Robidoux v. Amiti, 2026 ONSC 2276

CITATION: Robidoux v. Amiti, 2026 ONSC 2276

NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: CV-26-1192-00

OSHAWA DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-1726-00

DATE: 20260416

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Matthew Robidoux Applicant

– and –

Sanija Amiti Respondent

Matthew Robidoux, Self-Represented

No one appearing for the Respondent

HEARD: April 1, 2026

CHARNEY J.:

1The Applicant, Matthew Robidoux, brings this Application for an Order to anonymize the style of cause, nunc pro tunc, and prohibit the identity of the parents and the subject child in the Newmarket Family Court Application bearing Court File # FC-24-1374-00.

2The Application came before me as an “urgent motion”.

3There is a long history that precedes this Application, and it is necessary to review that history in order to properly address this Application.

Background: Family Court Application Court File # FC-24-1374-00

4Newmarket Family Court Application Court File # FC-24-1374-00 relates to an Application commenced by the Applicant father, Matthew Robidoux, on August 30, 2024, for an order granting the father parenting time with the parties’ child and various other relief relating to decision making responsibility for the child. The Respondent mother sought an order seeking the ability to relocate with the child to Croatia.

5The matter was dealt with by the court on several occasions, and was subject to several interlocutory endorsements, all of which used the full style of cause¹. The trial was scheduled to commence on December 1, 2025.

6Prior to the trial, the Applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal certain interlocutory decisions relating to the trial procedure to the Divisional Court, and a motion to stay the trial pending his motion for leave to appeal. In his Notice of Appeal, the Applicant unilaterally amended the style of cause to use only the parties’ initials: “M.R.” and “S.A.” This amendment to the style of cause was not made with judicial authorization.

7The motion for leave to appeal and to stay the trial were not triaged until December 2, 2025, after the trial had already commenced. On December 2, 2025, the Triage Judge sent a Direction to inquire whether the Applicant intended to continue with these motions given that the motions appeared to be moot. On December 12, 2025, the Triage Judge issued a Direction dismissing the motions because they were moot.

8The trial proceeded before Justice Himel on December 1 and 2, 2025. In her decision, Robidoux v. Amiti, 2025 ONSC 6819, Himel J. granted the father supervised parenting time with the child and permitted the mother to relocate with the child to Croatia, effective the date of her oral decision (December 3, 2025). As is the practice in parenting disputes, the child’s name is not used in the decision, only the initials “M.A.”.

9On December 4, 2025, the Applicant wrote to the Trial Coordinator as follows:

The style of cause has been changed to anonymize the parties with pseudonyms (the parties initials) in accordance with section 87(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, which for ease of reference states the following:

“No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.”

Please forward this to Himel J. so that she is aware.

10The Trial Coordinator forwarded the Applicant’s email to Justice Himel, who provided the following direction to the parties on December 4, 2025:

Justice Himel advises that the father does not have the Court’s permission to contact her through court staff.

Under r. 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and r. 1(12.2) of the Family Law Rules, no party to the proceeding and no party’s lawyer shall communicate about the proceeding with a judge out of court directly or indirectly unless (a) all the parties consent in advance to the out-of-court communication or (b) the court orders otherwise.

Moreover, even if permission had been granted, a party cannot communicate in any way without copying the other party as is the case here.

The trial is complete, the decision has been released, and this Court is now functus.

As a courtesy to the parties Justice Himel is responding to the father’s concern. Justice Himel advises that this matter was heard pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act, and not the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. The open court principle, and restrictions against initializing govern this matter. The provisions in the CYFSA do not apply.

Divisional Court Appeal, Court File # DC-25-1726-00; FC-24-1374-00

11Following the release of the written Decision of Himel J. on December 9, 2025, the Applicant appealed the decision to the Divisional Court and brought an urgent motion for a stay pending the appeal.

12The motion for a stay pending appeal was dismissed by Cameron J. on December 22, 2025: M.R. v. A.S., 2025 ONSC 7168. Again, in his motion material and Notice of Appeal the Applicant unilaterally amended the style of cause to use only the parties’ initials: “M.R. v. S.A.” This amendment to the style of cause was not made with judicial authorization and was contrary to the Direction of Himel J. dated December 4, 2025.

13On December 22, 2025, the Applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to ask a full panel of the Divisional Court to review the Decision of Cameron J.

