Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CITATION: Titus v. Newell, 2026 ONSC 3932
RE: Alex Titus, Applicant
AND:
Jacqueline Eileen Newell, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice J. Mountford
COUNSEL: Alex Titus, Self-Represented
Katherine Robinson, Counsel, for the Respondent
HEARD: In Chambers
ENDORSEMENT
1This motion was brought by the Applicant as an emergency motion request on an ex parte (without notice) basis.
2The Applicant is self-represented.
3The relief sought in the motion is essentially to set aside the Order of Justice Tweedie of May 27, 2026, barely one month ago. That was an Order based on the Applicant consenting “to the majority of the Order sought by the Respondent”.
4There are, however, 28 different heads of relief sought, including divorce, sealing files, restraining order, property transfer, and many more requests that, even if brought on a regular short motions list, would not and could not be heard and would have to go to a long motion, or for some of the requests, to trial.
5This is not the Applicant’s first foray into ex parte or urgent motions. He brought an urgent ex parte motion which was addressed by Justice Piccoli almost exactly one year ago on June 27, 2025. Piccoli J. directed him to serve the Respondent and generously set an urgent case conference. She also “strongly encouraged” him to seek the assistance of legal counsel.
6Today’s ex parte urgent motion includes allegations that his consent before Justice Tweedie “was not informed, voluntary or meaningfully given” claiming that he was five days post surgery and without effective legal counsel.
7Of course, there is a process for bringing motions to set aside Orders, as there is for appealing an Order. The use of urgent ex parte motions is not one of them.
8The Central South Consolidated Practice Direction effective June 30, 2025, provides the process for determining urgency. The applicable portions of the Practice Direction read as follows:
74 Family motions which require immediate access to the court and for which it is impractical to follow the standard procedures arise in three contexts:(a) Motions without notice (ex parte); (b) Urgent motions to be heard prior to a case conference;(c) Urgent Short notice after a case conference has been held.
75 A motion without notice is brought pursuant to Rule 14(12) of the Family Law Rules and only permissible where: (a) The nature or circumstances of the motion make notice unnecessary or not reasonably possible;(b) There is an immediate danger of a child’s removal from Ontario, and the delay involved in serving a notice of motion would probably have serious consequences;(c) There is an immediate danger to the health or safety of a child or of the party making the motion, and the delay involved in serving a notice of motion would probably have serious consequences; (d) Service of a notice of motion would probably have serious consequences.
76 If a court order is necessary to preserve life, the health or safety of a child or the party, liberty, property or to address the immediate danger of a child’s removal from Ontario and time is of the essence, a party may request that a motion be heard immediately, without notice (Rule 14(12)), prior to a case conference (Rule 14(4.2)) or on short notice (Rule 3(5)).
77 The Emergency Motion Request Form must be fully completed and submitted to the Trial Coordinator along with the Notice of Motion, the Affidavit in support of the motion and an affidavit of service if applicable. 9. The Applicant’s motion does not meet or approach the requirements set out in the practice direction. 10. The Applicant’s motion does not meet or approach the requirements of an ex parte motion and there is not even an attempt to explain why the Respondent and her counsel would not be served.
9In Rosen v. Rosen 2005 CanLII 480 (ONSC) the process for demonstrating urgency was clearly laid out as follows:
(1) the moving party must inquire as to the availability of case conference dates; and
(2) settlement discussions must be attempted
10The Applicant has done neither of these. He has not addressed them.
11In a recent decision in Abu Kibash v. Gamal 2026 ONSC 2969, Associate Justice Kamal has attempted to expand urgency far beyond the Rosen decision to include systemic delay and to take into account coercive control via financial abuse to bring motions for spousal support into the realm of urgency. That decision is not binding on this Court.
12Of particular concern from that decision is the following at paragraph 28 “It is also important to consider the allegations of abuse and power dynamics in considering the test for urgency. We cannot allow the delays in the court system, including prolonged dates to get a case conference or motion, to further exert control over the process. This consideration favours granting the request for an urgent motion”.
13The expansion of urgent motions in such a way is a dramatic move and requires much more than heartfelt concern. There are significant practical considerations that have been overlooked.
14This decision comes from a jurisdiction where there are Associate Justices available to address urgent motions. Most of the province lacks this luxury and the obligation to address urgent motions falls on the Superior Court Justices who have full schedules and no time built in to address urgent motions.
15When an urgent motion is filed with this court, as in the instant case, the court staff are required to drop what they are doing and to facilitate getting the urgent motion to a Justice. They are not permitted to triage and filter out the inappropriate motions such as the within motion.
16Then the motion is sent to a Justice who must drop what they are doing and must find time to read the urgent motion request, the Notice of Motion and the Affidavit in support (in this case 72 pages), assess it and write an endorsement. Again, this is in addition to full days in court and full evenings reading for the next day and writing decisions.
17Many days there are numerous urgent motions filed. Some days there are very few Justices sitting.
18There are many urgent motions that are filed without notice to the other party and by self-represented litigants who are not aware of the obligation to provide absolutely full and frank information to the court on an ex parte motion. Tremendous injustice can be done when only one side of a case has been presented. It is a rare case where a Court Order should be granted having only heard one side.
19There is no filtration system to rule out the obvious and blatant inappropriately brought urgent motions.
20Systemic delays are indeed real, and there appears to be little appetite from the government to address this with the appointment of more judges.
21But the answer cannot be to simply add more and more urgent motions to the judges in the system.
22Expanding the nature of what is considered urgent is not the answer, without any meaningful introduction of a triage system by court staff or without making Associate Justices available in all jurisdictions or without any increase in the number of Justices. Without some meaningful changes that can accommodate increased numbers of urgent motions, adding more urgent motions simply risks breaking the system.
23The within motion is dismissed.
Justice J. Mountford
Released: June 26, 2026
CITATION: Titus v. Newell, 2026 ONSC 3932
COURT FILE NO.: FC-25-00060938-0000
DATE: 2026/06/26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Alex Titus Applicant
AND:
Jacqueline Eileen Newell Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
J. Mountford, J
Released: June 26, 2026