Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Clifford Chadwick James Dawson, Applicant
AND:
Crystal Kimberly Troup, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz
COUNSEL: Joan M. Cushon, Counsel, for the Applicant Alexandria Palazzo, Counsel, for the Respondent
HEARD: January 16, 2026
Endorsement
1This was a motion about a car. In fact it was a contested request for an adjournment. One of the issues was whether this would be a regular motion or a long motion.
2For a 2008 car.
3The parties separated in November 2017.
4For a while they litigated in Milton. In 2023 they transferred the file to Hamilton. They still don’t have a trial date – not because we couldn’t offer one, but simply because they have never been ready.
5They had a Settlement Conference on April 15, 2025 with Justice Lafreniere. The good news is that they settled parenting issues. The bad news is that disclosure still hadn’t been finalized as of that date, so Justice Lafreniere had to make a disclosure order.
6But now the file has come back with a specific motion brought by the Applicant in relation to possession and ownership of a car.
a. In 2021 the Applicant served a Request to Admit which included terms relating to the car.
b. The Respondent’s first lawyer didn’t respond. Her second lawyer didn’t respond until long after the deadline had passed.
c. The Applicant says the car is a simple issue. The Respondent disagrees.
d. It is unclear why the Applicant brought this motion almost five years after his Request to Admit, while the main application has languished.
7And the materials indicate that the Applicant is contemplating soon bringing a separate motion for disclosure, and then scheduling a Trial Scheduling Conference.
8Several thoughts arise.
9First, this file is taking much longer than most of our files, and the delay has nothing to do with an overcrowded court system. The main issue appears to be child support. Disclosure issues should have been resolved well in advance of the April 15, 2025 Settlement Conference. Justice Lafrenière’s endorsement should have been followed up on much more quickly.
10Second, judicial resources are limited. Taxpayers cannot afford to have parties litigate on a piecemeal basis, ignoring the file for long gaps, and then periodically bringing motions on isolated topics.
11They could have had their trial long ago.
12Motions for temporary relief are appropriate at the early stages of a court case. But once a temporary order is in place, that should be the end of the “motion stage.” The older the court file – the longer the period since the initial temporary orders were granted – the greater the onus on lawyers and parties to explain why they are still litigating by motion and affidavit. Late-stage motions are unfair to judges, parties and children, because the inevitably voluminous materials are untested, and the court is unable to make necessary factual and credibility determinations based on affidavits. Where parties have had enough time to schedule a trial for a final order, they should no longer be litigating by motion seeking more temporary orders. Gafanha v. Gafanha, 2022 ONSC 1613 (SCJ); Crozier v. Nolin, 2024 ONSC 4343 (SCJ); Sham v. Lee, 2024 ONSC 6598 (SCJ); Persaud v. Jeffrey, 2024 ONSC 6678 (SCJ); Bourque v Luker, 2025 ONSC 941 (SCJ).
13Endless motions for temporary orders with no apparent interest in proceeding to trial — this emerging trend is protracting litigation, driving up costs, frustrating litigants, and needlessly placing judges in the untenable position of having to decide complex issues based on inadequate information. Hastings v. Hastings 2017 ONSC 3555 (SCJ).
14In this case, the bitter dispute is about an eighteen-year-old car which the Applicant valued at $7,000.00 in his April 10, 2025 Financial Statement. And it’s almost a year older now.
a. The legal fees generated by this hotly contested motion undoubtedly exceed the value of the vehicle.
b. And even if the parties don’t care about wasting their own money, they shouldn’t be allowed to waste taxpayers’ money – or precious court timeslots.
c. Our family court system is struggling to keep up. The timeslot devoted to this “car motion” would have been much better utilized assisting one of our many files where children’s well-being is at stake.
15Since the parties and their lawyers were here, I asked that they take advantage of the time they had booked to have some additional discussions to resolve disclosure. To get this file back on track.
16I stood them down and sent them to separate Zoom breakout rooms, urging them to have discussions which could avoid a pending disclosure motion.
17More than an hour later they returned and advised that nothing had been accomplished. I would have sent them back to keep talking, but one of the lawyers had a medical appointment to attend.
18The motion in relation to the car is dismissed. It is an abuse of the court process to take up a regular motions timeslot on this topic – let alone for one of the parties to propose a long-motion with factums.
19Prior to either party bringing a motion for disclosure, the lawyers are required to have a meeting of at least one hour (in person or by Zoom/phone) to try to thrash out the disclosure issues. It is inconceivable that they couldn’t agree on even a single item today.
20No costs (see Rule 24(7)).
Pazaratz J.
Date: January 16, 2026