Scion v White 2020 ONSC 1915: Neither party in this case had a lawyer. On March 24th, Justice Pazaratz issued a triage endorsement allowing the father’s access request to proceed as possibly urgent, but found that his financial and property issues were not urgent and so would not continue at the present time.
Nonetheless, the father brought a further emergency motion about the financial issues three days later. Justice Pazaratz once again confirmed that the financial and property issues were not urgent and issued an endorsement that the father “may not bring any further motions on property or financial issues without leave of the court.”
A different judge, Justice Brown, deal with the access issue via teleconference with both parents on March 27th. Herendorsement denied the father’s request that the issue proceed on an emergency basis:
“There is an existing order for access which the applicant [mother] states she is prepared to continue and the respondent [father] has not given sufficient evidence to establish why the existing order should now be varied on an urgent or emergency basis.”
On March 30th, the father filed yet another emergency motion with respect to both access and financial issues, which Justice Pazaratz did not permit to proceed. In his decision, he noted that, with respect to the financial issues, he had already made a determination that they could not proceed on an emergency basis, the most recent request directly contravened the earlier endorsement and the materials the father filed on March 30thwere far in excess of the two-page limit set out in an earlier endorsement.
With respect to access, he wrote:
“it could only potentially be urgent if there was a complete denial of access. But as Justice Brown noted in her March 27, 2020 endorsement, there is no denial. The Applicant has undertaken that the existing pattern of two hour weekly supervised visits will continue. There is no reason these visits can’t take place in an open setting such as a park. . . Obviously, there are going to be practical issues which arise in making the access arrangements successful from the child’s perspective. If it’s raining, either a sheltered location will have to be found (which may be more difficult in COVID-19 circumstances) or perhaps the visit will have to be rescheduled for a time or adjacent day when the weather is more favourable. These are common sense details which people acting in good faith should easily be able to resolve without taxpayers funding a Judge’s involvement.”