SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-000059655-0000

DATE: 2025/12/18

RE: Louis Maduabuchi Ibeh, Applicant

AND:

Obioma Scholastica Ibeh, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice M. Tweedie

COUNSEL: Samalie Nsubuga, Counsel for the Applicant

Udoka Okeke, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: November 3, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

[ 1 ] This matter was scheduled for a settlement conference on November 3, 2025. Neither party uploaded their settlement conference briefs to the appropriate Case Center bundle for the appearance. Only confirmations were uploaded.

[ 2 ] This was not the first time that counsel had not filed and/or uploaded documents:

• A settlement conference scheduled for April 7, 2025, was struck given neither party uploaded materials.

• Motions were set to be heard on May 12, 2025, but neither counsel appropriately uploaded documents to case center. The motions were adjourned to date to be obtained from the trial coordinator before June 13, 2025.

• On July 2, 2025, the above noted motions were heard. The endorsement includes the following:

“On June 11, 2025, the court …addressed the issue of counsel properly uploading material into the correct case centre bundle. Despite that, the Respondent did not upload her May 16, 2025 affidavit in the correct bundle. The court was able to locate and read that affidavit.”

• On September 19, 2025, neither the Respondent nor the Respondent’s counsel attended a settlement conference nor was a brief uploaded to Case Center for the Respondent. The parties were ordered for the second time to attend intake meetings for mediation and the settlement conference was adjourned to November 3, 2025. Counsel for the Applicant was present when that date was set.

[ 3 ] For the settlement conference scheduled for November 3, 2025, I could not review the relevant documents for the appearance because they had not been uploaded to Case Center.

[ 4 ] Given the history outlined above, upon finding that counsel had not uploaded their materials to the Case Center bundle for the settlement conference before me on November 3, 2025, I reviewed Family Law Rule 24(11) with counsel at the outset of the conference. I invited each counsel to make submissions regarding the application of that rule to the current situation. I stood the matter down to give them an opportunity to prepare submissions.

[ 5 ] Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules sets out as follows:

Representative at fault

(11) If a party’s representative has run up costs related to a step in a case without reasonable cause or has wasted costs, the court may, on motion or on its own initiative after giving the representative an opportunity to be heard, make one or more of the following orders:

1. That the representative shall not charge client fees or disbursements for work specified in the order.

2. That the representative must repay any money that the party has already paid toward costs.

3. That the representative must repay the party any costs that the party has been ordered to pay another party.

4. That the representative must personally pay the costs of any party.

5. That a copy of the order be given to the party

[ 6 ] The Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction for Family Proceedings at the Superior Court of Justice, Amended, February 6, 2025, effective June 1, 2023 provides as follows:

Materials must be uploaded to Case Center as follows and in accordance with the following deadlines:

Documents must be uploaded at least 5 days in advance of the hearing, or at the same time as any filing deadlines that are less than 5 days as set out by a rule of court or a regional practice direction or notice to the profession.

Parties are encouraged to upload their accepted court filings into Case Center as soon as they receive access to the case and bundle.

All documents must be uploaded in PDF format. The indexes to all Records should include hyperlinked book-marks. Factums must also be uploaded in Word format.

Upload documents into the specific bundle created for the hearing. Do not upload documents into the Master Bundle.

[ 7 ] In the Notice to the Profession and Public – Central South Region: Uploading Material to Case Center May 8, 2025, the following directive is provided:

UPLOADING TO CASE CENTER: CIVIL AND FAMILY CASES

(*This Notice currently does not apply to cases that are brought under the Child Youth and Family Services Act).

[1] The Superior Court of Justice requires counsel to upload your properly filed documents to Case Center (formerly known as CaseLines). (See Part 1 B of the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction (Family) and Part II A for the Consolidated Provincial Practice Directions (Civil)) The Court has observed that counsel have not always been diligent in complying with this obligation.

[2] Judges will no longer be reviewing documents for an event unless those documents are uploaded to Case Center in accordance with the Practice direction referenced above . If you do not upload your documents to Case Center, your matter may be adjourned. (emphasis not added)

[ 8 ] In addition to these two directives from the Office of the Chief Justice and Office of the Regional Senior Justice for the Central South Region, Justice Breithaupt Smith endorsed in this matter on April 5, 2025, as follows, citing her own decision in Demetriou v. Jamali, 2025 ONSC 1683 :

[8] Case Center has been in use for almost three years. At no time were parties permitted to upload materials without ensuring their proper service and filing. As Justice Piccoli wrote in the unreported case of Dragomir v. Lucuta (Court File No. FC-10-FS-44165-003 heard at Kitchener on November 11, 2024):

We have long been taking a lenient approach to issues with materials out of compassion for litigants and counsel and in an attempt to ensure access to justice. However, as former Senior Family Judge Czutrin famously reminded us, "what we permit, we promote."

[ 9 ] Counsel for the Applicant submitted as follows:

a. The Applicant was seeking an adjournment. When it was learned that the adjournment was not agreed to, the confirmation was uploaded to the appropriate Case Center bundle on October 29, 2025.

b. The confirmation uploaded on October 29, 2025, referred the court to the previous settlement conference brief which was available in another Case Center bundle.

