Reeve v Larson 2025 ONSC 6030 and Reeve v Larson 2025 ONSC 6803
These two decisions, involving the same parties, address whether the court should appoint an amicus.
The role of an amicus was discussed in an earlier case summary, which you can find here: Patel v Patel
The first decision begins by setting out the lengthy litigation history, almost all of which relates to child support. Neither party had a lawyer, although the mother had had one earlier in the proceedings. Between May 2023, when the mother filed her application, and April 2025, when Justice Kalajdzic was appointed as case management judge, there had been 18 court appearances, and at least 11 judges had made rulings. Since her appointment, Justice Kalajdzic had heard three motions and presided over two case conferences, a settlement conference, and a trial management conference.
After reviewing the general legal framework for appointing an amicus in a family court proceeding, Justice Kalajdzic added two further considerations she considered relevant in this case: the siloing of family and criminal proceedings and litigation abuse.
Regarding siloing, she noted that important information can fall through the cracks when legal processes do not communicate with one another. In this case, there were criminal and civil proceedings underway, but the Respondent father failed to provide information that would have been relevant to the child support issues in the family court:
“And the silo approach . . . inhibits the court’s ability to fairly and efficiently decide critical questions regarding the financial support of the parties’ three children.”
Justice Kalajdzic then considered whether the father was engaging in litigation abuse and, if so, how the court should respond. Her decision provides an excellent analysis of legal bullying, which she applies to the facts of this case, to reach the conclusion that the father was, indeed, engaging in litigation abuse:
- Almost all of the many court appearances and orders were the result of motions brought by the father
- The father had also begun a number of civil actions against the mother and had filed at least three appeals of family court orders
- He took up an “inordinate” amount of court staff time and sent the mother messages through My Family Wizard “upwards of 20 times a day”
- He consistently failed to comply with disclosure requirements
- He failed to pay child support
- He brought unnecessary and repeated interim motions, thus prolonging the litigation
- He engaged in abusive communication
- He refused to make a reasonable settlement offer. “In contrast, [the mother’s] settlement position in this matter may better be described as capitulation.”
- He improperly involved the children in the litigation
- He failed to follow court orders
“This pattern of conduct is concerning, both because it represents a misuse of the court process and limited resources, and because of its likely impact on [the mother] . . . . At a recent hearing, she broke down in tears and expressed the emotional toll of these proceedings.”
In her decision, Justice Kalajdzic noted:
“As case management judge, I have the obligation to protect the administration of justice, make decisions that are in the best interests of the children, and conduct the proceedings in a fair and efficient manner. . . . Where the abusive conduct leads to, or exacerbates, the opposing party’s inability to meaningfully participate in the litigation, the appointment of an amicus may be an appropriate addition to the judge’s toolbox.”
She then set a date to hear from the parties, as well as Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) and the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG), to finalize arrangements for the appointment.
At this hearing, LAO and MAG took no position on whether or not an amicus should be appointed. The father supported it. The mother did not oppose it but advised the court that she had applied for a legal aid certificate and would hire a lawyer if she could find one to accept the certificate.
Justice Kalajdzic found this case an appropriate one for the appointment of an amicus, based on these facts:
- The stakes for the family are high, the children are young, and the financial issues are complex
- Legal aid is not an adequate alternative. Even if the mother were to be approved for a certificate, “there is a dearth of family lawyers in Stratford and the surrounding region who will represent clients on a Certificate.” The father had indicated his intentions to represent himself
- Even if the mother is represented, an amicus is needed to ensure that the court makes decisions that are in the children’s best interests
- Court assistance to the self-represented parties in this case may be insufficient
- An amicus might be able to assist with some of the challenges presented by the siloing of the multiple legal procedures underway
- Litigation abuse by the father calls for the appointment of an amicus, who may be able to serve a “behaviour modification purpose” even if they are not responsible for curbing ongoing litigation abuse
With input from both MAG and LAO, she then set out the terms of the work to be undertaken by the amicus, including:
- Not to act as counsel for, to take instructions from or to have a solicitor-client relationship with either party
- To receive complete and continuing disclosure and to bring motions as needed to ensure such disclosure
- To assist the court in ensuring the matter steadily progresses towards a trial, at which point the trial judge can set out a detailed scope of the amicus’s duties
The order also confirmed that LAO would be responsible for paying the amicus and for providing a list of potential lawyers from which the court would select the amicus.