14On December 29, 2025, the Applicant brought a motion in the Divisional Court to amend the style of cause in the Divisional Court proceedings to use the initials “M.R.” and “S.A.” and for a corresponding retroactive amendment to the style of cause in Himel J.’s December 9, 2025 Decision.

15The Applicant stated that this motion was on consent, and included what purported to be the signed consent of the Respondent. The motion material was not served on or copied to the Respondent.

16The Divisional Court wrote to the Applicant to advise that his motion would not be considered unless it was served on the Respondent. A copy of this correspondence was also sent to the Respondent.

17On January 7, 2026, the Respondent wrote to the Court and advised as follows:

I wish to state clearly and unequivocally that I did not give my consent to any motion to anonymize the style of cause, and I did not sign any document authorizing such a request. Any materials filed purporting to be “on consent” and bearing my signature are false. I am attaching a screenshot of my message to Mr. Robidoux confirming that I expressly refused consent after he asked for it.

If leave is granted for this anonymity motion, I want to make it clear that I oppose it and will be filing responding materials.

18The Respondent further stated that she was first served with a different version of the motion materials on December 31, 2025 with all references to the consent material removed.

19These two motions – the s. 21(5) motion to review the decision of Cameron J. and the motion to initialize the style of cause – were case managed by Justice Corbett in an effort to expedite the s. 21(5) review and the appeal. Corbett J. issued a Direction to the parties on January 12, 2026 addressing procedural issues and advising that the Court would try to schedule the appeal of Himel J.’s decision in March 2026, which would render the review of Cameron J.’s decision unnecessary. That Direction included the following with respect to the request for anonymization of the parties’ names:

Finally, the parties’ names are initialized below but appear not to be initialized on the Divisional Court file. The parties are directed to advise the court of the terms of any anonymization order that may have been made in the Superior Court proceedings, and their position on whether that order should apply to the Divisional Court proceedings.

20On January 14, 2026, Corbett J. issued the following Direction to the parties, indicating that the anonymization motion would proceed at the same time as the appeal:

Anonymization

While the parties disagree with the history of the appellant’s request to anonymize proceedings, it appears that they both agree that no such order has been made. In the absence of such an order, the proceedings are not anonymized.

Either party may seek an anonymization order, and if they wish to do so they shall serve motion materials to this effect, in the Divisional Court appeal proceedings, and that motion may be heard at the time the appeal is heard. Any party bringing such a motion should serve their materials early enough to ensure that the responding party has at least two weeks to file responding materials before the hearing of the appeal. It will be for the panel hearing the appeal to sort out what to do about that motion, if it is brought. In the meantime, there is no anonymization order, and the parties’ materials shall be filed using their names and not initials.

21The Applicant responded to Corbett J.’s Direction on January 14, 2026, insisting that the motion to anonymize precede the appeal. His correspondence to the Court stated:

Justice Corbett seems to be unaware than an urgent motion has already been properly brought, served, filed and perfected with respect to the anonymization issue.

The moving party/ appellant is not prepared to proceed with the underlying appeal unless and until this urgent and perfected motion is heard and determined by a single judge of the Divisional Court before the appeal proceedings commence. Please provide a short motion date as soon as possible for the already perfected urgent motion. Thank you kindly.

22The Applicant wrote to the Court again on January 21, 2026, stating:

If the Divisional Court at Toronto cannot accommodate an urgent single judge motion at this time for a date in the near future (for less then an hour), then I would respectfully submit that it can easily be added onto an existing civil motions docket at Oshawa where these appellate proceedings commenced. Given that every judge of the Superior Court of Justice if also a judge of the Divisional Court, pursuant to ss. 18 (3) of the CJA, the latter option should not be an issue in any event.

23The Respondent replied on January 22, 2026, stating:

It is my understanding from Justice Corbett’s directions of January 14, 2026 that any anonymization motion may be heard at the same time as the appeal, and that it will be for the panel hearing the appeal to determine how to deal with it. I support maintaining that approach and having all issues addressed together on March 24, 2026, as recently scheduled.

In the meantime, it has been clarified that the appeal materials are not to be anonymized at this stage, and Mr. Robidoux’s filed motion is not in the correct style of cause to begin with.

There is no child-related urgency that requires this issue to be heard separately in advance of the appeal.

For these reasons, I would prefer that the Court maintain the current scheduling and deal with all issues together on March 24, 2026.

24The Applicant sent a further reply on January 22, 2026, stating:

There is absolutely no overlap as the underlying issues of the appeal proper grounds and the anonymization matter are separate and distinct. Indeed, the anonymization issue forms none of the subject grounds of appeal and is thus a legal issue being raised outside of the four corners of the appeal proper (no cross-appeal), which frames the underlying panel issues.

