SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-23-00034560-0000

DATE: 20251204

RE: Adrian Nicolae Georgescu, Applicant

AND:

Elena Georgescu, Respondent

Ministry of the Attorney General, Respondent

BEFORE: Mathen J.

COUNSEL: Pamila Bhardwaj , for the Respondent – Elena Georgescu

Diane Katwaroo , for the Respondent – Ministry of the Attorney General

HEARD: December 02, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

[ 1 ] This is a motion brought by the Applicant, Adrian Georgescu, for what he says is the Ministry of the Attorney General’s (MAG) non-compliance with a disclosure order. On this motion, Adrian was self-represented.

[ 2 ] The order in question was issued by Justice Ramsay at a motion heard on September 11, 2025.

[ 3 ] In brief, while I find MAG’s conduct to be unsatisfactory, I dismiss Adrian’s motion to enforce what he says is an order for the Crown’s “unredacted file”. Granting Adrian’s request would require setting aside any privilege in the records, which include legal opinion and work product. Given the lack of any meaningful discussion of privilege in Her Honour’s endorsement – which is entirely due to how MAG participated in that motion – I decline to interpret the order in that way.

[ 4 ] Drawing in part on the September 2025 endorsement, the history of this case is as follows.

[ 5 ] The parties are involved in a high conflict family law case that is scheduled for trial beginning February 9, 2026.

[ 6 ] Adrian was charged with assault against the Respondent, Elena Georgescu, in July 2023. Those charges were subsequently withdrawn. There are no pending investigations.

[ 7 ] Adrian seeks the Crown brief about those charges, so he can impeach Elena at trial.

[ 8 ] Adrian first contacted the Crown about his file in November 2024. The Crown did not respond until May 7, 2025, when it released Adrian’s criminal lawyer from their undertaking for the purpose of forwarding the criminal disclosure records to the Crown to be screened in accordance with the Crown’s WAGG process.

[ 9 ] The Crown received the file from defence counsel on June 20, 2025.

[ 10 ] The Crown communicated nothing further to Adrian until it appeared at the motion before Justice Ramsay. The WAGG process had not been completed. It is unclear whether it had begun.

[ 11 ] In her endorsement, Justice Ramsay stated that:

a. MAG sought an adjournment of the motion until November in order to “conduct a review of the file to then provide their position.” MAG did not provide a draft order for what it was requesting to the applicant, who was self-represented, “to assist him and the court to understand any of the concerns.”

b. MAG could not advise the court of any documents it had flagged for any reason. This was despite MAG being in possession of the record since June 2025.

c. MAG had not identified any other agencies which might need to be informed about any of the materials.

d. It would be unfair to the Applicant (Adrian) to proceed to trial without the records.

[ 12 ] Consequently, Her Honour ordered that the “unredacted Crown brief in respect of the criminal proceedings against the applicant be disclosed to the parties within 30 days.” She also ordered that neither party disclose the contents of the brief “to any other individual or entity without leave of the court.”

[ 13 ] On September 25, 2025, MAG provided the brief that had been returned by defence counsel. That brief contained redactions made by the Crown prior to disclosure. In other words, while MAG did not make any additional redactions, it did not ‘unredact’ those portions of the brief that had always been blacked out.

[ 14 ] Adrian objected that MAG was ordered to disclose the file without any redactions.

[ 15 ] MAG sought an urgent case conference before Justice Ramsay. Adrian appears to have agreed to this. The parties were directed to To Be Spoken To (TBST) Court instead. It appears that privilege was not extensively discussed, in part because MAG's TBST materials were incorrectly filed. The presiding judge, Justice Diamond, rejected MAG's request for urgent intervention, stating:

The terms of Justice Ramsay’s Endorsement dated September 11, 2025 are clear: the unredacted Crown Brief must be produced by the Ministry of the Attorney General (“AG”).

What the AG has apparently produced – a copy of the Crown Brief that had been redacted by defence counsel – does not comply with the terms of Justice Ramsay’s Endorsement. Absent a further direction or Order from Justice Ramsay, her Honour’s Order must be followed.

[ 16 ] When MAG failed to provide an unredacted brief. Adrian brought this motion. MAG again sought an urgent case conference through emails to the Court on November 19 and November 21, 2025. It did not receive a reply.