[ 10 ] Counsel for the Respondent submitted as follows:

a. All documents relied upon were located in the Case Center bundle for the last settlement conference date.

b. It was not counsel’s responsibility to upload documents to a new bundle when the matter is adjourned.

c. Counsel had been diligent and complied with court rules.

[ 11 ] None of these arguments convince me that orders should not be made pursuant to Rule 24(11). Court rules and Practice Directions were not followed. Documents were not uploaded. It is counsel’s responsibility, not the court’s, to ensure all documents are uploaded to the correct bundle.

[ 12 ] The use of Case Center is not new. The Ontario Superior Court judiciary was patient with counsel at the introduction of CaseLines, now Case Center, to allow time to transition and ensure access to justice for litigants, but the time for patience has long expired. The Central South Region issued a clear warning to counsel in its May 8, 2025 Notice to the Profession regarding the risks if documents were not properly uploaded to Case Center.

[ 13 ] A review of Settlement Conference briefs by the presiding judge in advance of the conference is necessary to ensure the judge understands what issues are before the court, understands the strength of each party’s case, and understands the position of the parties including where they align and where they do not. This information is necessary to ensure that the settlement discussions are focused and efficient, to enable the judge to provide meaningful opinions, and to enable the judge to identify evidence that is missing and necessary in anticipation of trial. Without the relevant documents, it is difficult, if not impossible, to have a meaningful conference.

[ 14 ] This decision is being made in the context of other instances related to the actions of counsel on this matter which have otherwise wasted court resources:

• A “to be spoken to” appearance was required to be held on May 1, 2025, to sort out the inappropriately drafted motions each party had before the court at that time.

• Counsel filed inappropriately sworn affidavits for the May 12, 2025 motion. Both counsel filed affidavits in which the exhibits were commissioned on a date different than the date the affiant signed. As a result, the evidence was not admissible, and an adjournment would have been required even if counsel had properly uploaded documents to Case Center.

• At the July 2, 2025, motion the court endorsed:

“both counsel made submissions not in evidence and made submissions which were misrepresentations. It was clear to the court that counsel [were] not properly prepared; much time was spent by counsel looking for documents; looking up legislation and caselaw. Both parties in their affidavit material disparaged the lawyer opposite which is neither civil nor appropriate. This motion was set for a short motion and took almost 2 hours to argue.”

[ 15 ] The November 3, 2025 settlement conference date was another wasted court appearance in this matter that could have been used by the several families who are waiting to have their matters heard in Kitchener. It was lost time for which these parties will be charged by their counsel but achieved no progress towards resolving the matter or moving it forward towards trial. The lack of progress on November 3, 2025, was solely as a result of counsel not uploading documents, and not due to any action or inaction of the parties themselves.

[ 16 ] The primary object of the Family Law Rules is set out in Rule 2:

Primary objective

(2) The primary objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly.

Dealing with cases justly

(3) Dealing with a case justly includes,

(a) ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties;

(b) saving expense and time;

(c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and

(d) giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases.

[ 17 ] Family Law Rule 2(4) requires the court to promote the primary objective and requires counsel to help the court promote the primary objective.

[ 18 ] Practice Directions and Notices to the Profession provide procedural instructions to lawyers and litigants. These instructions promote the primary objective of the Rules . Practice Directions and Notices to the Profession will have no purpose if they are not followed or enforced. I echo the words I quoted above: what we permit we promote.

[ 19 ] What compels me to make an order in this matter is the number of times in this proceeding that both lawyers have not been prepared for court appearances and have not properly uploaded documents. Counsel have not met the obligation required of them pursuant to Family Law Rule 2(4) to help the court in promoting the primary objective, a nd if I do not make an order here, I am not meeting my own obligation under that rule. I find that in order to ensure compliance in the future, an order is required pursuant to Family Law Rule 24(11).

ORDER

[1] Pursuant to Family Law Rule 24(11) Samalie Nsubuga and Udoka Okeke shall not charge client fees or disbursements to their clients for:

a. Drafting of the settlement conference brief for the September 19, 2025, and November 3, 2025 settlement conference;

b. Drafting of the confirmation of conference for the November 3, 2025 settlement conference;

c. Costs of preparation for the November 3, 2025 settlement conference;

d. Costs of serving any documents related to the November 3, 2025 settlement conference.

e. Costs of attendance at the November 3, 2025 settlement conference;

f. Travel and accommodation costs for the November 3, 2025 settlement conference.

g. Any other disbursements or time spent referrable to the November 3, 2025 court appearance.

[2] Court staff are directed to email this endorsement to counsel and to the parties directly at [email address redacted] and [email address redacted].

M. Tweedie, J.

Date: December 18, 2025

Release

COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-000059655-0000

DATE: 2025/12/18

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Louis Maduabuchi Ibeh Applicant – and – Obioma Scholastica Ibeh Respondent Endorsement M. Tweedie J.

Released: December 18, 2025