Perfecting the appeal proper now without the statutory confidentiality protections that I am otherwise entitled to as well as filing further private and confidential medical and financial records on a public record will further exacerbate the mental and emotional harm being caused to a parent party and the child’s current and future privacy interests.

If I cannot obtain a single judge motion date in the near future from this court, then I will have no choice but to instruct counsel to bring a Notice of Application in the Superior Court of Justice general civil procedure and seek the urgent relief sought or in the alternative, an interim injunctive (mandatory order) relief. This would give the Court of Appeal for Ontario inherent jurisdiction for appellate review over this issue and is not something that I desire to do; however, out of necessity and given the dire urgency of this underlying issue, which is separate and distinct from the appeal proper issues/ grounds of appeal, it requires the relief sought, forthwith, as the evidence (including cogent, tangible and verifiable medical evidence) clearly indicates.

Again, I respectfully request that my properly perfected and pending urgent motion from last year be scheduled to be heard before a single judge for a virtual motion that will be under an hour and court staff advises that it can be accommodated, forthwith, with His Honour's approval. Thank you kindly.

25On January 27, 2026, Corbett J. provided the following Direction to the parties:

Case management is not a reiterative process. The court has given comprehensive directions for moving forward to the hearing of this appeal, which is scheduled on an expedited basis for the end of March. The parties are not to send further materials to the case management judge unless they are seeking a case management direction: their attention should be focused on finalizing their appeal materials, and the proper place for them to make their arguments on the merits is in their factums and before the appeal panel.

The Appellant seeks a date for a motion for an anonymization order prior to the appeal period. This request is now an abuse of process. That request was denied below, and recourse from that decision may be sought from the appeal panel as part of the appeal. Further, this court gave clear case management directions to the parties about how they may pursue an anonymization order in this court, as follows:

“Either party may seek an anonymization order, and if they wish to do so they shall serve motion materials to this effect, in the Divisional Court appeal proceedings, and that motion may be heard at the time the appeal is heard. Any party bringing such a motion should serve their materials early enough to ensure that the responding party has at least two weeks to file responding materials before the hearing of the appeal. It will be for the panel hearing the appeal to sort out what to do about that motion, if it is brought. In the meantime, there is no anonymization order, and the parties’ materials shall be filed using their names and not initials.”

The court does not anticipate a need for further case management directions – it appears to the court that all directions necessary to ready the appeal for argument have been given. No party may bring a motion prior to the appeal without permission from the case management judge. Further, no party may bring a motion returnable to the appeal panel unless the case management has so directed.

A copy of my case management directions shall be provided to the panel hearing the appeal.

26The appeal to the Divisional Court was scheduled to be heard on March 24, 2026.

27On February 4, 2026, Justice Corbett issued a further Direction addressing several concerns raised by the Appellant relating to his obtaining transcripts and his desire to retain counsel. Corbett J. also reiterated the Court’s position with respect to the anonymization motion, stating:

Anonymization order: this court has been clear about the process any party may follow in this court to seek an anonymization order. That request shall be made by motion returnable before the panel hearing the appeal. There will be no motion heard respecting such a request prior to the appeal hearing. If the panel grants the order, it may include whatever terms it considers necessary in respect to materials that have been filed.

28On February 6, 2026, the Applicant wrote to the Divisional Court protesting Justice Corbett’s Direction and advising that if Justice Corbett did not reconsider his Direction and permit his motion to proceed before the appeal “I will be left with no choice but to abandon my single judge anonymization motion in the Oshawa Divisional Court and…move to file a Notice of Application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice”. He gave Justice Corbett a deadline of end of business day on Tuesday, February 10, 2026.

29Finally, on February 24, 2026, Corbett J. advised the parties that the March 24, 2026 hearing date before the Divisional Court was cancelled in light of the continuing delay in obtaining the transcript, to be rescheduled once a fresh schedule was settled. With regard to the Applicant’s stated intention to bring an Application in the Superior Court, Corbett J. stated:

Mr Robidoux has raised concerns with the court’s directions respecting anonymization. The court has issued clear directions. Mr Robidoux shall follow them. In particular, if he wishes to seek an anonymization order in the Divisional Court, he may deliver complete motion materials for that motion, returnable before the panel hearing his appeal. He may not bring a motion before a single Divisional Court judge in respect to that issue, nor may he commence a separate application seeking that relief; he shall deal with that issue within the appeal. Any concerns that Mr Robidoux has with those directions may be raised with the appeal panel. (Emphasis added)

Analysis

30This Application is an abuse of process for several reasons and must therefore be dismissed.