[ 17 ] At the motion before me, MAG advises that aside from some administrative redactions for file numbers and so forth, the material that the Crown has kept redacted is:

a. An email from the Crown Attorney to the Toronto Police Service dated October 19, 2023, providing legal advice, specifically with respect to the evidence in the criminal proceedings against the Applicant.

b. Crown Notes.

c. A memorandum prepared by the Crown Attorney to the Children’s Aid Society that contains the legal opinion of the Crown Attorney.

d. Victim Input Form containing notes by the Crown Attorney.

PARTY POSITIONS

[ 18 ] Adrian accuses MAG of disregarding the rule of law. He argues that MAG is in breach of not just the Ramsay J. order but the Diamond J. endorsement. He needs the fully unredacted Crown brief to fairly present his case in the upcoming family law trial. He says it is absurd to think that the Crown is obligated only to release the (redacted) brief already provided to his defence counsel, as that does not give him additional information. Adrian flatly rejects the idea that privilege is a legitimate concern. He says MAG could have, but failed, to make that argument to Justice Ramsay. He also points out that MAG could have, but failed, to appeal Justice Ramsay’s order. In addition, the fact that Her Honour enjoined the parties from disclosing any part of the brief without leave of the Court shows that she was alive to any privilege issues.

[ 19 ] MAG argues that it complied with the original order by producing the brief that the Crown originally disclosed to defence counsel. MAG has tried to seek clarity from Justice Ramsay. MAG acknowledges that Justice Ramsay found its timelines for production to be unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, MAG says that this court could not have intended MAG to disclose information such as privileged communications and work product by Crown Attorneys. MAG cites Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 , which allows for production of documents in the control of a non-party if those documents are not protected by a legal privilege.

[ 20 ] While Elena does not object to Adrian receiving a copy of the Crown brief, her counsel made some helpful submissions. Counsel points out that, even if Adrian already had possession of the brief from his lawyer, he could not simply have introduced it at trial. Counsel argues that Justice Ramsay was dealing with the matter on the basis of urgency because the Crown had not yet formally disclosed the brief. Her Honour did not state that she was overriding MAG’s ordinary screening process for documents in accordance with the WAGG protocol. Nor did Justice Ramsay conclude that a breach of Crown privilege would be warranted – her endorsement did not reach that issue. Elena’s counsel says that such a conclusion would require a different, more involved argument than the one presented at the September motion.

ANALYSIS

[ 21 ] The following analysis contains my findings of fact on a balance of probabilities.

[ 22 ] MAG bears most of the blame for this situation. The parties would not be in their current predicament if MAG had been timely in its WAGG review so that Justice Ramsay could have considered MAG’s position about privileged information contained in the Crown brief.

[ 23 ] I understand why Adrian is trying to obtain the brief without any redactions. The use of the term “unredacted” would seem to indicate, especially to someone who is self-represented, that the Crown must provide a brief that has no blacklines.

[ 24 ] I also acknowledge that the endorsement at the TBST appearance could imply that this court has already opined on the question of MAG’s compliance.

[ 25 ] Nevertheless, I cannot find that MAG is in breach of an order based on the idea that it wrongly declined to redact material that, on a balance of probabilities, is privileged.

[ 26 ] Due to MAG’s dilatoriness, Justice Ramsay confronted a black box. MAG could not be of assistance, because it had not completed its WAGG review. Therefore, Justice Ramsay did not address questions of privilege. Adrian relies on the bare term “unredacted” used in the order. However, where something like a class privilege is involved, I cannot conclude that this court would have intended to breach that privilege without any acknowledgment, or underlying analysis, that the court was prepared to do so. Therefore, I decline to interpret Justice Ramsay’s order as requiring the Crown to disclose privileged information.

[ 27 ] Nor do I accept that the short TBST endorsement binds the outcome of this motion. TBST Court involves appearances of approximately 20 minutes, with briefs limited to 3 pages. I find it more likely than not that the specific questions around privilege were not fully discussed. For example, the endorsement says the redactions were made by defence counsel, not the Crown. This indicates a quick appearance that almost certainly did not give the presiding judge an opportunity to fully consider the issues at stake – which TBST Court is not intended to do in any event. I do not accept that the endorsement reflects a conclusion by this court that MAG had been ordered to disclose privileged information.

[ 28 ] In conclusion, I decline to find MAG in breach of Justice Ramsay’s order.

[ 29 ] Although I must dismiss Adrian’s motion, I will not award costs against him. I do not fault Adrian for bringing this motion. The court is gravely concerned by MAG’s failure to respond in a timely way to the initial request for the Crown brief. The only reason I will not make a costs award against MAG is that Adrian and Elena each stated that they did not seek one.

ORDER

[2] The motion is dismissed.

Mathen J.

Date: December 04, 2025