policies and procedures and shall be paid at Legal Aid rates.

n. This order shall bind any future amicus who may be appointed by the court.

o. Legal Aid Ontario shall manage funding of amicus in accordance with this order, the Ministry of the Attorney General -- Legal Aid Ontario Protocol for Management of Court-Ordered Publicly Funded Counsel, and Legal Aid Ontario's policies and procedures, including authorizations for disbursements, monitoring and review of accounts, billing practices, and payment rules.

p. Amicus is at liberty to seek directions from the court, on notice to the parties, the Attorney General of Ontario, and Legal Aid Ontario, as may be necessary to carry out their duties.

q. In the event that either party retains counsel, notice shall be provided by counsel to the Attorney General of Ontario and Legal Aid Ontario, and the amicus shall only participate in the litigation as directed by the court.

r. Legal Aid Ontario shall make best efforts to locate, for the court's consideration, one or more member of the Law Society of Ontario in good standing with experience in family litigation and complex financial evidence, who is willing to assume the mandate set out in this order, and who has no actual or potential conflict of interest with any of the parties to the proceeding.

[17] Mr. D'Andrea has kindly volunteered to identify a list of potential amici for my consideration. He is asked to send the list to my attention via SCJ.CSJ.Decisions.Windsor@ontario.ca.

Jasminka Kalajdzic Justice

Date: December 4, 2025