Failure to Serve the Respondent

31The first reason is that the Applicant has not served the Respondent with the Notice of Application as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Application must be dismissed on that ground alone.

32In an attempt to circumvent Corbett J.’s several case management directions, the Applicant commenced a new Application by serving a Notice of Application (Form 14 E).²

33The Notice of Application is an originating process (Rule 14.05) and must be served personally on the Respondent in accordance with Rule 16.01 and 16.02. As Morgan J. stated in Obsidian Group Inc. v. Google LLC, 2022 ONSC 848, at para. 12:

But the Rule 16.01(1) requirement of personal service rather than email or other type of service for an originating process is not a technical requirement; it is an important procedural safeguard that insists that the most reliable form of notice be given to a party when they first learn that a lawsuit or other legal proceeding is being brought against them. It is, at bottom, meant to ensure that legal claims are not brought and remedies are not issued against parties who from the outset did not know about the claim.

34The Notice of Application was not served personally on the Respondent.

35In addition, the Affidavit of Service filed by the Applicant in this matter states that the Notice of Application was served by email on March 25, 2026 at sanijaamiti@yahoo.com.

36The email address indicated in the Affidavit of Service is not the Respondent’s email address on record with the Superior Court, or the Divisional Court, or the email address used by the Respondent to communicate with the Court.

37There is no evidence that the email address referenced in the Affidavit of Service is the correct email address.

38In addition, the Applicant advises that the Respondent now resides in Croatia. If he wants to commence a new Application against her, he must comply with Rule 17, Service Outside Ontario.

39Finally, a Notice of Application requires a minimum notice period of 10 days, 20 days for parties residing outside of Ontario (Rule 38.06(3)). Even if properly served (which she was not), the Respondent was given only 6 days notice. While the Applicant claimed that the Application was urgent, given the lengthy history of this matter and the Respondent’s clearly stated opposition to the same relief requested in the Divisional Court, there was no reason why the Respondent could not be given at least the minimum statutory notice. In any event, this Application was not urgent.

Failure to Appeal Himel J.’s refusal to anonymize the Style of Cause

40As indicated above, on December 4, 2025, prior to the release of her written decision, Himel J. expressly declined the Applicant’s request to anonymize the style of cause. This decision qualifies as an interlocutory decision.

41The Applicant has appealed Himel J.’s final decision to the Divisional Court, and that appeal may include any interlocutory rulings made, which merge with the final decision once it is released: Rassouli-Rashti v. Tayefi, 2021 ONSC 7996, at para. 6; Peoples Trust Company v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 1281, at para. 12. The Applicant could have included the refusal to anonymize the style of cause as a ground of appeal. He did not.

42The Applicant’s Notice of Application and Application Record in the matter before me make no reference to Himel J.’s December 4, 2025 Direction declining his anonymization request.

43This oversight is not fatal to his Application, but it is an oversight that should be corrected in any future proceeding where this issue is raised.

Failure to Reference Corbett J.’s Directions

44Corbett J.’s several directions to the parties made it clear that if the Applicant wanted to request the anonymization of Himel J.’s decision, that issue that had to be raised before the panel hearing the appeal from her decision.

45Corbett J.’s Triage Court direction made abundantly clear that the Applicant was not permitted to “bring a motion before a single Divisional Court judge in respect to that issue [anonymization], nor may he commence a separate application seeking that relief; he shall deal with that issue within the appeal”.

46The Applicant’s Notice of Application and Application Record in the matter before me make no reference to Corbett J.’s directions. He has simply ignored them.

47The Applicant obviously does not like Corbett J.’s directions. He is free to ask a full panel of the Divisional Court to review and set aside those directions under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act. He is not, however, permitted to pretend that the directions were never given and disregard them. He is not permitted to bring an Application in direct contradiction to those directions. That is an abuse of process.

48Had the Respondent to this Application been properly served, I would have dismissed the Application as an abuse of process.

Conclusion

49Based on the foregoing, the Application is dismissed, without prejudice to the Applicant bringing a motion to the panel that hears his appeal from the decision of Himel J., in accordance with the case conference directions given by Corbett J.

Justice R.E. Charney

Released: April 16, 2026